What are everyones thoughts on Iron Heroes?

[Akrasia]

That sounds interesting! I'll have to do a little more reading into IH now. I love the WHFRP magic system.

Kane

Well, just to be clear, I could be completely wrong about this. This is just the impression that I've gotten so far, based on the very little that has been revealed about the magic system.

 

[zen_hydra]

Conversion rules!?! That is even better than I had hoped. I was just thinking about how everyone was using the paladin's smite ability as an example of what is wrong with the "per day" mechanic, and imagining how sweet it would be to convert some of the core D&D classes to the IH system of using token powered abilities. Then your paladin could holy-up during a given combat and "release the good." The questions that I have burning a whole in my brain now are: Power-wise how do spells in IH compare to D&D3.5 spells (for the purpose of potentially having both styles of magic exist in the same campaign)? And the other question being, do the conversion rules (if they do in fact convert core classes to the IH system) add brand new abilities to the existing abilities of the core D&D classes to even the playing field? It's one thing to make a paladin's smite ability something you can use in every encounter, but they are still going to be woefully underpowered without magic items when compared to the IH classes (who all look to have oodles of neat abilities). I hope that there is a guide on how to build your own IH type class so that you can properly gauge the ability power levels that one would assign a revised IH paladin (or monk, or rogue).

 

[BlackMoria]

The "tokens" idea isn't bad, but it also complicates combat a lot. IH is openly combat-centric, but tokens go way beyond my taste for complexity. Their use is optional of course, but I am afraid that Mike & Monte had become so enthusiasts of this idea that maybe the book revolves too much around them.

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.

Using tokens doesn't mean you suddenly need to a be a quasi-accountant ..... certainly no more that standard D&D needs you to be a quasi-accountant (the argument that standard D&D is too complex already I will not get into).

Gaining and using tokens takes up....well, maybe 5 seconds of my time during my turn. Tokens, in and of themselves, doesn't add to the complexity of combat, in my experience.

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.


Continuing on. Someone wondered if the IH combat was more tactical (I believe a reference to Advance Squad Leader was used) than the core rules combat. My answer - only if you want. Our group found the 'tactical' aspect of IH combat no more or no less than the core rules for play experience. IH has more options (zones, combat stunts, etc) to make combat more interesting and cinematic but if you choose not to use them, IH doesn't fall apart as a result.


Onward again. Several people asked how the core characters and IH characters will mesh.

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.

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.

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.


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.

Only 5 more days for those of you waiting.....

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Incidentally, while I can't (yet ) speak for Iron Heroes' use of them, tokens are usually a very easy and convenient way to keep track of information in a game.

In theory, they should make abilities using them much simpler to remember than ones requiring, say, a list of modifiers on a character sheet or in a book (or in memory).

Many, if not most, new board and card games use tokens to keep track of such information because they're one of the most efficient ways of doing so.

Based on experience with other game types, I would expect a system making heavy use of tokens rather than other means of record-keeping to move significantly faster and feel considerably simpler, not the inverse.

 

[Khairn]

Personally I'm excited and can't wait to see IH in action.

The flavor and theme that Mike & Monte have targetted is exactly how I like to play.

 

[zen_hydra]

I wonder if the token powered abilities and stunting in IH can simulate the cool parts of Exalted combat.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I wonder if the token powered abilities and stunting in IH can simulate the cool parts of Exalted combat.

From what I've seen I'm guessing that I like the stunting system in IH better than the one in Exalted or Feng Shui. That said I'm also guessing that it has a very different feel than Exalted, far fewer glowing contrails of soul energy being traced through creation by the path of your sword for instance.

 

[Ashanderai]

But there is magic in IH -- just a different kind than in D&D. There's even a magic class (arcanist?).

From what I've read, the magic system in IH sounds quite similar to WFRP. Since I love WFRP's take on magic, I am somewhat curious about this aspect of IH.

I know there is an IH spellcaster, but what I was trying to imply (and failed) is that I doubt the IH magic system will impress me more than the AE magic system. Also, I want to use multiple spellcasting classes just like I would be using multiple combat classes if I use IH in a mixed game. I may or may not want to use the Arcanist class, but I don't know that yet.

As to WFRP, I am not familiar with it and have no burning desire to get familiar with it for the time being; maybe later when I get bored with the current system in a few years (unlikely) or if someone in my game group really pushes hard for us to play it (doubtful).

 

[EricNoah]

Gaining and using tokens takes up....well, maybe 5 seconds of my time during my turn. Tokens, in and of themselves, doesn't add to the complexity of combat, in my experience.

That's an aspect I'd like to hear more about, and surely it's not an NDA-breaker ... how did your group deal with the tokens, physically? Did the DM provide them, or are they more like dice, where the players kind of get attached to or bring their own tokens? Will a typical player need more than one color of token to represent different pools of abilities? Did any kind of "token etiquette" arrise in your games? Did players typically have some kind of container to keep their tokens in; did they have a little "token corral" to show which ones were being used/gathered at the moment?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Speculation based on spread out info: The Arcanist is the only magic user, but it is a very open ended type deal. It is also a skill monkey. The Arcanist will be built to your tastes much like the Man-At-Arms can be built to the tastes of its player. So, you could have an Arcanist who can heal, an arcanist who concentrates on mind control, an arcanist who concentrates on offensive damage, a buffing arcanist, a generalist arcanist, or whatever else types that the system allows. As far as I know spells are more built through using the system than coming pre-defined as we've seen in D&D. Think... good Epic Spell rules, I think.

I could be totally wrong. The Arcanist itself has been kept under lock and key.