Balancing A-iron and Steel

[Trusk'our he/him]

As I've been working on a Mistborn adaptation for D&d, I've been trying to balance Allomantic iron's and Allomantic steel's abilities. 

Problem is, I find this very, very hard to do.

Any ideas for how Allomantic iron can be better in certain situations?

[Tamriel Wolfsbaine]

In D&D the imagination is the limit. Steel looks great as you can use the ground as an anchor in combination with a simple coin always.  Irons flying is more difficult and based on the setting more than anything. 

As far as offensive ability the MAG basically makes them identical except that iron needs to have better narration of the surrounding area. 

I would say balancing them in the damage dice they use (which I would personally make a moving scale based on mass / sharpness of the object) is the best you can do. They aren't the same ability and they never will be right?  Steel is easier because with a bag of coins you can make things happen. Iron is a lot more dependent on the DM giving that information. 

Both abilities absolutely need iron/steel sight at level 1.  And iron will balance itself by how well the player uses it. 

[Lunamor she/her]

For combat, iron might work as a defensive/offensive ability and steel as an offensive since that is often how they are used in the books. Something akin to a modified version of deflect missiles could be used for an iron ability, as drawing metallic projectiles to a wooden shield is something it’s used for. That could help make up for the more specific circumstances needed to make use of iron as an offensive ability.

Edited January 31 by Lunamor

[KelsierFortnite he/him]

I feel like iron flight is underused in the books. In a large city like Elendel or Luthadel, there are plenty of metal rooftops to Pull on, and you should essentially be able to swing like Spider-Man. Once again, iron is very location-dependent as this obviously would not be viable in most places.

[Trusk'our he/him]

18 hours ago, Tamriel Wolfsbaine said:

In D&D the imagination is the limit. Steel looks great as you can use the ground as an anchor in combination with a simple coin always.  Irons flying is more difficult and based on the setting more than anything. 

As far as offensive ability the MAG basically makes them identical except that iron needs to have better narration of the surrounding area. 

I would say balancing them in the damage dice they use (which I would personally make a moving scale based on mass / sharpness of the object) is the best you can do. They aren't the same ability and they never will be right?  Steel is easier because with a bag of coins you can make things happen. Iron is a lot more dependent on the DM giving that information. 

Yeah, it would definitely be easier to just make iron and steel mechanically the same but thematically different, but I feel that there must be some differences in the two (though honestly, Allomantic zinc and brass are going to be more or less the same, as that's how they're used in the books).

18 hours ago, Tamriel Wolfsbaine said:

Both abilities absolutely need iron/steel sight at level 1.  And iron will balance itself by how well the player uses it. 

Oh yeah, definitely.

I also plan on making an optional feat that improves it however, making Steel/Ironsight more comprehensive.

16 hours ago, Lunamor said:

For combat, iron might work as a defensive/offensive ability and steel as an offensive since that is often how they are used in the books. 

I do want to mention that Wax uses his Steelpushing to make a defensive bubble, so Allomantic steel definitely has some defensive properties as well.

16 hours ago, Lunamor said:

Something akin to a modified version of deflect missiles could be used for an iron ability, as drawing metallic projectiles to a wooden shield is something it’s used for. That could help make up for the more specific circumstances needed to make use of iron as an offensive ability.

Hmmm, using iron to draw projectiles away from allies? That could be a useful, but steel can push away projectiles too.

Perhaps one of the benefits to using iron could be that you could make a dexterity check and grab the item you Pulled away from someone to use yourself? 

13 hours ago, KelsierFortnite said:

I feel like iron flight is underused in the books.

True. I feel that I usually only think about steel and forget about iron.

I'd honestly really like to see a Lurcher as a main character just so that we can get an idea of how they can use their abilities creatively.

13 hours ago, KelsierFortnite said:

In a large city like Elendel or Luthadel, there are plenty of metal rooftops to Pull on, and you should essentially be able to swing like Spider-Man. Once again, iron is very location-dependent as this obviously would not be viable in most places.

Also true; iron is, in the books, far more location dependent than steel, which becomes an issue if a player always wants to choose one over the other.

[Returned]

To my mind, there are too many details which D&D doesn't simulate and which a DM wouldn't necessarily describe outside of making it obvious that A-Iron can be used (and therefore should be used) to translate the full creativity and versatility of A-Iron and A-Steel into the game mechanics very well. There are also significant issues with D&D 5e mechanics which will lead to the physical pushing and pulling metals being overpowered, which may not be an issue for you but is worth thinking about. In any case, trying to use these abilities the same way as in the books might involve a lot of bookkeeping and overhead for the DM and players both, which can be troublesome. D&D also doesn't handle height in combat very naturally, which can complicate things like sustained Pulling.

What I would probably do is favor streamlining the mechanics in combat to preserve the feel of the abilities and their versatility while not bothering to place a bunch of rules on out-of-combat uses. To that end, here are some ideas I thought of about how combat might incorporate the powers in a more fluid, spontaneous way:

• Emphasizing the mobility aspects of iron and steel is going to be important for making iron valuable, in ways beyond what D&D 5e combat generally allows for. So bigger combat areas, at least some obvious metal anchors, and a modified approach to combat movement overall will probably be valuable in making sure iron gets its due. A map similar to the skyscraper Wax scales in Alloy of Law is a good example: he can Push to move up, but never to get closer to the building, while a Lurcher could essentially walk right up the side. If there are metal pipes in the ceiling then Pulling might be helpful while Pushing might be much less so. Items like this will require planning and will often be gimmicks, but that's true of Allomancy generally anyways.

 

• Specifically include some metal objects that are far more massive than player characters or solidly anchored (if any make sense for the setting). These would allow players to maneuver tactically in the area and plan out specific uses of Allomancy, which is important, but would not overload them with possibilities to analyze individually in the heat of battle. Circumstances might make Pulling the only useful option, so engineering maps where such a circumstance might arise will be useful.

 

• Outside of the item above this one, rather than specifically placing every single metal object, with defined mass, in combat areas and obtrusively pointing them out to players, define a "metal richness" for the area which sets the difficulty for identifying a useful metal object that you don't need to specifically place and track. This would be an abstraction that allows a player to use ironsight/steelsight to identify opportunistic sources of metal spontaneously. Some sort of randomness (a roll against a lookup table, maybe) could define a metal object useful to the player at some moment that would only be used via Pulling. I'm imagining a roll that determines if a useful metal object is positioned accessibly at all, and then a roll for where exactly it is in relation to the PC and target (if any). "You notice a lump of ore, but it's in this square and so to hit the enemy attacking you you'd need to Pull it." A little clunky, but at least Pulling would always at least possibly be useful in an environment.

 

• There isn't much that iron necessarily can do that steel definitely cannot, and steel offers a lot more opportunity for players to dynamically create situations that are useful (such as dropping a coin and Pushing against it). To some degree that means that steel simply is more valuable, and given that it becomes desirable to use iron when you can in order to preserve steel for when you can't. Players that manage their metal reserves carefully will be able to get more out of their Allomancy by doing so, and if they do not (for whatever reason) then the consequences of neglecting iron are their fault.

 

• Giving a bonus to using both metals at once might help iron not be left out, even though the same might be true of steel. Using iron to nudge a steel jump to the intended destination could be useful, for example, and at least keep iron in players' minds. How this works with your Allomantic action economy and how much it helps are, of course, very important considerations. Another good example is Vin swinging a heavy door in an arc during the defense of Luthadel: simply impossible without using iron.

 

Other issues with bringing Allomancy into D&D 5e exist, and how you choose to deal with them will also have an impact on how you might handle iron versus steel. You may have already dealt with all of these, but for consideration:

Decide how easy you want movement to be via Allomancy compared with normal movement. Movement rules in 5e are odd sometimes, and allowing extra movement beyond base movement + the Dash action could be extremely balance-destroying. But leaving characters suspended in the air and calculating "leftover" movement which they are committed to using by being mid-leap can be tricky too. There is also the issue of how hard a Push/Pull can be, the relative masses of objects and characters, and other elements. Under-developing how the core movement mechanics will interact with your Allomancy mechanics may shortchange iron directly and/or overemphasize steel.

Playtest some different approaches to requiring a Perception roll as an Action to use ironsight/steelsight versus making such a roll a part of using ironpulling or steelpushing (after committing to use an Action for the Allomancy). It seems problematic, given D&D mechanics, to give players free information about how an ability would be used without their needing to commit to using it. But I think it would be similarly difficult to force them to use up a whole turn's Action just to gain that information which then could only be used on the next turn, at which point conditions might have changed to make the information useless. Using a Bonus Action to do it might solve the issue, but might be too expensive in opportunity costs.

Trying to use D&D as a physics simulator will quickly run into severe problems, and some of iron and steel's most creative uses require some detailed underlying physics. Streamlining this through abstraction is, in my opinion, the best way to deal with the issue. And the way you choose to abstract the specifics can keep iron as a viable, mechanical option without needing to fully define all of the specifics in every single case.

[Trusk'our he/him]

27 minutes ago, Returned said:

To my mind, there are too many details which D&D doesn't simulate and which a DM wouldn't necessarily describe outside of making it obvious that A-Iron can be used (and therefore should be used) to translate the full creativity and versatility of A-Iron and A-Steel into the game mechanics very well. There are also significant issues with D&D 5e mechanics which will lead to the physical pushing and pulling metals being overpowered, which may not be an issue for you but is worth thinking about. In any case, trying to use these abilities the same way as in the books might involve a lot of bookkeeping and overhead for the DM and players both, which can be troublesome. D&D also doesn't handle height in combat very naturally, which can complicate things like sustained Pulling.

Yeah, some things just have to be fudged a little in order to make gameplay possible, and there are only so many details you can get into before it drags gameplay into the ground.

Also, I probably should have mentioned this before, but I'm really trying to focus on D&D 3.5 instead of 5e, as there is more room for enhancing abilities and getting higher numbers in that edition (plus, me and my cousins discovered that we happen to like that edition better ).

30 minutes ago, Returned said:

What I would probably do is favor streamlining the mechanics in combat to preserve the feel of the abilities and their versatility while not bothering to place a bunch of rules on out-of-combat uses. To that end, here are some ideas I thought of about how combat might incorporate the powers in a more fluid, spontaneous way:

• Emphasizing the mobility aspects of iron and steel is going to be important for making iron valuable, in ways beyond what D&D 5e combat generally allows for. So bigger combat areas, at least some obvious metal anchors, and a modified approach to combat movement overall will probably be valuable in making sure iron gets its due. A map similar to the skyscraper Wax scales in Alloy of Law is a good example: he can Push to move up, but never to get closer to the building, while a Lurcher could essentially walk right up the side. If there are metal pipes in the ceiling then Pulling might be helpful while Pushing might be much less so. Items like this will require planning and will often be gimmicks, but that's true of Allomancy generally anyways.

Interesting.

I was originally just going to go for a limited version of flight (kind of like the totem of the egal barbarian's flight ability) with iron and steel, but making it so that you have to move in certain ways with your extra movement could prove a useful mechanic, even if it needs to be simplified in many cases.

34 minutes ago, Returned said:

• Specifically include some metal objects that are far more massive than player characters or solidly anchored (if any make sense for the setting). These would allow players to maneuver tactically in the area and plan out specific uses of Allomancy, which is important, but would not overload them with possibilities to analyze individually in the heat of battle. Circumstances might make Pulling the only useful option, so engineering maps where such a circumstance might arise will be useful.

 

• Outside of the item above this one, rather than specifically placing every single metal object, with defined mass, in combat areas and obtrusively pointing them out to players, define a "metal richness" for the area which sets the difficulty for identifying a useful metal object that you don't need to specifically place and track. This would be an abstraction that allows a player to use ironsight/steelsight to identify opportunistic sources of metal spontaneously. Some sort of randomness (a roll against a lookup table, maybe) could define a metal object useful to the player at some moment that would only be used via Pulling. I'm imagining a roll that determines if a useful metal object is positioned accessibly at all, and then a roll for where exactly it is in relation to the PC and target (if any). "You notice a lump of ore, but it's in this square and so to hit the enemy attacking you you'd need to Pull it." A little clunky, but at least Pulling would always at least possibly be useful in an environment.

Ah, I like the idea of a "metal richness", where places like a city have a higher potential for these powers and areas out in the wilderness are naturally more limited (though it doesn't totally remove the usefulness of their powers).

Having a few known objects that can be Pushed or Pulled on could prove a useful game mechanic as well, as it gives players something to focus on.

36 minutes ago, Returned said:

• There isn't much that iron necessarily can do that steel definitely cannot, and steel offers a lot more opportunity for players to dynamically create situations that are useful (such as dropping a coin and Pushing against it). To some degree that means that steel simply is more valuable, and given that it becomes desirable to use iron when you can in order to preserve steel for when you can't. Players that manage their metal reserves carefully will be able to get more out of their Allomancy by doing so, and if they do not (for whatever reason) then the consequences of neglecting iron are their fault.

Yeah, that's definitely a possibility.

I think I've come up with a few ways that iron could be more useful though, such as being able to provide some extra defense to allies from attacks (instead of just yourself) or being able to Pull and steal objects from someone instead of just shoving them out of their grasp.

38 minutes ago, Returned said:

• Giving a bonus to using both metals at once might help iron not be left out, even though the same might be true of steel. Using iron to nudge a steel jump to the intended destination could be useful, for example, and at least keep iron in players' minds. How this works with your Allomantic action economy and how much it helps are, of course, very important considerations. Another good example is Vin swinging a heavy door in an arc during the defense of Luthadel: simply impossible without using iron.

Hmmm, that seems like a good idea: having access to both metals you can have a little extra attack bonus to your Pushing or Pulling, maybe giving your attacks with steel  more finesse, as you can Pull on a projectile to turn it as well as Push for more force.

I had the idea for a feat that Coinshots could have where they Push on a bullet they fire to give their guns more damage and range (like Wax does), so maybe Lurchers could take a feat that lets them curve the trajectory of their bullet, making it more accurate or able to hit opponents behind partial cover.

Mistborn often used iron to compliment their steel after all, such as Kelsier using both to attack the Hazekillers in book one.

46 minutes ago, Returned said:

Trying to use D&D as a physics simulator will quickly run into severe problems, and some of iron and steel's most creative uses require some detailed underlying physics. Streamlining this through abstraction is, in my opinion, the best way to deal with the issue. And the way you choose to abstract the specifics can keep iron as a viable, mechanical option without needing to fully define all of the specifics in every single case.

Yeah, you really can't fully account for every little detail in D&D, but at least you can get a good experience.

What I'm aiming to achieve is to get a fuller, more comprehensive experience with a Mistborn styled game, where you can really feel like you're playing in the world of Scadrial with all the Misting, Ferrings, Hemalurgists, Koloss, Mistwraiths and whatnot (and the MAG didn't really look like it filled that quota to me, so I decided to take matters into my own hands).

In any case, these are some good ideas. Thanks for your input friend!

[Tamriel Wolfsbaine]

2 hours ago, Trusk'our said:

Yeah, it would definitely be easier to just make iron and steel mechanically the same but thematically different, but I feel that there must be some differences in the two (though honestly, Allomantic zinc and brass are going to be more or less the same, as that's how they're used in the books).

Oh yeah, definitely.

I also plan on making an optional feat that improves it however, making Steel/Ironsight more comprehensive.

I do want to mention that Wax uses his Steelpushing to make a defensive bubble, so Allomantic steel definitely has some defensive properties as well.

Hmmm, using iron to draw projectiles away from allies? That could be a useful, but steel can push away projectiles too.

Perhaps one of the benefits to using iron could be that you could make a dexterity check and grab the item you Pulled away from someone to use yourself? 

True. I feel that I usually only think about steel and forget about iron.

I'd honestly really like to see a Lurcher as a main character just so that we can get an idea of how they can use their abilities creatively.

Also true; iron is, in the books, far more location dependent than steel, which becomes an issue if a player always wants to choose one over the other.

In the MAG they have "stunts" which are basically feats geared toward specific abilities/ spells / classes. One of the stunts that exists for both steel and iron is called steel / iron redirection.  It is a reaction and allows them to make a roll based on metals moving near them. Iron gets to pull things and steel gets to push them. I think in a grid system you could easily make this work in combat the same way an opportunity attack works. Only the range gets amped up and you have to make sure people are safe.  

Its not your turn and the enemy ranger shoots an arrow at your pal. It triggers and opportunity attack that the allomancer may or may not choose to use. The projectile travels in a straight line between the point it was pulled / pushed on following the steel and iron damage rules for the first thing it hits. 

Another thing to take note of is how damage is going to work.  If a lurcher is going to pull something away towards them how are you going to deal with it?  Is a shield / armor going to absorb a flat amount of damage in this case?  Say your iron pull base damage is 1d4 for a coin and 2d12 for a Warhammer or whatever. I would suggest building a chart to say how much your shield/ armor will absorb. There is no real roll to hit as it will always come straight towards your lurcher. Perhaps that is a possible trait / perk as they level? That they can fine tune their pushes and pulls or have better reaction times and can try to dodge out of the way?  Uncanny dodge style? To allow them to avoid the damage entirely... but certainly you should build in up to a point where the shield absorbs a full amount of the damage from whatever sized weapon you want to count it as absorbing. 

I would just remember that mass is a big deal. Maybe your shield is perfectly capable of absorbing the damage potential from all 1 handed weapons and smaller.  But 2 handed weapons if you can't dodge it and you brace up your shield you will still take potential damage. If a shield absorbs 12 damage maybe that hammer hit weird and they rolled a total of 6 only. You don't take that much. Say it rolls perfect and you take the hit. Your shield is only going to save so much of your hp bar. 

Back to the reactions it will allow your lurchers and coinshots a lot of wiggle room. They catch a glimpse of large metal object on steel sight and enemy rogue can't get the sneak attack damage. 

Listened to one scene where the coinshot just pushed up into the air and hovered there pushing weapons away from those who held them over and over again. Pretty fun scene really. 

Another option later on would be a feat in the realm of multi targets. In the MAG you can push on one object or all objects.  No in-between until you get the multiple target stunt which allows you to push / pull on any number up to your level basically. This is a fun way to allow your steel and iron allomancers feel like they are improving as time goes on. Maybe add more reactions / opportunity attacks as they level?  You get up to your level in bonus opportunity attacks that resets with a short rest or a new vial or whatever.  

Just more thoughts because I love the home brews. 

[Returned]

14 minutes ago, Trusk'our said:

Also, I probably should have mentioned this before, but I'm really trying to focus on D&D 3.5 instead of 5e, as there is more room for enhancing abilities and getting higher numbers in that edition (plus, me and my cousins discovered that we happen to like that edition better ).

Oops! My fault for making the assumption . But I agree that 3.5 will give you a lot more space for Allomantic abilities being incorporated into the game.

15 minutes ago, Trusk'our said:

I was originally just going to go for a limited version of flight (kind of like the totem of the egal barbarian's flight ability) with iron and steel, but making it so that you have to move in certain ways with your extra movement could prove a useful mechanic, even if it needs to be simplified in many cases.

I think the limited flight would work really well in areas with a lot of ambient metals, like a city. I think it might a really cool mechanical distinction to make, too: in a city, you can basically fly all over the place, sort of like Kelsier bobbing above the soldiers in the execution square. But elsewhere you might be stuck using something like a spikeway, working out a complicated rhythm like Vin's horseshoe wheel method, or stuck with individual linear jumps that you have to prepare yourself. It would make some limitations on Allomancy something players would really feel, shifting from freeform flight-like movement to something much less versatile.

21 minutes ago, Trusk'our said:

I think I've come up with a few ways that iron could be more useful though, such as being able to provide some extra defense to allies from attacks (instead of just yourself) or being able to Pull and steal objects from someone instead of just shoving them out of their grasp.

For sure there are some places where iron is better or even the only option, and these ideas are good ones that players would definitely be able to use well. I didn't mean to imply that iron was flat-out worse than steel, but rather that they might not balance very evenly no matter what you do.

 

Your modification sounds really cool, and I hope you'll post more details about it (and even the whole thing when it's done!). Out of curiosity, how are you planning to track metal reserves? Like, the amount of iron or steel in an Allomancer's stomach, how to decrement it when used to Push or Pull in different ways, and things like that?

[Duxredux he/him]

I've done some 5e, not 3.5, and it was years ago. I'll talk about how we think about A-Iron instead.

It depends on what era you are working with, but in the modern world steel-reinforced concrete is the backbone of civilization. Nearly every major building or construction project will use steel either as the primary material or as reinforcement due to it's cost, workability, and tensile strength. Now there is a question of how good of an anchor rebar embedded a couple of inches into concrete is, but if a Lurcher can pull themselves to that, then they pretty much will be able to run up nearly any building. Steel framing and trusses are becoming more prevalent as well depending on where you are and timber supply (I was involved in a construction project last year where steel framing was cheaper than wood). I'm not talking nails in boards, I'm talking major structural components to a building.

A Lurcher can also be a far more effective pickpocket or thief than a Coinshot. Pull money, keys, phones, weapons, metal vials, and more to steal, disarm, or slingshot items however you wish. A Coinshot can disarm a gunman. A Lurcher could have armed themselves with said gun. Having to push something desirable away from you is rather unfortunate, and we see at least a few times when Wax has to work hard to retrieve a dropped gun or something similar. Not everyone is equipped as Hazekillers, so make the most of the scenarios where the enemy has metal weapons and equipment. A melee fighter should also be able to capitalize on Pulling a combatant towards them when they aren't expecting it.

Also, consider experimenting with weapons designed for use as a Lurcher. Something like... a set of metal bolas that you throw, retrieve and use the rope to trip or entangle (step aside and slingshot it around you if necessary), intentionally overshooting to nail an enemy hiding behind cover on the recall, etc. In the same way a Coinshot has to get used to heights, a Lurcher has to get comfortable pulling items towards themselves. Like with anything, it takes practice and reconditioning your reflexes. I imagine lateral evasion becomes pretty important to a Lurcher. 

 

Depends on your play group. For some people they want to feel awesome and do awesome things. For some, they'll enjoy the puzzle-solving aspect and the challenge to make their character useful within a given scenario. I feel like a Lurcher fits more in the second since we haven't gotten a major combat view of a Lurcher as opposed to someone who wants to fight and fly like Wax, Vin, or Kelsier.

Edited January 31 by Duxredux

[Trusk'our he/him]

3 hours ago, Tamriel Wolfsbaine said:

In the MAG they have "stunts" which are basically feats geared toward specific abilities/ spells / classes. One of the stunts that exists for both steel and iron is called steel / iron redirection.  It is a reaction and allows them to make a roll based on metals moving near them. Iron gets to pull things and steel gets to push them. I think in a grid system you could easily make this work in combat the same way an opportunity attack works. Only the range gets amped up and you have to make sure people are safe.  

Yeah, I was thinking feats would be a nice way to upgrade one's powers without just getting a numerical increase, especially since getting an increase in raw power is just not how Allomancy and Feruchemy works (though Hemalurgy shenanigans certainly could help with raw power, if you want it ).

3 hours ago, Tamriel Wolfsbaine said:

Another thing to take note of is how damage is going to work.  If a lurcher is going to pull something away towards them how are you going to deal with it?  Is a shield / armor going to absorb a flat amount of damage in this case?  Say your iron pull base damage is 1d4 for a coin and 2d12 for a Warhammer or whatever. I would suggest building a chart to say how much your shield/ armor will absorb. There is no real roll to hit as it will always come straight towards your lurcher. Perhaps that is a possible trait / perk as they level? That they can fine tune their pushes and pulls or have better reaction times and can try to dodge out of the way?  Uncanny dodge style? To allow them to avoid the damage entirely... but certainly you should build in up to a point where the shield absorbs a full amount of the damage from whatever sized weapon you want to count it as absorbing. 

I was thinking that a Lurcher could use a special kind of heavily padded armor that gave them a damage reduction, which would mostly only be useful for their abilities due to how thick it would need to be.

3 hours ago, Tamriel Wolfsbaine said:

Another option later on would be a feat in the realm of multi targets. In the MAG you can push on one object or all objects.  No in-between until you get the multiple target stunt which allows you to push / pull on any number up to your level basically. This is a fun way to allow your steel and iron allomancers feel like they are improving as time goes on. Maybe add more reactions / opportunity attacks as they level?  You get up to your level in bonus opportunity attacks that resets with a short rest or a new vial or whatever.  

Interesting. I was thinking of doing it where Coinshots and Lurchers have a static Push/Pull force (PF, for short) where they either can or can't affect things with their power. If they use Hemalurgic spikes to double (or more) up on their powers, they increase their PF, thus increasing their range, the size of objects they can affect (smaller objects are harder), and the power/damage they can potentially deal.

Pushing or Pulling on multiple objects I feel should be harder though, meaning they take a penalty based on the number of objects they are Pushing/Pulling on.

I do like the sound of all or one target though, with the ability to choose more selectively as they learn. I'll have to think about factoring that in.

3 hours ago, Returned said:

Oops! My fault for making the assumption . But I agree that 3.5 will give you a lot more space for Allomantic abilities being incorporated into the game.

Naw, almost everyone I know who plays D&D plays 5e since it's more modern and it's definitely more streamlined . I just prefer 3.5 because of the versatility it provides.

3 hours ago, Returned said:

I think the limited flight would work really well in areas with a lot of ambient metals, like a city. I think it might a really cool mechanical distinction to make, too: in a city, you can basically fly all over the place, sort of like Kelsier bobbing above the soldiers in the execution square. But elsewhere you might be stuck using something like a spikeway, working out a complicated rhythm like Vin's horseshoe wheel method, or stuck with individual linear jumps that you have to prepare yourself. It would make some limitations on Allomancy something players would really feel, shifting from freeform flight-like movement to something much less versatile.

Yeah, I like that! It would mean that, despite steel and iron Allomancy's obvious power and versatility, it isn't the best metal to choose for every situation, and other powers should definitely be considered.

3 hours ago, Returned said:

For sure there are some places where iron is better or even the only option, and these ideas are good ones that players would definitely be able to use well. I didn't mean to imply that iron was flat-out worse than steel, but rather that they might not balance very evenly no matter what you do.

Oh, yeah, I didn't mean to imply that you were implying that, merely that I happened to have come up with a few ways since starting the conversation to use iron effectively 

3 hours ago, Returned said:

Your modification sounds really cool, and I hope you'll post more details about it (and even the whole thing when it's done!). Out of curiosity, how are you planning to track metal reserves? Like, the amount of iron or steel in an Allomancer's stomach, how to decrement it when used to Push or Pull in different ways, and things like that?

Absolutely! In fact, there's a very, very, very rough first draft I made on the creator's corner called Mistborn D&d Adaptation.

On the topic about keeping track of metal reserves, I was thinking that you could have a standard amount of 30 charges in a vial (though you can modify it if you want by adding in more flakes). You can expend 1 charge to use your Allomancy's abilities for that round, benefitting from the effects until the beginning of your next turn (so things like pewter will still give you extra AC).

Flaring is more difficult, requiring 3 charges on top of the 1 standard charge, and it is only maintained for one action instead of a full round (though you keep the benefits of Burning regularly after the Flare). What's more, you can only Flare your metal(s) once per round, preventing you from just spamming it.

You can take a feat to improve your Flaring abilities, but I figure this is a good way to balance it out a bit.

Some abilities just don't work well with this shorter version of Buring however (as a standard vial of metals would be gone in about 3 minutes in real time), so some metals such as pewter and tin can also benefit from low Burning, allowing for them doing things like increasing your passive perception and keeping you alive from injuries you sustained long enough to actually be useful.

The reason I want there to be a shorter general Burn time is so that Allomantic charges feel like a somewhat limited resource; you're supposed to worry at least a little about running out, and fights (in general) just don't last long enough to instill that feeling if your metals were to last as long as they canonically do. So, I made a little compromise.

1 hour ago, Duxredux said:

I've done some 5e, not 3.5, and it was years ago. I'll talk about how we think about A-Iron instead.

It depends on what era you are working with, but in the modern world steel-reinforced concrete is the backbone of civilization. Nearly every major building or construction project will use steel either as the primary material or as reinforcement due to it's cost, workability, and tensile strength. Now there is a question of how good of an anchor rebar embedded a couple of inches into concrete is, but if a Lurcher can pull themselves to that, then they pretty much will be able to run up nearly any building. Steel framing and trusses are becoming more prevalent as well depending on where you are and timber supply (I was involved in a construction project last year where steel framing was cheaper than wood). I'm not talking nails in boards, I'm talking major structural components to a building.

True. Honestly, in an urban setting a Lurcher probably wouldn't have that much trouble getting around compared to a Coinshot.

1 hour ago, Duxredux said:

A Lurcher can also be a far more effective pickpocket or thief than a Coinshot. Pull money, keys, phones, weapons, metal vials, and more to steal, disarm, or slingshot items however you wish. A Coinshot can disarm a gunman. A Lurcher could have armed themselves with said gun. Having to push something desirable away from you is rather unfortunate, and we see at least a few times when Wax has to work hard to retrieve a dropped gun or something similar. Not everyone is equipped as Hazekillers, so make the most of the scenarios where the enemy has metal weapons and equipment. A melee fighter should also be able to capitalize on Pulling a combatant towards them when they aren't expecting it.

You know, that's so funny, I've been writing up a bunch of random ideas on a word document for Mistborn D&D baddies, and one of them was a Lurcher pickpocket, but they use their powers to scurry up walls and Lurch belongings from people .

1 hour ago, Duxredux said:

Also, consider experimenting with weapons designed for use as a Lurcher. Something like... a set of metal bolas that you throw, retrieve and use the rope to trip or entangle (step aside and slingshot it around you if necessary), intentionally overshooting to nail an enemy hiding behind cover on the recall, etc. In the same way a Coinshot has to get used to heights, a Lurcher has to get comfortable pulling items towards themselves. Like with anything, it takes practice and reconditioning your reflexes. I imagine lateral evasion becomes pretty important to a Lurcher. 

Oooo, those are some good ideas. 

I was thinking of a feat that lets a Lurcher curve their bullets so that they can be more accurate or hit opponents behind cover, which would compliment a Coinshot's ability to give their bullets extra force.

1 hour ago, Duxredux said:

Depends on your play group. For some people they want to feel awesome and do awesome things. For some, they'll enjoy the puzzle-solving aspect and the challenge to make their character useful within a given scenario. I feel like a Lurcher fits more in the second since we haven't gotten a major combat view of a Lurcher as opposed to someone who wants to fight and fly like Wax, Vin, or Kelsier.

Since this thread started (and since everybody here contributed some nice ideas- thank you guys ) I've been able to come up with some modifications that might just make iron as good as steel. Better in some cases, such as defending your group.