Questions about Iron Heroes?

[Tolen Mar]

Generating Ability Scores:

Am I missing a section that covers randomly generating ability scores? Step 2 on p. 11 discusses assigning points (which matches p. 17) but then Step 3 on p. 11 reads:

"This step often takes place after you roll the dice in Step 2 . . . "

That's just a typo...even in playtest it was point buy.

In regards to Tokens, Ive said before there are a variety of ways to handle it. For the first few test runs, I used my counters from Risk, each color for a different pool. The downside to that came when I made an armiger/weaponmaster with tactics of the mind and cleave...I started getting my pools jumbled up and took a fair bit of space. So I made a sheet with several columns. In the first column I numbered from 1 to 30 something (whatever the page would hold), the rest of the columns had a place to write in the name of the token pool. I then laminated it, and used dry erase markers, checking in the box for the appropriate number as I went. It instantly became a lot more manageable.

In regards to the large number of tokens when running the game: It isnt as big of a problem as you might think. First of all, none of the core monsters (from say Monster Manual) get tokens. I can't say much about the bestiary (NDA and all), but it shouldnt be a big concern. If you have an effective way to track those pools (like my laminated sheet from above), it doesn't add much time to the fight at all. Just remember that for the most part, only human NPC's will have tokens, and then only those who aren't mooks will have enough tokens to worry about.

And finally, to all those who are worried that all this stunt/challenge/token stuff is going to lengthen combat: It does, a bit. But not much. In fact, we've found that when everyone is having fun using the new rules the game flies by. There's usually a 'cool' factor going when you hear what the other player is doing, and it usually sparks new ideas for when your turn comes around. If you have a good group of players together, the additional time in combat is negligible. If you have totally new players, then you might have a bit longer before you beat the learning curve.

One more thing: (It just keeps going doesnt it? ) Iron Might vs. Iron Lore. They are not the same. Iron Might gave us a version of the stunt rules. I found the stunts there to be less well-defined rules-wise, but they are pretty much the same. However, Iron Heroes (for those who dont yet know) gives you traits, new classes, feat masteries, and so on. Iron Might is primarily a feat book (once you get past the stunt rules), and includes one race. I do not know yet how well they balance together, I haven't had a chance to try any of the feats from Iron Might with Iron Heroes.

 

[philreed]

That's just a typo...even in playtest it was point buy.

Okay, thanks. I was hoping it was a typo (not because I like mistakes, but because I was worried I was overlooking something significant).

 

[ThirdWizard]

I have four questions:

1) It says on page 181 under Provoking Attacks of Opportunity - Moving that you provoke an attack of opportunity for moving into a threatened space instead of out of a threatened space. Is this an intentional change or a typo? If it is intentional, then why the change? It seems to me to be a very poor change if it is one.

2) Page 74 under Opposed Skill checks changes how this works in d20 in a very subtle, but to me very important way. It says it is basically setting the defender's opposed roll as the DC, but in reality it is setting the defender's opposed roll +1 as the DC.

In D&D, the person with the higher ability modifier wins in such a tie (as kept in Initiative in IH). Does this count for all opposed rolls besides Initiative? For example, does the defender in a Grapple always win a tie?

Is this intentional? It seems like it is, but I'll ask anyway.

3) Withdraw confuses me. It looks like you can withdraw up to twice your normal movement (so someone with 30' movement could move 60'), but if you actually use this full movment it carries no benefit. You have to actually move at half speed to gain the benefit of not provoking AoOs, so someone with 30' move could only move 30' as their entire full round action. Which is basically a double move Tumble without needing to use the Tumble skill to be successful.

4) Back to Attacks of Opportunity while using normal movement. The page 181 bit on movement makes me pause again, as I have two possible interprietations, but one doesn't seem to match up with the Withdraw action. When I first read it, I thought it meant that you could move your full movement without provoking, but if more than 1/3 of that movement was moving into threatened spaces, then you would suffer AoOs.

If you spend more than a quarter of your speed
(rounded down) moving into threatened squares, you provoke
an attack of opportunity.

This very much sounds to me like I can move 30 feet in a round, and if 1/3 of that is into a threatened area (10 ft), then I don't provoke. However if 15' or more of this is spent moving into threatened squares, then I do suffer AoOs. But, looking at the Withdraw action, it seems like I can only move 10 feet total to avoid AoO.

Which is correct? In either case what is the difference between this and a 10' step?

Thanks for any responses!

 

[Kaos]

I have four questions:

1) It says on page 181 under Provoking Attacks of Opportunity - Moving that you provoke an attack of opportunity for moving into a threatened space instead of out of a threatened space. Is this an intentional change or a typo? If it is intentional, then why the change? It seems to me to be a very poor change if it is one.

I believe it's intentional; meant to simplify the AoO concept a bit.

2) Page 74 under Opposed Skill checks changes how this works in d20 in a very subtle, but to me very important way. It says it is basically setting the defender's opposed roll as the DC, but in reality it is setting the defender's opposed roll +1 as the DC.

In D&D, the person with the higher ability modifier wins in such a tie (as kept in Initiative in IH). Does this count for all opposed rolls besides Initiative? For example, does the defender in a Grapple always win a tie?

Is this intentional? It seems like it is, but I'll ask anyway.

Not all. In a grapple, the guy with the highest modifier wins. In a bull rush, defender wins ties. Since it's not consistent, I'm not sure if it's intentional.

3) Withdraw confuses me. It looks like you can withdraw up to twice your normal movement (so someone with 30' movement could move 60'), but if you actually use this full movment it carries no benefit. You have to actually move at half speed to gain the benefit of not provoking AoOs, so someone with 30' move could only move 30' as their entire full round action. Which is basically a double move Tumble without needing to use the Tumble skill to be successful.

Normally, you provoke an AoO if you spend more than a quarter of your move going into threatened areas. With a withdraw, you can spend half your standard move going into threatened areas (note that it's half your *standard* move, not half your double move - son only 15' in your example.) It's basically just a double move with a specific purpose.

4) Back to Attacks of Opportunity while using normal movement. The page 181 bit on movement makes me pause again, as I have two possible interprietations, but one doesn't seem to match up with the Withdraw action. When I first read it, I thought it meant that you could move your full movement without provoking, but if more than 1/3 of that movement was moving into threatened spaces, then you would suffer AoOs.

It's actually a quarter. Which, due to rounding, means only 5' if you've got a 30' move.

This very much sounds to me like I can move 30 feet in a round, and if 1/3 of that is into a threatened area (10 ft), then I don't provoke. However if 15' or more of this is spent moving into threatened squares, then I do suffer AoOs. But, looking at the Withdraw action, it seems like I can only move 10 feet total to avoid AoO.

With a withdraw action, you can move 15' in threatened areas without provoking an AoO (without withdraw, you lose half a 'square' due to rounding.) This only counts for movement in threatened areas though - so if you withdraw and move 60 feet (12 squares) but only 15 feet (3 squares) were threatened, you take no attacks of opportunity.
Normal movement, if you move five feet into a threatened area and 25' into non-threatened areas, you take no AoOs.

Which is correct? In either case what is the difference between this and a 10' step?

There is no 10' step. There is a 5' step. If all you do is take that 5' step, you can still perform a full-round action (such as a full attack.) Also, you can always take the 5' step in a threatened area without provoking an AoO (even if your movement is reduced so that the normally allowed 1/4 is less than five feet.)

Hope I've helped.

 

[Agamon]

Wow. I haven't read up to AoO yet, but it sounds more complicated, not easier...

 

[ThirdWizard]

Thanks for the clarifications. Yeah, the whole moving without provoking or using Tumble is throwing me for a loop. And a quarter, right, that helps a bit. I hope #2 isn't intentional, but they really changed the wording, where in a lot of other places they kept nearly the same wording as the SRD. I'm still crossing my fingers on it, though, as some editor might have altered it not knowing what they were doing.

I just have one contention with you...

With a withdraw action, you can move 15' in threatened areas without provoking an AoO (without withdraw, you lose half a 'square' due to rounding.) This only counts for movement in threatened areas though - so if you withdraw and move 60 feet (12 squares) but only 15 feet (3 squares) were threatened, you take no attacks of opportunity.
Normal movement, if you move five feet into a threatened area and 25' into non-threatened areas, you take no AoOs.

That really isn't what it says, though you did catch a mistake of mine (the normal move thing).

You may withdraw from combat using a full-round action. You can move up to double your normal speed when withdrawing. While withdrawing, you provoke attacks of opportunity for moving only if you move more than half your speed, rather than one-quarter your normal speed.

Not "if you move more than half your normal speed into threatened areas", but "if you move more than half your normal speed." Period. You cannot move 60' and gain the benefits from Withdrawing. What you're saying is that this should be errataed. I agree. It sucks as is. And, it was the passage "rather than one-quarter" that is confusing, because that's not how the rule actually works... so it is very likely that its just a typo goof. But, that's what it says.

This is in stark contrast to the wording above under Provoking Attacks of Opportunity:

If you spend more than a quarter of your speed (rounded down) moving into threatened squares, you provoke an attack of opportunity.

See... if you spend particular movement doing something as opposed to if you move this much.

Here's the really really ironic thing. You don't provoke an attack of opportunity for leaving a threatened space. You can back away from an enemy and move 60' (heck, you can break out into a Run) assuming you enter noone else's threatened area, unlike D&D. No need to 5' step and cast, you can move 30' and cast a spell. Or whatever else you want to do that would provoke for being next to someone.

I agree with Agamon, this is far more complex than D&D...

Here's an interesting scenario. Lets say you pass through someone's threatened area, but use up just enough so that you don't suffer an AoO from him. Then you enter an invisible character's threatened area. Now, the guy whose area you passed through first gets an AoO against you, since you spent "more than a quarter of your speed (rounded down) moving into threatened squares." He drops you, so you never move into the square with the invisible character. Fun paradoxes occur. Yeah, this stuff can happen in D&D, too. I love IH, I'm just saying it's wonky.

 

[Piratecat]

This would be more for playtesters... what kinds of monsters/situations did you throw IH characters up against? Anything from D&D that totally wiped them out due to lack of the right kind of rock-paper-scissors protection?

We fought a babau demon - and don't think we weren't improvising weapons out of the freakin' room furnishings as our swords kept dissolving- a dragon, a troupe of acrobats, and a few other fascinating challenges. It was a ton of fun.

 

[Kaos]

Not "if you move more than half your normal speed into threatened areas", but "if you move more than half your normal speed." Period. You cannot move 60' and gain the benefits from Withdrawing. What you're saying is that this should be errataed. I agree. It sucks as is. And, it was the passage "rather than one-quarter" that is confusing, because that's not how the rule actually works... so it is very likely that its just a typo goof. But, that's what it says.

Yeah, I figured it was just referring back to the original bit about AoO's without repeating them. Arguably sloppy/typo, in that it will confuse people who aren't used to that kind of reference.

Here's the really really ironic thing. You don't provoke an attack of opportunity for leaving a threatened space. You can back away from an enemy and move 60' (heck, you can break out into a Run) assuming you enter noone else's threatened area, unlike D&D. No need to 5' step and cast, you can move 30' and cast a spell. Or whatever else you want to do that would provoke for being next to someone.

It's definately different than D&D, and while I don't have any issues myself with the idea I can understand the views of those who do.

Here's an interesting scenario. Lets say you pass through someone's threatened area, but use up just enough so that you don't suffer an AoO from him. Then you enter an invisible character's threatened area. Now, the guy whose area you passed through first gets an AoO against you, since you spent "more than a quarter of your speed (rounded down) moving into threatened squares." He drops you, so you never move into the square with the invisible character. Fun paradoxes occur. Yeah, this stuff can happen in D&D, too. I love IH, I'm just saying it's wonky.

Hrm. AIUI you would provoke an attack from the invisible guy but not the original guy. Seems the most logical interpretation of the passage "Your movement might provoke an attack from one opponent but not the other."

 

[med stud]

I have a question on gathering tokens from hiding.

For example, if an executioner sneaks up on a couple of enemies, can she, from hiding, use Sense Motive to gather tokens for her first attack, before the battle starts? The reason I'm asking is that I think I read somewhere that you could only gather tokens in combat.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Hrm. AIUI you would provoke an attack from the invisible guy but not the original guy. Seems the most logical interpretation of the passage "Your movement might provoke an attack from one opponent but not the other."

That sounds very reasonable, I can buy it.

I have another question (for anyone who can answer, doesn't have to be Kaos if anyone else knows ).

I have a character who is taking Devious Manipulator (1), but I'm a bit confused on how this works. It says I can make a Bluff against Sense motive to gain a token, but is this a Standard Action? It seems like it is, but I'll make sure others agree. It just seems odd that your max number of tokens is your level + 10, and that would equate to a, say, 10th level character spending 20 rounds doing nothing but moving around! Since you can spend 5 tokens a round, it seems like they do expect you to build up quite a few tokens, otherwise the restriction wouldn't be as important. But, it still seems to read to me as a Standard Action.