lets not stop there lets have all permutations of weapons, implements and armors!
can anyone tell me how many minis would be needed to show each combination of race, class and gender?
Well, if I had to guess I'd say about 1/(2^100) times the number of "Elf ranger" minis on the market...
On a more relevant note, there are 36 races, if they had two genders, and simplified class into heavy light and medium armor that leaves us with 216. Assuming each one had 5 weapon types, that'd give us 1080 combinations. They could do a custom ordering thing, with discounts on groups of 5, for today's DM on the go.
More importantly, what are these new genders?
That was bad. I'm sorry – what I mean is gender is a VERY grey area when it comes to one's sexuality and identity. It's something that you can't define for people, they have to figure it out themselves.
Now, I don't think that 4e D&D has introduced any new sexes – unless they be Aberrant creatures, Demons, or something from Gamma World.
••••••••••
This said, 25 classes. If we count different Shifter-types as appearing differently, then 8+6+4+2+3 (+2 in Dark Sun) (+3 in Dragon)= 23 (25 after Dark Sun) (28 after Dragon).
25*28*2= 25*56= 1,400
That said, remember some classes play very differently than others. Bow Rangers, Beast Rangers, Big-weapon Rangers, and Two-Blade Rangers all look very different. If you had a mini for each class build + race + sex combination, it would look like this:
6 Fighter Builds (including Arena Fighter from Dark Sun)
5 Ranger Builds
5 Rogue Builds
6 Warlord Builds
Martial Subtotal = 22*56 = 1,232
3 Artificer Builds (including Warrior-Forge Artificer from Dragon)
3 Bard Builds
4 Sorcerer Builds
3 Swordmage Builds
6 Warlock Builds (including Sorcerer-King Warlock from Dark Sun)
4 Wizard Builds (notably, I went by Implement type rather than by build)
Arcane Subtotal = 23*56 = 1,288
3 Avenger Builds
3 Cleric Builds
3 Invoker Builds
4 Paladin Builds
2 Runepriest Builds
Divine Subtotal = 15*56 = 840
4 Barbarian Builds
3 Druid Builds (notably, I didn't include Summoner Druids, as they'd look like the others)
2 Seeker Builds
5 Shaman Builds (including Animist Shaman from Dark Sun)
4 Warden Builds
Primal Subtotal = 18*56 = 1,008
3 Ardent Builds
3 Battlemind Builds
3 Monk Builds
3 Psion Builds
(notably, I included an extra one each because that was confirmed to be in Psionic Power)
Psionic Subtotal = 12*56 = 672
2 Assassin Builds
Shadow Subtotal = 2*56 = 112
Final Total = 5,152
Thats how many PC minis you need if you want one for every build, class, and sex combination.
If we count different Shifter-types as appearing differently, then 8+6+4+2+3 (+2 in Dark Sun) (+3 in Dragon)= 23 (25 after Dark Sun) (28 after Dragon).
There are 36 races in CB at the moment.
I can do that too.
Then we have n*36*2 = 72n = Subtotal, where n = the number of builds counted.
Martial Subtotal
22*72 = 1,584
Arcane Subtotal
23*72 = 1,656
Divine Subtotal
15*72 = 1,080
Primal Subtotal
18*72 = 1,296
Psionic Subtotal
12*72 = 864
Shadow Subtotal
2*72 = 144
Final Total with Monster-Statted Races
6,624
Like a Dwarven Ninja, Gnoll Bard, and the like.
*****
If I could run a miniture making business that is tied directly to 4e, this is what I'd do.
Divide minitures into basic race types. In otherwords, I'd roll humans, Kalaster, Shifters and anything else very close to that into a single "race set" with an occasional Iconic version of the race.
Then 3 armor types. Cloth, Light and Heavy.
Two Genders Male/Female of course.
3 weapon types, Ranged, Melee, magic thingy.
I'd then roll one race at a time. Like the Box of Humans/kal/shifters using those above combonations.
Not exactly covering everything, but it would be a big start, I'd think. And then we would start down the line of different races, starting with the ones that are least human like, such as Wilden, Warforged, Dragonborn, Gnolls and other such things. Especially if Reaper hasn't made any like it.
We would then make the "Human box 2" which would include more Iconic versions of the shifters (More Feral looking) as well as two weapon fighters.
I dunno, being forced to buy two minis that you dont want for your character, just to get the one you do want? Seems like an unappealing way to market minis that target the players as the consumer. More than once, I eyed one mini that would be great for my character but didnt buy it because I felt like I had to pay for the other two that had nothing to do with any of characters.
Of course, for DMs, the more the merrier. But for most players, they only need and want one.
I wonder how the 'Heroes' minis would sell if sold separately.
I didn't mind buying them (I bought them all) but then I tend to find a mini first and build a character around it.
I hope it they do they up the frequency. 3 uncommons in an entire set doesn't give good coverage that's what? 9 PC models a year? At that rate they are nearly releasing new classes at the same rate.
The range was frustratingly small, the quality wasn't the best by far, the 3 to a box packaging was frustrating.
While other producers can make miniatures of the "trope" races (elf, dwarf etc.) the more specific races are either non-existant (warforged, shardmind, wilden) or somewhat a compromise (using some sort of lizard folk for dragonborn for example).
The idea of the PC minis wasn't bad, it's just that the minis I saw in the shop were of so awful quality that I just didn't feel they were worth the money. Seriously, if you put them behind transparent plastics, make sure they are painted nicely because you can see a screwjob before you buy them.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of them were repaints of earlier minis. I have several that I call "twins"
sigh
I understand that the minis line needs to be profitable and that WotC is trying different avenues in order to best accomplish that. I also understand that the cost of a miniature increases with a higher quality/ more complex sculpt and, particularly, more paint steps.
However, I just don't understand their thinking. With 4th edition minis have supposedly become more "core". The system is designed with miniature use and dungeon tiles, etc in mind. Why then would you intentionally make many minis hard to acquire? I guess they are hoping that players will shell out hundreds of dollars in the hopes of getting that one specific mini they want. (or else counting on companies/individuals buying great numbers of cases in order to sell minis as singles) I enjoy the mini line. I have bought multiple cases (usually) since Harbinger. However, my frustration continues to mount. WotC wouldn't produce a set of books with varying rarity and availability. That would kill the system. Why be so insistent on doing the same with minis?
Reduce the number of minis in a set if you have to. Package them however you like as packs, but insure that if someone buys a case they get at least one of every miniature in the line. You can still produce a few of higher quality and paint steps and some with less paint steps. Just give the consumer something they can count on. every time!
However, I just don't understand their thinking. With 4th edition minis have supposedly become more "core". The system is designed with miniature use and dungeon tiles, etc in mind. Why then would you intentionally make many minis hard to acquire? I guess they are hoping that players will shell out hundreds of dollars in the hopes of getting that one specific mini they want.
It's not hard to count on people to do that. Heck, when it was tied to the minis game most everyone I knew through the RPGA bought a ton of minis even though they didn't play the minis game. I have no doubts that there are people doing that now as well.
See hi-rez pictures of the mini online, and order it.
There might be quality-control issues, since every paint job cant be identical to the one in the pic, but hopefully, the product that arrives will be reasonably goodlooking.
It wouldnt have to arrive in a fancy box. Just rolled in bubblewrap in a cardboard box. (I bet even in a cardboard envelope might be safe enough for most minis.)
Maybe the lo overhead cost would make it profitable enough to offer customers this way of purchasing.
Have an undead set including skeletons, zombies, ghosts, ghouls, vampires, wraiths, etc.
Have a goblinoid set. A demon set. A devil set. A humanoid set. An aberration set.
Give us the tools to play with if we choose to use miniatures.
They could still do some visible minis if they are dead set on doing that. You could have a draconic set with, say, four different visible dragons. Each box would have its unique dragon and would also include a couple different sculpts of kobolds, maybe a dragon spawn, a draconian, and maybe a humanoid cultist. (just suggestions, doesn't matter to me as long as they fit the theme.)
This could be done with any of the other themed sets as well.
Please WotC, just give us what we want - quality, inexpensive, accessible miniatures.
Buy individual pewter mini's from various companies then assemble and paint them yourself.
You'll find that there's pretty much a mini out there for whatever concept you want, you just need to look hard enough.
Hell, I'm building a monk concept right now, I have 2 possible minis that I can use.
One of them is from Warmachine, it's the Allegiant of the Order of the Fist.
The other is from Anima Tactics, it's Dereck Shezard.
I can then paint them however I want to fit whatever type of concept I want. Say I want to make the character a Fire Genasi for example, well that's easy. I just get some sculpting putty and shape some hair that looks like fire. Give him some red lines on some visible skin and give his skin a red tint.
It's easier than you would think and you can make pretty much any character you want. In the groups I play in you'll find that NPC's are portrayed with D&D Minis. However all the players use mini's from other games because quite frankly, they look better, have more heft to em and you can customize the hell out of em.
Can anybody recommend a company whose minis are low-cost and high-quality?
Can anybody recommend a company whose minis are low-cost and high-quality?
I like Reaper. If you don't mind spending a little more they have their P-65 range (pewter/lead mix with better detail retention). If you go to their website you can search by features, such as if you want a mini with a spiked chain. www.reapermini.com
Evergreen sets organized around creature type is an expensive proposition for the buyer and unlikely to be met with approval by store owners with limited shelf/stockroom space.
As for DM minis, if you need a lot of something, such as skeletons, orcs, etc., I find it best to grab one of the boxes of plastic minis from Warhammer Fantasy.
Reaper is a good choice for PC minis, but I find them to be poor for the DM (unless you have LOTS of time/money to do the painting & assembly yourself).
Evergreen sets organized around creature type is an expensive proposition for the buyer and unlikely to be met with approval by store owners with limited shelf/stockroom space.
I dont' think anybody is suggesting buying minis from Reaper or Privateer Press or something for NPC's and random fodder. I use D&D minis for those since they don't cost a lot (or at least didn't, I don't like the reduced number of minis in each box now) and aren't exactly high quality. Course, for their price I don't expect too high of quality, and they are great for NPC's and fodder monsters.
Can anybody recommend a company whose minis are low-cost and high-quality?
I like Reaper. If you don't mind spending a little more they have their P-65 range (pewter/lead mix with better detail retention). If you go to their website you can search by features, such as if you want a mini with a spiked chain. www.reapermini.com
I actually haven't found many minis from Reaper that I like.
What I used to buy a lot of was Iron Kingdoms from Privateer Press. The minis look great and aren't too expensive. Though, there isn't a large selection. In fact, my first ever mini that I painted was from Iron Kingdoms. It was Narn, Elven Mage Hunter of Ios. I used him for an Eladrin Rogue that dual wielded daggers.
If you want to check out some of those minis check here privateerpress.com/iron-kingdoms/miniatu...
Reaper is a good choice for PC minis, but I find them to be poor for the DM (unless you have LOTS of time/money to do the painting & assembly yourself).
Evergreen sets organized around creature type is an expensive proposition for the buyer and unlikely to be met with approval by store owners with limited shelf/stockroom space.
I dont' think anybody is suggesting buying minis from Reaper or Privateer Press or something for NPC's and random fodder. I use D&D minis for those since they don't cost a lot (or at least didn't, I don't like the reduced number of minis in each box now) and aren't exactly high quality. Course, for their price I don't expect too high of quality, and they are great for NPC's and fodder monsters.
As a long-time poster @ the D&D Miniatures forum, I can assure you there are quite a few people who think that is the case. I didn't say you did, but I suspect someone will
It seems theres two separate markets for minis:
. lo-rez 'monster' minis sold in groups for DMs
. hi-rez 'character' minis sold individually for players
There may be some overlap between players who want a hi-rez monster mini for their 'monster race' character, and DMs who want the same mini for their BBEG or recurring NPC.
I personally use the minis for D&D, but that's usually not their primary purpose in being made.
Reaper minis are fairly cheap and they have a big enough selection to cover pretty much any type of character that you could want. With a little effort you can customize these to fit your needs. I have several photos of these minis in my photo album for this profile.
community.wizards.com/ferol_debtor_of_torm
Wizards went about selling them in the same fashion they seem to do a lot of things. Just to make money. But I think in this case they royally screwed the pooch.
We just want reasonable minis for players that have ordinary needs for their player.
Nope wizards thinks 'oh they won't mind lack luster thinking approaches to what they need' and they packaged them the way they did.
If I was a retailer I wouldn't have even let them in the door. I mean, it's been how long since role gaming has been on the market? Doesn't anyone learn or do marketing research? The only people selling random packs of minis are table top gamers suppliers and they are rare locations too.
Role gamers are not necessarily table top mini gamers. If you want a single mini, you should be able to buy just the mini you want. Heck in the long haul they likely make money in blister packs containing single minis. But players get to buy for what they need and get to get only what they actually want.
DMs might grace stores with lots of cash, but I have yet to experience players that don't mind buying profusely for a game system they play in. So getting them to buy unrequired minis is likely a non deal.
And the sales seem to bear that attitude out.
Heroscape is great for all your mini needs, AND they now have a D&D cross over line, making it even better to get the monsters and PCs you want.
As for me, I can use dice and other figs, but I'd rather buy what I want from the company that makes the game I play.
Well, the theme of the thread is character minis, sotake that for what it's worth. ;)
As for DM minis, if you need a lot of something, such as skeletons, orcs, etc., I find it best to grab one of the boxes of plastic minis from Warhammer Fantasy.
Warhammer figs cost a fortune. One of the deciding factors when choosing a fig game to get into, for me, was cost. D&D mini's have always been cheaper and less delicate. So, for me, if I wanted to buy warhammer figs, I would be playing warhammer. I play 4e D&D and I'd enjoy it if wotc continued to release figs for the game they made. The same game that requires figures.
(people will say you can play 4e without figs. Which isn't true. You would only be playing half of a game. Combat depends on figs. Without them, much of the combat just doesn't work, and it's simply not as fun.)
Well, the theme of the thread is character minis, sotake that for what it's worth. ;)
As for DM minis, if you need a lot of something, such as skeletons, orcs, etc., I find it best to grab one of the boxes of plastic minis from Warhammer Fantasy.
Warhammer figs cost a fortune.
Riiiight... because if, as a DM, you need 10 skeletons, it's so much cheaper to buy $15 boxes of D&D minis until you happen to get 10 skeletons as opposed to $22 for a box of 10 skeletons from the Vampire Counts line of minis in Warhammer.
Well, the theme of the thread is character minis, sotake that for what it's worth. ;)
As for DM minis, if you need a lot of something, such as skeletons, orcs, etc., I find it best to grab one of the boxes of plastic minis from Warhammer Fantasy.
Warhammer figs cost a fortune.
Riiiight... because if, as a DM, you need 10 skeletons, it's so much cheaper to buy $15 boxes of D&D minis until you happen to get 10 skeletons as opposed to $22 for a box of 10 skeletons from the Vampire Counts line of minis in Warhammer.
And THAT was the problem with wotc figs. They don't offer selections,(with a few exceptions) they offer random boxes. Still, D&D figs are cheaper, even when purchased online.
Selling anything as a collectible is all about them making money off of collectors willing to buy more than they ever needed to 'get a set'. I suppose this is ok if the person has no other interests and no girl friend and no social life and doesn't mind looking like an otaku, only with a lot of odd fantasy minis instead of a sea of cute girlies minis
I didn't mind playing Magic the Gathering, but 3 sets after Revised it was clear the whole process was not about 'evolving' the game, it was about making cards not legal so you had to just buy yet more cards so that Wizards made yet more money.
Wizards needs to accept that I don't care if they make money or not. I'm not here to make their jobs secure.
I'm a wargamer. When I buy a wargame I expect it to work out of the box. I am not interested in needing to buy just for the sake of buying. I might buy a new wargame, but each wargame needs to be functional out of the box.
Someone calculated the math needed to know how many figures it would take to give us a male female mix of all the races and all the classes. I can assume it would be a large box. But I play Advanced Squad Leader. My game collection is worth about 5 THOUSAND dollars.
Some people won't even flinch at a price if it is what they want. I wonder how many would order a complete 'factory set' Of minis from Wizards if it was just one of each mini and at a reduced price like maybe 75% of the normal price.
I wonder, if someone told them they wanted 5 of every Goblin/Orc/Kobold/Skeleton/Gnoll/Dwarf/Elf/Human/Dragonborn mini, would they actually get off their butts and throw them in a box as singles and offer a price?
The business of doing business means responding to customer demands that don't always fall under the usual templated methods.
Half the time I think, if we assigned Wizards a stat reflective of their marketing savvy, would anyone give them anything better than an 8? I wouldn't.
Personally, I feel like I have enough WotC minis that I'm set for life. I might still pick up the occasional single on the secondary market, but really I'm good to go with what I have. If there are other people like me out there, that could be the reason for the drop in mini sales. Unlike magic cards, few people have incentive to go out and buy new minis every time a new set comes out.
I'm pretty sure WotC has completely rules out selling individual minis, though. They don't want to get involved in the inherent difficulties of that business. Besides, most of their customer base for such a thing would be grognards who already have a favorite mini company anyway.
I think the Essentials line will provide WotC's answer to the minis conundrum. It's supposed to include PC and monster tokens, cardstock punch-outs that can be used on the table in place of minis. The last Game Day had tokens like this, they were generic, just labeled "monster 1" "monster 2" "PC 1" "PC 2" etc. This might have been a trial run for the Essentials line.
Put an assault Swordmage in a heavy cloak for the mini and not make it clear that he's wearing leather, and you have a mini that is also suitable for all Avenger builds (which again, would all look the same).
Races...minis for half-elf tend to look like one or the other (human or elf, usually human), not a distinct race. Kalashtar, too, for that matter. Elves and eladrin look the same as minis (SOMETIMES you get an eladrin mini with a strong color eyes to reflect their pupil-less eyes, not always). A mini of either gith race could be used for a githzerai character. And changelings don't NEED minis of their own race, just use multiple minis of different races/genders. ;)
Certain classes, beacsue of their equipment selection, may make having different races a moot point. A Paladin mini in full plate armor including a full helmet would look the same for most medium-sized races.
The OP suggested minis for each race/class/gender combination, which i think is a bit much. What's much more reasonable is to ask for more race/class combinations, with variation in gender. You can't please everyone.
Oh, and on the subject of gender, not all races are that dimorphic in appearance. Read the article on Gnolls. To a non-gnoll, females are indistinguishable from males. What about shadar-kai? No offense to the fans of this race, but even the males look kinda girly in that freakish-gothy kind of way. You see a Shadar-kai with head shaved completely clean except for one long braid of hair and wearing bulky heavy armor, wielding a spiked chain. Could be male or female. Warforged don't have distinct genders either. Changeling gender is completely mutable. And, let's face it, elf males look kinda girly, too (even though I love elves myself). And elven women tend to be of slight build with B-cup breasts at most, so an elf in loose clothing tends to be kind of androgenous. Eladrin would be the same.
I have a lot of minis, I have bought at least one booster of every set going back to harbinger (with the exception of War Drums, somehow I missed out on that one). I have plenty of minis for PC races, and enough versatility that I can suggest something close enough for anyone who makes any race/class combination. My buddy made a Goliath Warden. Well, I have the Goliath Barbarian from PHB Heroes S1, the Goliath Cleric of Kord, and a Half-Giant Psychic Warrior (b/c he's big and wields a big sword). So what if none of them carry a shield? You want a Tiefling rogue? The Tiefling Warlock from PHB Heroes S1 carries a wicked looking dagger and could easily pass for a cloaked rogue. Half-Elf Assassin? There's the daring Rogue (from either harbinger or Dragoneye, I forget), a mini of a guy with his face wrapped in a ninja-like cloth headwrap wielding 2 shortswords. I have any number of archers, and while the mini may say elf, some have the hood of their cloak up, so there's really no way to specifically point out that it's not an elf.
So not one for EVERY race/class combination, but I'd rather see more versatile minis. Adding gender to the mix complicates things a lot. I only know of one female dragonborn mini, the dragonborn rogue from PHB heroes S1. Female elves and humans seem to be well represented, and there are some decent female dwarf minis. I think halflings tend to be well-represented, too. And most halfling minis could be used for gnomes.
Some of the races are under-represented, too. Shifter minis tend to come out looking pretty bad, and could easily be mistaken for a half-orc in many regards. Shardminds we have nothing of so far, and there are only a handful of Medium sized minotaurs (I bought some individually on ebay, they were commons in that set, I think, so they were cheap). We still don't have enough Goliaths, even for classes that Goliaths are Optimal for, same goes for Genasi.
I'd also like to see some minis for shaman spirit companions. At the very least a ghostly bear and panther, for the PHB2 builds.
Iv a gaming buddy who has an extensive collection of them. I examined them closely.
The paint job is mass production and of reasonable quality. Relatively-speaking, the painting is somewhat broad brushed, but I dont see how it could be otherwise. More sophisticated painting would be prohibitively expensive, requiring individual handpainting by professional miniature artists of no small skill, finer brushes and complex layering, more effort to cover surface area, and a larger color palate. Even then, one figure would be quite different from another because of the different hands painting them. Given the constraints, the current painting is still careful around important areas, such as eyes. All-in-all, the D&D minis are professional and presentable.
Now, the sculpture of the D&D mini itself is extremely high quality. Looking past the paint, the shape is well-formed and has high resolution. They have interesting details, textures, their faces are goodlooking, the items are cool, and so on. These plastic minis are as good as (often better) than metal minis, and are tougher with less warping distortions.
If I could buy the *unpainted* minis individually online (for about $3 each), and paint them myself, I would be fully satisfied.
I personally am quite the amateur mini painter, yet all my minis end up looking better than the D&D Minis. I know people who are still amateurs and they put my painting job to shame. Let alone once you start getting to the people who do it professionally.
So, yes, anything an amateur is doing on their own will have much more than 50 equivalent paint steps and will consequently look a lot better.
@Chiba_Monkey:
Re: Genasi - I think those are the biggest offenders in terms of "being missing". They've been around for a while now, and there are multiple subtypes that require different color schemes.
Anyway, I expected the D&D plastic minis to have the same lo-rez. I am impressed with how hi-quality their moldings are. Very hi-rez, and they hold their shape well.
The problem with the calculations done on earlier posts is that each build isn't so completely different that it would need another mini. 3 out of 4 barbarian Builds look the same, and the one remaining, the 2-weapon one, wears hide armor and wields 2 1-handed weapons...just like a 2weapon Ranger. All warlord builds except the Archer warlord look the same. Most rogue builds look the same.
Yet it's the minor differences that matters. If you ranger wields two axes, the ranger mini wielding two swords is useless for you. If your barbarian wields a fullblade, the otherwise identical mini with an axe is useless to you. .....
Put an assault Swordmage in a heavy cloak for the mini and not make it clear that he's wearing leather, and you have a mini that is also suitable for all Avenger builds (which again, would all look the same).
Unless they wield an hammer or axe
The OP suggested minis for each race/class/gender combination, which i think is a bit much. [...] You can't please everyone.
And if you please to few your minis just collect dust on the store shelfs.
Either someone finds a mini that matches or he can just as well take a dice or bottle cap instead of a mini that's just slightly wrong.
Yet it's the minor differences that matters. If you ranger wields two axes, the ranger mini wielding two swords is useless for you. If your barbarian wields a fullblade, the otherwise identical mini with an axe is useless to you. .....
Useless? No, I have an imagination, I don't need my mini to exactly represent my character in every niggling detail, or I would be constantly modifying my minis. The guy who played a Go;liath Warden that I mentioned earlier? He went with the goliath barbarian mini, because it was clearly a goliath wielding a big sword, even though the mini did not have a shield, he wasnted a mini for a big guy who had a big sword (character used a bastard sword). Even then, it was a toss-up for him between that mini and the Half-Giant Psychic Warrior mini, who also carries no shield, but is a big dude with a big sword.
Put an assault Swordmage in a heavy cloak for the mini and not make it clear that he's wearing leather, and you have a mini that is also suitable for all Avenger builds (which again, would all look the same).
Unless they wield an hammer or axe
I've found that a great deal of Avengers use swords, but okay....so what if he uses an axe? He has a mini for his character that is lightly armored and carries a big weapon. It doesn't need to be exact.
If absolute precision were necessary, then you're looking at even more permutations, because you would need a mini of each class and build (perhaps ignoring the ones that overlap such as two-weapon ranger and two-weapon barbarian), and then overlap them with all possible weapon combinations. That even includes those that don't use paired or twin weapons, such as a dual wielding dwarf that wields a hammer and an axe, or an axe and a pick, or a hammer and a pick.
Something's gotta give somewhere.
The OP suggested minis for each race/class/gender combination, which i think is a bit much. [...] You can't please everyone.
And if you please to few your minis just collect dust on the store shelfs.
I think minis sales reflect that they please plenty of people.
Either someone finds a mini that matches or he can just as well take a dice or bottle cap instead of a mini that's just slightly wrong.
......What?
You're saying that if I have, say, a Shadar-Kai Fighter who uses a Spiked Chain, that ONLY a mini of a Shadar-Kai wielding a spiked chain and wearing scale armor will be acceptable, and anything less that that might as well be a bottle cap? I happen to have a mini wielding a spiked chain. The mini is of a half-orc, but the spiked chain is pretty distinctve on the mini. Or I could use a mini of a Thayan Knight. That mini is bald (like a great deal of shadar-kai), and wears spikey, wicked looking armor. So what that the mini carries a sword and shield? Why is that unacceptable? Why can I not use a Tiefling necromancer mini for a tiefling infernal lock? It looks more like what I expect out of a "hellish warlock" than the original tiefling warlock from the first 4e minis set. Why is my other Tielfling Warlock mini (from PHB Heroes Season 1) unacceptable for a tiefling rogue? It wears leather armor and carries a dagger.
Those are specific examples, yes, but they point to the larger situation at hand. You don't NEED to have a mini that precisely represents your character in every way. If a person's imagination was so strained that they needed such exact representation, I would ask why such a person plays D&D in the first place, as so much of the game itself hinges on imagination.
People don't usually complain when the monsters aren't perfectly represented. Granted a given monster only lasts one encounter, but it's not that much of a stretch of the imagination for the players. I don't have any minis for Rotwing Zombies, for example. What I do have is about 4 gargoyle minis. They're humanoids, they have wings, and their skin tone is not that of a healthy humanoid. BAM! Rotwing Zombie minis.
I know player minis tend to be on the board more, but so what? I didn't have ANY dragonborn minis for a long time, but what I DID have for my dragonborn pally in the party was a Baaz Draconian mini from an older set. The worked fine for him. By complete chance, he fell into possession of a dragonborn paladin mini from PHB2 D&D Game Day, and used that one from then on, but so what? The dragonborn warlord in my current game uses the dragonborn paladin mini. who cares if he's wearing the wrog armor? He's a dragonborn and has a sword and a shield. A game where I was a player, we had a halfling chaos sorc. He used one of my minis, a halfling wizard. Who cares that the mini for the wizard had a book in his hand? We all know sorcs dont need spellbooks, but the mini accurately reflected the FEEL of his character, a halfling who was clearly a spellcaster. In that same game, I was playing a Gnoll rageblood Barbraian wielding a Fullblade. To my knowledge you will find no gnoll minis carrying swords of any kind. But I had a pretty sweet-looking Demonic Gnoll wielding a flail. Should I have changed my weapon to a flail? No, I wanted a fullblade. But the mini reflected the character in an important enough way: He was huge for a Medium character, and he looked rabid.
/rant.
Useless?
Yes. If it's wrong in important parts, I don't need it at all.
No, I have an imagination,
Me too, that's why a bottle cap is just as well as a mini that's wrong anyway.
I don't need my mini to exactly represent my character in every niggling detail,
I do, that's why it takes very long for me to find a mini and some of my characters are still without any mini at all.
or I would be constantly modifying my minis.
Unfortunately I am not talented enough to do that. So if Reaper, WotC and Co. don't have what I need, it's back to bottle caps.
Rather a bottle cap than a two-handed barbarian with an axe to represent my two-handed barbarian with a fullblade.
He has a mini for his character that is lightly armored and carries a big weapon. It doesn't need to be exact.
It does. What's the point in going through the trouble to find a mini, pay the money to get it and then have something that's just as unfitting as a bottle cap would have been?
If absolute precision were necessary, then you're looking at even more permutations,
Absolutely, that's why the idea of a mini for all combinations is a bad one. WotC should just continue with a limited selection and anyone unfortunately unrepresented by it has to cope with it. There's really nothing else WotC could do.
I think minis sales reflect that they please plenty of people.
Obviously they failed doing so since a long time ago, given how the sets **** in the shelf and now get more and more canceled.
You're saying that if I have, say, a Shadar-Kai Fighter who uses a Spiked Chain, that ONLY a mini of a Shadar-Kai wielding a spiked chain and wearing scale armor will be acceptable, and anything less that that might as well be a bottle cap?
For me yes. Otherwise I have better things to do with my money to spend on a mini that doesn't make me satisfied looking at it.
I happen to have a mini wielding a spiked chain. The mini is of a half-orc, but the spiked chain is pretty distinctve on the mini.
Doesn't the half-orc even have slightly siked ears and a brown skin-tone? Makes it good for a shadar-kai. However for me the lack of heavy armor would kill the mini.
You don't NEED to have a mini that precisely represents your character in every way.
But then why pay for such a mini at all.
If a person's imagination was so strained that they needed such exact representation, I would ask why such a person plays D&D in the first place, as so much of the game itself hinges on imagination.
I could ask the same about a person that needs an approximate mini because she can't imagine well enough with the good ol' bottle cap.
If 1,000 people are complaining to WotC that they absolutely need to include an 2h-wilden fighter mini in the next set, WotC gives them one and 600 of them don't buy it with "meh, wrong weapon/armor/whatever" WotC would have sold just as well included any other random PC miniature and please just as many people.
People don't usually complain when the monsters aren't perfectly represented.
Because they're unimportant throw-away guest stars. The come get killed and go away. You're being represented by the monster for hours upon hours and take it home with you after the session.
In that same game, I was playing a Gnoll rageblood Barbraian wielding a Fullblade. To my knowledge you will find no gnoll minis carrying swords of any kind. But I had a pretty sweet-looking Demonic Gnoll wielding a flail.
Here, this or that might be what you're looking for. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes it's the bottle cap.
[...]it's frustrating for gamers when there are far more races, classes, and genders than before, [...]
Could you list them for me please ... ?
Useless?
Yes. If it's wrong in important parts, I don't need it at all.
So...which parts are the important parts? because that's my point. As long as a mini more or less represents your character to you, what's the big deal?
No, I have an imagination,
Me too, that's why a bottle cap is just as well as a mini that's wrong anyway.
You mean wrong in ANY way, correct? Seems like your expectations are too high.
I don't need my mini to exactly represent my character in every niggling detail,
I do, that's why it takes very long for me to find a mini and some of my characters are still without any mini at all.or I would be constantly modifying my minis.
Unfortunately I am not talented enough to do that. So if Reaper, WotC and Co. don't have what I need, it's back to bottle caps.
I don't either. And if I don't have what I need, then I make do with what I do.
Rather a bottle cap than a two-handed barbarian with an axe to represent my two-handed barbarian with a fullblade.
To me, this just seems illogical. I DM, mostly. I like to play with minis, so I have a lot of them. I'm not scouring the internet to find my perfect mini, I use what I've got. I have hordes of orcs, goblins and hobgoblins. Who cares if the ones I use to represent Grunts have spears while the Soldiers hold swords, even though in-game they all wield swords? I just ran a game earlier today and the players ran into a room with 4 Dire Rats. I only have 3 Dire Rat minis. So Dire Rat #4 was represented today by a Crested Felldrake. The players didn't complain, they knew they were all fighting Dire Rats, and actually, it helped differentiate them on the battle field.
He has a mini for his character that is lightly armored and carries a big weapon. It doesn't need to be exact.
It does. What's the point in going through the trouble to find a mini, pay the money to get it and then have something that's just as unfitting as a bottle cap would have been?
Who says I went through all that kind of trouble? My point is that I already HAVE a mini of a goliath with a big sword. I also have minis of guys with swords and shields. I just don't have any minis of goliaths with swords and shields.
If absolute precision were necessary, then you're looking at even more permutations,
Absolutely, that's why the idea of a mini for all combinations is a bad one. WotC should just continue with a limited selection and anyone unfortunately unrepresented by it has to cope with it. There's really nothing else WotC could do.
I'm now confused as to what, exactly you are arguing with me about, as this is very similar to my point. I'm saying that WotC should focus more on making minis that are versatile, like my Swordmage/Avenger example above. Thus WotC continues with its selection, and reduces the number of displeased people because the mini can be used for more than one thing.
You're saying that if I have, say, a Shadar-Kai Fighter who uses a Spiked Chain, that ONLY a mini of a Shadar-Kai wielding a spiked chain and wearing scale armor will be acceptable, and anything less that that might as well be a bottle cap?
For me yes. Otherwise I have better things to do with my money to spend on a mini that doesn't make me satisfied looking at it.
If nothing but perfect representation will please you, then why don't you pick your mini first and THEN build your character so that the mini will perfectly represent him/her?
I happen to have a mini wielding a spiked chain. The mini is of a half-orc, but the spiked chain is pretty distinctve on the mini.
Doesn't the half-orc even have slightly siked ears and a brown skin-tone? Makes it good for a shadar-kai. However for me the lack of heavy armor would kill the mini.
This makes no sense to me. If the mini is more or less right, what's the issue?
You don't NEED to have a mini that precisely represents your character in every way.
But then why pay for such a mini at all.
Ummm..because I already have the mini? I like collecting minis. I liked playing the skirmish game when I could find other players. I like having a versatile collection of minis so that, even when I don't have the "perfect" mini, I have a reasonable facsimile. Don't get me wrong, if I have the perfect mini on hand, I will use it. And I do get a little thrill when I actually have the absolute perfect mini. I rarely go out and buy individual minis. Every so often, I get the itch and go on ebay and look for cheap, affordable minis that I find interesting. For example, When browsing for minis I found some cheap minis of mounted human riders on horses. I've always wanted a few of those, so I picked them up. I also came across a dragonborn Death Knight mini. I have a storyline in mind that I'd like to run that involves the players being tricked into returning a Dragonborn Death Knight (in disguise) his shattered Rune Weapon to him, which he restores with a touch, and, once again at full power, leaves them and goes on to resume his long-postponed reign of terror, which the PCs must then stop. So I jumped on that one. Even though I already have a Death Knight from a previous edition (and Lord Soth, so, 2 death knights). But I knew I had a use for it, and such behavior on my part is the exception, not the rule.
If a person's imagination was so strained that they needed such exact representation, I would ask why such a person plays D&D in the first place, as so much of the game itself hinges on imagination.
I could ask the same about a person that needs an approximate mini because she can't imagine well enough with the good ol' bottle cap.
Well I can answer your question: I like using minis when I play. The person who introduced me to DnD used minis. When I started, I broke open my old Dragon Quest board game and battle Masters game and re-based and painted those minis to use in DnD. I bought a handful of pewter minis and painted those, but painting minis really isn't my forte. I liked the DnD minis. I already have a lot of them. I don't buy them as often as I'd like to, but I buy a booster pack once every few months. I'm already sitting on a horde of minis. And so the bottle cap would look really out of place on the battle grid with a lot of minis.
If 1,000 people are complaining to WotC that they absolutely need to include an 2h-wilden fighter mini in the next set, WotC gives them one and 600 of them don't buy it with "meh, wrong weapon/armor/whatever" WotC would have sold just as well included any other random PC miniature and please just as many people.
...Or we could be pleased that we finally got a wilden. Not everyone is a "cup is half-empty" kind of person. If WotC's production doesn't EXACTLY meet your demands in every niggling detail, they might as well do nothing even remotely similar? That's nonesense. Just because YOU need a wilden 2h fighter doesn't mean EVERYONE does. And if they release a wilden holding a sword which may or may not be alongsword or a bastard sword, but probably isn't QUITE a greatsword, your stance is that they might as well not have created a wilden at all, is that right?
That's silly.
People don't usually complain when the monsters aren't perfectly represented.
Because they're unimportant throw-away guest stars. The come get killed and go away. You're being represented by the monster for hours upon hours and take it home with you after the session.
Not if it's my mini they don't. My minis stay in my house. I keep the minis for player characters seperate during any time that I am running a campaign. My mother in law recently gave me this cute little box that, while neat looking, is useless for holding anything. It looks like a cabinet with a dragon coming out the top, and his hind claws are the little door handles. Not good for much, but it looks nice on the shelf. Any time I'm running a game, I keep the minis that the players have slected aside for them there.
A few of my players have their own minis.
In that same game, I was playing a Gnoll rageblood Barbraian wielding a Fullblade. To my knowledge you will find no gnoll minis carrying swords of any kind. But I had a pretty sweet-looking Demonic Gnoll wielding a flail.Here, this or that might be what you're looking for. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes it's the bottle cap.
Except that those minis require me to paint them (which I don't always have the time and patience for, I'm in the military), and furthermore don't always stand up on their own, and are not always compatible with the 1"=5' scale that WotC minis use.
But like I said, I had a mini of a raging, rabid-looking gnoll who was all huge and muscley. So what if the mini had a flail in its hand? the mini represented my character. A big, hairy hyena man who flies into a rage and hits people.
That same game had a guy playing an eladrin wizard who specialized in fire spells. I had an Eladrin Pyromancer mini.
Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you have to have to work with what you've got.
I use the female elven fighter from the PHB Heroes sets as my male Eladrin Swordmage. Things that are wrong:
He's an eladrin, eyes are wrong.
Skintone is darker than his would be
He wears purple and she's in green
It's a she
She's kind of in chainmail as I recall but you can't really tell.
Why it works:
Pointy-eared blonde thing.
Longsword, no shield.
Armor that looks like light armor.
If I used a die or a bottlecap it would 1. look stupid 2. be indistinguishable from the monsters that we use dice and bottlecaps for.
For even further afield, I use the Cleric of Corellon Larethian mini from Harbinger for my Drow Ardent in D&D Encounters. This works conceptually because his backstory is that he was originally a CN priest of Vhaeraun who converted to Corellon after Vhaeraun got killed because he didn't like Eilistraee, and then lost his powers like every other cleric during the Spellplague and couldn't ever find anyone willing to instate him as a cleric under the new rules, so he turned to developing his own talents instead. He's not a blonde elf, and he doesn't have a shield or a sword(Greatspear), but he does still dress like a cleric of Corellon and it still fits conceptually, and it's much more satisfying than a random piece of plastic.
*shrug* Don't get me wrong, I STILL want them to do a freaking male Eladrin with a sword and nothing else so I can have a proper mini for the Swordmages I keep making, no the Bralani does not count, the female elf is actually conceptually closer for me, and I'd love some freaking male drow that aren't a. drizzt b. covered in spiders. But y'know I just work around it and find stuff that fits the concept if not the exact letter of my character.