So you got "The Book of Iron Might", what do you think.

I actually get to start using maneuvers tonight in the game I play in that BardStephenFox runs. He's tentatively letting each player make a number of manuevers equal to their character's BAB ahead of time, and not allowing on the fly manuevers (a very good way to use it, I think). Since I'm the only one with the book so far, I designed maneuvers for our tanks (manuvers == BAB for each), plus one manuever for every other character (even the magic-users). I'm impressed with what I can do with the system. I was easily able to create manuevers with flavor for each of our characters.
The mage gets a Maneuver that lowers his opponent's Attacks (Inflict Penalty, Touch Option, Full Round, Saving Throw) by essentially bluffing that his dagger will curse them.
The Cleric of the Ocean god has a 'Crashing Wave' Attack that moves his opponent 5ft, giving him a chance to get away or cast.
My Samurai (who won't run away) has a really crazy manuever that moves his opponent 5ft. and dazes them (giving me a round to heal up), but with a ton of drawbacks.
The monk (martial artist, actually) gets an attack to use with his quarterstaff that disarms both him and his opponents (which give him an advantage, since he can fight well unarmed). Another one of his attacks bangs two of his opponents heads together, stunning them and dealing damage.

All in all, the system is amazingly flexible. Lots and Lots of fun.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I thought the book was OK. I wasn't wowed by it, but it's solid stuff.

Since I'm running an Eberron game, the Ironborn aren't very useful to me - while the details are different, they feel like inferior versions of warforged (which might say more about the power level of the 'forged, to be honest), and a setting really doesn't need two versions of "sort of living, sort of golem" races running around.

The maneuvers system looks cool, though I'm thinking that the penalties might be a bit too harsh. Perhaps the penalties should have been in steps of 3 or 4 instead of 5 (ditto on the drawbacks). It would also have been cool to include a "meta-feat" of sorts that reduces the drawbacks of a specific maneuver and gives you a bonus when performing it, along the lines of Improved trip and Improved disarm. Oh, and there is a discrepancy between the text and the table regarding the Blinding maneuver - the text says you blind the opponent for 1d4 minutes, while the table says 1d4 rounds. I'm guessing rounds should be correct - or perhaps there should be two different versions of Blinding, one that has a duration measured in rounds and one that's measured in minutes. The first would basically be "throw sand in eyes", while the other would be "poke opponent in eyes."

The new feats look really cool. I'm definitely going to be using these.
 


Lordgrae said:
Actually, one thing I didn't like from the book, and from Malhavoc as a whole, is the lack of plain jane normal feats.

Although I tend to agree that there are too many new type of feats, sometimes redundant, there's still one that is lacking.

Martial feats.

I find it annoying to have one paragraph per feat, saying the feat can be taken as a fighter bonus feat.

If these combat feats had their own feat category, that would be as much paragraphs that could be cut -- as well as the enumeration of selectable feats in the Fighter write-up in the PHB.
 


I dunno, while the *concept* is good, the application is just another in a long line of supplements from various companies (WoTC included) that is turning (has turned) 3.x into an unholy combination of a CCG and a mini's game.
 
Last edited:

JoeGKushner said:
So what are the Ironborn like? How do they compare with the warfogred? are they adapatable to other campaigns?

They have an origin story with a mad dwarf wizard deep under ground, so they are easily adaptable to any campaign.

I don't have Eberron, so I can't answer comparison questions, sorry.

What they are like? They are made out of iron or other materials (no adamant, so no robbing bodies ;) ) You choose an ability package at creation, which can get you things like Size Large, or Stealth Mode, or other types of abilities. There are also feats that they can take to improve themselves. So they're customizeable constructs with intelligence. They are also cleverly limited so that mad wizards can't make hordes of them. I think they're pretty neat and am pondering how to include them in my AU game.
 

Stunts

Terwox said:
I'm tremendously interested in stunts.
How do they work on a basic level, and could I get an example or two, if that's alright?
Sounds like it could be something I've always wanted to use, but not known how.
It's actually the stunts and the skill uses that I like most from the book. Why I bought the book, and why I'm gald. They'll make the combat so much more fun and crazy.

Stunts are effectively physical actions in combat that require a skill check, ability check, or an attack roll. The prime example of a stunt is actually found in the Player's Handbook: The Tumble check to avoid attacks of opportunity.

The Book of Iron Might adds a few more example stunts, such as a Climb(?) check to scramble down a hill, letting you move farther than normal. The heart of the stunts chapter, though, is advice on how to choose which check and guidelines for setting the DC.

"Attack stunts" include area attacks and such, like pushing over a loose wall, rolling a barrel down a hall and similar (or crazier) stuff. And you can decide how much damage these attacks do - want more damage? Increase the DC.

What I like is that it includes what it calls DM's Judgement modifier, but is better described as a "Game Style meter" or something along those lines. Basically, it says if you want a swashbuckling game, lower all the DCs by 10, or if you want far fewer than normal stunts (while not banning them) increase all the DCs by 5, etc. I'll be using the Swashbuckling setting, even for dungeon crawls.
 


Remove ads

Top