How Good Is Iron Heroes? How Compatible Is It With D&D 3.5?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Pretty much exactly what what it says on the tin.

How good is Iron Heroes as a system? Does it have any outstanding strengths? Gaping weaknesses?

How compatible is Iron Heroes with D&D 3.5? What should be changed to make Iron Heroes more compatible with 3.5?

I'm going to wager that Iron Heroes' classes aren't as powerful as tier 1s, but how do they compare to the Martial Adepts of Tome of Battle?

Does Iron Heroes have a balanced magic system? Is it overpowered? Underpowered?


I would appreciate some insights into these questions. Thanks! :smallsmile:

[Pex]

I have never played it, but . . .

I'm not a fan of the token system. You mostly spend rounds doing normal regular stuff you would be doing anyway to collect tokens. When you have enough tokens you spend them to do your Cool Thing then need to collect tokens again. The combat may end before you have enough tokens to do your Cool Thing or your Cool Thing isn't applicable or worth doing in the round it becomes available.

Everyone is a warrior. The classes do fight differently, but everyone uses a weapon until bad guy is dead.

The spellcaster is alright, but even the designers admit the game is for PC warriors and magic is for the bad guys. Playing the spellcaster you're a sidekick. You can have a moment or two of shining, but the game is not about you why are you there.

Personal opinion the game was made as an overreaction to the power of 3E magic. Making warriors bada$$ and the spellcaster an almost non-entity was a way to make warrior players feel better about themselves playing one.

If you use those classes in a 3E game combats will highly likely end before you have enough tokens to do your Cool Thing. If you are willing to use Iron Heroes to replace the warrior classes you are better off using Tome of Battle instead.

[Kayblis]

Iron Heroes classes are very underpowered. Some classes like the Armiger are variations of the Monk - 20 levels of little value and many tricks that either don't work or take too long to activate/too few uses. Some classes like the Archer break the game's base assumptions by having two sets of BAB and going above 20 with a faster progression, not that they bring enough to the table to make it worth the levels anyways. Most class features are flat bonuses. The progressions also seem to not take magic items into consideration, and the devs don't seem to consider the redundancy of giving both a base attack bonus and a base defense bonus to literally everyone.

All in all, the classes are more complex than PHB martials with no substantial gain in consistency or power. They're inferior to Tome of Battle classes in every way, and are not what many people would call a "welcome change" to the system simply by the extra bookkeeping.

[Zaq]

Iron Heroes was actually my first d20 system. That said, I’m much older and wiser now, and I can recognize that it’s very much not a good idea to try to mix it wholesale with vanilla 3.5. It’s intentionally low-powered across the board, so mixing it with the general game will definitely result in a power gap.

I had fun with it as my first taste of the gaming genre, but that was before I learned how much fun it is to dive into the book and make a fun build, which may or may not be meaningfully possible with just IH itself. (Also I’m 95% certain that I was NOT using some of the rules correctly and that I was definitely double-dipping on some numbers here and there. Rookie stuff.) And I agree with the comments about skipping both spellcasting classes (there’s one in the base book and one in the expansion). They just plain aren’t well-designed.

It might be fun for a one-shot here and there if you happen to have the book already or if you can get it cheap. It might not be catastrophic to lift a few ideas and even a few game elements from it. (I genuinely like its take on hit dice, for example: all HD are d4s, but your class determines how much you add to that d4. What we’d think of as d6 HD is d4+2. A d8 HD is d4+4. Etc. It keeps some randomness but means that you can’t get totally shafted by a single die roll.)

[Particle_Man]

I like how they did skills. And I would steal their monsters for 3.5.

I also had fun running IH.

But yeah I don’t think just porting in classes to 3.5 would work.

[ColorBlindNinja]

So the main thing I'm taking away from this is that Iron Heroes is underpowered compared to D&D 3.5 and the Tome of Battle Martial Adepts are superior.

Is there anything worth stealing from the system?

EDIT: Besides monsters, that is.

[awa]

it has some good ideas but their not that well implemented.

I have used it as fodder for ideas to feed hombrew but straight stealing them ehh.


The skill system while not perfect is better than 3.5 but im not a fan of d&ds skills

[ColorBlindNinja]

it has some good ideas but their not that well implemented.

I have used it as fodder for ideas to feed hombrew but straight stealing them ehh.


The skill system while not perfect is better than 3.5 but im not a fan of d&ds skills

I heard the skill system gets really wonky with multiclassing.

[awa]

its definitely not perfect, and i have not seen how it holds up when pushed through the optimization wringer.

But players get enough skills to feel competent and skills do more.

[ColorBlindNinja]

its definitely not perfect, and i have not seen how it holds up when pushed through the optimization wringer.

But players get enough skills to feel competent and skills do more.

I see.



On a semi-related note, I must say that Man At Arms class is pretty awful. It looks like a slightly less sucky version of the Fighter.

[awa]

a lot of the classes arnt great for one reason or another but in their defense they are only intended to compete with each other, and none of them have the power disparity of a monk and a druid.

[ColorBlindNinja]

a lot of the classes arnt great for one reason or another but in their defense they are only intended to compete with each other,

I was under the impression that Iron Heroes was supposed to be compatible with D&D 3.5 by its own admission.


and none of them have the power disparity of a monk and a druid.

How good is the Arcanist class?

[awa]

I could be remembering wrong but i dont see how they could work together the feats work different, defense and armor work different a lot of core mechanics are just different, i suppose you could but i would not recommend it.

The difference between a monk and a druid is still worse. I have not personally done the math on the arcaniest, but I have read it was very breakable and did not function as intended. Its has a bit of neat flavor abilities but magic was never supposed to be the focus of an iron heroes game and it shows.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I could be remembering wrong but i dont see how they could work together the feats work different, defense and armor work different a lot of core mechanics are just different, i suppose you could but i would not recommend it.

The conclusion that you shouldn't mix them seems to be pretty universal in this thread. :smallsmile:


The difference between a monk and a druid is still worse.

I don't doubt that.


I have not personally done the math on the arcaniest, but I have read it was very breakable and did not function as intended.

I've heard the same.


Its has a bit of neat flavor abilities but magic was never supposed to be the focus of an iron heroes game and it shows.

Yeah, I've heard most people say that magic is intended for villains in this system.

[HouseRules]

I was under the impression that Iron Heroes was supposed to be compatible with D&D 3.5 by its own admission.

It more along the lines of making Tier 4 Martial Classes and Tier 5 Casters.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It more along the lines of making Tier 4 Martial Classes and Tier 5 Casters.

:smallconfused:



One great thing about Iron Heroes is that you can run it as its own game or use its rules in your standard d20 System campaigns.

The game system itself seems to think it can work with other d20 games, which would include D&D 3.5.

EDIT: It does mention its magic system is less powerful, but that's about the only caveat that I found.

[awa]

there are rules you could steal like the system for doing stunts, but yeah a straight port would be awkward at best. So there fooling themselves if they think a straight port would be simple.

[ColorBlindNinja]

there are rules you could steal like the system for doing stunts, but yeah a straight port would be awkward at best.

The stunt rules were something I was thinking of nabbing.

[awa]

The stunt rules were something I was thinking of nabbing.

the extra uses for skills like using sense motive to observer a foe fighting style are good as well. That said my player almost never used any of those features (skills or stunts) so I rarely got to see them in action

[ColorBlindNinja]

the extra uses for skills like using sense motive to observer a foe fighting style are good as well. That said my player almost never used any of those features (skills or stunts) so I rarely got to see them in action

Well, hopefully my players will make use of the stunt rules if I include them.

[Particle_Man]

One odd thing you might take from IH is the collection of social rules. Due to the Thief class and more importantly how the social feats work (with their own tokens) you can get quite crunchy with social fu as a mini-game, which is unusual in D&D which usually either just "roleplays it", rolls the bluff skill, or goes straight to the charm/domination magic. Speaking of Bluff, the Thief class has an interesting capstone - at level 20 they get a short duration auto-success on a bluff! That in the right/wrong hands could be terrifying!

Another thing you might take from IH is the "Magic is scary, m'kay?" idea for a campaign setting. Make magic items cursed. Make magic items addictive. Make them dangerous to use. But again you have to think in terms of a low magic item setting since after a while even the greediest of players will catch on that magic items are bad.

[ColorBlindNinja]

One odd thing you might take from IH is the collection of social rules. Due to the Thief class and more importantly how the social feats work (with their own tokens) you can get quite crunchy with social fu as a mini-game, which is unusual in D&D which usually either just "roleplays it", rolls the bluff skill, or goes straight to the charm/domination magic. Speaking of Bluff, the Thief class has an interesting capstone - at level 20 they get a short duration auto-success on a bluff! That in the right/wrong hands could be terrifying!

That might be worth snagging.


Another thing you might take from IH is the "Magic is scary, m'kay?" idea for a campaign setting. Make magic items cursed. Make magic items addictive. Make them dangerous to use. But again you have to think in terms of a low magic item setting since after a while even the greediest of players will catch on that magic items are bad.

That, wouldn't gel well at all with 3.5. :smalleek:

[awa]

That, wouldn't gel well at all with 3.5. :smalleek:

its certainly not the default setting but its definitely doable.
as a sample idea Keep it low level, like e6. Make almost all npc magic users be evil bad guys who got their power through sacrificing people and other evil acts or contact with unknowable entities that drive men to madness.

Don't hand out generic magic items instead make them fewer in number but more powerful with some side effects. Said side effects could be cosmetic such as making the user constantly hear ominous whispers. For a more complicated item example ill use an example from one of my own games
a dagger possessed by a serial killer, it gives a large bonus to damage when attack an unaware foe, and can create a cloud of obscuring mist, but the wielder must attack the weakest foe when attacking from ambush. The dagger reveals who the weakest is.

a lot of it is about tone and setting rather than mechanics. Their is a lot of lovecraft stuff that has leaked its way into d&d and Pathfinder over the years its not hard to use that to make magic unsettling.

[ColorBlindNinja]

its certainly not the default setting but its definitely doable.
as a sample idea Keep it low level, like e6. Make almost all npc magic users be evil bad guys who got their power through sacrificing people and other evil acts or contact with unknowable entities that drive men to madness.

Don't hand out generic magic items instead make them fewer in number but more powerful with some side effects. Said side effects could be cosmetic such as making the user constantly hear ominous whispers. For a more complicated item example ill use an example from one of my own games
a dagger possessed by a serial killer, it gives a large bonus to damage when attack an unaware foe, and can create a cloud of obscuring mist, but the wielder must attack the weakest foe when attacking from ambush. The dagger reveals who the weakest is.

a lot of it is about tone and setting rather than mechanics. Their is a lot of lovecraft stuff that has leaked its way into d&d and Pathfinder over the years its not hard to use that to make magic unsettling.

I don't know, a lot of 3.5 is designed with magic in mind. There are more than a couple monsters that either can't be beaten without it or will cripple the PCs if they don't have access to it.

I think you'd have to throw out a decent sized chunk of the game for that to work.

It's also not quite what I'm going for, but thank you for the suggestion.

[awa]

I don't know, a lot of 3.5 is designed with magic in mind. There are more than a couple monsters that either can't be beaten without it or will cripple the PCs if they don't have access to it.

I think you'd have to throw out a decent sized chunk of the game for that to work.

It's also not quite what I'm going for, but thank you for the suggestion.

there are two factors here the first simply don't use monsters that cause a problem or modify them, if that changes a shadow into a puzzle monster where they need to figure out its weakness that's not a bad thing.

the second is that you don't actually need to remove magic, low magic is not no magic, just make it less common. Just because all the npc wizards are worshiping evil gods does not mean the pc needs to.

that said just because you can do something does not necessarily mean you should, if you want to run a high magic game well that's what d&d was designed for and its what most players expect.

[ColorBlindNinja]

there are two factors here the first simply don't use monsters that cause a problem or modify them, if that changes a shadow into a puzzle monster where they need to figure out its weakness that's not a bad thing.

Puzzle monsters tend to be pretty binary encounters, though. It's fine if the PCs find out the weakness, but otherwise, they're kind of screwed.


the second is that you don't actually need to remove magic, low magic is not no magic, just make it less common. Just because all the npc wizards are worshiping evil gods does not mean the pc needs to.

True, but that's going to raise balance issues with the Iron Heroes content, if that PC caster isn't an Arcanist.


that said just because you can do something does not necessarily mean you should, if you want to run a high magic game well that's what d&d was designed for and its what most players expect.

Agreed.

[awa]

True, but that's going to raise balance issues with the Iron Heroes content, if that PC caster isn't an Arcanist.


I was talking more generally that low magic is possible and not the specifics of your game.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I was talking more generally that low magic is possible and not the specifics of your game.

Ah, okay, thank you for clarifying.