PDA

View Full Version : Iron Heroes feats & mastery



Aroka
2010-08-05, 07:11 PM
I'm looking into Iron Heroes, and I immediately loved the feat mastery concept, but was dismayed to see every expanded mastery benefit requires spending a feat (unless I'm grossly misreading the book over and over). Has anyone tried running the game so you automatically get the benefits of a feat up to your mastery level for it, without spending feats? Would this unbalance the game? I'm cool with men-at-arms, for instance, getting a lot of options, but would they have way too many feats? I'm not that worried about every man-at-arms having the same feats, for instance, since it seems like a game for low to mid level play, but I'm curious what everybody's experiences and opinions are.

Swordgleam
2010-08-05, 07:32 PM
That would be utterly utterly ridiculous. Which could lead to a fun game, but just know how ridiculous it would be.

Feats in Iron Heroes are powerful since it's a "you, not your gear" kind of game. And as someone who played a Man-at-Arms, they already get an absurd number of feats.

Edit: I should also mention that some classes are more limited in their feat choices than others, so you'd end up with everyone except Man-at-Arms characters taking tons and tons of general feats with all their empty slots.

Aroka
2010-08-05, 07:43 PM
That's a fair point, with most classes limited to 3-4 categories, they'd probably end up with all the same feats pretty fast...

How well think conflating some mastery ranks would work? It looks like some of the basic d20 feats have been split up into multiple mastery levels (Improved Trip, for instance), which seemed a bit odd - a lot of the mastery feats don't seem like much good unless you invest heavily into them.

Then again, this might just be a combination of seeing a ton of new options and wanting to play with them all, and my general craving for feats (it's just impossible for me to have enough feats in any d20 game).

As an aside, how awesome are magic weapons in Iron Heroes? I'm basically planning to use it for a King Arthur -type campaign, and thinking I'll make Excalibur a +1 bastard sword (so it'll cut right through armor).

Umael
2010-08-05, 08:13 PM
As an aside, how awesome are magic weapons in Iron Heroes? I'm basically planning to use it for a King Arthur -type campaign, and thinking I'll make Excalibur a +1 bastard sword (so it'll cut right through armor).

In traditional Iron Heroes?

They're not.

Magical weapons are almost invariably cursed. It's not so much Excalibur as it is Stormbringer.

Iron Heroes is supposed to be about beating your enemies because you are so tough, not because you have a magic sword. When your enemy has damage reduction, what do you do? Hit it, really, really hard.

awa
2010-08-05, 08:17 PM
It depends iron heroes has only the vaguest campaign setting Excalibur as a +1 sword would work just fine Excalibur never did any thing all that impressive anyway (now the belt that was powerful.)

Aroka
2010-08-05, 08:30 PM
You can't really get more awesome than Stormbringer, though. Who cares if it kills your cousin/lover (and your child bride), that sword is bitchin' and will end the world.

Anyway, I figure making the setting's greatest sword ever a +1 magic sword doesn't seem excessive. It's not like anyone's likely to get to use it.

I am quite loving the game so far. Experimentally statted Merlin as an 11th-level arcanist and Morgan as 8th, Arthur as a 9th-level man-at-arms (because he should have awesome war leader powers). Wondering if I should go higher or keep it mid-level, since it seems like you can do powerful characters without splurging on levels.

Gametime
2010-08-05, 10:50 PM
Personally, in my game, I'm keeping magic items extremely rare and having them grant non-numerical bonuses. A +1 to attack and damage is good, but hard to get excited about. Instead, the items I've introduced are tailored to work with certain class abilities; for example, the Berserker in my game just found a scythe that lets him make an Intimidate check as part of the action taken to gain fury tokens. It's an added incentive to gain tokens, it fits into the conceit of a fearsome raging warrior, and it feels special.

Giving someone a +1 sword isn't going to be unbalancing at all, though, so if that's your only concern, go for it.

Swordgleam
2010-08-06, 12:09 AM
Arthur as a 9th-level man-at-arms (because he should have awesome war leader powers)

Did you look at Hunter? That's the war leader class in Iron Heroes - they get tactics tokens they can use to buff other characters. It's totally misnamed. Works great in a party, though. I loved me some tactics tokens to increase my flanking bonus when the berserker and I surrounded someone.

Nero24200
2010-08-06, 07:08 AM
I've actually heard some poor reviews regarding magic items in Iron Heroes, but I've never read any book beyond the variant player's handbook so your millage may vary.

Though if you used normal D'n'D rules for magic items (which should be fine since it is a D20 game) then you'll find simple +1 items can be used to represent powerful magic items. Just remember that magical items in Iron Heroes are a bonus, not a requirment at higher levels.

Alternatively, since items aren't mandatory at higher levels you can always attempt varient magic item systems without fear of making the characters less powerful (unless they're the kind of "I can power, but take a penalty to X X and X" kind of items).

Starbuck_II
2010-08-06, 08:21 AM
Personally, in my game, I'm keeping magic items extremely rare and having them grant non-numerical bonuses. A +1 to attack and damage is good, but hard to get excited about.


No, a +1 Weapon is +1 attack/Damage and cuts through DR like butter.

Remember, 70% of all DR sources are /magic.

kkortekaas
2010-08-06, 08:32 AM
My group has lots of experience with Iron Heroes (it's our fantasy system of choice) and we've never had any issues with each mastery level costing a feat. It works great.

Just keep in mind that it's about the characters skills and abilities and not about the stuff.

I'm going to be starting a Iron Heroes game set in a much bleaker, lower magic Forgotten Realms using the True Sorcery ruleset for magic. No item creation (this doesn't mean magic items don't exist, but they're relics of ages past, ie. King Azoun only has a +1 Longsword), no magical potions (I'm drafting up some alchemy rules for potions). I figure I'll give them interesting equipment by using alternate materials (cold iron, adamantine, silver, etc)

Some changes you might want to put in place

Armiger Changes:
Armor Pool: When combat begins you start with the amount of tokens equal to the damage reduction value listed for the armor you are currently wearing. You then accumulate tokens as written. You can use tokens against any opponent in combat. Unspent tokens are lost at the end of combat

Weapon Master Changes:
Weapon Pool: When combat begins you start with 1d4 tokens. You accrue additional tokens as written. You can use tokens against any opponent in combat. Unspent token are lost at the end of combat

True Sorcery Arcanists Revisions.
In addition to the changes presented in Appendix IV of the True Sorcery book (pg. 112) the following changes will occur.

- Because "Student of Magic" no longer exists, The following spells get moved into the Dabbler Magnitude;
Lock (pg 67)
Prophecy (pg 72)
and the following spells get moved into the First Magnitude
Dispel (pg 47)
Force (pg 59)

- Skill Groups (pg 112) use as written, treat two remaining skills (Detect Magic (INT) , Ghost Sound (CHA) ,Prestidigitation(CHA), or Resistance (CON)) as "lone wolf" skills that have to be ranked up individually.

- The Spellcraft and Concentration Skills will use Intelligence as governing stat

- Pool Points will be determined as per Appendix IV in the True Sorcery book

- Reduce Drain taken to 1d4 for Dabbler spells, 1d6 for First Magnitude then 1d8 for each Magnitude there after.

Spells to look out for when using True Sorcery

Enhance Person (pg 53) and Foresee (pg 60) can unbalance the game as increasing skills / abilities dramatically effects Iron Heroes game play. Solutions include modeling any spells from vanilla 3.5 spells (ala. Bull's Strength (+4 to STR for 1 min / level))

Shapeshift (pg 79) Because True Sorcery uses the Adjustment due to Size directly from the 3.5 Monster Manual, it doesn't translate well when applied to PC's. As written, if a Player cast something like an Enlarge Person to grow from medium to large it would provide a +8 to STR and +4 to CON which results in greatest melee buff ever.

Slays (pg 81) The damage dealt on a failed save is to great, and is not typed damage so cannot be resisted (its like disintegrate, failed save=death / made save=dmg). Solutions include banning the Slay and Life Talents or tweaking the damage dealt on a failed save

Create Undead (pg 45) The spell description has inconsistencies - In one place it has a duration, in another it talks about being permanent. Solutions include that the spell is permanent when creating undead, but that the spell has a duration when used to turn/rebuke undead. .

Destroy (pg 46)The damage dealt scales too dramatically. To solve this, either work with the player so as not to abuse it, or for this case only, up the spell DC's when augmenting it

bbugg
2010-08-06, 08:43 AM
I quite like IH - I've only played at low levels, but haven't had any problems with the mastery feat system. You do have to pick one (or maybe two) if you want to get good at it. If you really feel feat starved, I'd add extra feats to spend, not just automatic progression.

In terms of magic weapons, I'd stay away from a +1 - go with something fun and flashy. At the very least make it keen or something, but preferebly a firey sword or somethign cool like that.

Aroka
2010-08-06, 11:05 AM
Though if you used normal D'n'D rules for magic items (which should be fine since it is a D20 game) then you'll find simple +1 items can be used to represent powerful magic items. Just remember that magical items in Iron Heroes are a bonus, not a requirment at higher levels.

Hah, yeah. I looked at the DR x/magic entry for armor, realized the effect, and thought "Well, I guess it'd make sense to represent the Great Sword, the most awesome weapon in the world, as a +1 bastard sword." (Bastard sword because they get power and finesse, and because you might as well when you're going to take Weapon Bond for Cha, not for any reason of verisimilitude...)

I really like the low power level. The magic of Merlin, the greatest, most archetypal magician, is pretty much adequately represented by Divination 7, Transmutation 6, and Illusion 5. (The Stonehenge business was basically just a pact or deal with elementals or outsiders of some sort, or mere rumor.)


In terms of magic weapons, I'd stay away from a +1 - go with something fun and flashy. At the very least make it keen or something, but preferebly a firey sword or somethign cool like that.

Why, though? It's already completely awesome as a +1 weapon - it ignores all armor. Cheesy magic seems unnecessary, and the only other power attributed to Excalibur in older material seems to be mostly allegorical (when drawn in battle for the first time, it shone like thirty torches, blinding the combatants, etc.). Fire and such is just cheesy. No PCs would be likely to ever touch the thing (although I think their fighting Arthur in battle is very possible - I could see doing a campaign where the PCs are lords and kings of post-Uther Britain fighting for their independence, then joining Arthur's Round Table after being defeated).


As an aside, I completely love the classes. Between the pools, the pile of abilities, and the mastery feats, it looks like there's just so many things to actually do in combat instead of "full attack, X damage".

kkortekaas
2010-08-06, 12:57 PM
I really like the low power level. The magic of Merlin, the greatest, most archetypal magician, is pretty much adequately represented by Divination 7, Transmutation 6, and Illusion 5. (The Stonehenge business was basically just a pact or deal with elementals or outsiders of some sort, or mere rumor.)

Why, though? It's already completely awesome as a +1 weapon - it ignores all armor. Cheesy magic seems unnecessary, and the only other power attributed to Excalibur in older material seems to be mostly allegorical (when drawn in battle for the first time, it shone like thirty torches, blinding the combatants, etc.). Fire and such is just cheesy. No PCs would be likely to ever touch the thing (although I think their fighting Arthur in battle is very possible - I could see doing a campaign where the PCs are lords and kings of post-Uther Britain fighting for their independence, then joining Arthur's Round Table after being defeated).


bbugg is in my group and we've had many discussions about this. Bascially it amounts to this, if weapons are rare and noteworthy they should have pizzaz. My example of a +1 sword was poor, and when I should have typed was "The King has a Sword that enhances his command ability through magic" or something to that effect.

bbugg
2010-08-06, 04:00 PM
That's a good point Aroka, I hadn't thought about the DR - that's what I was getting at with keen. A slightly better chance of hitting is just lame. With the DR, and if you're trying to emulate Excalibur, then +1 is probably good.

In general, I don't think +1's in the game are very consistent with the game concept - it's a mechanical advantage with no real pizzaz. If I give a +1 weapon to my players, it'll likely be a dagger or something that's fine if you really need magic, but won't be your every day weapon. I'm more likely to give a weapon that glows around water, or gives off light, or burns anyone but the current owner. There'd be a downside too, but not as severe as the books suggest. I just think that's more in line with the "it's the characters, not their gear" concept. But that's just me and how I like my games and certainly doesn't represent Excalibur. But hell, you're DM - make Excalibur shine like thirty torches, blinding the combatants when first drawn. That's awesome - I'd take that over a +1 any day. And it's magical too, so still bypasses DR.

Starbuck_II
2010-08-06, 04:08 PM
In general, I don't think +1's in the game are very consistent with the game concept - it's a mechanical advantage with no real pizzaz. If I give a +1 weapon to my players, it'll likely be a dagger or something that's fine if you really need magic, but won't be your every day weapon. I'm more likely to give a weapon that glows around water, or gives off light, or burns anyone but the current owner. There'd be a downside too, but not as severe as the books suggest. I just think that's more in line with the "it's the characters, not their gear" concept. But that's just me and how I like my games and certainly doesn't represent Excalibur. But hell, you're DM - make Excalibur shine like thirty torches, blinding the combatants when first drawn. That's awesome - I'd take that over a +1 any day. And it's magical too, so still bypasses DR.

By not making it a +1, he probably decided to override the requirement of +1 being required so it it a +0 that blinds when first drawn. So wouldn't bypass DR but gets a cool ability.

Aroka
2010-08-06, 04:12 PM
I could give Excalibur some non-magical ability to represent the myth and significance around it...

Having finally gotten around to Mastering Iron Heroes, I am considering giving it the Blinding ability intended for armor and shield, and some major drawback: I'm very much going with a "magic is not nice" theme for the campaign idea anyway - the "enchantment of Britain" is basically Merlin working devil-magic and awakening all sorts of evil monsters as a consequence.

Gametime
2010-08-06, 05:21 PM
No, a +1 Weapon is +1 attack/Damage and cuts through DR like butter.

Remember, 70% of all DR sources are /magic.

It's good. I just don't find it exciting. Your mileage may vary, obviously.

There are a decent number of ways to ignore some value of damage reduction on an attack, anyway; it's not as good as always ignoring it, obviously, but it's doable without a magic weapon. Having magic weapons be "the same but more" just doesn't feel all that special, to me.