PDA

View Full Version : Iron Heroes 4th Edition



EvilRoeSlade
2008-12-16, 05:23 PM
I'd like to convert Iron Heroes to 4th edition. Anyone interested in lending a hand for this? I'd like input from like-minded Iron Heroes fans that are serious about maintaining the flavor of Iron Heroes and the balance of 4th edition.

Issues:
Character classes: Some Iron Heroes classes deserve a conversion to 4th edition, while others can safely be left behind. Which is which?
Power level: Iron Heroes don't use magic items, so they need to be more powerful than classes in the PHB to make up for this.
Traits: Iron Heroes are humans, but that doesn't mean they're all the same. Can we convert the traits system over to 4th edition?
Feats and Skills: Skill groups can probably be left by the wayside, since the broad skill system of 4th edition is almost a mirror of them. The combat-oriented applications of the skills themselves should be considered for conversion, however. Skill challenges also seem worthy of conversion. I'm not sure whether we should convert the stunt system or just have a lot of utility-based powers reliant on skill checks. As for feats, I don't think the mastery system has any place in 4th edition, so I say we just take what we like and make them into powers.
Other: Anything I haven't thought of?

EvilRoeSlade
2008-12-16, 05:25 PM
(reserved)

EvilRoeSlade
2008-12-16, 05:26 PM
(also reserved)

Draz74
2008-12-16, 06:59 PM
I'm not much of an Iron Heroes guru, but ...



Character classes: Some Iron Heroes classes deserve a conversion to 4th edition, while others can safely be left behind. Which is which?
Iron Heroes, IIRC, pretty much only uses classes with the Martial Power Source. And an optional class that's kinda like the Warlock. Could you just use 4e classes that meet these criteria and call it a day? You'd homebrew them a few new powers/class features to match iconic IH stuff, but mostly leave them as they are and just see how well you could use them to model IH classes.


Power level: Iron Heroes don't use magic items, so they need to be more powerful than classes in the PHB to make up for this.
Supposedly 4e works just fine if you just add +1 per 5 levels to AC, Defenses, and attacks/damage (and 1d6 to crits). Don't know if that's really true, or if people are going to miss those Daily item abilities and whatnot.

Seems like it would be reasonable to give characters one more Utility power per tier to make up for missing items' abilities.


Traits: Iron Heroes are humans, but that doesn't mean they're all the same. Can we convert the traits system over to 4th edition?
Yes, you'll need to do this, certainly. Shouldn't be too hard; use a lot of the same mechanics as 4e's races.


Feats and Skills:The combat-oriented applications of the skills themselves should be considered for conversion, however. Skill challenges also seem worthy of conversion. I'm not sure whether we should convert the stunt system or just have a lot of utility-based powers reliant on skill checks.

I thought there was a system sort of similar to stunts in 4e anyway. I'd just expand that, make it a bigger part of the game.

EvilRoeSlade
2008-12-16, 07:10 PM
Iron Heroes, IIRC, pretty much only uses classes with the Martial Power Source. And an optional class that's kinda like the Warlock. Could you just use 4e classes that meet these criteria and call it a day? You'd homebrew them a few new powers/class features to match iconic IH stuff, but mostly leave them as they are and just see how well you could use them to model IH classes.

I could but I'm trying to be more ambitious than that. I'd certainly like to use 4th edition classes as a starting point to build new ones, but I don't want to stop there. For instance, I could just use a ranger with the archer build to emulate the Archer class in Iron Heroes, but I think a class completely dedicated to ranged weapons (that ISN'T a warlock) would be more suitable.


Supposedly 4e works just fine if you just add +1 per 5 levels to AC, Defenses, and attacks/damage (and 1d6 to crits). Don't know if that's really true, or if people are going to miss those Daily item abilities and whatnot.
I never heard that. Did you get that from an official source?


I thought there was a system sort of similar to stunts in 4e anyway. I'd just expand that, make it a bigger part of the game.

I don't think there is, but then again I haven't mastered the 4th edition PHB yet.

PairO'Dice Lost
2008-12-16, 07:18 PM
I'm not sure whether we should convert the stunt system or just have a lot of utility-based powers reliant on skill checks. As for feats, I don't think the mastery system has any place in 4th edition, so I say we just take what we like and make them into powers.


Seems like it would be reasonable to give characters one more Utility power per tier to make up for missing items' abilities.

Idea: At each level where you don't get a power normally (4th, 8th, 14th, 18th, 28th) you'd pick up an extra utility power. Each class could have 3 build options: one skill-focused, one feat-focused, and one "other," to match the warlock's 3 pacts or the wizard's 3 implements. The skill-focused build option would incorporate lots of the skill stuff into those extra utility powers, the feat-focused option would incorporate the feat mastery system into its powers, and the other option would work with the tokens or whatever version of that you end up using.

Yakk
2008-12-17, 12:43 AM
You can move a lot of the +s from magic items to character stats, and the game works reasonably well.

There are 3 tiers of magic items: Heroic, Paragon and Epic. Magic Weapons all grant +1 to hit and damage, and deal +1d12/2d12/3d12 damage on a crit. (The type of damage the crit does can vary with the item's theme).

A protective charm or cloak grants +1 to your saves. Paragon charms/cloaks save a consumed healing surge on a 6 on a d6. Epic do the same on a 56 on a d6.

Magic Armor comes in 3 tiers as well: Heroic, Paragon and Epic.

Light Magic Armor grants +1/+2/+3 AC.
Heavy Magic Armor grants +1/+3/+5 AC.

You get to add one half of the highest of your Str and Con bonus to your AC in heavy armor. (You may also do this in Light or No Armor, but instead of your Dex/Int bonus)

Stat ups are changed as follows:


Before After
4 +1x2 +2x3
8 +1x2 +3x2 +1x4
11 +1x6 +1x6
14 +1x2 +2x3
18 +1x2 +3x2 +1x4
21 +1x6 +2x6
24 +1x2 +2x3
28 +1x2 +3x2 +1x4
-------------------------------
+8x2 +2x4 +18x2 +12x1 +6x3


Ie, at level 4 14 and 24, you add +2 to 3 stats of your choice.

At level 8, 18 and 28, you add +3 to 2 stats of your choice, and +1 to all other stats.

At level 11, you add +1 to all stats.
At level 21, you add +2 to all stats.

These characters are roughly as competent as core 4e characters. They are better at skills significantly.

Magic items where left with some power, in order to make "being disarmed" mean at least something, and have "signature weapons" be worth holding onto. They can also be called mastercraft weapons or the like.

EvilRoeSlade
2008-12-17, 01:26 AM
That reminds me of something I didn't address, 3.5 Iron Heroes handled armor differently, making wearing heavy armor less advantageous unless you were playing an Armiger. That really helped capture the feel of Sword and Sorcery that they were trying to achieve.

Each class could have 3 build options: one skill-focused, one feat-focused, and one "other," to match the warlock's 3 pacts or the wizard's 3 implements. The skill-focused build option would incorporate lots of the skill stuff into those extra utility powers, the feat-focused option would incorporate the feat mastery system into its powers, and the other option would work with the tokens or whatever version of that you end up using.

Doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Every character should have a greater than normal reliance on skills due to the absence of magic at their disposal. As for feats, again everyone has them and I don't think they should play a greater part in the system than they already do.

I never even considered bringing in the token system because I never liked it that much. It seems to me that it's main purpose was to give a limited resource to character classes that didn't have spell slots. Now we have powers and thus don't need it anymore. Anyone have anything to say in the defense of tokens?

PairO'Dice Lost
2008-12-17, 01:32 PM
Doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Every character should have a greater than normal reliance on skills due to the absence of magic at their disposal. As for feats, again everyone has them and I don't think they should play a greater part in the system than they already do.

I didn't mean emphasizing skills and feats over base 4e, I meant bringing over the things you could do in the IH skills and feats and turn them into powers. The mastery trees and skill challenges all provided options over and above the base skills and feats that aren't present in 4e skills and feats either, so as powers they'd fit in fine.


I never even considered bringing in the token system because I never liked it that much. It seems to me that it's main purpose was to give a limited resource to character classes that didn't have spell slots. Now we have powers and thus don't need it anymore. Anyone have anything to say in the defense of tokens?

Once again, I didn't suggest bringing the tokens themselves in, since as you said powers make them redundant, but what they do is provide more options, and thus would make good powers. Taking the armiger as an example:

Combat Magnet Armiger Utility X
You assume a combat stance devised to draw attacks to you while defending your allies.
Standard * Stance
Effect: For the duration of this power, if an adjacent ally is attacked, you may take all or part of the damage instead.

See? A token ability with nary a token in sight that fits the defender role quite well. I don't know if this particular off-the-cuff power is balanced, but conceptually I think you get the idea.