Sell Me On: Iron Heroes

[Morfedel]

Well, I have never really liked magic being real common in my games. Powerful, sure, as long as it's rare.

Unfortunately, however, although I'm not a big fan of D20, my players are. So, I find myself trying to find alternatives to standard D&D within the d20 fantasy genre.

The problem is, of course, that D&D and most variants require magic items for play balance. I don't like this a lot.

Thus, I understand that IH does away with this. Realize, I don't want magic to be nonexistant or weak; I want it to be rare, but still present, and powerful when it is present.

So, does IH do this? I've heard that the magic character class and magic system sucks.


So... how is IH? What is its strong points? Its weak points?


Thanks in advance.

[Particle_Man]

Strong points:

Players still get crunchy options for their characters, (and boatloads of skills, because of the skill groups rules) but explicitly don't need magic items to be badass. This leaves you free to put in special magic items as maguffins, with all sorts of nasty side-effects, or just to do without them entirely.

The DM has "Villain Classes" which makes it easier/quicker to stat up bad guys. On the other hand, the DM can make areas into "Action Zones" which is ok, but does take a little prep (including getting players used to the idea that they can do wacky stuff in those action zones, like swing from a chandelier onto the bar fighters, etc.)

Weak points:

The magic using class (Arcanist) is thought to be not well thought out, but there are tons of house ruled versions to fix it. Plus a recent Companion book has a new magic using class that is worth looking at.

There are no epic rules that I know of. Level 20 usually gives a capstone ability that is insanely good, though.

Also, if players are used to d20, they should be careful about "little changes" in the rules that make it not quite the d20 combat rules they know. Also, there are new things they can do, stunts and such. It is not a simple "I swing, I hit" kind of game, tactically. There are options. That may be a good or a bad thing.

[The Fallen]

Well, while we are waiting for the Mods to move this to the d20 forum, I can tell you that yes, Iron Heroes seems to get away with the 'effectiveness without magic' thing.

Bear in mind that I only read it, and didn't play, so mine is probably not the most informed opinion around here.

Strong Points:

* If you want a game about fighting, and wasting down your enemies in all cool manners, Iron Heroes would appeal to you. Each class (save for the Arcanist and to a lesser extent the Thief) is based around a combat role or concept: the guy who uses armor and is a walking tank, the guy who can take a lot of punishment and give it back, the guy who moves around the battlefield unchecked, flanking and destroying, the weapon specialist, the archer, the versatile fighter, etc.

* Saving throws go by character level, so multiclassing is not the bitch is used to be. In fact the classes are made to be combined to get the exact fighting style you want. Class abilities are really cool.

* The approach to skills is a nice one. You can purchase skills alone, or raise them by group of related skills (say, the athletics group for all movement skills) Each class has a decent number of skills and skill availability, but if you want to play a true Jack of all Trades look out for the Thief with its obscene amount of skill points per level. Also, skills has some nice new uses, like making stunts possible.

* Feats, and lots of them. The feats system was reworked, and feats are divided in groups called masteries. Each Feat Mastery chain goes from 1 to 10, and depending on your class(es), you can go so high in a given mastery. There are weapon masteries, armor masteries, social masteries, etc. Characters get many feats (almost, like, 1 per level or more), so there's a lot of room to tweak if that's what you like.

* You fuel a lot of your abilities by spending Tokens. These Tokens you get them by doing things related to your class(es). For example, The Berserker, gains Tokens as he takes damage, or spends some rounds giving into rage, The Hunter, gains them if he spends a round or so analyzing his foes, and so on. You get a number of generic Tokens also. The idea is to encourage behaviors in combat other than "I hit him, roll damage, I hit him, roll damage"

* Although the game itself has no built-in setting, I like the premise that comes with the core: A young world where civilization is in its infancy, and where everything has yet to be done. There aren't Great Heroes From The Past, and your characters are supposed to be the first ones. It goes well to play a Bronze Age themed game, or something inspired by Conan.

The Cons:

* Well, it's about combat. It's not like you couldn't do anything else, but it would be a shame to waste all those nice abilities and feat combos.

* I didn't read Mastering Iron Heroes, which is the companion book, but the core doesn't give to much of advice about creating or converting monsters and enemies to your setting.

* Only humans in the corebook. I like it (in fact is one of the selling points for me), but for some people will be a deterrent.

* The main grievance is that, while the Token systems seems like a good idea, it also seems like a nuisance to run. The fact that you have to keep track on several types of Tokens, from different classes, and that you can only spend a given type of token in a given ability, seems to much book-keeping, at lest for my tastes. If you like crunch, well, this is crunchy.

My opinion is, that, while is a nice departure from vanilla D&D, I can do most of the things this game does with Savage Worlds (or with a Star Wars Sage Ed. conversion) without the headaches. YMMV, of course.

[Morfedel]

Hm. Without the headache... yeah....

I may just have to try and sell them again on a non-d20 system, hehe.

[Morfedel]

The Cons:

* Well, it's about combat. It's not like you couldn't do anything else, but it would be a shame to waste all those nice abilities and feat combos.


Hm. Well, I like adventure rpging, but I do like other stuff too.

My GM style tends towards having some kind of epic style adventuring: such as some kind of threat endangering the entire world, and only the PCs can stop it. My last serious campaign was around 2-3 years long, all oriented towards stopping the Shadow Lord from conquering a key kingdom in the process of spreading across the rest of the globe.

So, there was fighting, yeah, but there was also exploring, a bit of intrigue and diplomacy, investigations, etc.

Would IH do well for this? Or is there a book that might do even better? I ran these games primarily in Palladium Fantasy RPG and D&D primarily previously.


EDIT: HM, perhaps I should create a separate post about this, wondering what system specifically lends itself to that kind of gaming....

[Benoist Poire]

Thus, I understand that IH does away with this. Realize, I don't want magic to be nonexistant or weak; I want it to be rare, but still present, and powerful when it is present.

So, does IH do this?

Yes, it does. Mastering Iron Heroes, specifically, introduces alternate rules for magic items which keep them rare, makes them powerful, and using them always goes with a price... they become dark, fearsome items instead of Christmas tree trinkets.

I've heard that the magic character class and magic system sucks.

An alternate magic class is provided with the latest supplement, the Iron Heroes Player's Companion (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=28414).

[Squid]

Hm. Well, I like adventure rpging, but I do like other stuff too.

My GM style tends towards having some kind of epic style adventuring: such as some kind of threat endangering the entire world, and only the PCs can stop it. My last serious campaign was around 2-3 years long, all oriented towards stopping the Shadow Lord from conquering a key kingdom in the process of spreading across the rest of the globe.

So, there was fighting, yeah, but there was also exploring, a bit of intrigue and diplomacy, investigations, etc.

Would IH do well for this? Or is there a book that might do even better? I ran these games primarily in Palladium Fantasy RPG and D&D primarily previously.


EDIT: HM, perhaps I should create a separate post about this, wondering what system specifically lends itself to that kind of gaming....
Actually, the way Iron Heroes does skills means that players have to worry about "nessesary" skills a little less, and usually have more skill points to throw around. I've noticed this leads to them solving more problems without automatically resorting to crush/kill/destory.

[Morfedel]

Hm. I wonder if the Black Company Campaign Setting class, the Wizard, would port over to IH well.

[Capellan]

Characters get many feats (almost, like, 1 per level or more), so there's a lot of room to tweak if that's what you like.

They get feats every 2nd level, instead of every 3rd. Several classes get bonus feats on top of that.

the core doesn't give to much of advice about creating or converting monsters and enemies to your setting.

Convert any armor bonus to AC into armor DR. You're done.

while the Token systems seems like a good idea, it also seems like a nuisance to run. The fact that you have to keep track on several types of Tokens, from different classes

The GM doesn't need to use tokens at all (unless they choose to use NPCs with Iron Heroes classes), so it's not really an issue for running the game. Players have to deal with tokens, but again, only to the extent they choose to do so through their selection of classes and feats.

[Benoist Poire]

The GM doesn't need to use tokens at all (unless they choose to use NPCs with Iron Heroes classes), so it's not really an issue for running the game. Players have to deal with tokens, but again, only to the extent they choose to do so through their selection of classes and feats.

Yes. I think it's important to insist on this. As a game master, you don't have to use tokens at all, between creatures you use from the Bestiary or any DnD book for that matter, or the villains you create with Villain Classes (which are token-less), so there's no management issue there.

As for the PCs, if as a player you just want no Tokens at all, you can select a class that has no tokens, like the Man-at-arms. If you want to only deal with one type of token, you can select any character class and stick to its guns, so to speak. It's only if you select specific feats that you can add up on different token types that you'd have to manage. There's something for everyone in the game, really.

Lastly, about Iron Heroes being about Combat. It's true to some extent, since when you get all these nifty tactical abilities, it'd be a shame not to have situations where you can use them, but like with DnD, which is wrongfully accused of being all about killing monsters and looting, what you do with the game is up to you and your group's gaming style. IH encourages actions scenes, no question about it. Doesn't mean it has to be your only diet in an IH game, however. :)

[Dragon_Blooded]

Lastly, about Iron Heroes being about Combat. It's true to some extent, since when you get all these nifty tactical abilities, it'd be a shame not to have situations where you can use them, but like with DnD, which is wrongfully accused of being all about killing monsters and looting, what you do with the game is up to you and your group's gaming style. IH encourages actions scenes, no question about it. Doesn't mean it has to be your only diet in an IH game, however. :)

Heck, the Thief has access to some pretty nice social-fu trees, as does the man-at-arms with the right feats, IIRC.

Eduardo Penna

[ssheftall]

I ran IH for six months. I'm not a "crunch whore" rules wise.

With that said, my players loved it and it was easy to run (compared to vanilla D&D). Villain Classes are the BEST idea evar. Tokens are a non-issue. Player's learn to deal with them after a session or so of play and the GM never needs or should use them.

As far as being combat intensive - we are playing SCION now and the player's find that system far more laborious and long winded than IH. YMMV.

I like IH for several reasons 1) Magic is not necessary to balance characters. 2) The setting is really low key and you can make whatever you want. 3) No non-human, sentient PC's (though you can easily change that if you like). 4) Skills are favored.

I didn't find the rules for stunting and action points to be all that. That's things as I like to do as a GM anyway. Easily done off-the-cuff without specific rules.

As has been said before, the game is what you make of it. The game has been far more maligned on the net than, in my opinion, it should have been. Be sure to buy the new revised handbook though - PDF only.

-S.

[Kintara]

I think the social feat masteries are really super-cool. IH is all about the action, but I wouldn't rule it out for allowing for subtleties like social intrigue. A game of Executioners and Thieves intriguing in a decadent court or city is definitely a possibility (as long as you don't expect them to not engage in at least a little murder and mayham).

[Particle_Man]

For nasty social fu, note that the thief at level 20 can make a bluff check that is *unopposed* by the other guy's sense motive check for one round. What can you make the other guy believe or do in one round? I leave that as an exercise for the rat bastards in the crowd.

:D :D :D

[Vasteel]

Iron Heroes is awesome.

While the Arcanist class is much bitched about, in my opinion this is a case of internet ballyhoo reaching epidemic levels and getting blown way out of proportion. It works just fine as is for me. Yes, it is underpowered compared to a traditional mage, but it's also unpredictible and when it works right it's serious biz-niss. Which is exactly what I think the point was.

There are magic items, as stated before, but they are rare and never throwaway.

The only con in my opinion is that I think it requires a bit more work on the DM's part. You have to do a bit more NPC building and think through encounters and their terrain more thouroghly- this last bit is true for players as well, to a degree. Sometimes new players don't really take advantage of all the options there either.

[The Formless One]

Other people have given plenty of specifics, but let me state this.

I played with a group that didn't quite 'get it' when it came to Iron Heroes.

That the answer to the question is "Should we do something risky like go all Delta Force on the castle?" almost universally "YES!"

Even in spite of that, Iron Heroes is freaking awesome. I had an absolute blast, and had my schedule not changed, I'd still be playing it every Sunday!

[Lacrioxus]

Well I just recently bought Iron Heroes myself through White Wolf (IH bundle). That said, IH is a great game (and I'm not a d20 fan).

I tried with a "Test Group" I sometimes hang with to test new rpgs I might want to introduce to my main regular group. We sat around talked about IH, read up on the rules. Next sesson made characters talked more about IH. Next sesson we Played. It went very very very well and I loved it. We did not have a Mage in the group, just the normal Warrior PCs. But the NPC Mage. DAMN. Why does people bitch and moan about them I do not know. But I found them Physically weak sure, but Powerful with the Magic-Fu overall.

Berserkers ! WoW. These guys are better than Conan from the novels. I loved the Berserker PCs in the group. Archers also was pretty great at a distance like it should be.

Iron Heroes is great.

[selfcritical]

I also highly reccomend using one of the many wiki-posted fixes to the armiger. The Iron Heroes online community is very dedicated, so you should use the resources that are available there.

[Benoist Poire]

Iron Heroes is awesome.

While the Arcanist class is much bitched about, in my opinion this is a case of internet ballyhoo reaching epidemic levels and getting blown way out of proportion. It works just fine as is for me. Yes, it is underpowered compared to a traditional mage, but it's also unpredictible and when it works right it's serious biz-niss. Which is exactly what I think the point was.

I agree wholeheartedly on this.

[The Tim]

Iron Heroes does action really, really well. Because all of the characters will have a good amount of skills, and most have access to Athletics, running physical challenges of all sorts is easy and a good change of pace (I mentioned in a previous thread like this that I'd love to run a whole session that is PCs vs mountain, ala the kick ass Samurai Jack episode where he climbs a mountain. IH would handle this perfectly.)

The Arcanist is a decent class, I'd say that the biggest problem is that the methods for the schools aren't fully developed. However, there is a quick hack of a Warlock out there for creepy innate powers and if you have a really specific idea about magic in the world you can implement it in IH as easily as you would in any other game.

[Squid]

Iron Heroes does action really, really well. Because all of the characters will have a good amount of skills, and most have access to Athletics, running physical challenges of all sorts is easy and a good change of pace (I mentioned in a previous thread like this that I'd love to run a whole session that is PCs vs mountain, ala the kick ass Samurai Jack episode where he climbs a mountain. IH would handle this perfectly.)

The Arcanist is a decent class, I'd say that the biggest problem is that the methods for the schools aren't fully developed. However, there is a quick hack of a Warlock out there for creepy innate powers and if you have a really specific idea about magic in the world you can implement it in IH as easily as you would in any other game.

The Iron Heroes Player's Companion just came out in .pdf; from what I've seen of it, the included magic class and new material really helps flesh out the game.

[JELEINEN]

Bought the Companion yesterday and just finished reading it. I was very impressed. The new classes manage to stick to the "how they fight rather than what their profession is" theme very well. Some of the feat chains look to be a lot of fun (I think the gladiator feats would be a blast to play). The sudden strike chain seems a bit too good, and I'm still not wild about the unarmed attack chain, but those are minor.

The magic system looks to be very elegant. It's more or less a free-form system, but without a lot of the complexity you see in those systems. I'd definitely choose it over Elements of Magic (though maybe not the Mythic Earth version) and True Sorcery.

[Squid]

From what I've seen the magic system plays pretty nice next to the True Sorcery arcanist varient.

I'm a really big fan of the new classes.

So, what were your problems with Sudden Strike?

[JELEINEN]

From what I've seen the magic system plays pretty nice next to the True Sorcery arcanist varient.

True Sorcery felt like it was out to punish spell casters at every chance. Both in game and out, with its complexity.


So, what were your problems with Sudden Strike?

The way it's written, you get the bonuses on every attack if you're using a thrown weapon. For melee weapons, it's probably not bad, but any archer who's tossing daggers or axes should have it.

[Capellan]

I prefer to think of Sudden Strike as "making thrown weapon Archers a viable alternative" rather than "broken" :)

[Squid]

I think this is a good point; it makes a ranged character competitive with a bow user, not superior.

EDIT: *looks at the links in your sig*

...Wait a sec...you look suspiciously like you own that game...

[JELEINEN]

I prefer to think of Sudden Strike as "making thrown weapon Archers a viable alternative" rather than "broken" :)

That could be. I just don't like the idea of a must have feat (not that the thrown weapon archers didn't already have quick draw as a must have). Anyway, as I said, it's minor.

[Capellan]

EDIT: *looks at the links in your sig*

...Wait a sec...you look suspiciously like you own that game...

Yep, I do. I would hope that my user title and .sig made my vested interest apparent :) I got really tired of typing a disclaimer at the top of every post!

[Agrias oaks]

Yep, I do. I would hope that my user title and .sig made my vested interest apparent :) I got really tired of typing a disclaimer at the top of every post!

So you are the person who bought Iron heroes it sounds like? thats rather cool... Anyway, I love iron heroes. I am playing a Man-at-Arms character in a game, and though I am not sure if Man at arms fits him totally (A trained religous warrior. I'm sort of focusing on power weapons, more specifically the greatsword.). I am the groups heavy hitter in combat, and I am also the Diplomat (high cha and good diplomacy and talky skills), Healer (Have a high healing bonus), knowledge guy (2nd best in the group!) and I just feel so useful. I'm not sure if I should be focusing on one weapon (We do have a good amount of different weaponry, with an archer, armiger, and an executioner in the group). I really think Iron heroes is great for a melee/combat oriented game with lots of action.

[Squid]

Yep, I do. I would hope that my user title and .sig made my vested interest apparent :) I got really tired of typing a disclaimer at the top of every post!
I was joking, mainly because I managed to make that post without realizing that initially...after having already noted you as the IH owner some time ago.

While I can certainly support observations such as Agrias mentions, I also think Iron Heroes is an excellent tool for running high magic games! Despite going against the common wisdom in this regard, allowing warriors to rule combat even while there are wonderous magics around is neat; and not having to worry about balancing strange and wonderful artifacts with brute-effectiveness enhancement trinkets is a welcome change.