What are everyones thoughts on Iron Heroes?

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

If I let my players run a mixed group: a magister, a man-at-arms, an arcanist, a rogue, an akashic, and a druid, will the game break? Will I have to say "This magical item is for your PC. She isn't allowed to share it."? How will this work?

Well, IH will come with conversion rules for AE and DnD in the main rule back. From what I understand there are a few basic steps you take to make AE and DnD classes work inside an IH magic and magic item light universe. So what I would do is say 'this is a magic item light campaign.' Your characters now have IH saving throws, feat progression, and whatever general IH features fit the guidelines and then just leave it at that.

Equally you could drop those general features out of the IH classes and they should work just fine. The Archer and Hunter are already written without some of these features. Note that the general IH feat progression and saving throws are not included in the write up of those classes. If you drop them out and maybe make some other adjustments then they won't only be free to pick up magic items, they'll have to just like everyone else.

For the group you posit the arcanist is really the only one that doesn't have an automatic role. What I would do in that group is think of him as a sort of bizarrely magically proficient bard. Might even rename him a Magician to indicate an emphasis on the flexible but undependable stage show aspect of magic.

 

[Particle_Man]

I had thought that ARcanists got special "magic tokens" that were different from regular tokens in that the Hunter couldn't give the Arcanist tokens, but then I haven't seen the rules so this could simply be my diseased brain...

 

[Andor]

I had thought that ARcanists got special "magic tokens" that were different from regular tokens in that the Hunter couldn't give the Arcanist tokens, but then I haven't seen the rules so this could simply be my diseased brain...

Nope, we have been told that the Arcanist is one of the three token free classes (along with the Harrier and Man-at-arms.) The non-tradable magic tokens, were a product of our fevered imaginations as we speculated about the arcanist before we found that particular tidbit out.

 

[Li Shenron]

Our group's experience is that tokens don't add complexity to combat. Using tokens is no different that keeping track of modifers in a standard game. Someone casts bull strength the fighter, the cleric casts bless and divine favor on people, the bard sings a inspirational song....etc. In a typical combat, people are already keeping track of modifiers.

Ok, it just seemed to me to be too flexible. IIRC from the IH previews, you gain tokens by spending actions or rounds "doing nothing", meaning for instance that the Archer spends a certain amount of actions effectively standing where he is and taking aim at the target, and receives a certain amount of tokens to spend in the next attack for bonuses, or something like that.

I am not afraid of the bookkeeping of this, but rather of the fact that every round players would be spend too much time thinking if they should make two attacks as a full attack or instead one attack and using the move action to get a token, or maybe skip this round and get 3 tokens, or maybe wait another round... The idea itself is nice, but I was afraid that it could just go overboard with options. Of course, you don't have to use those options, but it feels like you're not ever using a class feature.

Tokens is only one aspect of IH combat....an aspect that too many people think it the heart of the IH combat system. It is not. There is far more to the combat subsystem than that.

Fine I thought that tokens had become the dearest idea to the developers and they might have made it too central to the book, but I'm glad it's not.

First up, you can use core classes and IH classes together (our group is doing so in our online campaign). The IH classes is balanced to the core classes as long as you take into account that the IH classes assume little to no magic items and that magic is more rare than the default core setting assumes. If you go this route, you are going to have a watch the balance of the IH characters because the default assumption is that IH characters have little access to magic. Therefore, if the IH character are kitted out in the same fashion as the core characters for magic items, the IH character will be better than the core characters.

I think Monte or Mike explained that an IH class without magic equipment is equal to a PHB class with magic equipment, so the problem is that you must tell your players of IH classes that they should not use magic items.

What I would like from IH however is a different thing: if I want to use the PHB classes alongside the IH classes but I don't want even them to have magic items, how do I compensate them? I think I've seen mentioned that IH deals with this topic.

Secondly, core and IH rules handle DR differently. Monsters and characters alike. If you are going to have both core and IH characters in your game, you are going to have to make some decisions in that regard.

IIRC IH uses armor as DR but it is random, such as 1d4 for a chain shirt (which still retains a certain AC bonus). This is a much better idea than a flat DR which renders some attacks useless.

Thirdly, the IH assumption is that magic is rare which means magical healing is very uncommon. IH rules account for this. You will need to make decisions on this as well.

Variant fast natural healing rules?

Someone asked about using the core monsters with IH. Monster conversion will be minimal (about 90-95% of monsters in the core book can be used 'as is' in a IH campaign) but some monsters may require conversion.

Again IIRC there was a foundation assumption in the development of IH: that all monsters from any 3ed books should have the same CR when facing IH PCs. This was the key idea to make IH compatible to any adventure or setting already published, and not a standalone game.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Variant fast natural healing rules?

I believe they have a "reserve" hp pool which they can call upon or something to that nature. I remember the barbarian preview posted up a while back had reserve hit points equal to his normal maximum, but I might be mistaken on this.

 

[Li Shenron]

Oh and I forgot another important thing!

Usually I don't like tokens or hero/action points very much, just because I have a hard time explaining in-character what the heck they represent It's my own problem, but if I can't explain something from the character's perspective, it usually doesn't appeal me as a general idea.

 

[Kaos]

Oh and I forgot another important thing!

Usually I don't like tokens or hero/action points very much, just because I have a hard time explaining in-character what the heck they represent It's my own problem, but if I can't explain something from the character's perspective, it usually doesn't appeal me as a general idea.

Much like HP: they're concrete game representations of abstract world considerations.
The specific considerations would depend on what token pool one is talking about.

 

[Azgulor]

I think I still don't understand.

If I let my players run a mixed group: a magister, a man-at-arms, an arcanist, a rogue, an akashic, and a druid, will the game break? Will I have to say "This magical item is for your PC. She isn't allowed to share it."? How will this work?

My question exactly. Although IH classes are meant to be designed on an equal power level with core D&D classes, I think that decision was designed more to ensure that the full range of d20 monster books and adventure modules would be accessible to IH players and DMs. I would speculate that from the adventure perspective, a DM could run a D&D module as written and would only have to omit the awarding of magic items. (The abilities/bonuses provided by NPC magic items would perhaps be considered inherent abilities.) Worst case, you're adapting NPCs to IH classes. Monsters could stay as is. Cuts down on DMs prep/conversion work.

Azgulor

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Oh and I forgot another important thing!

Usually I don't like tokens or hero/action points very much, just because I have a hard time explaining in-character what the heck they represent It's my own problem, but if I can't explain something from the character's perspective, it usually doesn't appeal me as a general idea.

Yeah, it's much easier to explain tokens from an in character perspective than it is something like hit points or saving throws. Aim, for instance, is a pretty concrete concept. Parrying and Fury are pretty easy as well. The Hunter's tactical pool less so, but it makes a lot of sense if you consider it the diminishing returns from initial planning and reaction.

 

[Akrasia]

I don't understand the preceived desirability of using IH classes/characters with regular D&D ones.

My understanding of the game is that it is simply not meant for 'standard' D&D campaigns. Rather, IH is meant for campaign settings in which magic is fundamentally different than it is in D&D -- viz. rarer and more dangerous.

The rules look very similar to those of Conan OGL. Just as you wouldn't use a standard D&D wizard in Conan, likewise you wouldn't use a standard D&D wizard in an IH campaign.

The purpose of IH is to run a fundamentally different -- i.e. non-D&D -- kind of campaign.

(At least this is my impression... )