[Iron Heroes] Character concepts that are useful

[Stalkre]

It seems like Iron Heroes has become the go-to game for my group for one shots and missing-player filler session. It's pretty cool, and everyone likes it, except for me, apparently.

Well, it's not that I don't like it, but I'm having trouble making a useful character. I've made characters that focused on special combat actions (sunder, trip, disarm), an armored undamage-able fortress, and even a plain man with a Large Hammer.

They all had fun concepts behind them and they were all good on paper, but disappointing in play. Tripped foes get up, disarmed foes pick up their weapon, sundering takes forever, and being unhittable is nice - but the enemies just ignore your pitiful d10s and hit the other characters.

The basic problem, exemplified in this week's game, (in which I played the human fortress) is that fun and games and special actions are nice, but to make friends and be popular with the girls, you just want to go ahead and bash your opponent for a lot of damage.

And, so far I've seen just two ways to do that: large berserker strength and power attack, or acrobatics and sneak-attack dice.

So I come to RPG.net and ask - what are your cool character concepts? Things that work, characters that feel useful in combat. Original ways to do damage. Secret classes that you can only get by reading the IH book backwards.

The power level, incidentally, is about 5th level, sometimes a bit more, usually a bit less.

[Kintara]

The two things you mention are, basically, the two best ways to kill things: Power Attacking for tons of damage and Sneak Attack. Better yet, be an Executioner and do both. ;) Also Archers kick ass because they can obviously kill things from a distance (a useful ability).

But you can also play a Thief and do non-combat stuff really well, too. Unless you're really trapped in a dungeon crawl, it can be lots of fun.

It looks like one of your characters was an Armiger, and they have some power issues. Yes, enemies can ignore you. Some people think that GMs that do that too much are being too meta-gamey, but it is what it is.

As for Sunder/Trip/etc. focused builds, well, those are still useful abilities, but not something you focus on as much as supplement your attacks with. If you were, say, a Man at Arms or a Weapon Master, then just get the basics down first. Pick up some Weapon Finesse/Power Attack feats. Deny your opponents their Active Defense bonuses. Sometimes you'll have a good opportunity to trip/sunder/disarm/stun/etc. an enemy. Each effect has targets it works best for. For instance, some weapons are far easier to sunder than others. And some enemies have special weapons, and are really slowed down when their weapons are denied them. It's tempting to buy up every expanded mastery for something, but it would probably be better to broaden your choices more to start with.

That's my basic advice.

[Ahnirades]

Mighty Build, a large Great Weapon, Power Attack and Improved Critical never goes out of style.

EDIT: It works even better with a Weapon Master with high Strength, if that's your thing.

[Kintara]

Mighty Build, a large Great Weapon, Power Attack and Improved Critical never goes out of style.

EDIT: It works even better with a Weapon Master with a high Strength, if that's your thing.Yeah, or play an Executioner and Sneak Attack too. It's not a bad idea to just go with the straight forward damage king if you've felt like you were...overspecialized in the past. Then you can introduce variations as you get more comfortable about what works and what doesn't.

Edit: Also, Harriers can do good damage and are very difficult to hit if they have room to maneuver. You don't really even need to do anything special with them, just run around and make sure your Tumble checks are nice and high.

[The Tim]

If everyone plays from concept characters instead of from mechanical tricks it works really, really well.

Take advantage of the terrain, even if there aren't specific action zones laid out. If you don't have opportunities to exploit terrain (i.e. it isn't described) and the GM doesn't let you do stuff with the terrain, the game is being run wrong.

Engage the stunt and challenge system. Force opponents to move so that you can get them flanked, hit them from behind when you get an AoO, and similar things to keep it interesting and get the mechanical benefits that the system allows for those sorts of tricks.

[Polaris]

If everyone plays from concept characters instead of from mechanical tricks it works really, really well.


The problem with that is that not everyone will do that, and it only takes one player (or god forbid the DM) to wonk out the mechanical tricks, and IH starts to fall apart.

Don't get me wrong, IH is a wonderful concept and has some great ideas, but the core system was very badly implemented and playtested. I am given to understand that IH went from concept to publisher in about 90 days.....and it shows.


Take advantage of the terrain, even if there aren't specific action zones laid out. If you don't have opportunities to exploit terrain (i.e. it isn't described) and the GM doesn't let you do stuff with the terrain, the game is being run wrong.


That's true to a point but only to a point. There is a strong reason why the Hunter (see the IH boards) is considered to be a fairly lackluster class (although not as weak as the original Armiger or Weapon Master). Specifically it's too easy with a great tumble score to completely get around terrain restrictions (and Harriers past a certain point autmomatically do so).


Engage the stunt and challenge system. Force opponents to move so that you can get them flanked, hit them from behind when you get an AoO, and similar things to keep it interesting and get the mechanical benefits that the system allows for those sorts of tricks.

Again this works well, but only to a point. There are simply some Traits (background options), and some maneuvers and stunts that are simply better than others.

Some specific problems are these (and this is not an exclusive list):

1. Many traits are overpowered (badly) and many others are worthless. Weapon Bond (free proficiency with any weapon of your choice, and you get to replace your strength stat with a stat of your choice for that weapon) and Mighty Build (use weapons one size larger) are simply too good (especially since many feat trees also permit you to stack other stats on top of strength...such as Weapon Finesse and ToM). OTOH, traits like Short are actually a disadvantage.

2. Some classes are badly frontloaded. In particular, there is no mechanical reason not to take one (and only one) level of Beserker, since that single level grants you d4 armor (the same as scale mail) that can't be taken away, has -0 ACP, and still permits itself to be improved with armor feats. Even better, it's dead easy to earn 'Zerker tokens. In addition to that, you get to pick two Beserk abilities and three leap out: Beserk Strength (+2 Str, +2 Con, and you can extend this with more...easily available...tokens), Beserk Mind (+2 to all saves and immune from all mental attacks/effects), and Beserk Speed (+2 Dex, +10' movement that stacks with everything else). Likewise given the way skill groups work, one level of Man-At-Arms, not only gives a free feat, but also opens up ALL feat trees (can be very handy) and gives you three skill groups of your choice that will stack with existing skill groups. [For example, a MaA/Thief can have maximum ranks in pretty much ALL skills.]

3. Suprise is too deadly/It's too easy to Deny-Active Defense AND it's too effective aginst the PCs. You can tumble (at -5), do a 5' step, and if you win the contest (against the enemy's Attack Bonus), you can full attack while denying his active defense for all your attacks (and all AoOs as well until your next turn against this opponent). What's wrong with that, you might ask. DnD does that as well (abeit with bluff...which can also be used this way in IH). Simple. IH Armor does NOT make you harder to hit. Instead it provides (very little) DR. The AC that normally would have come from armor and magical items in IH, instead come from 'class defense', but class defense is an active defense. Likewise virtually all other ways of boosting your AC in IH is considered an active defense (shields being the major exception). That means that unlike DnD, if you've got power-attack, and you can deny a person's active defense, their AC (even for a high level IH hero) drops like a stone....to about 10-13 or so. With the power-attack feats, that means you can drop 15+ bab into damage which translates into 30 points of extra damage per hit or more and that's before criticals and sneak attack damage.

-Polaris

[Seroster]

Are you using the very base book, without any of the copious errata that are now being put into the revised book?

There's any number of nicer revised armiger classes online, too.

I agree about weapon bond and mighty build.

I know some people have suggested that things which would deny active defense should just halve it, and similar house rules.

[Polaris]

Are you using the very base book, without any of the copious errata that are now being put into the revised book?


We started the campaign before much of that errata was written. That said, we do use the up to date online errata even though we are stuck with the original book (which I think we'd agree was a rush job). For example, we use the errata that prevents reach weapons from being useless against an opponent with more than a 20' move (an oversight in the very original book).


There's any number of nicer revised armiger classes online, too.


I quite agree, but I have to judge the system by what came first and was (unfortunately) official for some time. I did specify, however, the 'original' armiger as being substandard (and it is). The revised book does have a much improved version of the class.


I agree about weapon bond and mighty build.


:nod: I think (and I have found) that most people (that post on the IH boards anyway) tend to agree that these traits are overpowered.


I know some people have suggested that things which would deny active defense should just halve it, and similar house rules.

Right, and FWIW we play with that house rule. Power-Attack when combined with denying active defense is still too powerful.

-Polaris

[Particle_Man]

One house rule I have encountered is mandating that one of the character's traits *must* be a background trait. That stops some combos that might be considered broken.

One other issue with Iron Heroes is Grapple rules. In the absence of magical aid (like a Ring of Freedom of Action) there is not much you can do to resist grapple checks by the big boys (there are a few feats in the companion that mitigate this slightly...on the other hand the monsters get rather sick grapple feats in the Bestiary). One house rule is to eliminate the size modifier for grapple checks.

Hmmm...I was considering a Weapon Master that goes for Vorpal Hurricane/(Great) Cleave/Weapon Focus as the feat choices, but now I am a bit worried myself. Am I gimping the character?

[Stalkre]

I did reform my latest character (the armored knight) with the revised rules. He's now actually an armiger (whereas in the non-revised book armigers couldn't use heavy armor until 11th level) and I've found the appropriate skill used for taunts (it's Perform). That may be good enough to force someone to run at me.

Still, it bugs me that for all of IH's advertised cinematics, all the stunts and challenges yield negligible +2's and +4's, whereas our berserker's straight attacks dish out consistently-hitting 3d6+power attack of damage.

[Polaris]

Still, it bugs me that for all of IH's advertised cinematics, all the stunts and challenges yield negligible +2's and +4's, whereas our berserker's straight attacks dish out consistently-hitting 3d6+power attack of damage.

Well....get used to it. The Harrier and the Beserker are two badly designed and overpowered classes (not to mention frontloaded). I would suggest, however, that a better use of stunts and challenges is not to get a +2 or +4 to various things (which as you found out can be of limited consequence), but rather use the same to deny active defense, force an enemy out of position (often drawing AoOs), keep an enemy from attacking multiple times, keep an enemy from attacking you (or someone else) at all, etc.

All that said, IH because of it's armor as DR system grossly over-rewards those that can either hit hard or (in the case of the Harrier) move fast and tumble well.

-Polaris

[Squid]

Well....get used to it. The Harrier and the Beserker are two badly designed and overpowered classes (not to mention frontloaded). I would suggest, however, that a better use of stunts and challenges is not to get a +2 or +4 to various things (which as you found out can be of limited consequence), but rather use the same to deny active defense, force an enemy out of position (often drawing AoOs), keep an enemy from attacking multiple times, keep an enemy from attacking you (or someone else) at all, etc.

All that said, IH because of it's armor as DR system grossly over-rewards those that can either hit hard or (in the case of the Harrier) move fast and tumble well.

-Polaris
This has not been my experience with the system.

[Squid]

One house rule I have encountered is mandating that one of the character's traits *must* be a background trait. That stops some combos that might be considered broken.

One other issue with Iron Heroes is Grapple rules. In the absence of magical aid (like a Ring of Freedom of Action) there is not much you can do to resist grapple checks by the big boys (there are a few feats in the companion that mitigate this slightly...on the other hand the monsters get rather sick grapple feats in the Bestiary). One house rule is to eliminate the size modifier for grapple checks.

Hmmm...I was considering a Weapon Master that goes for Vorpal Hurricane/(Great) Cleave/Weapon Focus as the feat choices, but now I am a bit worried myself. Am I gimping the character?
That looks fine to me. If you're taking cleave, do you expect to be fighting a lot of human/humaniod foes with weapons?

[Polaris]

This has not been my experience with the system.

In what way? I ask because the very nature of the Armor as DR system means that you are better off hitting hard once rather than hitting less hard multiple times....and the higher the DR, the more and more that's true.

In what way? I ask because I don't see anything in the IH rules (even errataed) that will as reliably kill an enemies AC as denying them their active defense (usually via skill stunt) or as good a defense as preventing the enemy from attacking at all (again usually via skill stunt or feat). Certainly it seems superior to the +2-+6 modifiers you get for other options.

Finally, I ask in what way? I ask because one level of Beserker doesn't keep most of the other classes from getting their capstone feats or abilities and yet gives d4 armor that has no enumberance, -0 ACP, and is compatible with all armor feats. In additon, you get two Bezerker abilities and there are three tremendous choices to pick from. You don't even take the class defense AC hit for multiclassing because Bezerk has a poor defense progression (which actually helps your defense if you take one level in a multiclass). Also have you seen a high level harrier in play? I have. There is virtually nothing that can reduce their movement, and if they have any room to manuever at all, they are essentially un-hittable and deliver reliable and substantial damage.

-Polaris

[Polaris]

That looks fine to me. If you're taking cleave, do you expect to be fighting a lot of human/humaniod foes with weapons?

Bah. Cleave is a great feat tree in IH especially when you get to the upper part of the feat tree. It goes extremely well with power-attack, and even the entry level feat will permit you to get at least one extra attack in on a regular basis. In fact Cleave 10 is so good, it's probably too good (not sure if it's been modified yet).

Basically, your combination sounds fine to me. The biggest problem I see with your weapon master concept is that you will probably be dissapointed in your token abilities and ability to gain tokens.

-Polaris

[Squid]

In what way? I ask because the very nature of the Armor as DR system means that you are better off hitting hard once rather than hitting less hard multiple times....and the higher the DR, the more and more that's true.

In what way? I ask because I don't see anything in the IH rules (even errataed) that will as reliably kill an enemies AC as denying them their active defense (usually via skill stunt) or as good a defense as preventing the enemy from attacking at all (again usually via skill stunt or feat). Certainly it seems superior to the +2-+6 modifiers you get for other options.

Finally, I ask in what way? I ask because one level of Beserker doesn't keep most of the other classes from getting their capstone feats or abilities and yet gives d4 armor that has no enumberance, -0 ACP, and is compatible with all armor feats. In additon, you get two Bezerker abilities and there are three tremendous choices to pick from. You don't even take the class defense AC hit for multiclassing because Bezerk has a poor defense progression (which actually helps your defense if you take one level in a multiclass). Also have you seen a high level harrier in play? I have. There is virtually nothing that can reduce their movement, and if they have any room to manuever at all, they are essentially un-hittable and deliver reliable and substantial damage.

-Polaris
Hitting multiple times gives more opportunities to use abilities that can be used "in place of an attack," as well as increasing the chances to do damage in other ways; ability damage, conditionals, even criticals.

There are plenty of circumstantial things that give even a high level harrier problems, and they don't weather active defense denial better than anyone else does.

On that subject, denying active defense is almost never reliable, and is a great when to end up next to a weapon-master or berserker with a full attack to go off.

As to the berserker option, I can't argue that on paper it does seem like a great place to spend a level. In play, I've never had anyone multiclass into it; they don't want to delay normal progression that long. This is across multiple games, at that.

Regarding cleave, I brought that up because the user of it in my last game started to get frustrated when fighting multiple groups of intelligent opponents armed with reach and missile weapons; he got much more use out of it against hordes of monsters and barbarians.

[Particle_Man]

Well looking at it now, I am thinking of taking Power Attack (and later Power Attack 4 for a bit of extra damage). I am also hoping my DM allows me to spend an Exotic Weapon Proficiency to get Heavy Poleaxe from Complete Warrior (which I am hoping would be given the descriptors Reach and Power). Then I could have a very nice "radius of death" using Vorpal Hurricane and also handle opponents with Reach weapons. (Wouldn't help vs. missile weapons, but then the two choices seem to be charge in there or wait behind total cover until they get bored and close up. I mean bringing a knife to a gunfight is usually a bad idea, unless you are "V").

I am also looking at the Prodigy trait in the Iron Heroes Companion. I think it would let a Weapon Master take Vorpal Hurricane at 1st level!

The idea would be that the character would be good at clearing away the mooks, and then would use P.Attack and weapon master tokens vs. the Big Bad Evil Guy when no mooks are left. But aside from hit points, my character would not be much for defence.

With all the feats going around, I would likely have to drop a few, such as some of the Weapon Focus feats that give +2 damage. I might give up Cleave as well. The idea of "cleaving off a crit" would be nice, but I expect to face opponents that are immune to crits. A lot of hard choices to make, here.

[Capellan]

In fact Cleave 10 is so good, it's probably too good (not sure if it's been modified yet).

It was errata'd over a year ago.

[Oblivious ignorant elf]

Can anyone tell me what changes were made to the Armiger in the revised edition?
And do I have to buy the book to get it or is the revised Armiger a part of an online errata?

[Capellan]

Oblivious elf: Just follow the Errata and FAQ link in my sig.

[Polaris]

Hitting multiple times gives more opportunities to use abilities that can be used "in place of an attack," as well as increasing the chances to do damage in other ways; ability damage, conditionals, even criticals.


That's only true to a point. What I generally find, is that in order to get abilities used 'in place' of an attack, you generally have to move and then do a standard attack. Granted that's not universal, but that seems to be the rule. In addition, it's so easy to do a metric truckload of damage in IH, that you have to judge all other abilities against that opportunity cost....and if you can take out even the toughest opponent in one or two hits, then you probably should because it reduces the chance of you getting hurt in return. A good offense beats a good defense in IH pretty much every time.


There are plenty of circumstantial things that give even a high level harrier problems, and they don't weather active defense denial better than anyone else does.


Such as? Harriers after very low levels ignore terrain, get insane modifies to both jump and tumble which enhances their mobility further, and as long as their path doesn't wrap around itself (usually very easy to arrange), then Harriers pretty much rule the day. Even if you *do* hit a harrier with an AoO (unlikely), it's almost worse than not taking the AoO against a high level harrier at all.


On that subject, denying active defense is almost never reliable, and is a great when to end up next to a weapon-master or berserker with a full attack to go off.


I beg to differ. In the first place, you can always attempt this manuever as long as you move at all (even a 5' step is sufficient) and it costs you nothing. Even more to the point, you can deny someone's active defense for an ally (such as the big, bad power-attacking Bezerker...or even worse in this case, that big, bad power-attacking executioner). Tumble as a skill starts with a base of level+3 ranks +attribute (dex) and is modifieable by up to an additional +4 in synergy bonuses and that's before skill feats, and class bonuses and the like. When you consider that the opposing base attack is only bab+attribute (usually but not always strength), it's clear that you will win this contest most of the time. So the payoff is huge, and it costs you basically nothing to do. That's pretty broken in my book.


As to the berserker option, I can't argue that on paper it does seem like a great place to spend a level. In play, I've never had anyone multiclass into it; they don't want to delay normal progression that long. This is across multiple games, at that.


Even the IH gurus on their own board have admitted that 1 level of Bezerker is simply too good...especially if you take that level early (level one or two) when encumberance really, really matters.


Regarding cleave, I brought that up because the user of it in my last game started to get frustrated when fighting multiple groups of intelligent opponents armed with reach and missile weapons; he got much more use out of it against hordes of monsters and barbarians.

Reach weapons are no where near as good in IH as they are in DnD (although there are some kewl feats that help with this), and missile weapons IMX are nearly worthless because of the DR/armor system.

-Polaris

[Polaris]

Well looking at it now, I am thinking of taking Power Attack (and later Power Attack 4 for a bit of extra damage). I am also hoping my DM allows me to spend an Exotic Weapon Proficiency to get Heavy Poleaxe from Complete Warrior (which I am hoping would be given the descriptors Reach and Power). Then I could have a very nice "radius of death" using Vorpal Hurricane and also handle opponents with Reach weapons. (Wouldn't help vs. missile weapons, but then the two choices seem to be charge in there or wait behind total cover until they get bored and close up. I mean bringing a knife to a gunfight is usually a bad idea, unless you are "V").


There is no such thing as a "sure" thing, which is why IMHO IH strongly favors dealing the most raw damage you can (and there are a lot of valid ways to go about that...too many to list here really). However, if you want an odd weapon, and you want to invest heavily in a stat other than strength (which many IH characters will), you may want to consider the background trait 'weapon bond' which automatically gives you a proficieny with a weapon of your choice (even exotic/unusual ones) AND permits you to treat a stat of your choice as strength for that weapon.

Thus if you are heavily invested in Dex or Intelligence (for weapon finesse and tactics of the mind respectively), you can still have your high strength damage cake (and the feats that go with it) and eat it too with your special defense and abilities (for which you are supposed to have a sub-standard strength).

-Polaris

[Kintara]

Such as? Harriers after very low levels ignore terrain, get insane modifies to both jump and tumble which enhances their mobility further, and as long as their path doesn't wrap around itself (usually very easy to arrange), then Harriers pretty much rule the day. Even if you *do* hit a harrier with an AoO (unlikely), it's almost worse than not taking the AoO against a high level harrier at all.Is it so unlikely, though? Monsters roll base attack checks against Tumble, and that number is often seriously high once you get into the mid-levels.

A Dune Stalker/Lithe Acrobat Harrier with Skill Focus and Application for Tumble at level 10 with a Dex 20 has 13+5+2+2+3+2=+27 to his Tumble checks. A Greater Earth Elemental (a CR 9 creature) has a BAB+Str check of +25. Mobility mastery can make those AoOs unpleasant, but such focus does whittle down the damage capacity of the Harrier. There's a trade-off with a Harrier between assuring mobility and being a serious threat.

[Polaris]

Is it so unlikely, though? Monsters roll base attack checks against Tumble, and that number is often seriously high once you get into the mid-levels.


Against humanoid creatures, tumble will work most of the time given that skills will have higher modifiers than base attack. Even against monsters, what does the tumbling character lose? The answer is nothing. He just doesn't deny the active defense (but can still self-flank for example to sneak attack). What makes this tactic broken especially against humanoid type opponents is that you risk nothing with the deny active defense manuever, and gain a huge benefit if you succeed.


A Dune Stalker/Lithe Acrobat Harrier with Skill Focus and Application for Tumble at level 10 with a Dex 20 has 13+5+2+2+3+2=+27 to his Tumble checks. A Greater Earth Elemental (a CR 9 creature) has a BAB+Str check of +25. Mobility mastery can make those AoOs unpleasant, but such focus does whittle down the damage capacity of the Harrier. There's a trade-off with a Harrier between assuring mobility and being a serious threat.

It really doesn't. With skill groups, the Harrier will easily have enough ranks to pull this off....and an earth elemental is a bad example for IH because those CRs assume magical equipment and abilities that generally aren't available in IH. A Greature Earth elemental in IH should be at least 2 CR higher.

-Polaris

[Capellan]

an earth elemental is a bad example for IH because those CRs assume magical equipment and abilities that generally aren't available in IH. A Greature Earth elemental in IH should be at least 2 CR higher.

An IH party of level X with mundane gear is designed to be comparable to a D&D party of level X with level-appropriate magical items and abilities. Monsters have the same CR in IH as they do in D&D.

[Kintara]

Against humanoid creatures, tumble will work most of the time given that skills will have higher modifiers than base attack. Even against monsters, what does the tumbling character lose? The answer is nothing. He just doesn't deny the active defense (but can still self-flank for example to sneak attack). What makes this tactic broken especially against humanoid type opponents is that you risk nothing with the deny active defense manuever, and gain a huge benefit if you succeed.



It really doesn't. With skill groups, the Harrier will easily have enough ranks to pull this off....and an earth elemental is a bad example for IH because those CRs assume magical equipment and abilities that generally aren't available in IH. A Greature Earth elemental in IH should be at least 2 CR higher.

-PolarisHmm? What really doesn't? What about skill groups? Do you mean I forgot the Jump synergy? That's true.

As for what a Tumbling character loses for using it to deny active defense? Nothing. Tumble is too good for this sort of thing as it stands. I agree there. It should take more effort than it currently does. At the very least it should cost an action. Anyway, though, I do still think that it does help that monsters do actually have the Base Attack checks to put up some resistance to Tumble checks (whether it's that, or to avoid an AoO due to movement).

I think I agree with you about the Earth Elemental as well. It's just flatly pretty damn good for its CR. I don't think I'd say it's specifically an IH thing though. It's got a ton of HP, a strong attack, and a big fat DR bonus.

[Particle_Man]

Well, for the OP, here is an example of a "meat and potatoes" build. No optional rules assumed to be allowed, nothing outside of the main book assumed to be allowed. (Just because I don't know your DM).

Executioner (1-20), traits: Tall, Strong. (Take weakness in Chr for more ability points too)

Str: 20 (increase every 4 levels) (13 points)
Dex: 10
Con: 18 (13 points)
Int: 8
Wis: 10
Chr: 6 (gives 2 points back)

Skills: Athletics, Perception, Stealth, tumble, survival.

Feats:

1: Weapon Focus (Glaive), Cleave
2: Power Attack
4: Weapon Focus 2
6: Vorpal Hurricane (hence the Glaive, and Tall)
8: Weapon Focus 4
10: Power Attack 4
12: Cleave 3
14: Weapon Focus 7
16: Weapon Focus 8
18: Vorpal Hurricane 9
20: Weapon Focus 9

So basically, against lots of foes use the Vorpal Hurricane, against a single go more for executioner tokens and manuevers. Power Attack as needed. The Glaive is great because with Vorpal Hurricane you can attack everyone you threaten (with the reach weapon) *and* everyone adjacent to you. Plus, the executioner can use non-power weapons like Glaives with Vorpal Hurricane, a Power feat.

And ain't it nice that Cleave and Vorpal Hurricane go together? :)

Now a weapon master gets a higher BAB to play with, but no sneak attack dice and in the main book no reach weapon to do Vorpal Hurricane with. Still, it could be a nice choice too with a Maul.

[Polaris]

An IH party of level X with mundane gear is designed to be comparable to a D&D party of level X with level-appropriate magical items and abilities. Monsters have the same CR in IH as they do in D&D.

Capellan, I know that's the IH chapter and verse, but in actual play, that's a little white lie. Point in fact that the DM does have to adjust CRs in IH either up or down. For example, DR/Magic and DR/Piercing+Good are far more effective in IH than in actual DnD and so are many otherwise minor spell-like abilities. OTOH, some other CRs may actually need to be reduced to account for the damage the IH characters can do.

-Polaris

[Capellan]

Q: What's the CR of a Pit Fiend fighting a party of 1st level commoners armed with clubs?

A: The same as the CR of a Pit Fiend fighting a party of 20th level paladins armed with holy avengers.

CR is independent of party abilities. Naturally, when designing or adapting an adventure, a GM needs to take into account the relative strengths (e.g. high damage output) and weaknesses (e.g. minimal in-combat healing, limited movement capabilities) of an IH Party, but he must also do so in D&D.

For example, IH parties are sometimes better at dealing with highly specific DRs like piercing+good than many D&D parties are, because an IH party can all ramp up their damage output to compensate, while a D&D party that lacks holy weapons or appropriate spells (such as bless weapon) have a much harder time compensating.

You may modify the XP award for an encounter in IH (engaging a flying creature in a location that allows it to use its flight is clearly a significant tactical disadvantage for an IH party), but that's something GMs should be doing in their D&D games too.

Simply picking up a say, 9th level D&D adventure, and assuming it will be perfectly OK for any 9th level D&D party is a recipe for a TPK. You need to review it, identify cases where your party is entirely unequipped to deal with what they're facing, and tweak as appropriate ("My rogue-heavy party is going to be hosed fighting all these constructs ... better do something about that. On the other hand, they'll sneak attack this single enemy to pieces and I want a more memorable fight. Better do something about that, too."). The same is true when adapting to IH.

Edit: In other words, "an IH party is equivalent to a D&D party of the same level" has to be considered in light of the fact that not all D&D parties of the same level are equal (or even close to it) in every encounter. IH PCs are still fighter and rogue types, and will face the same difficulties that a party of D&D characters which lacks dedicated spell casters is going to face (though often to a lesser extent due to their higher skills and more powerful class abilities).