How would you like to see them handled in 4E?
WotC_Logan has specific instructions for how you should reply to make his data collection easier.
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
As this is our discussion forum, please discuss and support your response. Thanks!
-Mike
I'm not all that strongly attached to the current iconics, and IIRC most of them appeared in short novels that were set in the GH setting. If the new "default" setting is world-neutral, that would seem to make new ones appropriate.
So, A.: option #2
As for race/class combos, that would depend on what races and classes there are, wouldn't it? Hard to choose when we don't even know the choices yet. {roll eyes}
Iconic race - Humans - D&D has always been humanocentric and should remain so.
B. Dwarven Cleric
At first I was tempted to say something along the lines of Elven Warrior or Gnome Warrior, but in the end figured for a new player its better to stick with something that seems a bit more "typical".
Dwarven Cleric works good (assuming Moradin is still a God) because they do have such a strong tie to their Creator. Humans are more aloof with religion - not having one specific patron diety.
In my opinion, the 3.5E iconics have little traction, and there's not much point carrying them across to the new version. Iconics are valuable for providing live examples of the rules in action, for inspiring new players, and even for providing quick-play characters for groups in a hurry.
However, any new iconics should be so cool they hurt, and they should smell like 4E. Nothing less will do. You want new players to say "I want to play a character who rocks like Gunther the Rogue." and existing players to say "Arbeille the Wizard can do that? Wow! So long, Mialeee."
B - That's tough, without knowing just what the races and classes will be. But any selection should satisfy my requirement above. It should say 4th Edition loud and clear. I'd go for a blend of the old and new - a tiefling fighter. A class that's been around as long as D&D, in a new (for core D&D) race - an old dog with some fiendish new tricks.
Some of the Iconics are fine as is, But I feel there needs to be like 3 iconics for each class, and a good mix races and sexes for those Iconics.
something like for Fighter: Regdar, Human Fighter, Tordek, Dwarf Axe-Fighter, Flara, Halfling knife-fighter.
So you have two very typical race class combos, and one that is a little less common. on each class page instead of having just the one "typical" class member you have all three. And maybe a two paragraph "example history" for the characters, hopefully that will help new players to go ahead and start thinking of non-typical race/class combos and also a basic history for their new character ('why is this halfing a fighter, what made them decide on the marital path?")
Basically all the human iconics pretty much are terrible... Hennet (sorc), jozen (cleric), the rogue who I can't remeber his name off hand... all terrible. Pretty much the only exception is Regdar and maybe Alhandra the Paladin.
The non-human iconics were the good ones for the most part, Lidda, Vanadia, Gimble. Even Mialee has her moments.
B. Gnome Sorcerer. SAVE THE GNOMES!
:D
A 2
I'd also like to see a dwarven cleric and a halfling paladin
B. - If there must be an iconic: human fighter.
If we can't convert our characters, neither should you.
B. Dwarven Wizard.
New Iconic: Clippy the paperclip. Everyone loves Clippy. I bet Microsoft would give you the license free since you would be cross-branding.
I believe the new edition should change the iconic characters to include only two, a male and a female. A wizard and a warrior both of which are human. People can identify with who they are better than with what we role play. Wizards might also consider diversifying the iconic races as well so as to be more inclusive. The reaon for this is that the future will include more movies and more shows in which you might find actors and actresses that can also depict the iconics. It is my humble belief that the time for Mialee and Tordek as Elf and Dwarf is gone. The future is where Wizards is tryíng to take the game and we need to crawl out of the past. I believe Mialee and Tordek the names should remain.
I believe the new edition should change the iconic characters to include only two, a male and a female. A wizard and a warrior both of which are human. People can identify with who they are better than with what we role play. Wizards might also consider diversifying the iconic races as well so as to be more inclusive. The reaon for this is that the future will include more movies and more shows in which you might find actors and actresses that can also depict the iconics. It is my humble belief that the time for Mialee and Tordek as Elf and Dwarf is gone. The future is where Wizards is tryíng to take the game and we need to crawl out of the past. I believe Mialee and Tordek the names should remain.
Second, it takes away from the creativity of the artists. I'd love to see official D&D artwork flourish with countless interpretations of what, say, "wizard" can mean. Iconics force every artist to draw the exact same character, in only variations of its original image.
D&D's strengths are its versatility and diversity. Iconics run away from them like no tomorrow.
I'm well in the minority here, but as long as I have a voice, I'll use it.
B: A warrior-like Dwarven Cleric. It just fits like a glove.
... Yet.
B: As for suggestions... How about an an aasimar or half-elf sorcerer, a tiefling priestess of Artemis, halfling fighter, and human rogue? It would help more if we knew what was in the PHB for classes and races. ;)
I imagine that race will play a significantly stronger role in choosing a class than it currently does, and I doubt that R&D is modeling their racial design choices off the 3.5e iconic characters (at least I hope they aren't :P). Further, everyone likes a little new material; that's how WotC makes money.
B. It is, as stated before, difficult to choose combo's without knowing available classes and races (as well as their new nuances) yet. However, from a purely cosmetic standpoint, I would like to see:
Dwarven Cleric
Gnome/Halfling Wizard
Human Fighter (kind of blah, I know)
Half-Orc Barbarian
Half-elf monk (?)
Elf Sorcerer
B: As others have said, this is VERY DIFFICULT not knowing the choices. Regardless....
Shifter Barbarian
Dwarf Cleric
Halfling Druid
Orc Fighter
Aasimar Paladin
Elf Ranger
Tiefling Rogue
Half-Orc Sorcerer
Half-Elf Warlord
Human Wizard
As was suggested in the Astrid's Parlor thread, I'd like to see not one, but two icons per class - one male, one female, with different "takes" on the class shown with each icon. Along the same lines, each duo could show a "conventional" and unconventional class member. Here are some good combos:
Male half-orc and human female fighter
Female tiefling and male halfling rogue
Male elf and female dwarf wizard
Female half-elven and male gnome bard
Human male and female elf ranger
You get the idea. I think this helps to allay Dragonchild's concerns as well.
The core races and classes will likely be prone to change anyways.
Sorry, but I never want to see a new picture of hennet, the leather fetishist/sorcerer again.
"I where belts on my chest to show off my chaotic nature"
Sooooo lame.
B. kobold barbarian
Take a note from the Eberron Campaign Setting and put them into groups, give them levels and some backstory.
Give us the female tiefling rogue, and if they are in, female aasimar/eladrin cleric. Male half-orc or half-elf fighter, male dwarven wizard, male elf paladin. Male halfling druid. Female elf ranger, female human warlord. Something like that.
(like Laura Croft)
Lara Croft
A-2
keep the iconics fresh
Gnome Monk
Some iconics I'd like to see:
Half Orc Bard (with some awesome drums)
Gnome or Halfling Barbarian (perhaps standing in some really tall grass)
Tiefling Cleric appeals to me as well, but while some boundary pushing Iconics would be cool, they really need to showcase the stuff that's actually in the player's handbook. An evil cleric of some sort would be good, though.
1. Wizard - Raistlin Majere or Elminster
2. Ranger - Drizz't Do'Urden
3. Fighter or Paladin - Sturm Brightblade or Caramon Majere
4. Rogue - Jarlaxle Baenre, Artemis Entreri, or Tasselhoff Burrfoot
5. Cleric - Goldmoon, Fzoul Chembryl
You get the idea. Instead of spending time creating new iconic characters, why not use existing popular characters?
B. I say gnome or halfling fighter. Do you guys remember how cool Yoda was in Episode 2 and 3? Small humanoids for the win! I choose gnome or halfling because goblins (who are green) are unlikely to become part of the Player's Handbook.
All new iconics! Include a pic in one of the preview books of the old iconics having a retirement party. Oooh: Do a Last Supper parody!
:D
How many Iconics are there?
12 at a table, with Elminster in the middle?
As to decisions. I say New Iconics.
Female Tiefling Psion
It would also be nice to see iconics for the specialist wizards...
Also, let's seem some MULTI-CLASSED iconics - An elvin Fighter/Wizard, a dwarven Fighter/Cleric, a half-elvin Ranger/Cleric, a gnome Illusionist/Rogue or some other multiclassed characters to throw in with the single-classed iconics - someone or several someones for multi-classing examples.
- Create new 4E iconics.
I would rather have new iconics who are created to represent the new paradigm from the outset, rather than trying to shoehorn the old ones into new roles. I do think that having iconics is useful, if only for the sake of making flavor text easier to write.
> B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. )
I would suggest a wizard. BUT...
Forget the robes, and forget the staff - let's have a wizard who defies the cliches of what a wizard looks like. Though his dress code was rather bizarre, Hennet the sorcerer in 3E is a good example of an arcane spellcaster who doesn't fall neatly into the old-man-with-robes-and-staff stereotype.
Likewise, while a human or an elf may be the easiest one for people to conceptualize, it would be interesting if the wizard represented a race that old-E and even 3E typically didn't consider all that magical, such as a dwarf or a halfling. Again, busting stereotypes is good, and emphazies that the new edition takes the game in a new direction.
As was suggested in the Astrid's Parlor thread, I'd like to see not one, but two icons per class - one male, one female, with different "takes" on the class shown with each icon. Along the same lines, each duo could show a "conventional" and unconventional class member. . . I think this helps to allay Dragonchild's concerns as well.
It doesn't entirely, but it's an elegant compromise -- especially considering the consensus is strongly trending towards new iconics.
That said, let's also have more artist diversity. PHB2 featured male-female pairs but all pairs drawn by the same artists, invariably male. Hence, they were anything but conventional-unconventional pairs; rather, they were male and female variations of the same image. Have every pair of iconics drawn by different artists (one design each), and preferably have half the artwork done by female artists to get the full variety and diversity D&D has to offer.
I'd like them to be a bit more classic-looking, too. Give the Paladin some plate mail (there are some really cool female Paladin pics scattered around in the books, but I'm not a fan of the one in the pants with the semi-mohawk). Give the wizard some robes or... something instead of whatever that was. No chest belts for the Sorcerer.
Dwarf Fighter
Elf Wizard
Gnome Sorcerer
Halfling Druid
Human Warlord
Orc Ranger
Tiefling Rogue
D & D has set this precident, a new edition needs new icons.
Ian
Give the wizard some robes or... something instead of whatever that was.
"Clothes". I believe the word you're looking for is "clothes". Whatever Mialee's wrapped in, it's definitely not clothes.
So for starters, I do think we need new iconics, and I think they can and should be used as something of a glimpse of the world, as its governed by 4e rules. Have iconics of some of the new core races (Tiefling, whatever else) and classes, use them to give us an idea of just what the story is on these new concepts (both what role they play and what station they hold in the core world. Are Tieflings regarded as evil? Are they common enough to be generally accepted?).
In the case of the established settings (FR in particular), its got a whole host of iconics that definitely need reviving, but given the fact that 4e has no core setting exactly, it should come with its own iconics.
Though I do agree that they don't have to be everywhere and the artists should have freedom to depict different characters.
B: Suggestions:
#1 Human Paladin. That's what I thought of when I saw the tall broad shouldered dude in the winged helmet. He looked pretty cool, badass even, like Lan from Wheel of Time as sculpted by Werner Locke. Besides, almost all Paladins are human anyway.
#2 Human Sorceress- how can you pass up a classic fantasy staple? I'm thinking red hair, green eyes.
Others:
Gnome Wizard- good place for the Gnome, they make excellent wizards.
Gnome Druid- just to show that they don't have to be arcanists.
Half-Orc Fighter- especially if Barbarian is being folded into fighter. I'm picturing a guy who looks a little more cunning than Krusk. Maybe he's not really wild at all, but very focused and disciplined.
Dwarf Cleric- good place for the Dwarf, for both RP and mechanics.
Half Elf Bard- good fit, better than Gnome I think.
Tiefling Rogue- if Tieflings are indeed in PHB, then the logical choice is Rogue, unless Warlock is also available.
Elf Ranger- seems like a good fit, though I also picture a bearded human ala Grizzly Adams.
Dude, where's Uni?! :P
Ran out of trail rations.
And for the record: Kill Mialee (but don't feed her to the lions, the poor critters need meat, not bones)
FINALLY GIVE US A HOT ELVEN CHICK!
I can't say there's any specific combinations I want to see, but I would like to see a new PHB race as an iconic for an old class-something of a fresh face on a tired concept. For that matter, I wouldn't mind some swapping the races around for the iconics-have a barbarian that's not a half-orc, or a monk that isn't a human, for example. I want to see some new ideas for a new system, not a small remake of what we have.
I'd say go with anywhere from 1 to 5 iconics. If I had to pick just one, I'd go with a female elf fighter (or perhaps fighter/wizard, bladesinger style). If tastefully and effectively done, it would be interesting and intriguing to both sexes.
Don't give us stupid-looking iconics because they used Charisma as a dump stat. You're defeating the point. If they're a marketing tool, follow marketing rules in their design and use. If they're intended as examples of play, then don't treat them as iconics -- treat them as singular examples and go with it.
Get some decent artists to contribute for them this time. Oi but the third edition character art was painful.
Either way, let's see some real direction with it, eh?
Frankly, I don't much like iconics. But I concede that they are useful. They provide characters to use in examples, and continuity between books that allows for better flavor shorts to be written. You know, the little blurbs of story pieces that illustrate aspects of the game. For some reason iconics don't appeal to me, but these two things are important enough that I concede their usefulness.
I picked "create new iconics" over "port the old ones" just because I feel that newly created iconics will fit better with a new system. No chance the designers accidentally try to create 3rd edition characters with 4th edition rules, just because they're used to the iconics being that way. No chance players will compare the new iconics to the old ones and proclaim that you guys didn't do them right.
B) I don't care. Something bland and obvious, or else it won't be "iconic." Elf Ranger.
A) Get some new iconic characters.
B) Get a tiefling druid. Something that screams outlandish choices abound.
B) See A. Let's shake up the old stereotypes a little.
B: 1-Human fighter in fullplate- nothing says defence like full plate
2-Elven rogue- graceful and deadly
I think there should at least 2 Iconics per class, one who synergizes class and race and one that goes against the "grain". WoTC should hold a iconics contest after releasing the race and class info. The DnD community could vote on their favorite submissions, it may bring out some truly awesome icons.
B. Aasimar Warlock. Iconics don't have to be stereotypes.
A. You win the internet.
B. Cowardly human cavalier, baby!
B. How about a nearly-stable pyromaniac half-orc sorcerer? He's just as given to intimidation as Krusk, but flexes magical muscles instead of real ones.
Dragolath has a good point. The only possible downside I could see to two iconics, one stereotypical and one atypical, is an iconic glut.
I've no problem with that. If you want memorable characters, read a book.
D&D is a game. I want to remember my characters, and I'm more than happy to learn about others'. But D&D shouldn't be about dictating what "real" (iconic) characters should be like.
Wizard - Raistlin Majere
Rogue - Tasselhoff Burrfoot.
Fighter - Bruenor Battlehammer or Caramon Majere or Alias
Ranger - Drizzt Do'Urden
Cleric- Goldmoon
Monk - Rhyss
Bard - Olive Ruskettle ( I know she was a rogue in the books.)
Paladin - Dragonbait (great idea for lizardmen even if he was a saurial.)
I wouldn't say there should be a villian and a hero for each iconic, but there should definitely needs to be a greater range in alignments (full spectrum), assuming alignments exsist in 4e.
I wouldn't mind an honor based system versus alignment.
B. - Half-Elf Bard *
* To show off how different he'll be in the new edition. ;)
B. Um... if I were to just pick one in a forced choice? Uh... human... wizard. Or fighter. (So much for forced choice. :P) If this is supposed to be about a single iconic to stand as a representation of D&D a human fighter or wizard would would be best.
B I would like to see an Elan/ psion Iconic, but I realize they are likely not going to be included so how about an Elf/ Cleric
Edit: As far as Iconics go if warforged are viable, then a warforged fighter is as iconic as you can get.
B. Feature the new classes and races; for instance, i heard both that tieflings and a class called the "warlord" were going to be in the core; what about making a tiefling warlord?
Also, you might want to have 4 "weird" iconics, like an elf barbarian, a half-orc/orc wizard, a dwarven rogue and a halfling fighter, to show that even weird combos can be made to work.
to give a face to examples of creation steps or to demonstrate game mechanics. I feel that this is more, not less, important in learning the
new system.
Choosing the new Iconics will be more a subject for what needs to be
demonstrated in the books than what would be "kewl". Obviously
to show how to turn undead or cure wounds you need a cleric Iconic.
To show the changes in the grappel rules a fighter or barbarian ( Or
both) is very useful. When you need to describe removing a trap
a rogue Iconic ( An Iconic of that class not one that cannot be
controlled)is quite useful.
As far as appearance goes if there isgoing to be a program
to allow on screen and online play the Iconics should probably
match them.
For goodness sake if you dodecide to use Iconics please get some
good art since they will almost certainly end up sculpted in plastic
if minis are as integral to 4E as most folks think.
Charles
B: Two iconics for each class, one human and one who's race is the preferred class for that race. It might also be nice to show different roles as first put forward in PHB II.
My suggestion: Pick four (4e, isn't?) of them, the best. And make them the Iconic Characters. I would love to see the PHB with images of the characters I know.
It is like assembling the Dream Team for DnD.
My picks would be:
Wizard: Elminster. The greatest wizard in all Dnd.
Rogue: Tasslehoff Burrfoot. Either hate him or love him, he is the best known rogue. (Personally, I hate him).
Fighter: Drizzt would be the best choice. But being a drow may be against him (again).
Cleric: Jode, from the Dreaming Dark Saga
I don't like how all the iconic character in 3.5 were all stereotypical to that class. I'm not saying something against type, but something not quite as common (see below).
Here are four ideas:
Kin: Dwarf Cleric
Malor: Tiefling Fighter
Avery: Human Rogue
Gruth: Half-Orc Fighter
B: no idea
Maybe creating a range of art to show off the many different choices for all of the classes? That's a lot of art, but if you're going to more of a magazine style, make like Maxim and include some fold-outs or something!
However... don't use campaign specific iconics. An optimal goal is no campaign specific material in the core books- keep it open for people to flavor however they want, never force vanilla or rocky road on them, unless, of course they're buying ice cream (the campaign setting, in case anyone lost the analogy).
Some of the Iconics are fine as is, But I feel there needs to be like 3 iconics for each class, and a good mix races and sexes for those Iconics.
This is something I've suggested as well, particularly because we now have three tiers of play (1-10 heroic, 11-20 paragon, and 21-30 epic) and we could showcase a different race/build combo for each tier.
All new iconics! Include a pic in one of the preview books of the old iconics having a retirement party. Oooh: Do a Last Supper parody!
:D
Maybe we could give them a farewell party article. (Or write up all of them getting gutted by Orcus. Nah. That's too mean.)
A. 2, here as well please. All new Iconic characters.
If we can't convert our characters, neither should you.
Hah! I like that line of reasoning. ;)
B: As for suggestions... How about an an aasimar or half-elf sorcerer, a tiefling priestess of Artemis, halfling fighter, and human rogue? It would help more if we knew what was in the PHB for classes and races. ;)
But we get much more creative answers if you don't know. :D
I imagine that race will play a significantly stronger role in choosing a class than it currently does, and I doubt that R&D is modeling their racial design choices off the 3.5e iconic characters (at least I hope they aren't :P).
I'll just say none of the 3.5 iconics would have made a bad class choice had they been 4E characters. ("No bad choice" means, of course, that Mialee would have had better clothes in 4E as well.)
A. I say use existing popular D&D characters as iconic characters:
1. Wizard - Raistlin Majere or Elminster
2. Ranger - Drizz't Do'Urden
3. Fighter or Paladin - Sturm Brightblade or Caramon Majere
4. Rogue - Jarlaxle Baenre, Artemis Entreri, or Tasselhoff Burrfoot
5. Cleric - Goldmoon, Fzoul Chembryl
It's an interesting idea. We've tossed it around the office.
WoTC should hold a iconics contest after releasing the race and class info. The DnD community could vote on their favorite submissions, it may bring out some truly awesome icons.
That's a great idea. I loves me some contests. Maybe we could have people submit their playtest characters, complete with backstory, to enter into iconic voting. If we do that, I think I've just volunteered myself.
Actually, in addition to Iconic Heroes in the PHB, perhaps we could have Iconic Villains in the DMG and Iconic Monsters in the MM (That would be a little harder and stranger than the other two, but it could be done.).
The idea of iconic villains is pretty neat, but I think monsters will be filling that role, and most of them are already iconic just from their creature types. Also, we don't really need them to fill the "character for an example" role like class iconics do.
When I played 2nd edition, one of the highlights of the books was that practically all the art for every book was diffrent takes on what a wizard or thief or warrior looked like. Because of that, the diversity of the art fueled the imagination of players and dms alike rather than seeing mialee getting grappled or blasted away for the 13th time.
However if you do decide to make a new iconic, I would say make a Gnome Fighter. (little guys can fight too!!)
B: I read that the Tiefling will become a core race, so probably the Aasimar as well. The Aasimar paladin would make a strong iconic as the ultimate preserver of all that is good and right, a leader in the fight against evil. This has always been a central theme in the DND game and this would be a great addition and inspiration to many new and experienced players. (Not to forget the Aasimar Blackguard for DMs)
D&D is a game of myriad possibilities, and we want to show that.
Thank you. That's music to my ears.
While we're at it, can WotC kindly shred the idea of illustration captions? Frankly, we're not that stupid (it's a Use Magic Device failure, we get it), and in ambiguous cases, I kind of preferred my imagination to fill in the details. The captions made every illustration read like "D&D: The Far Side, by Garys Gygax and Larson".
Maybe like the following:
1) Female Elven Rogue
2) Halfling Sorcerer
3) Half-Elven Paladin
4) Dwarven Marshal
Yet, according to Wayne Renold's Artwork for 4E with the NEW Green Dragon (why the new green dragon, btw?) that looks like New D&D Basic Game Art it looks like we are getting:
1) Dwarven Cleric
2) Tiefling Wizard/Warlock
3) Elven Rogue
4) Human Fighter
Mainly because I'm going to keep playing D&D without the marketing. I'm pretty sure very few people... ever... played D&D because it looked cool on the shelf, or there was an ugly pointy-eared elf person on the cover. D&D generally gets new players through word-of-mouth, not marketing. I've never met a player who claimed to have never known about D&D before picking it up in a store. I suppose it's possible that they exist, but I've never met one.
B. Basic Iconics
That is, I'd like to see a Human Wizard, male, elderly, with a beard. That's actually iconic. Male Human Fighter. Male Dwarf Fighter. Male Elven Fighter/Mage. Male Halfling Thief. Male Human Cleric. Those are Iconic characters. You don't get to decide what's iconic and what's not. You can make up marketing pictures and call them iconic, but they aren't. The characters that ARE iconic are the ones that are instantly recognizable by everyone who's played the game.
This is something I've suggested as well, particularly because we now have three tiers of play (1-10 heroic, 11-20 paragon, and 21-30 epic) and we could showcase a different race/build combo for each tier.
Yes. If Saga is indicative of where 4E is heading, then this is a must. If iconics are used (and I think that they should be), then what's the point of adding all that versatility in each class if the iconics don't reflect the possibilities?
As for race/class combos: assuming that there are three iconics per class, we are brought to 33 iconics. I would further suggest that the lowest tier be represented by a "traditional" race/class combo (human cleric, dwarven fighter, elven wizard, halfling rogue, etc.), and the others should see the designers going nuts. That's just me, though.
Also, a few iconic multiclassed characters would be cool. Again, that's just me.
- Create new 4E iconics.
I strongly disagree with the idea that the 4E iconics should be famous D&D characters. If the iconics are used to illustrate rules and possibilities it could get somewhat ridiculous ("Here's Elminster messing up a cantrip and on the next page you will see Drizzt trip over a kobold trap"). New iconics can both fail and succeed without resulting in canon debates about their previous D&D statistics or deeds in the novels. Also, as I think may have been pointed out in the women gamers thread, popular characters are mostly male. As an example, in the list of popular characters posted in this thread Goldmoon was the only woman. She's nowhere near the status of the male characters mentioned. So choosing iconics who were already popular would lead to either the iconics being male or to probably endless complaining over why random female novel character was made the X iconic instead of a male one who's much better known and more popular among D&D fans.
B.
Elf Wizard, Female (hopefully neither Mialee nor a total hot elf chick stereotype)
Dwarf Cleric, Male (I see religion being important to dwarves)
Aasimar Paladin, Female (if tieflings will be core, please include aasimar as well)
Tiefling Warlock/Sorcerer/whatever will be the other arcane class in 4E, Male (magic seems like a good fit, and then there would be both a male and a female arcane iconic)
Now, since favored classes are apparently gone (otherwise you'd use them), I think each race should be represented once, with humans taking up the remainder. I'm going to have to make some speculations about what the new classes and races will be.
Just for fun, I'm going to post two entries for each class: the "traditional" race, that is most closely associated with that class, and the "why don't you think about this" race that is less traditional but equally viable--assuming they resemble their 3.X incarnations.
- Paladin: Traditional: Human. There are virtually no nonhuman paladins even referenced in any major publication. Unusual: Halfling. A riding dog-mounted halfling is more maneuverable than any other mounted character in a dungeon, and their small size and agility make them effective defenders.
- Rogue: Traditional: Halfling. They're the classic rogues. Unusual: Elf. With their racial agility and auto-search, they're excellent at this--and unlike halflings, they have the speed to move around for the flank.
- Ranger: Traditional: Elf. Woodsy, archers, dextrous; even more perfect with the scout's 'stuff.' Unusual: Half-orc. Without needing intelligence as much as a rogue does, a half-orc makes a brutal striker.
- Cleric: Dwarf. Dwarves in the literature are always either fighters or clerics, and the fighter role is better filled by the half-orc. Unusual: Half-elf or tiefling. I say this only because every other race has racial priests (Moradin, Corellon Larethian, Yondalla, Gruumsh), and humans are the default race for every other deity.
- Warlord: Traditional: Half-Elf. From what I gather of the class, it's all about social-themed functions, which is the half-elf's forte. Unusual: Since the class is brand new, there are no stereotypes about it. Human would be a good choice here, to showcase the new class in a "default" manner.
- Wizard: Traditional: Tiefling. With the Int bonus and magical heritage, they're a natural choice. Unusual: Dwarf. Wizards don't have to move much, but they need all the HP they can get.
- Sorcerer: Traditional: Human. Like the paladin, virtually all sorcs in the literature are humans (or kobolds). Unusual: Half-elf. With a sorcerer's high Charisma, the combination with half-elf social talents is natural.
Edit: Didn't think about gender. As long as you use a 50/50 split, I don't think it matters. My preference would be to go with a female icon for every icon that was male in 3.5: the cleric, fighter, ranger, and wizard. That leaves the paladin, rogue, warlord, and wizard as male.
Edit 2: If there are significant variants of a class, I suggest a second icon for that variant (poor Nebin!). I have begun to suspect from my reading that the druid might be a variant of the cleric in the new edition, in which case you definitely want a druid icon. Unlike my other suggestions, I recommend that the druid icon remain female, because druids seem to be far and away the most popular class for beginning female players.
Elf Wizard, Female (hopefully neither Mialee nor a total hot elf chick stereotype)
May I offer a suggestion?
Please set aside your differences on the anime style per se. Conceptually, this is what a respectable female wizard looks like: Attractive yet fully clothed, tasteful but not gaudy, and a strong attitude that doesn't take crap without being "obnoxious" or "butch". If anything, the word "professional" comes to mind. (In a female wizard? Who knew??)
It's not just about race, class and stereotype. A meaningful iconic needs to express that D&D is about more than that. Call my standards high, but aim low and you'll hit it.
B: Do two iconics for each class - one with the best race for the class rules-wise (so if it flicks a cool switch in a new player they get a decent build by default) and one that challenges stereotypes.
Shane
Also, we would not use the iconics as often in 4E. At times it seems like we can't ever show a wizard who isn't Mialee or rogue who isn't Lidda. This might be partially fixed if we had multiple iconics, but we don't want to overuse the same characters again. D&D is a game of myriad possibilities, and we want to show that. (Also, did it drive anybody else nuts that there are so many pictures of the heavy armor-wearing iconics in scale? You're 14th level, Regdar! Buy some damn full plate already.)
Isn't it a moot point to ask if we want new or old iconics? If I read the art 'story' from Dungeonscape correctly, they're all dead- except for Lidda. :D So I say bring Lidda back, and let the rest stay dead (because you have to have a halfling rogue as an iconic.) THAT'S my (A) and (B).
May I offer a suggestion?
Please set aside your differences on the anime style per se. Conceptually, this is what a respectable female wizard looks like: Attractive yet fully clothed, tasteful but not gaudy, and a strong attitude that doesn't take crap without being "obnoxious" or "butch". If anything, the word "professional" comes to mind. (In a female wizard? Who knew??)
It's not just about race, class and stereotype. A meaningful iconic needs to express that D&D is about more than that. Call my standards high, but aim low and you'll hit it.
I second the reccomendation for Raquel as a model for an iconic wizard. She's disciplined, clever, and fully clothed, while remaining female. If a developer reads this, a close analysis of the early episodes of Scrapped Princess could be very useful in creating that iconic.
as for a race/class combo... not sure. there should be at least one iconic of each of the races in the book. and if theres a female tiefling iconic, it has to follow the female tiefling rule... all female tieflings are extremely hot. no Mialee redux on the female tiefling, please.
- Create new 4E iconics.
"A" I choose you ! :D
Funny as it is only 3.0/3.5 iconics that I liked were Kerwyn and Eberk.
Even if Mialee the male-crossdressing-elf-wizard was a sight of comedidy for years to come I wouldn't like to see such an appalling characters in my D&D books ever again.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. )
For a race compination I would go for gnome / illusionist-mage :D
B) Male human monk.
However, if you do make new iconic characters, you should very much try to flesh them out more fully. I think that was one of the strengths of the Eberron Campaign Setting; you could really get behind some of those iconic characters. So, if you do add new iconic characters, give them a bit more background beyond a name under an illustration.
As for what to make - why not use all those Playtest characters? Better yet, offer one or two slots to one of your outsourced beta testers as a reward for taking spectacular notes and really helping in the design process. I know that I'd really work my tail off if there was a shot that my playtest character would be chosen as an iconic character!
Again, busting stereotypes is good, and emphazies that the new edition takes the game in a new direction.
In that case, I want a grinning gnome knife fighter, covered in someone else's blood.
As for race/class combo's, anything is fine by me.
I liked (most of) the old ones, but a new edition calls for new iconics.
B: Half-elf bard.
For me, the bard is the iconic adventurer. If bards no longer exist, he (or she) could be an iconic multiclass character emulating a bard, instead.
cheers
That's a great idea. I loves me some contests. Maybe we could have people submit their playtest characters, complete with backstory, to enter into iconic voting. If we do that, I think I've just volunteered myself.
If this thinking gets off the ground and its going to populist to any degree, any chance you could make it something that regular non-clique schmoes could enter a submission for? Preferably not a prized contest, because that rules out a whole bunch of people AGAIN, like the Gleemax panel competition did.
and Jozan... well, let's just say I hope the 4e cleric isn't muck like Jozan the Boring.
never looked into "Heroes of Horrors, have you? ;)
B- Dwarf Fighter.
Can't get much more iconic than that.
B. Anthropomorphic Chicken Monk.
Actually, in addition to Iconic Heroes in the PHB, perhaps we could have Iconic Villains in the DMG and Iconic Monsters in the MM (That would be a little harder and stranger than the other two, but it could be done.). That way, you can have both a heroic and a villainous Iconic for each class, with two distinct different flavours, without being as much in danger of an Iconic glut, because they are spread out.
Actually Monster iconics would be easier. Using the 3.5 MM as an example, your half dragons, half celestials, etc would be iconics by default. Also instead of Ogre/Barbarian 5 as an example of an advanced ogre, it now becomes Fred, Ogre Barbarian 5, complete with stats.
Edit, oh and put the 4.0 iconics in the quickstart rules.
B - Kobold Sorcerer (I want kobolds to be core!!!) :D
Whether you use the same iconics or make new ones, their appeal will be enhanced if you make a new D&D cartoon using them, or maybe animated/CGI versions of them popping on the D&D website and other products. But for Corellon's sake, please make Mialee beautiful. Otherwordly.
B: Elf Fighter.
My suggestion for the iconic character in 4e would be to take 1 character and walk him or her through the "party roles" that has been talked about on the site and at GenCon. Taking a human female, for example, and making each of the party roles would be a great learning tool for new players (or those of us who have played each edition) on the various roles that each class can play in a party.
As far a B goes, see above answer to A for what iconic character I'd like to see. ;)
BTW: The fighters of 3.5 PHB both were pretty cool... Why not showing a "party" of some different races in one class, choosing one for a closer description? Regdar and Tordek side-by-side with the much asked for gnomen knife fighter, a halfling sling swinger, elfen archer etc., followed by the description of Regdar (might as well add some hints of a history for the iconics, btw...).
As for B, I long for the Half-Orcish Monk since I read 3E first :D This rather unusual combo could show the possibilities a fantastic game offers - the typical barbarian as a (could-be) wise man able to do damage without weapons (and some really weird artistics, too ;) ).
Could as well be a part of the above mentioned multi-race one-class-party to be shown with each class ;)
I think they straightjacketed the artists in 3e. The more different characters they show, the more likely it is I'll find one I can identify with any character I'm playing.
B. Female Half-Elf Wizard. Wearing actual clothes!
A character that would be attractive to men and women, looks good on covers, and won't be embarrassing to show to non-gamers.
Give them clothes!
And I'm not talking about some flimsy little nighty that shows more skin than it covers. Proper functional clothes, sensible shoes, armour that actually looks like it could serve as protection.
Adding a suggestion for a new iconic character:
Female gnome wizard, shown in most illustrations riding a dog.
Eh, I think it's best to have a set of 4 characters from the respective role classes, without any of them hogging the lime-light.
Otherwise, female ranger w/ wolf companion. Rugged, yet beautiful. That'll be a captivating lead.
B) Human male whos class doesnt matter as long as they are young, blonde, effeminate and wearing tight black leather pants with no shirt and lots of chains.
I really couldn't pick a favorite class/race combination I would want to see for several reasons. Firstly, I think the Iconic characters should be there to provide an example of each class. Secondly, we really don't know enough about what classes will exist, what races will exist and how each works to formulate good iconic combinations. The Iconic characters should serve as an example to new players of a well built and designed character for each class, each role and each race. Obviously it is likely that there will be a sort of favored iconic party but there really should be one for every race and every class so that it kind of gives new players a starting point to work off of.
B) Human male whos class doesnt matter as long as they are young, blonde, effeminate and wearing tight black leather pants with no shirt and lots of chains.
So you want the new iconic to be rough trade?
*Half-Orc Ranger (as the Brute)
*Tiefling Cleric (some kind of demon cult)
*Dwarf Necromancer (defiler of the ancestors)
*Elf Rogue (Assassin)
*Gnome Fighter (little deranged bastard)
However, here's an idea that might be kind of interesting, for me anyway. It seems that the designers and developers went to GenCon opposed to the idea of doing a conversion document for 4E. However, I seem to recall someone (was it Mearls? Maybe) on one of the Gamer Zer0 Radio shows commenting on how the strong desire that the fans demonstrated for some sort of conversion guidance was leading him to consider a sort of "flavor" conversion guide (rather than a more "rules" converstion guide.) If such a guide were published, it would fun to see some of the 3.x iconics converted over using the spirit of the rules, if not the letter.
B) Halfling Wizard, if I had to pick one.
If I didn't have to limit it to one, I'd agree with the general idea of a nice combination of "expected" class/race combos with "unusual" class/race combos, coupled with a nice spread across both gender and level. That would be cool.
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics. (in addition to the existing ones)
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
Dwarf fighter.
---
The core iconics I'd like to see are:
Barbarian: Krusk
Bard: Need a new one, more dynamic and charismatic
Cleric: Jozan
Druid: Vadania
Fighter: Tordek
Monk: Ember
Paladin: Need a new one, more dynamic and charismatic
Ranger: Soveliss
Rogue: Lidda
Sorcerer: Hennet
Wizard: Mialee (insist on better art!)
Get rid of:
Bard: Gimble (gnomes suck)
Bard: Devis (he is just lacking)
Cleric: Eberk (nothing against him, but keep it at one iconic per class)
Fighter: Regdar (nothing against him, but keep it at one iconic per class)
Paladin: Alhandra (for a class based on CHA she is dull as dishwater)
Rogue: Kerwyn (nothing against him, but keep it at one iconic per class)
Wizard: Naull (boring, keep it at one iconic per class)
Wizard: Nebin (gnomes suck)
Wizard: Aramil (we don't need more wizards)
I also second (third? fourth?) the idea of iconic villains as well as heroes. The scheming necromancer, the powerful lich-lord, the dragon-in-disguise, the ruthless assassin, the scheming nobleman, etc. are all D&D iconic villain archetypes that could be represented.
Iconics I would like to see:
Elf Rogue
Gnome Wizard and/or Human Wizard
Aasimar Paladin (if Tieflings really are being included, you've got to have Aasimiars as well!)
Half-elf Bard
- Create new 4E iconics.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
Gnome Illusionist, you can have so much fun with those little guys.
Until they get it. (That's pulled from Tome of Magic, by the way.)
Come to think of it, get that artist to do the iconics, instead of whoever did them last time. He obviously can't do fabric.
also get some more non-standard combinations, not those race / favored class combinations
B. Make some of the eventual new iconics veer a bit of the standard path like; A Dwarf Barbarian, Elven Paladin, Half-Orc rogue, that sort of thing. Also the idea of more than one iconic per class is a good one, that way you can both have an archtypical class/race combo; Hafling rogue and a more atypical; Tiefling Fighter.
So you want the new iconic to be rough trade?
I can have my dreams can't I?
Specifics I'd like to see.
A Female Fighter. One that A) is attractive, B) is not wearing a chain mail bikini, C) I repeat, does not look like a butch stereotype or half-orc.
And keep whoever is responsible for the initial design of Redgar and Mialee away from the art supplies. Seriously.
I can have my dreams can't I?
Of course, there's this 19-year-old Brazilian tranny I've had my eye on as a potential iconic.
Human Wizard. (It's always an elf for some reason).
The iconic characters (Tordek, Lidda, Mialee, and co.) were pretty prominent in 3E/3.5. There's been some speculation that some of the concept art shows iconics for 4E.
How would you like to see them handled in 4E?
WotC_Logan has specific instructions for how you should reply to make his data collection easier.
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
As this is our discussion forum, please discuss and support your response. Thanks!
-Mike
A) Create new 4E iconics.
B) depends on whats in based on currant rumors
*halfling monk
*teifling warlock
*dwarven paladin
*elven cleric
* half elven bard (to tie in to its presence ability)
* half orc fighter
* human wizard
*shifter (???) druid
The iconic characters (Tordek, Lidda, Mialee, and co.) were pretty prominent in 3E/3.5. There's been some speculation that some of the concept art shows iconics for 4E.
How would you like to see them handled in 4E?
WotC_Logan has specific instructions for how you should reply to make his data collection easier.
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
As this is our discussion forum, please discuss and support your response. Thanks!
-Mike
A) Create new 4E iconics.
B) depends on whats in based on currant rumors
*halfling monk
*teifling warlock
*dwarven paladin
*elven cleric
* half elven bard (to tie in to its presence ability)
* half orc fighter
* human wizard
*shifter (???) druid
*kobold ranger
Of course, there's this 19-year-old Brazilian tranny I've had my eye on as a potential iconic.
Oh! Thats perfect! If these to Iconics got made I could convince more of my freinds that this isnt some straight white male game so they will play it!
Question B: Human Defender
Create new 4E iconics.
B)
Heroic: Female Elf Druid (or Ranger)
Paragon: Female Tiefling Sorcerer (or Warlock)
Epic: Female Dwarf Paladin (or Cleric)
Get 3 for each class, for each level of play. Trying to include the basics(dwarf figther, elf wizards) and the bizarre(halfing barbarian, dwarf rogue) and the in between.
BUT just use then in the 3 core books. Each book(or group of book) should have handfull of iconic character. This way you keep the looks always fresh.
B. Anything that's not a Drow Ranger.
B. Make it strange, like: "Of course, there's this 19-year-old Brazilian tranny I've had my eye on as a potential iconic." Make us think about them.
Also, I'd like a few non-stereotypical iconics. The Half-Orc Rogue or Wizard or an Elf Paladin.
Bring back Jozan as en arch villain, evil cleric of Pelor, the Burning Hate
Well Jozan is allready casting symbol of pain in PHB which is an evil spell meaning that next picture should be "Jozan casts attunement" :P
1 male, 1 female.
1 traditional race-class pairing, 1 non-traditional
Example:
Fighter:
Female human sword and board fighter
Male gnome dual-hook-hammer fighter
Male halfing rogue
Female half-orc rogue
The familiarity of the names and classes helps new players understand the, well, iconic roles of the party dynamic. The non-traditional examples should help to illustrate that other possibilities are out there, should you choose and be ready to explore them.
B: Half-Orc Wizard, that would rock! Also, I don't care what race or gender the Paladin is as long as the Paladin is wearing FULL PLATE! What the heck was that “the paladin is in scale mail” bs! If any of the iconics should be in full plate it should be the Paladin! It would be, you know, Iconic!
B.
BEAUTIFUL FEMALES! Girl's IRL hate to play a female that is portrayed ugly.
NONE of the female iconics should look butch. We always had trouble with female players picking out a class because they thought the female pics from the 3E races and classes all looked ugly (and I agree). Female iconics should look like something that a girl will want to play!
In regards to using preexisiting characters, please dont, we have enough people wanting to make Drizzt clones wihtout marking him down as standard Ranger x_x
But my opinion of Mialee still stands.;)
B: Once we have more information then we can chose race and class.
male halfling ranger/barbarian
male dwarf cleric
male black skinned human fighter
female redhaired rogue
elf wizard
male blonde bard
optional:female asian samurai/monk.
Some of the Iconics are fine as is, But I feel there needs to be like 3 iconics for each class, and a good mix races and sexes for those Iconics.
This is something I've suggested as well, particularly because we now have three tiers of play (1-10 heroic, 11-20 paragon, and 21-30 epic) and we could showcase a different race/build combo for each tier.
I like this suggestion of iconics for each of the three tiers of play. In turn, I would like to suggest that the 3.5 iconics be retained as the epic iconics of 4e (again, with a major make-over), because they've been around for a while and should be high level. The heroic and paragon iconics can be new.
In fact, I like that idea a lot.
B. Human Wizard (as a nod to, yes, Gandalf [the icon of fantasy icons] AND to TSR's old logo)
with multiple iconics for each class.
maybe monstrous races too.
and then one that is unexpected and abnormal.
and the idea of having an illustration of the old iconics having a retirement party was cool. a last supper parody might be a little controversial though
.maybe have the old iconics meeting the new ones, or telling stories to them. kind of passing on the "torch"
New Iconic?
Tiefling Rogue.
Besides, how can people really come up with good class/race combos for potential iconics if we don't know which races are in the core yet?
As for B: Dwarvan Cleric.
If I had to pick one of my suggestions from my previous post, it would be the female human warlord. Nothing says " We like female gamers. " quite like making a the Iconic Leader a woman.
I wish I were able to sketch close to the level of the people who are doing the concept art, but I can't... I think of a picture of a party of five after a battle. In the background, the cleric is healing the fighter, the rogue is looting the bodies of the fallen, and the wizard is sitting down, taking a breather. In the forefront, a strong-looking (well-toned rather than bulging muscles) auburn haired beauty, wearing a breastplate and armour vaguely reminiscient of that used in the series Rome, has one leg up bracing against a rock as she pulls a longspear adorned with the partys banner or penant out of the chest of the enemy commander.
Please get rid of them totally. The only real purpose I saw being served by their presence is support of the highly annoying practice of alternating male and female pronouns. I can ignore them but I don't want to HAVE to do so.
And they should be totally different.
If they are totally different then they are no longer iconic, thus defeating the point.
The other two tiers, or the other iconic if you only do two iconics per class, can be something wild to show of the limitless possibilities of D&D. But even there, restrain yourselves. Abandon completely the buckle-happy "I scavenged my clothing from scraps behind a blacksmith" aesthetic all the classes - and, for that matter, all the arms and armor - showed in 3.0. It doesn't look "gritty" (not that that's an adjective I think should be applied to a fantasy game anyway), it just looks stupid. It makes the character designs absurdly busy, when they should be clean, simple, and, well, iconic. Check out the warblade and swashbuckler for two well-designed iconic characters in 3E.
EDIT: Also? My avatar. That is one classy dwarf!
EDIT 2: How about a "stereotypical heroes" tier, a "morally ambiguous" tier, and an "oddball heroes" tier? The first could do classic activities like crawling dungeons and slaying dragons, the second perhaps focus more on social stuff and intrigue, and the third explore the full scope of the D&D multiverse, travelling the planes, dealing with Things Man Was Not Meant To Know, et cetera.
EDIT 3: On the other hand, having iconics that cross the tiers would have the advantage of showing new players visually the concept of character advancement. Seeing pictures of 5th-level Boris of Burgsville, 15th-level Boris the Blade, and 25th-level Boris the Battle King side-by-side would do a lot to illustrate this core concept of D&D. So perhaps two iconics per class, male/female and classic/maverick, but with different incarnations at each tier.
And a different wizard - Mialee is very ugly
I like the idea to change the old stereotypes a bit. Maybe a female human fighter, a dwarven wizard, an elven rogue and a female halfling cleric. Well, speaking about the 4 classic roles, THOSE are stereotypes, damn! :P
For paladin, a half-orc; for ranger, a tiefling; for druid, a gnome; for bard, a kobold (if they go core); for barbarian (if they still exists), a half-elf! :o :D
B,
Human wizard (male) (Looks like the archmage, but younger, same moustache/beard, similar haircut. (Not bald, maybe pony tail, like Morthos the Warlock) can possibly be the archmage, but as young.)
Human Barbarian (Male), Dumb and charismatic, body as a god (His shoulders should be twice as wide as a human), big winter boots (Fur), topless, helm with horns.
Elven ranger (male) (Wood elf, blond, leather armour and leather half-mask (Covers one side), has a bow, often crouching while having one hand (index and long finger pointing out) touching the ground, feeling tracks.
Keep Hennet and Lidda and The bard (or replace him with Elan).
Kobold half pyroclastic dragon (with wings) monk? Nah, that would be too fun.
If don't/can't use characters from the novels, might thoughts are Iconics are more meant to be the classic stereotypes:
Dwarven Fighter (or Cleric)
Human Paladin
Elven Wizard (or ranger)
Halfing Rogue
Gnome Wizard
Lidda comes a close second for keeping.
Otherwise, it's all good to me.
(Also, did it drive anybody else nuts that there are so many pictures of the heavy armor-wearing iconics in scale? You're 14th level, Regdar! Buy some damn full plate already.)
That annoyed me less than the fact that there were really only a few viable armor types in the PHB. Hide armor? Chainmail? Half Plate? Yeah, you're a sucker for wearing those.
However I hear thats going to be fixed in 4e.
In any case, as someone suggested, I would like to see a drawing showing the 4e iconics meeting the iconics from previous editions. The picture could be included in one of the last 3.5 books (perhaps in the Rules Compendium), and would include:
- 3.x's entire iconic crew (at least the ones from the PHB).
- A selection of the (typically nameless) PC-ish characters depicted in various versions of the 1e and 2e PHBs.
- The iconics from the Rules Cyclopedia.
- From the Red Box: Clerion the Cleric, Fleetwood the Fighter, Greegan the Thief, Felonious the Magic-user, Rolf the Dwarf, Belrain the Elf, and "everyone's lil' buddy", Touchberry the Halfling.
- Plus a selection of PC-types depicted in the Erol Otus Basic and Expert D&D books and the White Box-era Original D&D supplements.
Perhaps the iconic showdown could take place in the Shady Dragon Inn. Though it exists in Mystara, characters from other worlds have been there, such as Warduke (who apparently exists in both Mystara and Oerth, or has traveled between them). In fact, based on its mention in "A Brief History of Warduke", the Shady Dragon may be located in Oerth as well.
Another option would be the World Serpent Inn.
B. As for this question, I have no opinion. Anyway, I trust (oh my!) that the Wizards staffers will do a good job on 4e.
Travis
P.S. If however, the 4e world is a kind of mixture of of the "best of the D&D worlds", then one or two of the best 3e iconics could be retained for 4e -- and even one or two of the best of older editions' iconics too. In this case, they'd likely be "doubles" of their Oerthian (or Mystaran) counterparts, like how the Keep on the Borderlands and the Caverns of Quasqueton officially exist in both Oerth and Mystara (and Garweeze Wurld).
I like the idea for different iconics for each of the three tiers of play. At least one tier - it doesn't really matter which one - should be of absolutely classic, stereotypical examples of each class. The wizard doesn't have to be Gandalf per se, but he should be a scholarly-looking male human in robes. This will serve to connect the game in new players' minds with the fantasy genre that presumably attracted them to D&D in the first place. They should not open the PHB, as I did in 3.0, and say "That's a wizard?!"
SNOO-ZERS. Ditch the robes completely. For all the pewling about how "unrealistic" armor is in the pHB, you people still want *robes*?!
Ever try to run in one? Climb? Swim? DO anything besides lounge arund?
Have a few for each class or race to help show the possibilities, and to help prevent using the same one all the time.
B. Keep Regdar!!!!!!!!!!!
He kicks tail.
Redgar is awesome, but really a new edition should come with new iconics. PLEASE do not make the ranger an elf. Trying to make a tough, serious elf just made it look Vulcan. Make the elf a wizard or bard, or something appreciating fine arts. Though I got to admit, the elf druid worked all right.
And just to shake things up: I'd love to see a Dwarf Druid.
Dwarf Fighter
Aasimar Cleric
Elf Rogue
Tiefling Sorcerer
A - Create new 4E iconics.
However, any new iconics should be so cool they hurt, and they should smell like 4E. Nothing less will do. You want new players to say "I want to play a character who rocks like Gunther the Rogue." and existing players to say "Arbeille the Wizard can do that? Wow! So long, Mialeee."
More likely Arbielle the Wizard looks like that? Wow! So long, Mialee. Seriously, Mialee is way too ugly. I think that the iconics should change though. And that people should stop drawing skulls on evil classes. Seriously, the bit about warlocks being feared in the city has someone wearing skulls walking around alone. Logically, wearing skulls would probably earn you fear in a city.
Redgar is awesome, but really a new edition should come with new iconics. PLEASE do not make the ranger an elf. Trying to make a tough, serious elf just made it look Vulcan. Make the elf a wizard or bard, or something appreciating fine arts. Though I got to admit, the elf druid worked all right.
Half elf druid. Its why she worked out all right.
PLEASE do not make the ranger an elf. Trying to make a tough, serious elf just made it look Vulcan.
I don't know, they made it work with orlando bloom :D
I don't know, they made it work with orlando bloom :D
Well zero out of two is good enough for me if it comes in effeminate homoerotic packaging.
For continuity's sake, since we're going to be getting 4th ed versions of Elminster, Drizzt, and other characters, lets have the old iconic characters converted over, too; however, let's leave them in a special publication, like the Enemies and Allies book for 3.0 updated. However, if you've read the novels that they're in, they were in Greyhawk for only the first few books, then the writers spun them into some wild world of the writers own creation. Greyhawk is NOT HOMEBREW!
As for the new iconics, I'd like to see:
a tiefling (fighter or rogue)
a wizard, a sorcerer, and a psion (for the sake of showing the versatility of the new magic system)
a half-elven ranger
shifter or half-orc barbarian
if there's going to be a mixed mystic/warrior class, a la the Hexblade or the Jedi or something, have that be a drow, they excel at that sort of thing; if not, have them be an example of multiclassing!
B. hm... Human Wizard.
Tordek, Lidda, and Krusk were some of the characters that stood out to me, while the ranger and paladin whom I scarcely even remember unless I'm staring at them barely even registered. B. For the second, I'm actually going to second a suggestion I saw in the thread and go with a Dwarven Wizard. There is something ironic about an iconic iconoclast that I find appealing.
More seriously, I think it would help to emphasize that not all characters are going to go the "traditional" route with their race choices, and that going a little outside of the typical fantasy box might get you an interesting character that is fun to play.Also, I'd like to bring up the "community build" of iconics again. That contest idea was a WONDERFUL idea. I'd make it only three or two entries per person though...otherwise it might get a bit overflown with ideas.
Outside of that, a gnome illusionist and a very attractive (ie: not mialee) elven female wizard.
A couple of evil iconics would be great; perhaps as cameos in pics?
- Iconics don't matter to me.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
See A. I don't care. But since the question is "If you HAD to pick" I would say an Aasimar Paladin. That would just be cool. Not to mention, even though it's been confirmed that Teiflings will be in the PhB, this kind of assumes that Aasimars will be in the PhB, which I'd like to be able to play a good plane-touched.
There's the interview with Shelly Mazzanoble, who wrote a book "Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress: A Girl's Guide to the Dungeons & Dragons Game".
Have her design a Human Sorceress to use as one of the 4E iconics. It seems very fitting.
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
Keep some of the more popular (Lidda comes to mind) and make some new ones.
B. Tiefling cleric
Bludgeon some of these tiefling stereotypes off the bat.
...the ultimate Iconic D&D character.
Some combination of:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
B. Tiefling rogue/fighter. Show off the new race and a non-mage multiclass (we have part time iconics like Ebrik, but do we have any multiclass?).
Ditch the robes completely. For all the pewling about how "unrealistic" armor is in the pHB, you people still want *robes*?! Ever try to run in one? Climb? Swim? DO anything besides lounge arund?
They were one-size-fits-all and relatively easy to make in an age when textiles were not manufactured in huge automated facilities, and kept you warm in an age when central heating did not exist and you could very well die of exposure in your own home.
Not that I prefer D&D to emulate medieval reality as much as possible (I like the thought of adventurers practicing at least basic hygiene), but just a reminder to be mindful of how you pick your targets.
1) An African style Spear and Sheild weilder. It would be nice to see African cultures repesented in the core somewhere for once.
2) A Slavic/Russian inspired looking hero, to allow for a less western europe feel.
3) A wizard with a freaking noticable familuar. I don't think I've ever saw one wth a familuar in 3.5.
4) A wide variety of skin tones. I am tired of seeing a mostly pure white world. Adventuring parties should look like they come from all over the Mediterranian as far as look goes. You're going to have your darks, your tans, your light colors, and this applies to the elves and dwarves to. (Although that could be your pale greens to your pale whites, or your stone greys to your marble whites... or whatever). I like having a more world-trotter feel to your parties.
B:Elven Rogue
-Dwarf Barbarian
In fact, I would like to suggest that it is taken one step further and that there be a group of 'evil' iconic characters.
Goblin Warlock (female)
Hobgoblin Rogue (male)
Orcish Blackguard (male)
Dark Elf Wizard (female)
Kobold Bard (neutral)
Lizardman Ranger (neutral)
Ogre Barbarian (male)
And the evil iconics and the good iconis could regularly be shown in battle with one another.
If I had to pick one of my suggestions from my previous post, it would be the female human warlord. Nothing says " We like female gamers. " quite like making a the Iconic Leader a woman.
A big thumbs-up on that one! Women, even in D&D, shouldn't be relegated to the back lines to be mere eye candy. I think that might attract (or at least get the attention of) some female gamers there: a woman not just with power, but with authority. A female leader should do nicely (think Cptn. Janeway), but she shouldn't necessarily have to be human: often, non-humans can be leaders as well (think Tanis).
Non-human AND female? Sounds like quite a departure from the norm, but then again, this is 4th edition.
If it's not broken, don't fix it. They were a great addition and there is no issue with them.
Iconics I would like to see.
1) An African style Spear and Sheild weilder. It would be nice to see African cultures repesented in the core somewhere for once.
.......
4) A wide variety of skin tones. I am tired of seeing a mostly pure white world. Adventuring parties should look like they come from all over the Mediterranian as far as look goes. You're going to have your darks, your tans, your light colors, and this applies to the elves and dwarves to. (Although that could be your pale greens to your pale whites, or your stone greys to your marble whites... or whatever). I like having a more world-trotter feel to your parties.
While I agree with the concept being a minority myself, most D&D campaign settings dont span amazingly huge climate regions, it makes no sense to have black humans in the far north just because its politically correct, also most settings dont have a place like Africa to have caused them to evolve that way in the first place. I prefer realism (well verisimilitude) over Political Correctness any day when it comes to me being able to suspend my belief in a game world.
PS: What is says in my signature is very likely compared to what you've said, not from a marketing point of veiw but internal logic of a setting. With no abrahamic religons around there is no reasons for queers to be opressed.
It always surprised me that the wizard iconic wasn't human. When I hear the word *wizard* my mind immediately goes to Gandalf or Merlin.
In fact, as far as iconics go, I thought that Hennet was cooler than Mailee, because he embodied the more anti-hero aspect of spellcasting.
Also, depending on the classes we end up with, I think one iconic is enough. Devis was definitely cooler than Gimble. I never had a player roll a gnome for any reason other than comedy relief... sorry, let me get back on task.
I would definitely suggest:
Human wizard; probably male and younger.
Elven fighter; male (elves are incredibly graceful fighters)
Dwarven cleric; male (dwarves have a deep relationship with their gods)
Half-elf rogue; female (half-elves are outsiders and fit the job well)
Tiefling ranger; female (more of a horizon-walker if you will)
B. I don't really care what race/class combinations you use, but I really would like to see some "non-white" characters, at least among the humans. Ember was a very good start in Third Edition, but I am seriously sick of seeing European faces everywhere in my books - and I'm have entirely British heritage, myself.
Some evidence of ethnic diversity among the non-human races would also be great. Maybe dwarven ethnic groups don't match up to human ethnic groups - you might have dwarves with an "Asian" skin tone and red hair, or whatever - but I really want to see something more than dwarves as short, sturdy white people, elves as lithe, graceful white people, et cetera.
D&D isn't set in medieval Europe. People in D&D settings have no reason to all be ethnically European. (Japan is a temperate island nation, just like Britain.) I know most of the people who play D&D are from European backgrounds, but I really want to see more diversity.
(An iconic who looks like she could be Japanese doesn't have to be wearing a kimono, either. There's nothing wrong with mixing up ethnic appearance and cultural trappings!)
And, to be on topic...Three iconics per class would be good.
I got to thinking about the iconics, and many of their preceived problems (dumb armor choices, no familiar or animal companion) is the base illustrations in the PHB are of fresh, brand-new characters who haven't had enough time to summon a familiar. And, for whatever reason, they really never got developed further than 1st level.
Create new Iconics for 4E (somewhat)
B. (pretty tentative)
Female Human Fighter (leader)
Female Tiefling Wizard
Male Dwarf Rogue
Male Elven Warlord
Male Halfling Ranger/Cleric
I think the problem with the current set of iconics stems from a few places:
They have no clear relationship to each other.
They are only referenced infrequently through the various rules, so you don't get to know them.
There is one for each class, but some seem 'token', not iconic.
My suggestion is to have only as many iconics as you expect in a 'typical' party for the game (five is about right for my current understanding). They should represent the diversity of the game, the cool new direction of 4E, and behave throughout the books and examples as a party. I want to get to know them. They should be cool!
A few suggestions:
Use a variety of races, but make the leader of the group a human female. All sorts of good reasons for this.
Cover the typical party roles, and use one to demonstrate multi-classing.
Consistently use them in the examples. Fully develop their abilities and personalities.
Make them all interesting characters, folks it'd be fun to run into during an adventure.
Break some stereotypes (A dwarf rogue might be a poor choice, but push some limits).
Demonstrate new classes and races (Teifling and Warlord?) but not together in the same character.
Resist the temptation to make a new 'iconic' for each class and race. Instead use the iconics where possible and label the others as simply examples of that class or race. Keep them as true icons of the game.
So...
How about a tiefling paladin?
And an aasimar barbarian?
Create new 4E iconics - KILL MIALEE!
That's not a woman. That's a man, baby! ;)
Uh, yeah, Mialee has got to go. No offense to Mialee fans, but I personally do not care for Mialee at all. Her head is misshaped. I really don't like her outfit either.
When I think of elves, I think of Laurana and Gilthanas. Elves are supposed to be beautiful. Mialee is pretty ugly, at least in my opinion.
4th Edition is a new edition. My vote is to have a new look with the new edition. Get away from some of the old art styles. Look for newer styles, more vibrant and energetic artists. Make this an edition that will generate some art masterpieces.
Personally, I'd either like new iconics or no iconics. Just create some good art!
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
although I think there should be a review, and not all the 3.5 iconics should continue. Add in a few new ones to reflect that 4E is a new game, but use some of the 3.5 iconics to show how old characters can be reimagined in the new game. Lidda for example I can't see being caught out by a new edition after the exploding cigar.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick?
Female Human Warrior with non-cheesecake art. Call her Morgana Ironwolf for a nostalgia reference. Give her a counterpart as well - a Male Human Wizard.
B - (female) human fighter.
Attractive, but with the emphasis on kick-ass, and absolutely no suicide breastplate (ie, the breastplate with boobs that funnels attacks right into the sternum).
From one of my posts in the Astrid's Parlor thread:
The fighter is generic. It doesn't push religious buttons with magical or imaginary religious paraphernalia. It's iconic - the hero who fights the dragon and saves the day. It's active - the one who fights by swinging a sword, not slinking around or mumbling odd words or praying to imaginary gods. The fighter has the cool gear - the swords, shields, bows, and armor. From an artistic standpoint, these 'tools of the trade' create compelling silhouettes with visually engaging interplay between the positive and negative spaces which hold the eye to the image long enough for an advertising message to sink in (to a layperson - the fighter's stuff makes the fighter look cooler, so people look at it longer). The iconic fighter is admirable, winning the day through a combination of courage, power, and pure effort. The fighter is tall, and generally human, and easy to relate to.
In 3rd edition, the iconic fighter party leader was Redgar, and Redgar was awesome. I would like to see the leader of the iconic party, the central persona in group images, stay the fighter.
But make that fighter a woman.
A woman in effective, body covering full plate armor, with a serious disposition, a serious sword, and the ability to kick some serious arse (and enjoy doing so). The kind of woman that the average D&D gamer guy might even imagine himself being, rather then imagin himself sleeping with.
We've already seen this kind of woman in D&D art occasionally - the Core paladin, the crusader in Tome of Battle. Making such a fictional woman the leader of the core iconic party would, in my mind, be a bold and positive step forward. Better yet, her costume would be established by her iconic-ness, and thus even the artists who haven't quite caught on to how the century turned a few years back would still be required to show her fully armored, and her 'unspoken leaderness' would force them to feature her in more artwork then the poor awesome paladin made it into.
A non-mammalian female.
Yeah, I know. Not gonna happen. But think about the possibilities! ...Or don't, if gender confusion isn't your thing. Heh.
Anyway.
A. Create new iconics, and
B. Make a Kobold or a Lizardfolk something. I don't care what it is, as long as it's neither a Barbarian or a Druid. Thank you.
A - Ditch the Iconics.
My reasoning: I never felt that there was anything special about having one character (or three, or twenty) to exemplify a class. It just doesn't work in a system as open-ended as 3.x, and since 4E is, if anything, broadening choices, Iconics will only root the game in place.
I see that ~80% of the community wants new Iconics. Why? Because 3.X ICONICS DIDN'T WORK. I didn't feel empathy to Jozan as he cast Holy Smite. I thought, what the heck is a cleric of Pelor doing in the Core rules? Redgar didn't make me want to play a fighter, he made me sad that he was so obviously unoptimized. Mialee...let's not even go there.
Frankly, by tying down the classes into a few characters the game was made less expandable on the surface. 1-2E's art worked well for me because:
- There wasn't a lot of it
- There was no attempted bid for continutity.
Cut down on the art altogether! I hear there will be full-page art in 4E. Um...why? I buy the books to get crunch and fluff, not to pay WotC's printing bills! I don't get any inspiration from the art, it just irritates me.
Some art is useful, like the one next to the chart of sizes. That gave me an idea of how large a dragon was compared to a purple worm. But the total overflow of art basically irritated me. I fully expected to see 'Redgar Swings a Sword at an Orc' in CWar, just to take up half of a page. Also, the chapter title backgrounds in 3.x were laughable. 'Look! Its a guy in armor! OMGZZZ!!! There are circles and things!!!! And lines!!!!'
Gotta go now, but that about sums up my feelings.
New ones for a new edition is also a good idea.
Just keep them as solid archetypes.
I'd love to be able to leave some sort of insight into why I don't care, or what would make me care about them, but I can't. I get the point of them, but I've never really felt I needed them to help me figure out the game or get an idea for my character. It may be worth sharing that I'm 29 and have been playing DnD since middle school.
Chris Lightfellow would work!
That is exactly the kind of character I'm talking about, although for a D&D iconic I'd prefer more ornate armor (but please, keep the overall breastplate shape!), a bigger, more elaborate sword, and a tall shield. Maybe a shortbow and quiver slung over the back to add even more depth to the contour. Basically Chris Lightfellow if she were done by Wayne Reynolds. And make sure she's tall, if she's to be the central figure in group shots. A few pics of her slicing up enemies with the awesome new sword techniques and blocking enemy blows with the shield techniques that I hope they didn't neglect and I'd be very happy.
On the other hand, I do like the multiple sample character artwork, one of each gender, for the classes shown in the PHBII. I like that a lot. Perhaps that could be continued, but only one of the characters would be considered 'iconic'? Or one would be considered more 'iconic' then the other?
Honestly, there are a lot of very different ways that WotC could go about this, and they all have their merits.
B - Sir Holyunderburrow - Gnome Paladin
A - Iconics Don't Matter to Me
B - Sir Holyunderburrow - Gnome Paladin
That made me laugh, "Sir Holyunderburrow" - sounds like a halfling from LOTR.
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.?
Create new 4e iconics. Use them as the pregen characters for the introductory adventure, but with compelling backstories for whatever the assumed campaign setting for 4e will be. Make us care about the iconics. WotC might even create a series of short stories involving these characters leading up to 4e release (alternatively you could make it a serialized novel for D&DI). Anyway, the point is that if the iconics are only going to be cardboard place holders for examples, then I think WotC is missing out on an opportunity to do something special for 4e, which wasn't done (IMHO) in 3e.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick?
Definately Human... as for why... it's because most fantasy books, games, movies, etc... have humans as their heroes and 4e should be looking to them for inspiration.
As for choosing a class... I think any of the classes will do as long as there is something compelling in the character (which goes back to question #1).
The iconics might serve best as an example for new players, so I would make their race/class combinations the 'best' choice. While it might be obvious and ho-hum to old players, new players could use solid examples of what roles the different races typically play.
B. Aasimar Bard
Personally I believe that 4E iconics should have surprising character class/race/alignment combinations and also should be prominent in licensed material. That is, when D&D is licensed outside of established D&D campaign settings, the iconics should be present and noticable, which should further serve to link the licensed material with D&D.
The iconics in 3E were hardly apparent except in the most shallow and poorly considered ways -- they should be a part of a history, should have appealing backgrounds, feats and prestige classes, spells and magic items, cities or settings, even monsters associated with them.
Also, there should be noticable presence of a sea wizard who crafts games. Just so that young folk who encounter 4e first remember Wizards of the Coast when they think of D&D.
I remember there was a character named "Gygax Dragonlord" in a fantasy wargame called Swords and Sorcery. Something like that might be done for Gygax and Arneson... with iconic characters based on Wizards (and maybe Hasbro) employee. It would be both cute and help instill an association between the game and the company.
Mascots in the game help sell the game: Parker Brothers knew that (think of "Rich Uncle Pennybags" From Monopoly). These mascots should seem familiar to game players, should appeal to the romantic sensibilities and intelligence of roleplayers. These mascots should be often used in licensed material, be protagonal in at least one campaign setting, have fascinating qualities, and not be in the least bit generic or otherwise no one ends up really caring about them.
After all, who really gives a hoot about any of the 3E characters? Drizzt had quite an appeal to many as does Asmodeus in D&D (as opposed to the demon mentioned in Book of Tobit), Bahaumut, and St. Cuthbert. The Ifrit statue of AD&D covers is also quite well remembered. Iconic characters should be as fixative as all of these.
SNOO-ZERS. Ditch the robes completely. For all the pewling about how "unrealistic" armor is in the pHB, you people still want *robes*?!
Ever try to run in one? Climb? Swim? DO anything besides lounge arund?
That depends entirely on the cut of the robes. Sometimes they can give you more freedom to move around.
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
I'd like some new iconics, to help make the new edition feel different from the old. There was a few of the old ones I liked, but not enough to want to keep them all. A goodbye picture (or guest appearance) of the old iconics would be awesome though.
2, preferably 3, different iconics for each class would be nice, so the players have something to choose from. Especially if 4e includes fewer classes but more ways to vary them (which I hope). Perhaps do it like in d20 Modern, where the second iconic character for each class appear in a different place than the first.
Also, don't be afraid to use other characters than the iconics if the situation calls for it. Recognisable characters are funny, and they create a feeling of consistency and familiarity, but they shouldn't cause artists to compromise too much.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
Human warlord, preferably female.
I believe the iconic leader (which a warlord sounds like) should be human, because humans are the default race that no one has a problem with. A dwarf will alienate the elf lovers, an elf will do the same for the dwarf fanboys etc. Humans are neutral and easy to relate to.
I would also like her to be female, partly because the role of someone who encourage others, and maybe solves problems within the group, appeals to many females, and partly because the people at Astrid's Parlor pretty much seems to agree that the thing that turns many girls off D&D isn't the female characters in skimpy outfits, but rather the lack of any female character that commands respect – and of course, the lack of male eye-candy ;)
Speaking of which, please make at least one of the male iconics handsome, and put him in clothes that shows it. And bring back dresses for females, they look good and have a much wider appeal than the thing Mialee is wearing.
And since I was bored anyway: Here's some (a lot of) possible new iconics for each of the old classes (since I don't know enough about the new):
Show
Barbarian:
Berserker: Human or dwarf. Blond, pale, clad in fur and chain mail, possibly a horned helmet (Vikings are very popular).
Tribal: Human or halfling (opposite gender of the berserker). Dark skinned, lightly clad, leather armour, tribal tattoos.
Orc: Male orc, looking like an orc. Maybe with a cool axe... what more to say?
Bard:
Artist: Female half-elf. Long hair, pretty, feminine, wears jewellery and a dress, plays the lute or the harp. Like the old virtuoso, but with more detail, and a more exiting outfit.
Trickster: Male gnome/halfling or (handsome) elf/human. Practical, yet stylish clothing, several daggers in different places on his body, possibly in the process of casting an illusion. If he's human or elf, please make him sexy, possibly with an open shirt (though, if you want him to be in leather armour, I'll understand ;) ).
War leader: Orc or human. Muscular, the opposite of a sissy, playing the drum, looking either primitive or militant.
Cleric:
Mystic: Female elf or planetouched. Wearing light armour, sandals and clothing with wide sleeves, loose trousers or maybe a skirt. Looking either serene or focused. Holding a glowing holy symbol in one hand, and a wand/rod in the other, carrying a light sword in her belt.
Protector: Human or dwarf. Wearing full plate, holding a flaming mace and a shield. A more dramatic version of Jorzan the Boring.
Cultist: Male tiefling or human. Dark hooded cloak, sinister expression, holy symbol shaped like a skull, holding a vicious and occult looking dagger, possibly followed by a skeleton.
Druid:
Treehugger: Female elf or half-elf. Pretty much like Vadania (she was one of the old iconics that worked) with minor cosmetic changes, possibly a tattoo, and maybe an owl or white tiger as animal companion.
Nature's warrior: Male orc (shifter if possible). Wearing dragonhide plate, sitting atop his animal companion (a large predator – perhaps a dinosaur, wearing barding), attacking with a thorny club.
Fighter:
Tank: Male human or dwarf. Wearing full plate, carrying a longsword an a shield, looking ugly and boring. I would have preferred a female or something exiting (like a guy looking like he belonged in '300' :P ) instead, but most guys adore this classic.
Swashbuckler: Male human, elf or halfing. Slim, graceful, wearing light armour, carrying a rapier (and possibly a dagger in the other hand), elegant clothing (more inspired by the late renaissance than the Dark Ages). Much like the iconic Swashbuckler.
Nomadic warrior: Female elf or halfling. Dark skinned, loose sand-coloured outfit, possibly with the lower face covered, sitting atop her mount, a falchion in her belt, and getting ready to fire her bow, (or using the falchion, in case the bow is supposed to be the ranger's domain).
Monk:
Oriental: Female elf, half-elf or human. Graceful, long black hair held behind her head, Asian looking (obviously), colourful clothes, much like in 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' or 'Hero', halfway kneeling as she throws a handful of shurikens.
Ki-warrior: Male human or planetouched. Muscular without overdoing it, dark-skinned, bare-chested, looking calm, standing like he was about to deliver a blow, with mystic energies surrounding his fist. (Preferably handsome, but I can settle for a bald and bearded guy, as long as I get some eye-candy elsewhere ;))
Paladin: I hope this becomes a prestige class. If not: Female human or aasimar in actual full plate.
Ranger:
Archer: Female human. Holding a beautifully carved bow, a short blade in her belt, no (or very light) armour, wearing bracers and green clothes that are both tight and comfortable to move in, a wolf companion at her side.
Two-weapon fighter: Male elf. Long haired and beautiful, fighting with two slim blades, wearing a form of exotic looking elven armour, maybe mithral or looking like it's made of leaves (but be careful not to make it silly). And make him handsome (I really can't stretch this enough :P ).
Rogue:
Trap finder: Female human or halfling. Practical clothing, light armour, several tools in her belt, goggles in the forehead, a no-nonsense attitude, but still charming (Lidda actually works for this).
Socializer: Male half-elf or tiefling. Stylish, with a cocky smirk, shoulder-length hair, maybe a goatee, elegant rapier in his belt, constantly flipping a coin.
Backstabber: Any small humanoid or elf. Athletic, short hair, leather armour, cloak, mithral buckler, a dagger dripping with poison, looks very alert and suspicious.
Sorcerer:
Handsome male: Male human. He is a man, and he looks good. This is the perfect opportunity to make this exiting new kind of character. High charisma and no armour requirements. Hennet was a step in the right direction. Now take that further (further as in 'even better looking' not 'even more weird clothes'), please
?
Blaster: Female human elf or half-elf. Red hair, green eyes, the classical cliché that so many people love (or hate). But this time, consider giving her curves caused by actual bulging, not just a non-existent waist, and put her in a red dress, instead of a loincloth and a bra. It's just as impractical, and this way fewer people will hate it. A cat familiar is the obvious choice, but anyting smal and furry would work.
Unearthly: Male planetouched. Looks even more inhuman than his brethren. Strangely coloured eyes, hair, and skin, maybe with scales, or wings. Looks powerful and carries several wands and rods. Has a more advanced familiar (like a pseudo dragon).
Wizard:
Bookworm: Female anything but orc. Long, braided hair, modest (doesn't have to be boring) clothing, rather young, but looking competent and maybe even scholarly. Not too sexy. In the process of reading a scroll. Owl familiar.
Classic: Male human. Wears a robe, has a beard (though not necessarily a long grey one), and a staff. What can I say? It gives an impression of traditional fantasy, and most guys dig it
Archmage: Female elf. Could be like a non-ugly Mialee without the strange outfit and the weird proportions. Wears an obviously magic robe and staff (make the robe different from the traditional bulky one). Has a cute little rat familiar on her shoulder
Berserker: Human or dwarf. Blond, pale, clad in fur and chain mail, possibly a horned helmet (Vikings are very popular).
Tribal: Human or halfling (opposite gender of the berserker). Dark skinned, lightly clad, leather armour, tribal tattoos.
Orc: Male orc, looking like an orc. Maybe with a cool axe... what more to say?
Bard:
Artist: Female half-elf. Long hair, pretty, feminine, wears jewellery and a dress, plays the lute or the harp. Like the old virtuoso, but with more detail, and a more exiting outfit.
Trickster: Male gnome/halfling or (handsome) elf/human. Practical, yet stylish clothing, several daggers in different places on his body, possibly in the process of casting an illusion. If he's human or elf, please make him sexy, possibly with an open shirt (though, if you want him to be in leather armour, I'll understand ;) ).
War leader: Orc or human. Muscular, the opposite of a sissy, playing the drum, looking either primitive or militant.
Cleric:
Mystic: Female elf or planetouched. Wearing light armour, sandals and clothing with wide sleeves, loose trousers or maybe a skirt. Looking either serene or focused. Holding a glowing holy symbol in one hand, and a wand/rod in the other, carrying a light sword in her belt.
Protector: Human or dwarf. Wearing full plate, holding a flaming mace and a shield. A more dramatic version of Jorzan the Boring.
Cultist: Male tiefling or human. Dark hooded cloak, sinister expression, holy symbol shaped like a skull, holding a vicious and occult looking dagger, possibly followed by a skeleton.
Druid:
Treehugger: Female elf or half-elf. Pretty much like Vadania (she was one of the old iconics that worked) with minor cosmetic changes, possibly a tattoo, and maybe an owl or white tiger as animal companion.
Nature's warrior: Male orc (shifter if possible). Wearing dragonhide plate, sitting atop his animal companion (a large predator – perhaps a dinosaur, wearing barding), attacking with a thorny club.
Fighter:
Tank: Male human or dwarf. Wearing full plate, carrying a longsword an a shield, looking ugly and boring. I would have preferred a female or something exiting (like a guy looking like he belonged in '300' :P ) instead, but most guys adore this classic.
Swashbuckler: Male human, elf or halfing. Slim, graceful, wearing light armour, carrying a rapier (and possibly a dagger in the other hand), elegant clothing (more inspired by the late renaissance than the Dark Ages). Much like the iconic Swashbuckler.
Nomadic warrior: Female elf or halfling. Dark skinned, loose sand-coloured outfit, possibly with the lower face covered, sitting atop her mount, a falchion in her belt, and getting ready to fire her bow, (or using the falchion, in case the bow is supposed to be the ranger's domain).
Monk:
Oriental: Female elf, half-elf or human. Graceful, long black hair held behind her head, Asian looking (obviously), colourful clothes, much like in 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' or 'Hero', halfway kneeling as she throws a handful of shurikens.
Ki-warrior: Male human or planetouched. Muscular without overdoing it, dark-skinned, bare-chested, looking calm, standing like he was about to deliver a blow, with mystic energies surrounding his fist. (Preferably handsome, but I can settle for a bald and bearded guy, as long as I get some eye-candy elsewhere ;))
Paladin: I hope this becomes a prestige class. If not: Female human or aasimar in actual full plate.
Ranger:
Archer: Female human. Holding a beautifully carved bow, a short blade in her belt, no (or very light) armour, wearing bracers and green clothes that are both tight and comfortable to move in, a wolf companion at her side.
Two-weapon fighter: Male elf. Long haired and beautiful, fighting with two slim blades, wearing a form of exotic looking elven armour, maybe mithral or looking like it's made of leaves (but be careful not to make it silly). And make him handsome (I really can't stretch this enough :P ).
Rogue:
Trap finder: Female human or halfling. Practical clothing, light armour, several tools in her belt, goggles in the forehead, a no-nonsense attitude, but still charming (Lidda actually works for this).
Socializer: Male half-elf or tiefling. Stylish, with a cocky smirk, shoulder-length hair, maybe a goatee, elegant rapier in his belt, constantly flipping a coin.
Backstabber: Any small humanoid or elf. Athletic, short hair, leather armour, cloak, mithral buckler, a dagger dripping with poison, looks very alert and suspicious.
Sorcerer:
Handsome male: Male human. He is a man, and he looks good. This is the perfect opportunity to make this exiting new kind of character. High charisma and no armour requirements. Hennet was a step in the right direction. Now take that further (further as in 'even better looking' not 'even more weird clothes'), please
?Blaster: Female human elf or half-elf. Red hair, green eyes, the classical cliché that so many people love (or hate). But this time, consider giving her curves caused by actual bulging, not just a non-existent waist, and put her in a red dress, instead of a loincloth and a bra. It's just as impractical, and this way fewer people will hate it. A cat familiar is the obvious choice, but anyting smal and furry would work.
Unearthly: Male planetouched. Looks even more inhuman than his brethren. Strangely coloured eyes, hair, and skin, maybe with scales, or wings. Looks powerful and carries several wands and rods. Has a more advanced familiar (like a pseudo dragon).
Wizard:
Bookworm: Female anything but orc. Long, braided hair, modest (doesn't have to be boring) clothing, rather young, but looking competent and maybe even scholarly. Not too sexy. In the process of reading a scroll. Owl familiar.
Classic: Male human. Wears a robe, has a beard (though not necessarily a long grey one), and a staff. What can I say? It gives an impression of traditional fantasy, and most guys dig it
Archmage: Female elf. Could be like a non-ugly Mialee without the strange outfit and the weird proportions. Wears an obviously magic robe and staff (make the robe different from the traditional bulky one). Has a cute little rat familiar on her shoulder
Keep the 3.5 iconics (though I'd replace Mialee with the Gnome Illusionist. He looked much cooler).
B.
Gnome Wizard
I have an idea:
There's the interview with Shelly Mazzanoble, who wrote a book "Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress: A Girl's Guide to the Dungeons & Dragons Game".
Have her design a Human Sorceress to use as one of the 4E iconics. It seems very fitting.
I rather like this idea. Make Astrid, Mazzanoble's character, the new iconic sorceress.
Another point: Make the "starting packages" optimized. The barbarian has Weapon Focus--he should have Power Attack. The bard, the fighters, and the monk have Improved Initiative, the human fighter and the monk have Blind-Fight, and the sorc and wizard have Toughness. Please.
In fact, if you do give sample epic characters, an entire, well-optimized progression would be a good idea. For example, if this were 3.5, I'd recommend for the fighter that it take improved trip, cleave--the stuff that's most popular. Heck, if you have a way to parse the beta testers' characters quickly, I'd recommend you use the most popular types of progressions found there.
sorry, the correct answer is not listed. Go back and talk to your marketing guys, read your threads and review your preview films from Gen-Con. You MUST show off the newness of the product with at least one new icon AND you MUST soothe the 3.5E worshipers with the familiar. You MUST do both
3.5E icon suggestion: Start with Tordek - you guys have been going on and on about how fighters are being handled in 4E and almost everyone is interested in seeing how 3.5E characters translate to 4E and it seems only logical to start with Tordek
B
pick a new class like warlord and an easy race like human to illustrate the new class
Although I don't have too many attachments to the iconic characters, I think having them aids in descriptions later on in the books. For example, when attempting to describe flanking, the book mentions a couple of characters (Lidda and Tordek IIRC). I think using the rogue iconic here is a much cleaner way to write the manual than any alternative. That having been said, I think some of the iconics are good, and some are not; as such, some should be saved, and some should not. In any case, I think the term iconic tends to imply that players should build their characters similar to the way that the iconic character is set up, and I think it would be nice if 4e went out of its way to dispell this notion. Describe how the player creating the character viewed his character, and how the creation process allowed him to create his iconic character.
As far as who to keep, I copied this list off of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons_iconic_characters
Krusk - I liked this guy, and wish he had been used more often
Gimble - who? *axe*
Devis - Devis is pretty flamboyant, but I think it would be cool if they redid him to be even more flamboyant. Either than or make the iconic bard a female.
Jozan - meh, he's all right, I guess.
Eberk - no strong impression, should probably be axed
Vadania - no, just no
Regdar & Tordek - Both of these guys are decent, and if there are going to be different types of fighters, perhaps they could both exist in addition to a third fighter to show off the differences in fighter character creation. I would suggest a half-elf female using a quicker weapon.
Ember - I really didn't like her, but maybe it was just the way the class was portrayed.
Alhandra - I have always hated the paladin class, as well as the LG alignment in general. I'm probably not the right person to pass judgment on her.
Soveliss - kind of a dork
Lidda - She's all right, keep her.
Kerwyn - Who?
Hennet - sure
Mialee - why not?
B)
in rank order
1) Half-orc barbarian
2) Halfling Rogue
3) Elven Wizard
4) Human Cleric
5) Dwarven Fighter
Lialin Thardalien - Elf Male Fighter
Tubrin "Tubby" Tinthinner - Halfling Male Cleric
Hilka Deepstone - Dwarf Female Rogue
Solam Darghyst - Human Male Wizard (Abjurer)
Vimik - Changeling Male Bard
Yndara Orcfoe - Tiefling Female Ranger
Sir Charl Medridel- Human Male Paladin
Nilda Hawkwing - Human Female Barbarian
Any of the Humans can be substituted with Half-Elf
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
All of these appeal to me more or less equally, but if I have to choose one, I would say "create new 4e iconics." There is nothing wrong with Regdar and the gang -- they've grown on me a little over the years -- but it's a new edition, so we should have new iconics. Regdar is a grapplin' kind of fighter. He's not going to want to have anything to do with blue fire shooting out of his... er... nose when he scores a critical hit.
Oh, and not to be a negative Nancy, but you might want to expand your artist stable some more if you are leaning in the iconic direction again. Lockwood is a genius, but none of the art I've yet seen for 4e really inspires.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character.)
Well, there's this human wizard named Nemo...
er, I mean, for me, D&D has always been about the human cleric. The human is the "race of destiny," to take the title of the 3.5 splatbook, and embodies the adventuring spirit moreso than any other race. It seems like every other race needs an excuse to stick their heads down that dark hole just outside of town, but damned if those humans don't go and do it just to see if anything bites it off. Humans represent a good mix of curiosity, nobility, restlessness, and greed that defines "adventurer."
The cleric is an ideal choice when it comes to adventuring. They can wear excellent armor, wield stalwart if not ideal weaponry, and cast offensive, defensive, and healing spells. Granted, they are a bit stymied when they come across a locked dungeon door, but that is why they carry heavy bludgeons!
Cut down on the art altogether! I hear there will be full-page art in 4E. Um...why? I buy the books to get crunch and fluff, not to pay WotC's printing bills! I don't get any inspiration from the art, it just irritates me.
I understand this viewpoint, but it ain't gonna happen.
There are too many video gamers, comic book and anime fans that are within the target audience of D&D to cut down the number of illustrations that much. Too much dry text and stats is big turn-off to the artsy crowd.
However, I agree that full-page art is a bit too much of a space-waster, unless it's at the very beginning or end of the book (after all, even the 1e Monster Manual did have a couple full-page artworks).
That one, perhaps put the 3e Iconics in the conversion document, but new ones elsewhere, and please at least try to max them out.
- Half-Elven Mage-Thief.
Also Dwarf Fighter-Cleric, Halfling Ranger-Thief, Human Paladin, and Lizardman Druid.
However, and I know this is somewhat in the realm of speculation, multiclassing is supposed to be somewhat better this time around, so how about a fighter/mage combination that shows how the two classes blend together under the new rules?
Basically Chris Lightfellow if she were done by Wayne Reynolds.
No.
Chris' appeal to both male and female fantasy fans is that she's tough, professional and attractive without looking like or being a jerk. She is the epitome of the "knight in shining armor" image, able to both intimidate armies and greet children without scaring them away.
Wayne Reynolds is good at what he does. But he is incapable of drawing a tough character without a hideous grimace or exaggerated features, because grimaces and exaggerated features are his specialties!
And I mentioned Raquelle (and Chris in a different thread) because they demonstrate a character design can be tough and female and still appeal to both genders. D&D desperately needs such a character, but with all due respect for his artistic ability, Wayne Reynolds is the last person I'd trust with such a character design. Let him draw the barbarian.
My suggestions:
1) A Human Female Warlord/Knight, much like Chris Lightfellow above. Actually, all this talk of the Astrid thread is reminding me of a character named Astrid who fulfills this exact type in a videogame called Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance. A young woman with an aristocratic or even royal air about her, wearing full-plate, riding her horse into the middle of battle, inspiring others. A Joan of Ark type character, really. Someone feminine and beautiful enough to look great in an elaborate dress, but strong and brave enough to fight on the battlefield.
2) A Male Dwarven Ranger. Dwarves and Rangers always seemed to work well together in my head, and I'm surprised that no one ever combines the two... A middle-aged veteran type, scouring mountains and deep caves. Full-bearded (of course), with a large pack full of gear on his back, hunched forward as he examines the trail left behind by the orcs he is hunting, his trusty axe at hand.
3) A Male Orc Druid/Shaman type character. Someone savage and proud, leading his people and protecting his lands. Clad in the furs and fangs of the beasts he has hunted. As a bonus, this appeals to both Eberron fans and the World of Warcraft crowd!
I understand this viewpoint, but it ain't gonna happen.
There are too many video gamers, comic book and anime fans that are within the target audience of D&D to cut down the number of illustrations that much. Too much dry text and stats is big turn-off to the artsy crowd.
However, I agree that full-page art is a bit too much of a space-waster, unless it's at the very beginning or end of the book (after all, even the 1e Monster Manual did have a couple full-page artworks).
Oh, and don't forget 'Emrikel the Chaotic' from the 1st ed DMG, or 'A Paladin In Hell' from 1st ed PHB, either!
I've appreciated the 3.X iconics, at least as a concept if not the characters. Even with new books and concepts, there was an element of the known in the art.
So, I like the idea of iconics (and this like is boosted because of the awesomeness of the four Paizo has shown for their Pathfinder series). I think a new edition needs new iconics, as we'll be approaching things from a new viewpoint. Certain combinations won't exist anymore, and there will be new ones (especially if "warlord" means anything).
I don't have any specific ones, but here's some things I'd like to see: even breakdown of gender; a mix of humans and demi-humans; eventually more than one for each class (if a sword fighter is going to be so different than a spear or an axe fighter, it's pretty silly to have only one iconic fighter).
No.
Fine, fine, you have me there. :P Rather, Chris Lightfellow if her armor and equipment were done by Wayne Reynolds. How's that. Her gear in that picture is great for the style it's in, but I've come to associate D&D with rather more fantastically ornate armor and somewhat oversized and overly elaborate arms, and I like it that way. For modern D&D, Lightfellow's longsword in that image barely qualifies as a rapier.
While I agree with the concept being a minority myself, most D&D campaign settings dont span amazingly huge climate regions, it makes no sense to have black humans in the far north just because its politically correct, also most settings dont have a place like Africa to have caused them to evolve that way in the first place. I prefer realism (well verisimilitude) over Political Correctness any day when it comes to me being able to suspend my belief in a game world.
What is unrealistic about having more then one skin tone? Adventurers (Especially if we take the Mediterranean example) come from all over the place. They are wandering nomads and mercenaries, off questing for king and country, or for gold and plunder. In either case, adventures never tend to come from just one place. It's not political correctness I am thinking about, but reflection of diversity and talents that are spread throughout the world.
I mean, let us take a arch typical setting, Hellenistic Egypt. Here you have Greek legionaries next to Gaul mercenaries, next to mixed-blood Egyptians, and Jews, and Ethiopians. Not a single skin tone is common during Greeks occupation of Egypt, and it is silly to think color pure in such a setting.
As many D&D games include far reaching empires, I don't think it is unrealistic to have a diverse representation of humanity, or elfity, or gobolicity. It makes more sense to me, then the tribalism that is exhibited so often in the game.
Different nations in the game should be characterized by their architecture, their laws, and the disposition of their citizens, rather then some strict color coded ethnicity. A Khaarnathii citizen should be recognizable by their dour personality and harsh accent rather then a homogenous skin color. Just my thoughts, though. Maybe it doesn't quite fit with D&D's assumptions of villainous races color-coded for guilt-free slaying.
Every edition needs new heroes, so we need new Iconics. Also, changing the Iconics will make the art of 4e noticeably different from 3.x.
As for a Race/Class combo I would like to see - Dwarf/Wizard. Let's break all of the rules and go with something cool and unique!
Characterizing every citizen of a nation as having the same personality isn't exactly the pinnacle of open-mindedness either.
Again, true. Of course, this is D&D, where entire species are known for touting the same personality... :P
Bring in new iconics. A new edition calls for a new iconics. Maybe switch up the class race combos a bit. This would be especially good if favored classes have been done away with. So maybe an elf cleric, a half-orc fighter, a human barbarian, a halfling wizard, and a dwarf rogue for example.
I agree with most people. New iconics, please!
I might switch that up a bit though, still a little too expectged. Halfling Wizard, Dwarf Rogue, Elf Fighter, Human Barbarian (aren't they all
) and Half-Orc Cleric. Elves can make fine fighters and being a Cleric isn't an Int thing so the H-O should do just fine.((And, no, I didn't get past the first page. It's not even 6am here and I'm gong back to bed:P))
Maybe there could be different version of the iconic, à la Mialee in the Unearthed Arcana (Mialee as a rogue-wizard, etc...).
B : I think we need one iconic per class, so that a ranger is clearly not a light fighter, and a wizard is clearly not a sorcerer. The iconic should emphasis the differences between similar classes. And they should emphasis the new 4e "role" (defender, striker, controler, leader)
If we knew what classes were in, the exercice would be easier :D.
1) human fighter
2) dwarf paladin
3) halfling cleric
4) elven druid
5) tiefling ranger
6) human wizard
7) half-elf sorcerer
8) half-orc (if they exist) rogue
9) ??? warlord ???
It's possible to create related iconics : by example, rather than one dwarf paladin, we can have a couple of dwarven paladin, or two half-orc twin rogues (one of them beeing an chaotic evil assassin, the other beeing a chaotic good rebel of some sort).
Opposed twin could be fun for the new paladin and the cleric too.
There are now no less than 7-8 classes which offer trapfinding, and ample ways of circumventing traps even if your party does not have a "roguish" PC. I think if anything, the rogue would be the first to go.
Spellcasters still have their place in any party, but few appear to stack up the the original cleric, druid and wizard in terms of versatility. Artificer comes close, but is technically not a spellcaster. Maybe they will stay.
Apart from fighter, you now have the ToB classes to contend with as well.
I just don't see the point. Heck, a party consisting of a cleric, druid, artificer and wizard may be no less effective than the iconic party.
With so many different classes out there,
There are now no less than 7-8 classes which offer trapfinding
We don't know how many classes there are in 4th edition, or if any of them will have the ability currently called trapfinding.
I understand this viewpoint, but it ain't gonna happen.
There are too many video gamers, comic book and anime fans that are within the target audience of D&D to cut down the number of illustrations that much. Too much dry text and stats is big turn-off to the artsy crowd.
However, I agree that full-page art is a bit too much of a space-waster, unless it's at the very beginning or end of the book (after all, even the 1e Monster Manual did have a couple full-page artworks).
Agreed. Which is, IMO, a bit of a pity. I was completely turned off by the 3.x artwork when I picked it up, but I've met lots of people who say that the art makes it more accessible.
Full page art at the beginning and the end of a book isn't too bad, but sticking it in the middle (unless it serves some purpose, such as the great wheel illustration in the DMG, which I still think is too artsy) is too much.
On another note, I've heard some suggestions of using familiar characters from setting-ology as Iconics, such as Elminster and what's-his-name. I sense that getting rid of the iconics (and the 4-man config. they are the henchmen of) will not happen, but I wouldn't mind seeing a small picture of 'Elminster uses Power Word: Own to great effect on a goblin.'
On yet another note, the art that I'm really sick of is the page borders. I realize that it looks cool and mystical, but I really don't like it. I want a page of text and tables (all right, with a small picture every 5 pages or so), not something that looks like an attempt at the Book of Kells.
Sorry for ranting (the art is the thing I dislike most about 3.x). Continue with your regularly scheduled 'Save-The-Redgars' fund raiser.
I really like lidda and would hate to see her go, but the others are all very dull.
B. here are just some thoughts
Human / Wizard / Female
Elf / Fighter / Female
Dwarf / Cleric / Male
Halfling / Druid / Male
Tiefling / Rogue / Female
human / paladin/ Female
Please, please, please. Have the atleast half of them play against type. Characters who avoid steriotype and get away from the assumptions bread by optimisation ;)
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
I'd like a mix of old and new faces, personally. I like Lidda, Regdar, and Tordek, though I wouldn't mind seeing a greater mix of iconics. I'd also like to see Iconic Villains, as has been mentioned previously. Also, there has been call for a greater variety of ethnicities among the iconics, which I'd like to add my voice to.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
A Half-Orc Sorcerer with copper-streaked brown hair wouldn't go amiss...;)
Seriously, though, I think the idea of a Female Human Fighter/Knight/Warlord type is great, and I'll add my voice to that choir.
I'd also like to see a HAWT TIEFLING SORCERESS!!! :D :D :D
No more fugly Mialee, please. If you have an elf, make her pretty.
I agree. A more egalitarian mixing of skin tones and a default opinion of 'it doesn't matter' should be the way to go. A black or Brown adventurer shouldn't turn any more heads then a white adventurer, just as in the default assumptions of D&D's fantasy world a female adventurer doesn't turn any more heads then a male adventurer.
Amber, the iconic monk, is black. There were plenty of asian and black iconics in the splatbooks. And wasn't Regdar black too? Dark bronze at least? It's hard to tell with him buried under all that armor.
For some reason, perhaps because of the iconic human characters in the PHB, I tend to imagine most humans in D&D as having dark skin. Any human-sized person with light skin, according to some mysterious lobe of my brain, must be an elf or half elf.
Also, gnomes have dark skin ("ranges from dark tan to woody brown") but nobody draws them that way ever! Dwarfs are also not-as-white-as-elves. Halflings are supposed to look like little native americans ("their skin is ruddy, and their hair is black and straight").
On yet another note, the art that I'm really sick of is the page borders. I realize that it looks cool and mystical, but I really don't like it.
I agree emphatically. The margins in the 3.5 books are huge. They could squeeze in another 3 to 10 pages in every book just by halving the margins.
Make new 4E iconics, but the 3.5s should show up as cameos. ESPECIALLY LIDDA.
(Mialee can stay home.)
Seriously, everyone loves Lidda.
but the 3.5s should show up as cameos. ESPECIALLY LIDDA.
That is what I'd like. Cameos. Everything a small, 1-2 time appearance cameo.
B. Assuming these are the races and classes available, which we don't know... yet
- Female Half-elf Cleric of Corellon, Male Human Cleric of Vecna
- Female Elf Druid, Male Gnome Druid
- Male Dwarf hammer-fighter, Female Halfling Knife-fighter
- Female Human Paladin, Female Tiefling Paladin
- Male Elf Ranger, Female Half-Orc Ranger
- Male Halfling Rogue, Female Half-Orc Rogue
- Female Human Sorcerer, Male Tiefling Sorcerer
- Male Gnome Illusionist, Female Dwarf Enchanter
- Male Half-elf Warlord, Female Halfling Warlord
Iconics are important to have characters that players can sympathize with so that when they see the illustration of someone that might be in their character's position they can relate to what the character in the illustration is going through. Players become more sympathetic when they recognize the character who is in the situation in the illustration.
Fourth edition is supposed to be better, faster, and more enjoyable. If you provide players with the same iconics that they have dealt with in the past, then as they look at the iconics in the new edition books the players might perceive all the problems and preconceptions of the 3.5 game that they have played with over the years every time they have seen these iconics in the 3.5 books. If you want to emphasize the improvements of the new edition over the rules of the older edition, then you need either no iconics at all (which I already argued against above) or new iconics for players to associate with the new rules of the fourth edition.
Furthermore, you should have an iconic of every class with the spectrum of classes reflecting the various races and genders players can play. For example, of the classes we can surmise will be in the fourth edition player's handbook you might have the following:
Male Half-Orc Paladin
Male Dwarf Fighter
Female Tiefling Rogue
Female Halfling Ranger
Male Half-Elf Warlord
Female Elf Cleric
Male Human Wizard
Female Tiefling Sorcerer
Don't make the iconics all play against type. While one or two unusual race-class combinations might be interesting, particularly if there's a large number of them, they should be, on the whole, as archetypal as possible. That said, when there are two iconics of the same class, portray them as opposite ends of the class's spectrum. (For example, one smashing, combat-ready cleric, and one meditative, casting-focused cleric.)
Lastly, keep the novel characters as far away as possible, especially Drizzt. Drizzt is violently lame, and I'd be horrified to see him as the Iconic ranger. (Elves, as portrayed in D&D, are really not very cool, Drow are the lamest elves, and Drizzt is the cheesiest Drow.)
Their stories are done. They went on and became gods or whatever. Let them die and rest in peace.
Move onto new adventurers, new characters and new stories.
However, if they have multiple iconics for each class, then more unusual combos wouldn't be so bad.
- Create new 4E iconics.
The new edition needs new heroes, and a different "face". I think keeping the old iconics would give me a feeling of still reading a 3.x edition book.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick?
- I really liked the artwork of what seems to be an elf/eladrin wizard.
Please set aside your differences on the anime style per se. Conceptually, this is what a respectable female wizard looks like: Attractive yet fully clothed, tasteful but not gaudy, and a strong attitude that doesn't take crap without being "obnoxious" or "butch". If anything, the word "professional" comes to mind. (In a female wizard? Who knew??)
This thread inspired me to browse the galleries in search of good 3E art and I found one illustration that, IMO, comes pretty close to the anime character whose image you linked. I don't have Cityscape so I don't know what an Urban Savant actually is, but the woman in the picture is elven, wearing a nice pants/robes combination outfit that looks practical enough while being suitable for a mage, and is holding a book and a quill. She has a sword too but my first impression was that the character was pretty, professional and lore-oriented, with the kind of respectability and attitude you described. If she was the 4E iconic Elf Wizard, I'd be very happy.
A lot of interesting suggestions have been made. An iconic for each of the three levels of play (1-10/11-20/21-30) sounds good, but perhaps that might lead to too many iconics. The idea of one conventional and one unconventional iconic, demonstrating different approaches to a class, is pretty neat too.
Fighter: Male, full plate clad dwarf with axe and shield, female, asian and noble looking human with two swords and male elf, ligh cavalry lancer on horseback.
Wizard: Sinister looking tiefling necromancer, female halfling sage and savage looking male human witch doctor.
Paladin: Male human, peasant looking and equipped with "cheap" weapons and armor, male dwarf on a war charriot and female, armor clad half elf carrying a greatsword and a monster's severed head.
Rogue: Nimble, ninja style male halfling, elf on colorful clothes holding some sort of musical instrument and half orc (if they still exist) thug.
Eh, just a thought.
This thread inspired me to browse the galleries in search of good 3E art and I found one illustration that, IMO, comes pretty close to the anime character whose image you linked.
She still doesn't completely break away from the "strong = mean" theme I see too often, but otherwise I agree 100%. (By that, I mean she looks like she's got a bug up her butt when she's only holding a book. Raquelle is holding back an attack in her picture! She's popular because when she's not locked in combat, she's actually quite laid back.
Then again, I see "strong = mean" with the male iconics too. When I draw my own characters, a lot of them are smiling. A confident smile, not a "I'm the comic relief, don't take me seriously" smile like D&D bards. Yes, my characters mean business, but they're sometimes also in a good mood. They kick ass without sending children screaming under their beds. As I mentioned before elsewhere, male D&D stereotypes are NOT chivalrous, altruistic "knights in shining armor". If they don't look like goofballs, they're generally soulless mercenaries.
Racism and sexism are problems in D&D, but I also find the "nice guys aren't taken seriously" theme just as annoying. I know I'm in the minority here, though.
Racism and sexist are problems in D&D, but I also find the "nice guys aren't taken seriously" theme just as annoying. I know I'm in the minority here, though.
I totally agree with this, and hadn't really put much thought into it beforehand. As much as I like some artists (specifically WAR), almost none of the characters depicted look like they'd be the type I'd want to hang out with.
Create new 4E iconics: I'd like new ones, personally. The current ones are ok, but I think a new edition really calls for new iconics.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick?
That is a tough one. The iconics are set in the correct racial roles (though I've never been fond of the Elf wizard) And Mialee just creeps me out.
Ktulu
- Create new 4E iconics.
(Actually, I prefer a mix of old and new. Keep Lidda for sure. Get rid of that gnome, please.)
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
Elf Wizard -- but please, less insectoid than the current Mialee.
Then again, I see "strong = mean" with the male iconics too. When I draw my own characters, a lot of them are smiling. A confident smile, not a "I'm the comic relief, don't take me seriously" smile like D&D bards. Yes, my characters mean business, but they're sometimes also in a good mood. They kick ass without sending children screaming under their beds. As I mentioned before elsewhere, male D&D stereotypes are NOT chivalrous, altruistic "knights in shining armor". If they don't look like goofballs, they're generally soulless mercenaries.
This reminds me of an earlier post here wishing for iconics in more casual situations, enjoying the moment, and that's what I'd like to see too. There's a beautiful picture (by Michael Komarck, I think) of the 3E iconics by a campfire and Elmore did one of the Heroes of the Lance; I find both images very appealing. In addition to combat/feat examples, the iconics should be used to illustrate the "downtime"/interactional stuff, whether it's drinking in a bar, trying to sell loot to a shopkeeper or talking with the rest of the team as you travel towards a new destination that can vaguely be seen on the horizon.
Could I have an elf wielding a greatsword as iconic?
Do you WANT the universe to implode?
B. Female gnome barbarian
In addition to combat/feat examples, the iconics should be used to illustrate the "downtime"/interactional stuff, whether it's drinking in a bar, trying to sell loot to a shopkeeper or talking with the rest of the team as you travel towards a new destination that can vaguely be seen on the horizon.
I'd really like to see that.
Even better if they have a change of clothing for 'off-duty' times. Or at the very least showing the tin-can armour characters not being in full gear 24/7.
In addition to combat/feat examples, the iconics should be used to illustrate the "downtime"/interactional stuff, whether it's drinking in a bar, trying to sell loot to a shopkeeper or talking with the rest of the team as you travel towards a new destination that can vaguely be seen on the horizon.
Or maybe showing that even adventurers can have hobbies? A friend of mine once played a barbarian farmer (skill points and all). Otherwise I agree, because that's the role-playing part of, you know, a role-playing game. Unfortunately, even in the downtime scenes, they still often look like they want to bite my head off.
I mean, I don't recall seeing a picture of, say, Regdar grinning. You know, just a "I'm having a good day" grin.
Wayne Reynolds is a mixed blessing here. He's a very popular and prolific WotC artist, and I respect his talent. . . but when WotC features his squinty-eyed, scowling, exaggerated character designs all the damn time, the game develops something of an image problem. I do note, however, that the one 3rd Ed core iconic WAR did was the bard. . . except the bard's got a more "tee-hee prankster" look than just a nice guy who kicks ass. Use his talents, but use them in moderation. Besides, we don't want him to topple over from workload.
Even better if they have a change of clothing for 'off-duty' times. Or at the very least showing the tin-can armour characters not being in full gear 24/7.
Excellent suggestion. Scatter some "street clothes" looks just to keep things fresh. Even the most hardcore warriors like to just hang out sometimes, and they don't necessarily do it in combat fatigues.
Do you WANT the universe to implode?
What if it was made of uranium?
B. My favorite iconic was Nebin (sp), the Gnome Wizard. I certainly would likes to see him in the core 4.0 PHB.
B. Human Ranger. Preferably one with a more realistic outfit than Soveliss :P . Maybe give him a beard and long hair.
I found it nice to have the same characters in different examples and introductions and read about some of their adventures while learning the rules, but the old ones seemed too 2 dimensional for my tastes. I understand that I'm not reading a novel, so I would go with something more unusual that has more punch. Since from reading the rules, players can easily see (at least with the older rules sets) which classes are better with each race, I would like to suggest using atypical combinations to confirm that anything goes.
I suggest a dwarven monk as one of the characters.
- Create new 4E iconics.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. )
Dwarven Cleric.
I totally agree with this, and hadn't really put much thought into it beforehand. As much as I like some artists (specifically WAR), almost none of the characters depicted look like they'd be the type I'd want to hang out with.
QFT
Wayne Reynolds is a mixed blessing here. He's a very popular and prolific WotC artist, and I respect his talent. . . but when WotC features his squinty-eyed, scowling, exaggerated character designs all the damn time, the game develops something of an image problem. I do note, however, that the one 3rd Ed core iconic WAR did was the bard. . . except the bard's got a more "tee-hee prankster" look than just a nice guy who kicks ass. Use his talents, but use them in moderation. Besides, we don't want him to topple over from workload.
Again, QFT. I've never liked WAR's style. I wish his art wasn't being displayed on the covers of the 4e core books.
The iconic characters (Tordek, Lidda, Mialee, and co.) were pretty prominent in 3E/3.5. There's been some speculation that some of the concept art shows iconics for 4E.
How would you like to see them handled in 4E?
WotC_Logan has specific instructions for how you should reply to make his data collection easier.
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
As this is our discussion forum, please discuss and support your response. Thanks!
-Mike
I like the iconics, or at least the core ones. I especially liked the computer animated DVD "Scourge of Worlds," which featured Regdar, Lidda, and Mialee, so they're probably my favorites. My choice would therefore be: Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition. Aside from just being easier, it would help establish a sense of continuity from 3.0/3.5 to 4th edition.
What if it was made of uranium?
So very much yes.
I'd like to see some new iconics too, maybe one for each tier. But make them recognizable outside of their outfits. If Stormwarck is released again, and they need to go swimming, let a humorous picture of them in swimsuits not need a caption to know who they are.
A. I say use existing popular D&D characters as iconic characters:
1. Wizard - Raistlin Majere or Elminster
2. Ranger - Drizz't Do'Urden
3. Fighter or Paladin - Sturm Brightblade or Caramon Majere
4. Rogue - Jarlaxle Baenre, Artemis Entreri, or Tasselhoff Burrfoot
5. Cleric - Goldmoon, Fzoul Chembryl
You get the idea. Instead of spending time creating new iconic characters, why not use existing popular characters?
I agree, use characters we have connections with...doesnt matter what setting they are in...in fact it makes sense to use them from different settings since it is a neutral core anyways.
dont use eberron though, dumb setting.
I would like to see Iconics defined by "Role" rather than by class. I think the roles I have seen mentioned are Defender, Leader, Striker, Controller. For each Role I would like to see 2 or 3 Iconics that do their role very differently, but equally viably. It could even be that there is one Iconic for each roll but you should different builds to show how he or she could accomplish the various things.
Also possibly an Icon for those who don't fit in a particular role or can be viable for two separate roles. Such as a Gish or Mystic Theruge type of characters. Also Barbarian... I'm not sure what role they fit into precisely stirker/defender? Granted this creates a lot of Iconics which might just be too much.
The iconic characters (Tordek, Lidda, Mialee, and co.) were pretty prominent in 3E/3.5. There's been some speculation that some of the concept art shows iconics for 4E.
How would you like to see them handled in 4E?
WotC_Logan has specific instructions for how you should reply to make his data collection easier.
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
As this is our discussion forum, please discuss and support your response. Thanks!
-Mike
Iconics serve a purpose: they help ground the rules with an example. They act as springboards for the imagination when first cutting your teeth into a new set of rules.
So my vote would be:
A) 2. Create New Iconics for 4E.
As for B, it's hard to say without knowing the races and classes in the game. Still:
Dwarf Wizard, Male (yes, their culture is traditionally martial, as Gimli taught us all... but dwarves are also traditionally creators of magic weapons and items of unparalleled power)
Human Fighter, Female (this is the "joe average" point of view, the grounded character... he's Conan, Sir Lancelot and a dozen other main characters in books and movies)
Elf Cleric, Female (have them revere nature, the Moon or what have you... covers the nearly celestial Tolkien elves, the moon-worshipping WoW Night Elves, etc)
Tiefling Rogue, Female (the new race on the block, it even has "Thief" in the name! ;) ). Optionally, a Half-Orc Rogue also rocks.
Orc (or half-orc) Ranger, Male (the savage yet cunning hunter, a beast in humanoid form).
That being said, I'd love to design them... :D
A. Create new iconics, and
B. Make a Kobold or a Lizardfolk something. I don't care what it is, as long as it's neither a Barbarian or a Druid. Thank you.
Oh, would I love this but it's so not going to happen. :P
Suggestions?
Female Dwarf Wizard
Female Human Fighter (someone call Uma Thurman)
Dwarf Wizard, Male (yes, their culture is traditionally martial, as Gimli taught us all... but dwarves are also traditionally creators of magic weapons and items of unparalleled power)
Human Fighter, Female (this is the "joe average" point of view, the grounded character... he's Conan, Sir Lancelot and a dozen other main characters in books and movies)
Elf Cleric, Female (have them revere nature, the Moon or what have you... covers the nearly celestial Tolkien elves, the moon-worshipping WoW Night Elves, etc)
Tiefling Rogue, Female (the new race on the block, it even has "Thief" in the name! ;) ). Optionally, a Half-Orc Rogue also rocks.
Orc (or half-orc) Ranger, Male (the savage yet cunning hunter, a beast in humanoid form).
That being said, I'd love to design them... :D
I do like that party, it is a few kinds of awesome. That party is just awesome. It breaks molds with the dwarf wizard, it showcases the tiefling, it includes the female human fighter I've been calling for. All round, just awesome.
Sadly the dwarf would be unarmored, and I do love the geometric patterns we've been seeing on dwarf armor.... but those patterns could be incorporated into the dwarfs clothing, and we'd have more skin showing for some of the geometric tatoos. There's also be ample oppurtinty for some nice dwarven runes here and there. The wizard in this party could also be the party item maker, and as such we could see his personal stamp on some of the other characters' stuff.
I might swap the gender on the dwarf and elf, though, as I've loved some of the recent female dwarf art we've seen.
- Lidda must stay.
- The others, eh, whatever. Redesign if the new designs look better.
Thanks, -- N
B- Male Human Mage
Dwarven Cleric
Half-Orc Fighter
Elf Rogue
Assuming Prestige classes are available, of course.
I do like that party, it is a few kinds of awesome. That party is just awesome. It breaks molds with the dwarf wizard, it showcases the tiefling, it includes the female human fighter I've been calling for. All round, just awesome.
Sadly the dwarf would be unarmored, and I do love the geometric patterns we've been seeing on dwarf armor.... but those patterns could be incorporated into the dwarfs clothing, and we'd have more skin showing for some of the geometric tatoos. There's also be ample oppurtinty for some nice dwarven runes here and there. The wizard in this party could also be the party item maker, and as such we could see his personal stamp on some of the other characters' stuff.
I might swap the gender on the dwarf and elf, though, as I've loved some of the recent female dwarf art we've seen.
Thanks!
Feel free to browse my website ( www.enworld.org/Pozas ) to see how I portray dwarves and others.
Regdar for example is instantly recognizable as a standard sword-wielding adventurer but he falls short in being interesting. there is no personality so him in any way he's just a plain old, vanilla fighter.
I think 2 characters for each class (male and female) is a good idea. Capturing both ends of the classes spectrum and showing very different personality's can display the versatility of DnD.
Here are a few examples:
Human Fighter A brutish hammer-wielding, tank
Elf Fighter A graceful quick-witted knife fighter
Half-Orc Mage A power hungry spell slinger who favors fire spells
Half-Elf Mage A beautiful and charming manipulator
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
Most of the 3.5 iconics were pretty forgettable, however a few really stood out and took on a life of their own. It would be great to see them appearing prominently in 4E as well. The way I see it, they may not be deeply a part of any setting's lore, but Regdar, Lidda, and Mialee (in particular, maybe others) are the 3rd edition's version of Mordenkainen, Bigby, and such. For a sense of continuity as well as to preserve some fun characters, I would like to see a few of them survive into 4E. Even subtle ways like named spells for Mialee would be great.
I totally agree with this, and hadn't really put much thought into it beforehand. As much as I like some artists (specifically WAR), almost none of the characters depicted look like they'd be the type I'd want to hang out with.
Yeah... I agree with this too. I don't mind tough heros, but can't we have someone who strikes you a nice person? Like the early Luke Skywalker, or Sllah from the Indiana Jones series, or like Isebelle from Ladyhawk? You know, generally nice innocent looking people out to experience the world, and deal with the problems as they come to them?
B. Joe Wood
In terms of class/race combos, I think that the more unorthodox they are, the better. Plenty of examples have already been mentioned, and most of them I'd be glad to see as iconics. It's much more interesting to see an aasimar warlock or a half-orc pyrokineticist (not that I'm saying those will be in the 4e PHB) than Generic Human Male Fighter #039, and it would help stimulate the imaginations of new players to go beyond the sterotypes.
On a side note, iconics are not necessary to fix the "gender pronoun problem"--if one does not know the gender of a person, one uses the masculine form, in English and many other languages; it isn't misogynistic, it's the grammatical standard, though whether it should be or not is another issue. No need to switch from "he" to "she and back in the space of a paragraph.
The iconic characters (Tordek, Lidda, Mialee, and co.) were pretty prominent in 3E/3.5. There's been some speculation that some of the concept art shows iconics for 4E.
How would you like to see them handled in 4E?
WotC_Logan has specific instructions for how you should reply to make his data collection easier.
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
As this is our discussion forum, please discuss and support your response. Thanks!
-Mike
A. I think new iconics should come with the new edition; however, I think it would be a good idea for some of the new iconics to have a connection to the iconics from 3rd Edition. For Example: Jonath The Half-Elven Fighter; son of Regdar and Mialee. It doesn't necessarily have to be a connection of that nature, but some sort of connection would be nice; it would create a transitional bridge from 3E to 4E.
The old iconics could still appear in material from time to time if they have a connection with the new edition, and I think that would serve to create a familiar atmosphere for those of us who have an attachment to 3rd Edition. They would still have a role in the new world of D&D, but they would be making room for the new generation which would give 4E a fresh start.
Also, I know this might sound strange, but I think there should be both a set of "good" iconics and a set of "evil" iconics. I know that most people play good characters and good aligned campaigns, but I feel that there are enough members of the community who play evil characters that it would be a worthwhile service to present them with an iconic option which is more appealing to their play style. They could be the "iconic villains" of the new edition, and also serve as the main nemesis for the new "iconic heroes" of 4th Edition.
B. I'll give it some thought before answering; for some reason though the thought of a Tiefling Ranger is stuck in my head.
Also, Lidda must stay!
Cheers, -- N
Elaboration: I agree with those stating we should be utilizing characters that are well known to readers such as characters from Dragon Lance, Forgotten Realms, etc... things based on the D&D IP but have a history and are knowable. There are ton's of major characters from books to use. They also might draw people to some of the related books (bonus!).
If that's not possible then STICK TO SOMETHING. If we create 'new iconics' every time something new comes out then they can never reach the status of iconic IMHO.
B. Human/Wizard.
Elaboration: Frankly nothing is more D&D than the wizard. I couldn't say that there is one type. Heck even the holy Quatrain (Fighter, Mage, Rogue, Cleric) doesn't cover enough.
I agree with those stating we should be utilizing characters that are well known to readers such as characters from Dragon Lance, Forgotten Realms, etc...
First off, they don't need much of a popularity boost, so it'd be nice to pass the spotlight.
Second, as much as I'm opposed to iconics in general, if we're destined to go this route, this presents a bit of a problem. D&D folklore gives us any number of white male human warriors to choose from (plus your token drow), but that sorta leaves the candidate for tiefling out in the cold.
B = Human Fighter
If we have to have iconics, I would rather see the old ones be replaced. I don't like half-orc barbarians with odd haircuts. The rest of the iconics were OK, but it would have been nice to see more variety in the art work. I got rather tired of seeing the same characters in every illustration.
First off, they don't need much of a popularity boost, so it'd be nice to pass the spotlight.
Second, as much as I'm opposed to iconics in general, if we're destined to go this route, this presents a bit of a problem. D&D folklore gives us any number of white male human warriors to choose from (plus your token drow), but that sorta leaves the candidate for tiefling out in the cold.
I am also opposed to iconics. The writing staff should be able to draw the artwork that best illustrates the point, and use a variety of models to get there. The use of iconics does not help to make the text more understandable (no one ever said "I couldn't undertsnad that rule, I wish they'd used Lidda iun the artwork to make it more clear.") I feel no "closeness" to the iconics (in fact, they bug me a little bit). I want to see a variety of characters in a wide variety of race and class combinations, not "the wizard," "the paladin" etc.
The only real advantage to iconics that I see is that it gives them a set of characters to slap into novels, without the author having to really introduce them normally.
Otherwise, the brand value of the iconoics is very limited.
Making a character and calling it iconic doesn't make it so. That's like saying 'instant classic'. It mean's nothing until popularity and usage put it there.
Following Pandaemoni's thoughts, I'd say use whatever names for your 'example characters' you want in the text and make those characters stick thoughout the book but do not use or make 'iconic' characters, especially in terms of art. Instead of 'the wotc favorite fighter illustration' lets have 3-5 fighter characters drawn based on different builds (The light armor guy with 2 weapons, the plate guy with an axe, the half plate guy with a hand spear and tower shield, etc..)
So I change my vote: Throw ionics out, give us more varied art exapmples for conceptualizing (newbies need this).
Ok so I can see where your coming from with that but what else other than "steriotypical" can one realy call Iconic in regards to D&D?
"uncreative"
A. Iconics don't much matter to me, but if you do use them please go for new ones. I'd ask that they not ALL be predictable (i.e. halfling thief and elven ranger), but I guess that is sort of the territory of being iconic.
B. Joe Wood
Joe's too good to be an iconic.
I agree with those stating we should be utilizing characters that are well known to readers such as characters from Dragon Lance, Forgotten Realms, etc... things based on the D&D IP but have a history and are knowable. There are ton's of major characters from books to use. They also might draw people to some of the related books (bonus!).
I agree with this. Iconic wizard: Elminster. Iconic ranger: Drizzt. Iconic fighter: Caramon, Icon paladin: Lord Soth... err, wait...
Also, the art for iconics needs to improve in the PHB. Some artists, like WAR and Lockwood are fantastic at drawing armor, monsters, and painting great scenes. However, all the mainstay D&D artists have a hard time with female faces. 99.9% of the time they look butch.
If the website really got millions of hits when 4E was announced, then surely you can justify shelling out from some illustrations from Allen Lee, Joe Madurera, or Brian Hitch. Video game companies (even small ones) sometimes call in big gun artists like these, so why can't the "Greatest RPG of All Time" do the same?
I do like the idea of an unorthodox iconic. At least one (but not many) of them should be of a somewhat unusual combination, like the aforementioned Dwarf Wizard, or a Half Orc Druid.
Fighter might be a good way of doing this, as each race will have its own Fighter style. An Elf Fighter could use a rapier or longsword, or a Halfling Fighter could dual wield daggers.
Then again, I see "strong = mean" with the male iconics too. When I draw my own characters, a lot of them are smiling. A confident smile, not a "I'm the comic relief, don't take me seriously" smile like D&D bards. Yes, my characters mean business, but they're sometimes also in a good mood. They kick ass without sending children screaming under their beds.
In my opinion that's the kind of smile/smirk that Strider had in Fellowship of the ring at Amon Hen. The scene when he sends Frodo off and walks towards the orcs. Confident, saluting with a smile, then getting to work. I agree, I'd like to see something like that. A sly grin behind the rapier, a wave and smile while holding the crossbow bolt. even a scene in a bar with hands in a 'No crap, there I was' kind of story.
B. I'd like an elf sorcerer. No particular reason though.
Human Male Fighter
Dwarven Male Cleric
Human Female Rogue
Human Male Bard
Halfling Male Ranger
Elf Wizard.
I'd like to see stereotype-breaking iconics.
So...
How about a tiefling paladin?
And an aasimar barbarian?
I play an aasimar warlock/barbarian in NWN2, and I also play a dwarven wizard/bard in my campaign lol!
She's not on the same level as Elminster or Driz'zt.
I agree, but for different reasons: Annah is someone you could actually reasonably expect to play in a D&D game.
Plus, she's much cooler and more interesting than them.
In my opinion that's the kind of smile/smirk that Strider had in Fellowship of the ring at Amon Hen. The scene when he sends Frodo off and walks towards the orcs. Confident, saluting with a smile, then getting to work. I agree, I'd like to see something like that. A sly grin behind the rapier, a wave and smile while holding the crossbow bolt. even a scene in a bar with hands in a 'No crap, there I was' kind of story.
Even a Boromir-style "They have a cave troll..." smile would be great. An "oh, goodie, yet more pain - now we have to work" look. Or am I asking too much?
I know CG Drow Ranger!
*Dodges everything and the Kitchen sink*
Drop iconics.
But keep characters around. In particular, keep Lidda (out of all the iconics, Lidda is the only one I ever even remotely connected with; mostly because there are some good illustrations of her and she was never really illustrated as a Tolkein hobbit-esque halfling.)
B.
If you have to have one iconic for all of D&D? Human sorcerer.
Nothing says D&D like 'magic' and playing a character who can wield it at a whim. We all might enjoy the ground pounders, fanatics and rogues, sure, but it's the Magi that define the game (See: Class balance in 3.5).
Even a Boromir-style "They have a cave troll..." smile would be great. An "oh, goodie, yet more pain - now we have to work" look. Or am I asking too much?
I don't think so, but I wouldn't expect much. That said, we're heading right back down the road of grimacing adventurers.
There really wasn't much variation in D&D3 art facial expressions at all. If they're not goofing or scowling, they're howling. I mentioned smiling as an example, but that's not the be-all, end all. What about crying? Laughing? Singing? Grinning? Terror? Anguish? Agony? Heck, would love be too much to ask? Oh, right, I guess it is.
In the "Fellowship of the Ring" movie, grown men were throwing themselves onto the ground sobbing when they emerged from Moria. In D&D3, Lidda had a little more variation than most (Use Magic Device, Disable Device), but beyond that, it was mostly violence and posing. You'd think there was no emotional element to the game, and I guess with the way most people play it, there isn't.
I do want to see new iconics, but I don't want to see the originals just go away. I'd rather see them occasionally depicted as epic characters, rulers, and retired adventurers of all sorts. It wouldn't really show in the pictures, at least not right away, but it could seep in there over time. Pictures of the new fighter buying arms from the old man running 'Redgar's Repository', & so on.
B: And now to further explain the above answer, my answer to B. From the looks of it, it seems like 4E is going to be as much about giving more choices than anything. Why should there be only 3 or 4 different example characters at any time? Why should only a few characters ever be used to show off every single mechanic in the book, when apparently, each class/race combination is going to make drastically different characters. A Dwarf Fighter and Elf Fighter are apparently going to be very different. So how about we actually show diversity, both in art, and in text. For one, drop the notion that every character MUST be the top of the line, coolest looking char ever. I'd like to see a kind or nice character pictured. I'd like to see the haggardly wise old woman adventurer picture, the kinda woman who, while not drop dead gorgeous, earns the attention of many a man just because she is kind and her actions cause others to flock to her.
In other words..don't create iconics. Instead create a whole swath of characters to draw from. A spear user, sword user, axe user, dagger user fighter all have vastly different options at their disposal? Then why not have one of each, instead of just one fighter. An Elven cleric can do things a halfling cleric can't? Then why not show that by actually having a halfling cleric.
As for the origional iconics? Keep em, try to convert them to 4e and let them keep their place, if anything it'll give some people the idea that their favorite old chars don't need to die.
Iconics seem very important to me as they help anchor terms and rules without horrific character bloat. Iconics are more than just pictures, they are little tutorial characters that help to reinforce a set of rules, help those new to the game to visualise (and thus remember) how to use a skill or something.
What I would like to see is some fun flavour, have the iconics be level 1 scrubs at the start of the book and advance their appearance and gear as the book goes on, perhaps each chapter they level up.
B: Kobold Sorcerer (or whichever arcane class you have)
A Kobold Sorcerer would add some extra fun and flavour. It can also help show that what's in the Monster Manual can be adapted and used by a player. Also, it would help to set the idea that what is in the Players Handbook isn't necessarily law so much as it is a guide*
*Assuming Kobolds aren't a listed playable race in the 4e PHB
...less fetish gear and more outfits that look like someone would actually go adventuring in them.
Please? Pretty please?
Drizz't isn't a bloody iconic ranger, he's an iconic fighter/ranger!
And Elminster sure as hell isn't an iconic wizard, he's an iconic rogue/fighter/wizard/cleric/archmage!
I like the fetish gear... *COUGH*... =3
As we're discussing in Astrid's Parlor, an outfit can be both sexy and functional. Yes, you can have it both ways.
I can't think of anything that would turn me further in the direction leading away from 4e than a bunch of completely mismatched Iconics from wildly disparate settings with wildly varying art styles who don't even match the bloody classes they're supposedely iconic for.
Drizz't isn't a bloody iconic ranger, he's an iconic fighter/ranger!
And Elminster sure as hell isn't an iconic wizard, he's an iconic rogue/fighter/wizard/cleric/archmage!
Excellent point.
Aventurers are the rock stars of DnD. They should wear something fashion and functional.
If I had to suggest exactly one race/class iconic, it would be Dwarf Cleric.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
B. Well since I don't there should be Iconics, I can't really claim any high ground for suggesting one, can I?
Thesis: Iconics provide negative creative reinforcement on role playing by promoting stereotyping.
Thats the whole point to Iconics isn't it? Tordek is a dwarf fighter. He becomes the only dwarf people see as they read through the core books. It isn't much of a leap to imagine that that creates a mental image of what a dwarf should be.
The goal should be to show different combos, different races in various roles to get people in the mode of coming up with imaginative races, classes and start thinking about why their character is a fighter, a rogue, or a wizard. Did he became a rogue cause thats what all the other halflings thought he should do? Did she take up arms because the gnomish elders tried to push her into be a bard and she wanted something different?
Rather than spend space on Iconics, how about some space spent on making a character, not just a character sheet.
B Human Fighter
Human Paladin
Human Wizard
Human Fighter (Yep one more)
Halfling Rogue
Dwarf Fighter
Human Fighter (Yep one more again)
Half-elf Ranger
Elf Fighter
Elf Ranger
Human Barbarian
Human Cleric
Even a Boromir-style "They have a cave troll..." smile would be great. An "oh, goodie, yet more pain - now we have to work" look. Or am I asking too much?
The only Iconic from 3.x who smiled on a regular basis was everybody's favorite -- Lidda.
I'm pretty sure this is part of her popularity.
Cheers, -- N
A. Please get rid of iconics totally.
I like the iconic characters, but I don't like the "iconic" bit. I would love to see them back in 4th edition, but rather as "Lidda and Crew" and not as "Lidda (most likely, the only rogue you'll ever see) and Crew".
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
Tiefling+Ranger. Just because I have never seen this combination
B. If you need iconics, be creative, Halfling warlock, Gnome barbarian, Elf cleric, Dwarven rogue etc. and do show us some crazy multiclass characters as well, warlock/paladin:P !!!???
Dwarf Cleric.
To be honest, if there is any class which is almost as stereotypical for a dwarf as the fighter, it's the cleric. If we're going to have iconics, they shouldn't necessarily be stereotyped.
I'd like to see a dwarven sorcerer. An elven cleric. A half-elven rogue. A halfling ranger. A tiefling fighter. A human wizard - preferably a young man or woman, dressed very practically; if anyone's smart enough to not wear voluminous robes or bizarre leather dresses out on the road, it's a wizard!
The only Iconic from 3.x who smiled on a regular basis was everybody's favorite -- Lidda.
I have no positive feelings towards Lidda whatsoever.
I liked Alhandra, perhaps because her original illustration bucked the paladin stereotype so much.
I'd like to see a dwarven sorcerer. An elven cleric. A half-elven rogue. A halfling ranger. A tiefling fighter. A human wizard - preferably a young man or woman, dressed very practically; if anyone's smart enough to not wear voluminous robes or bizarre leather dresses out on the road, it's a wizard!
Tbh I allways play elven cleric if I get the chance :P
To be honest, if there is any class which is almost as stereotypical for a dwarf as the fighter, it's the cleric. If we're going to have iconics, they shouldn't necessarily be stereotyped.
I'd like to see a dwarven sorcerer. An elven cleric. A half-elven rogue. A halfling ranger. A tiefling fighter. A human wizard - preferably a young man or woman, dressed very practically; if anyone's smart enough to not wear voluminous robes or bizarre leather dresses out on the road, it's a wizard!
I have no positive feelings towards Lidda whatsoever.
I liked Alhandra, perhaps because her original illustration bucked the paladin stereotype so much.
If only she had armor... ;)
Create new 4E iconics - KILL MIALEE!
Here here!
God I could not stand that Elf as a the signature for Wizards and Elves in general...
Her and the Ranger (whatever his name may be). There were many, many better choices for Elf Wizards and Elf Ranger through out 3.0 - 3.5, why did they choose the worst?
No paticular combination I'd like to see, but I love the idea of letting the community vote for the new iconics. Eh, assuming I can find a way to rig the vote somehow...hmm.
By that, I mean I think it would be awesome to resurrect the old LJN/TSR line of figures for use as the 4E Iconics. You know the ones I'm talking about:
Strongheart, Good Paladin
Kelek, Evil Sorcerer
Ringlerun, Good Wizard
et al
But especially:
Warduke, Evil Fighter
They pretty much cover all the races and classes among them (especially if you include all the ones from the coloring books and accessories), and they're really awesome.
I agree with this. Iconic wizard: Elminster. Iconic ranger: Drizzt. Iconic fighter: Caramon, Icon paladin: Lord Soth... err, wait...
Those are all about as far from the concept behind the D&D Iconics as it is possible to be.
Also, in the English language editions please use the neutral pronouns: his, him, he, etc... In other languages use whatever is appropriate for that language. No need to mix politics with D&D.
His, him, he, are not neutral. Calling them so supports the idea of 'male is normal, female is abnormal'. Please keep with the alternating male and female pronouns in alternating sections of the book. It was a huge improvement over the 2nd edition books.
Agree. I found the 3E PHB much more welcoming than the 2E I'd previously used, and not just because female characters were used in some of the illustrations of the core classes.
She's one of the few fully clothed women drawn by Elmore.
His, him, he, are not neutral. Calling them so supports the idea of 'male is normal, female is abnormal'. Please keep with the alternating male and female pronouns in alternating sections of the book. It was a huge improvement over the 2nd edition books.
I also support this.
What I would like to see (and could work as a web enhancement) is thier old stats, and how they were rebuilt from the ground up using 4e rules. Ie show a pic of Regdar from 3.5, give his stats, then do a small article about how what new abilities replaced and/or augmented the old ones, and then show a new pic with his new stats.
Or even Dark Iconics, you know, Mialee with a beard?
With that being said: first thoughts:
Male Dwarf Fighter (two handed weapon)
Male Elven Ranger (ranged combat)
Female Halfling Rogue (seems to be popular)
Female Human Cleric
Male Human Sorcerer
second thoughts:
Male Half-Dragon Fighter (sword and shield)
Female Half-Elf Bard
Female Elf Druid
Male Elf Wizard
honorable mention: female kobold sorcerer
"Iconic" villains: first thoughts:
Male Hobgobling Fighter (spiked chain)
Male Tiefling Ranger (ranged focus)
Male Goblin Rogue
Female Drow Cleric
Female Human Sorcerer
second thought:
Female Half-Dragon Barbarian
Male Human Rogue
Male Human Blackguard
Male Human Wizard
Somebody else had mentioned "ironic" characters. Ironic Iconics?
Kobold Paladin
Dwarf Sorcerer
Elf Barbarian
For each base class:
A male and a female.
A typical and atypical race/class pairing.
One that's straight class progression, one with dipping/prestige classing.
Attractive, yet functional and sensible character design, particularly the wardrobe. (Most spellcasters in DnD art look like they're going to come unclothed if they exert themselves, and many of them start halfway there. Mialee's clothes make no sense from any perspective, and Hennet's "lookit me, I'm so silly I don't know how to dress myself!" behavior needs to die.)
Full stat blocks available at every level - not in the core books. Too space-consuming. This one is an insanely good candidate for an online bonus feature. This is both for example purposes, and to facilitate their use and familiarity. You want players to connect with these guys.
As for my top pick for an iconic character, I'd like to see a wizard - any race, let's just default to human, but it isn't important - that's all business and prepared for any situation. Forget robes - pants and boots. And a vest and belt full of pouches, compartments, built-in scroll cases, etc. Give the poor guy some clothing he can move in, and a place to keep his components, scrolls, and wands apart from up his sleeve.
Another vote for new iconic characters. And indeed, one for having two iconics per base class. This is how I'd do it.
For each base class:
A male and a female.
A typical and atypical race/class pairing.
One that's straight class progression, one with dipping/prestige classing.
Attractive, yet functional and sensible character design, particularly the wardrobe. (Most spellcasters in DnD art look like they're going to come unclothed if they exert themselves, and many of them start halfway there. Mialee's clothes make no sense from any perspective, and Hennet's "lookit me, I'm so silly I don't know how to dress myself!" behavior needs to die.)
Full stat blocks available at every level - not in the core books. Too space-consuming. This one is an insanely good candidate for an online bonus feature. This is both for example purposes, and to facilitate their use and familiarity. You want players to connect with these guys.
As for my top pick for an iconic character, I'd like to see a wizard - any race, let's just default to human, but it isn't important - that's all business and prepared for any situation. Forget robes - pants and boots. And a vest and belt full of pouches, compartments, built-in scroll cases, etc. Give the poor guy some clothing he can move in, and a place to keep his components, scrolls, and wands apart from up his sleeve.
male and female for each class would be nice
and Hennet's "lookit me, I'm so silly I don't know how to dress myself!" behavior needs to die.)
You sir, don't seem to understand fashion. More belts = more awesome. I imagine Hennet spends at least a third of his adventuring money on adding more buckles to his costume.
You sir, don't seem to understand fashion. More belts = more awesome. I imagine Hennet spends at least a third of his adventuring money on adding more buckles to his costume.
If that's fashion, I'm perfectly comfortable not understanding it. :D
Meanwhile, adventurers should be practically dressed. Best tool for the job, and all.
Keep the iconics.
What I would like to see (and could work as a web enhancement) is thier old stats, and how they were rebuilt from the ground up using 4e rules. Ie show a pic of Regdar from 3.5, give his stats, then do a small article about how what new abilities replaced and/or augmented the old ones, and then show a new pic with his new stats.
Or even Dark Iconics, you know, Mialee with a beard?
well at least she'd look better :D
I just had a thought... I would love to see Aleena the Cleric be an iconic for 4e.
[snip]
Not to be a spoilsport, since I actually do like the idea, but didn't that magic missile kill her?
Not to be a spoilsport, since I actually do like the idea, but didn't that magic missile kill her?
She was only mostly dead.
(Really, she got better in time for Gazetteer 1: The Grand Duchy of Karameikos.)
2. Suggested Iconic. Someone suggested a Dwarven Cleric before and I certainly agree. Hands down.
http://www.answers.com/topic/iconic
2. Having a conventional formulaic style. Used of certain memorial statues and busts.
It doesn't mean that the paladin needs to be "Sir Galahade seeker of the Blessed Goblet" but it does mean he or she should look like a knight in shining armor.
I think we expereinced gamers need to remeber the Iconics aren't for us. They are for the new kids. They are going to want to see something close to what they know. Do you really want them to open the PHB and see a halfing astride a dinosaur with fire shooting out of his hands?
If I'm going to sugges one, give me a Female paladin who actually looks like a brave knight. I generally don't play female characters, but it would be something different AND recognizable.
In Tiers
1. 2. 3.
Tiefling Psion Human Psion Dwarf Psion
Dwarf Ranger Half Orc Ranger Human Ranger
Human Wizard Elf Wizard Tiefling Wizard
Half-Orc Bard Dwarf Bard Elf Bard
Halfling Warlord Gnome Warlord Half Elf Warlord
Goblinoid Rogue Half-Elf Rogue Halfling Rogue
I vote for new iconics.
Lots of combinations to use...
Until final class/race base is determined I can't really give good input on what to use.
I'd like to see a few roles changed up from the 3/3.5 roles though. If only for variety.
Maybe have an "understudy" for each class iconic. That could be good in the long run.
A. I think new iconics should come with the new edition; however, I think it would be a good idea for some of the new iconics to have a connection to the iconics from 3rd Edition. For Example: Jonath The Half-Elven Fighter; son of Regdar and Mialee. It doesn't necessarily have to be a connection of that nature, but some sort of connection would be nice; it would create a transitional bridge from 3E to 4E.
I think this is brilliant.
Travis
She was only mostly dead.
(Really, she got better in time for Gazetteer 1: The Grand Duchy of Karameikos.)
Yup, and she was also in the 2e Mystara boxed set.
Also, the more I think about it, while I initially said keep the 3.x iconics, I'm thinking that the only iconics I actually liked were Regdar, Lidda, Mialee (yes, Mialee), and Jozan. I wouldn't mind seeing them back for 4e (although I'd be happy if Jozan was replaced with Aleena), but the rest can change.
And I'd like to see the iconics fleshed out a bit more. Not too much detail, because you'd need to use them in a wide variety of examples, but in addition to a race/class combo and an illustration, maybe a brief blurb about personality or some such thing.
I just had a thought... I would love to see Aleena the Cleric be an iconic for 4e. Those of you who played with the Mentzer Basic Set will know what I'm talking about. :D
She's one of the few fully clothed women drawn by Elmore.
A woman, in a fantasy game, wearing something that's less revealing than a thong bikini? MADNESS!
I like it, and support the inclussion of Aleena as an Iconic Character for 4th ed.
I think this is brilliant.
Travis
Except Regdar wouldn't touch Mialee with a 10 foot pole. His heart belongs to Naull.
But I do think a next generation of iconics is a neat idea.
What this brings to mind is, having iconics for each level tier they are doing.
The 4e generation are all low level, while Regdar and crew are all high level; they could be the examples for levels 20 to 30. In fact, in some of those "At The table" play examples, you could have Bill playing Regdar, and Bob (Bill's teenaged son) playing Regdar's son, teaching him how to play.
You sir, don't seem to understand fashion. More belts = more awesome. I imagine Hennet spends at least a third of his adventuring money on adding more buckles to his costume.
"Hey, baby...ANYONE can wear multiple magic rings. Multiple magic BELTS? That's where it's at!"
I think we expereinced gamers need to remeber the Iconics aren't for us. They are for the new kids. They are going to want to see something close to what they know. Do you really want them to open the PHB and see a halfing astride a dinosaur with fire shooting out of his hands?
That's an excellent point!
Although, that halfling sounds pretty cool. And I hate halflings (but that's another subject completely). I think there's a need for that kinda thing, though: stuff that just looks cool.
Even if one person's cool is another's bleeargh.
That's an excellent point!
Although, that halfling sounds pretty cool. And I hate halflings (but that's another subject completely). I think there's a need for that kinda thing, though: stuff that just looks cool.
Even if one person's cool is another's bleeargh.
True- but save it for the flavor pictures or the Splatbooks! Once they realize they can make Sir Lancelot, Elric, or Conan, THEN they will start thinking about Gibbles, the Pyrotechnic Halfling, friend to all dinosaurs.
If I had to suggest exactly one race/class iconic, it would be Dwarf Cleric.
I would like to officially change my vote from Elf Sorcerer to Dwarf Cleric. :D
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
I think these would be nice. From the cover art of PHB, I think you should have some new iconic characters for the new races, if any, that you add.
I like it, and support the inclussion of Aleena as an Iconic Character for 4th ed.
I'll get behind this as long as Bargle becomes one of the 4E Iconics as well (Evil Wizard? Or just a recurring villain in "Iconics vs..." artwork.)
True- but save it for the flavor pictures or the Splatbooks! Once they realize they can make Sir Lancelot, Elric, or Conan, THEN they will start thinking about Gibbles, the Pyrotechnic Halfling, friend to all dinosaurs.
Do kids these days read about Sir Lancelot, Elric, or Conan?
Do kids these days read about Sir Lancelot, Elric, or Conan?
I'm sure some do...somewhere...
Uh, well what if I say Eragon, Parn, and Gandalf? (I know kid's watched the movies at least.)
I think these would be nice. From the cover art of PHB, I think you should have some new iconic characters for the new races, if any, that you add.
Wow. I have to say, those covers look amazing.
Wow. I have to say, those covers look amazing.
Really? I kind of hate them. The art is ok, but the way the title looks like some slapped on sticker lacks anything resembling refinement or taste.
Wow. I have to say, those covers look amazing.
Hmm... cover art by WAR. I'm an Eberron fanboy, so I approve. No problem there. I like the new font, as it is reminiscent of the D&D cartoon. Absolutely no problem there. The white background, though... I understand the logic behind it, but it is eyecatching for all the wrong reasons.
Each class gets at least two iconics, one male and one female. In most pairs, one will be human and one will not, but that won't always be the case.
The classes most likely to get more than two are 1) Cleric, because of the racial dieties, and 2) Fighter because of racial differences in fighting styles.
This way, we get to see our favorite characters without getting burned out on them, and both male and female characters (as well as a variety of races) are represented.
Sound like a plan?
Do kids these days read about Sir Lancelot, Elric, or Conan?
I know I did, and I'm not that far off of kid. I'm not 30 yet anyway...
The kind of kids who play D&D read Elric, Conan, and the like.
And in most school districts everyone reads Arthurian Legend as some point.
I know I did, and I'm not that far off of kid. I'm not 30 yet anyway...
The kind of kids who play D&D read Elric, Conan, and the like.
And in most school districts everyone reads Arthurian Legend as some point.
Same here; R. Howard is one of my favorite authors; I also used to be heavily interested in the Prince Valiant comics.
I know I did, and I'm not that far off of kid. I'm not 30 yet anyway...
The kind of kids who play D&D read Elric, Conan, and the like.
And in most school districts everyone reads Arthurian Legend as some point.
I wasn't disputing it, I was genuinely curious if it's still the case. If so, then that's pretty cool.
Bring back Lidda (3e) and Aleena (1e), ditch the rest, then add a couple new ones. I am thinking a a male elven wizard and a new dwarven fighter.
Same here; R. Howard is one of my favorite authors; I also used to be heavily interested in the Prince Valiant comics.
I can't believe I forgot to mention Prince Valiant! Its where my love of Knights and Chivalry began.
I remember as I kid, begging my mom to let my hair grow out long so I could be more like him. XD I still have it long today.
Also, I'm not really an old fogie either- I'm 23, it was my dad and brother who got me into this crazy fantasy thing. :P
The iconic characters (Tordek, Lidda, Mialee, and co.) were pretty prominent in 3E/3.5. There's been some speculation that some of the concept art shows iconics for 4E.
How would you like to see them handled in 4E?
WotC_Logan has specific instructions for how you should reply to make his data collection easier.
A. Choose one of the following:
- Iconics don't matter to me.
-Mike
Don't really care about iconics. Should they be used please make both male and female ones. Drop the 3x versions and make new ones. New edition should be new. I never cared for the you must carry this over stuff.
There is no reason for there to be more cleric or fighter iconics than any other kind. Also, why do we need a bloody human iconic for every class? If you have to, have a one of the two be a human iconic specifically for cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard because those are the classic classes, but after that all bets are off.
Because a human anything is iconic. It's the standard.
Just roll some f'in dice!!
It doesn't get any more egalitarian than that. No preferences. No favoritism. No combination getting dropped in favor of another. Some classes will get two males, some two females, some one of each. If you happen to get two iconics of the same class, race and gender (not bloody likely if they're using as many races as I hear), well, just use some damn creativity to make them different! We can start randomizing their alignments, as well, where appropriate.
Think about it. Frankly, I daresay the random pattern might be more refereshing than some stifling, predictable, politically correct pattern imposed with an iron fist. Plus, WotC staff can be in and out of the "Choose the Iconics" meeting inside fifteen minutes with zero bickering. As for us, no matter what happens, we'll have no way of knowing what the end results will be. With our current method, someone's gonna whine that they got robbed.
In D&D, anyone can become anybody. What better way to represent the scope of possibility than that?
If WotC's interested, I can hammer together a "random iconic generator" on-line in short order, but I'm sure they have staff on board who are just as capable. (It'd require knowing all core races, classes and alignment restrictions to make.)
I just had a thought... I would love to see Aleena the Cleric be an iconic for 4e. Those of you who played with the Mentzer Basic Set will know what I'm talking about. :D
She's one of the few fully clothed women drawn by Elmore.
A woman, in a fantasy game, wearing something that's less revealing than a thong bikini? MADNESS!
Yeah! Never mind that the mail she is wearing on her legs is basically painted on, as if mail worked like skintight lycra!
Wait . . .
No, actually, that sucks.
Originally Posted by Johnny_Angel
A. I think new iconics should come with the new edition; however, I think it would be a good idea for some of the new iconics to have a connection to the iconics from 3rd Edition. For Example: Jonath The Half-Elven Fighter; son of Regdar and Mialee. It doesn't necessarily have to be a connection of that nature, but some sort of connection would be nice; it would create a transitional bridge from 3E to 4E.
I think this is brilliant.
Think, nothing -- that is brilliant!
Honestly, if we're stuck with iconics, I'd rather have the iconics' gender, alignment and race determined the old-fashioned D&D way:
Just roll some f'in dice!!
It doesn't get any more egalitarian than that.
That's just an unbiased method of selection, it doesn't guarantee an equal representation.
Yeah! Never mind that the mail she is wearing on her legs is basically painted on, as if mail worked like skintight lycra!
Wait . . .
No, actually, that sucks.
Agreed, I was just thinking that it's a big deal for an Elmore drawing.
That's just an unbiased method of selection, it doesn't guarantee an equal representation.
This is an iconics lineup, not a legislature.
I think these would be nice. From the cover art of PHB, I think you should have some new iconic characters for the new races, if any, that you add.
I think those covers rock! They're dynamic, and they make me want to play. Unlike the current covers which don't really "say" much of anything.
But that's another topic.
(And no, I'm not a kid afflicted with a short attention span; I'm an "old" curmudgeon who's played D&D since 1978.)
There is no reason for there to be more cleric or fighter iconics than any other kind. Also, why do we need a bloody human iconic for every class? If you have to, have a one of the two be a human iconic specifically for cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard because those are the classic classes, but after that all bets are off.
I'd go with a human for each class just to reinforce the idea that humans are the dominant race - which seems to be the standard for most campaign settings.
And I like the idea of having both genders represented with each iconic. It's a not-quite-subtle way of demonstrating that D&D isn't subsidized by the He-Man Woman Haters Club.
I think those covers rock! They're dynamic, and they make me want to play. Unlike the current covers which don't really "say" much of anything.
But that's another topic.
(And no, I'm not a kid afflicted with a short attention span; I'm an "old" curmudgeon who's played D&D since 1978.)
I have to agree. I've only been playing for 14 years (Only. Heh.), and the "charm" of the 3.X Core cover wore out for me really quickly. I like dynamic art on my D&D covers! And I'll admit, I'm a fan of WAR's style. I do agree with most folks gripe about the *ahem* white stripe, though.
Really? I kind of hate them. The art is ok, but the way the title looks like some slapped on sticker lacks anything resembling refinement or taste.
Agreed, and I'm additionally not fond of the art. WAR gets lazy on detail. He's gotten a lot better since he started doing this stuff, but I still think he's got a long way to go.
B: Kobold Sorcerer (or whichever arcane class you have)
A Kobold Sorcerer would add some extra fun and flavour. It can also help show that what's in the Monster Manual can be adapted and used by a player. Also, it would help to set the idea that what is in the Players Handbook isn't necessarily law so much as it is a guide*
*Assuming Kobolds aren't a listed playable race in the 4e PHB
^_^ KOBOLD SORCERER!
Also, I don't mind that white stripe on the covers, I don't know why people have a problem with it.
I also vote for humans not being assumed to be dominant over all other races.
I also also vote for female iconic characters being accoutred with armor that is as utilitarian as the mens' armor.
Quaestor the Wanderer
I think those covers rock! They're dynamic, and they make me want to play. Unlike the current covers which don't really "say" much of anything. . .(And no, I'm not a kid afflicted with a short attention span; I'm an "old" curmudgeon who's played D&D since 1978.)
Ironically, I'd see that as a bit of a problem from WotC's point of view. They're not exactly competing for your loyalty; it's in their interests to make the game appeal to new markets.
On a personal note, I hate them. It's not just the white band; it's a continuation of the "D&D = Diablo: The Tabletop Game" image that made 3.0's art so unappealing to me. It doesn't exactly give me any sort of epic, fantasy or immersive feel; it portrays D&D as a version of "Everquest" except you do all the calculations on paper instead of having a computer do it for you. How's that appealing?
I see more variation in fantasy scenes in a three-minute animated clip than eight years of supplements from WotC. Is that the best they can do, yet another picture of some monster or a couple of bloodthirsty adventurers posing impractically?
WAR gets lazy on detail. He's gotten a lot better since he started doing this stuff, but I still think he's got a long way to go.
Lazy? As much as I detest his work (although I respect his talent), I would never say that. Blame it on WotC throwing a ton of work at him. He's everywhere. I've never met the guy but I worry he's going to cripple himself.
A. New Iconics for the new edition.
B. I want to see a Female Dwarf somewhere in the iconics, maybe as a Paladin, Cleric or Fighter.
I see more variation in fantasy scenes in a three-minute animated clip than eight years of supplements from WotC. Is that the best they can do, yet another picture of some monster or a couple of bloodthirsty adventurers posing impractically?
It's not really fair to compare still images with animations.
This is an iconics lineup, not a legislature.
Then why did you bother to describe your method as "egalitarian"?
Anyway, it's a digression. But in terms of iconics, this goes in line with my prior issue with core iconics invariably looking like mercenaries or goofballs.
Then why did you bother to describe your method as "egalitarian"?
Egalitarianism means everyone regarded as equals. It doesn't necessarily mean equal numbers in a frickin' iconics census. Besides, we've no guarantee the number of core races and classes offered will match up nicely, and if they don't, "equal representation" is mathematically impossible. In that highly likely case, (unbiased) randomization will be more egalitarian in principle than any deliberate selection method. It's not like tieflings are being deprived of voting rights if the dice don't roll their way.
The PHB cover art fighter would be good, if you replace that non-armor bodice with an actual breastplate (one without a plunging neckline, boob window, or suicide chest bumps for the funneling of blows into the torso, please), and get some armor over her thighs and upper arms. Fullplate should still be fullplate, even on a woman. Just imo. Otherwise, I like the characters on that cover, but then again I am a sucker for Wayne Reynolds.
You CAN have women's armor that is protective and yet allows the woman to look like a woman, just lose the cleavage 'valley' while still admitting that she has breasts.
I'm definitly NOT a fan of latter European breastplate designs, the whole 'conquistador' look never appealed to me. The anatomical cuirass designs of the greeks, if rendered in steel instead of bronze, would be more my thing.
Kind of like this:
http://www.medieval-weapons-online.com/shoulder-armor-leather-straps.htm
After all, this is a FANTASY RPG, not a 'historical re-enactment' game.
Egalitarianism means everyone regarded as equals. It doesn't necessarily mean equal numbers in a frickin' iconics census. Besides, we've no guarantee the number of core races and classes offered will match up nicely, and if they don't, "equal representation" is mathematically impossible. In that highly likely case, (unbiased) randomization will be more egalitarian in principle than any deliberate selection method. It's not like tieflings are being deprived of voting rights if the dice don't roll their way.
Relax, I wasn't attacking you, just asking for clarification on what you were saying. This is not the place to discuss the finer points of egalitarianism, so I'll let it drop.
As far as the iconics in the actual book, all I meant is that a random roll, let's say for the race of each class, doesn't ensure that each race will be showcased, and the idea of iconics is to showcase each option at least once. It's not about political correctness, and I maybe I should have avoided the connotations of the phrase "equal representation".
Lazy? As much as I detest his work (although I respect his talent), I would never say that. Blame it on WotC throwing a ton of work at him. He's everywhere. I've never met the guy but I worry he's going to cripple himself.
Maybe it's just his style, but it looks to me like he cuts corners. I'm not saying I could do better, mind you.
It's just that I feel others have, in the past. I discussed this in more detail in the D&D4 cover art thread, but my biggest gripe with Reynolds is that his grasp of anatomy is seriously shaky.The way I think is if you treat warforded like the origin of the Stone Children where the constructs that were created as servents and given rudimentry intelligence to perform tasks then say the wizard or whoever created them gave them enough intellegence due to their competive natures to others who also created similar constructs.
Through the combined intellect of the soulforged community a new diety was given birth based on a belief that if mortals worship of a god gives the diety power then so to must the soulforge have a diety to worship.
Upon the awakening of the soulforged diety it blessed them with souls to know right and wrong.
But this aside if I was to choose an iconic soulforged character I think a soulforged druid with Ironwood body would be really cool. You could name him Oberron.
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
As this is our discussion forum, please discuss and support your response. Thanks!
-Mike
A: Make new ones. I don't particularly love the old ones. Have video of mialee dying available for download.
B: A Wild Elf Ranger wearing deep green armor and a camo jacket, preferrably with face paint.
Possibly looking like this:
http://images.epilogue.net/users/lofgren3/elf_archer700.jpg
or this:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/draco_gallery/75616.jpg
I pick this because most of the "elven ranger" pics look awful.
Maybe it's just his style, but it looks to me like he cuts corners. I'm not saying I could do better, mind you.
You've obviously never looked at comic-book artist Rob "All my heroes have big chests, big arms, big guns... and feet so teeny we can't move or we'll fall over, not to mention heads so tiny we can't even eat grapes without cutting them up" Leifeld, have you? Or 2nd ed AD&D artist Tony "Even My FIENDS look cuter than the Smurfs!" Di Terlizzi (Planescape)? Compared to them, Reynolds is the equivalent of Da Vinci.
You've obviously never looked at comic-book artist Rob "All my heroes have big chests, big arms, big guns... and feet so teeny we can't move or we'll fall over, not to mention heads so tiny we can't even eat grapes without cutting them up" Leifeld, have you? Or 2nd ed AD&D artist Tony "Even My FIENDS look cuter than the Smurfs!" Di Terlizzi (Planescape)? Compared to them, Reynolds is the equivalent of Da Vinci.
I dunno about Leifeld, but I much prefer DiTerlizzi to Reynolds.
B: Not knowing what races/classes will be in 4th edition, here goes:
Grue the Gnome Barbarian, Female-
A crazed look in her eye, and sharp little teeth. Just be sure to keep your lantern lit.
Barithal the Dwarven Cleric, Male-
Champion of the forge's crushing hammer.
Cro the (Half)Orc Druid, Male-
Primal is the beast.
Ashbern the Human Fighter, Male-
Never a more dedicated swordsman.
Orison the Aasimar Paladin, Male-
A divine heritage, a divine purpose.
Feiht the Tiefling Rogue, Female-
With certain distracting qualities.
Liamne the Elven Ranger, Female-
Noble huntress of the elven woodlands.
Latne'mele the Human Sorcere(r/ss), Female-
Chaos unleashed.
Errint the Halfling Wizard, Male-
Now where did I put that...
Agreed, I was just thinking that it's a big deal for an Elmore drawing.
Heh, yeah. That whole era had some strange things going on . . . like one Dragonlance module cover where, as I recall, they changed Goldmoon's outfit to give her buckskin leggings rather than bare legs (or perhaps vice-versa, it's been a long time) simply by repainting the skin tone . . . as if leather pants and bare skin look exactly the same, except for the colour!
B: One race/class? Has to be the Dwarven Fighter w/axe. You think dwarf, you think battle hardened veteran with an axe in one hand and the glint of death in his eye.
Isshia
A - Create new 4E iconics.
In my opinion, the 3.5E iconics have little traction, and there's not much point carrying them across to the new version. Iconics are valuable for providing live examples of the rules in action, for inspiring new players, and even for providing quick-play characters for groups in a hurry.
However, any new iconics should be so cool they hurt, and they should smell like 4E. Nothing less will do. You want new players to say "I want to play a character who rocks like Gunther the Rogue." and existing players to say "Arbeille the Wizard can do that? Wow! So long, Mialeee."
B - That's tough, without knowing just what the races and classes will be. But any selection should satisfy my requirement above. It should say 4th Edition loud and clear. I'd go for a blend of the old and new - a tiefling fighter. A class that's been around as long as D&D, in a new (for core D&D) race - an old dog with some fiendish new tricks.
I totally agree with - pretty much everyone else; new iconics for 4E! This is especially true if there are new classes.
On the topic of fewer iconics. The more iconic characters you have (two or three per class) the less iconic they become. Less is more here. I would rather a few really good iconics were made, than a whole assortment of halfhearted efforts.
For example: the male fighter might be a greatsword-wielding, slayer wearing only a breastplate, while the female version is the tower shield and full-plate defender.[/FONT]
Mmm... an undoubtedly well-built man wearing only a breastplate...
...
... What were we talking about? Oh yeah! Gender diversity. That's a very good idea.
Seriously, though, it is a great idea. There really isn't a better way to show that D&D is open to everyone than for 50% of the iconics to be female.
Gnome Druid!
Anyway, I would vote for the Warforged, and i would keep the name as Warforged.
When the Drow migrated from (I believe they started in Greyhawk? Time to WIKI!) or Forgotten Realms to everywehere else overnight, they didn't change the name, and when you do change the name you are going to cause confusion.
So just keep them as Warforged.
And a Warforged iconic would be neat. His battle cry could be "OIL-CAN!" or something similar ;)
Mialee and Jozan have seen their light of day, and I would rather see them used as "easter eggs" or "cameos" in the new books.
B.One race and class....Elven Paladin.
The iconic characters (Tordek, Lidda, Mialee, and co.) were pretty prominent in 3E/3.5. There's been some speculation that some of the concept art shows iconics for 4E.
How would you like to see them handled in 4E?
WotC_Logan has specific instructions for how you should reply to make his data collection easier.
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
As this is our discussion forum, please discuss and support your response. Thanks!
-Mike
I don't care about the iconics. Have images, and use names throughout the PHB for the sake of giving examples more easily, but I've never paid attention to them apart from admiring or disliking the particular illustration.
If someone told me to choose an iconic anyway, I'd choose a human female paladin. And sorry, it is my main choice of character, so why should I choose otherwise?! :P
B:
Rogue Modron ranger. (What? I've always had a soft spot for Modrons.)
Centaur Wizard
Orc Bard
Aasimar Warlock
Tiefling Paladin
Choosing a race/class combo, I'd like to see a Half-Orc Rogue. Not necessarily sneaky, mind you, but definitely unsavory.
All new iconics! Include a pic in one of the preview books of the old iconics having a retirement party. Oooh: Do a Last Supper parody!
:D
That is a brilliant idea! Seriously: Something like that would be a great homage to 3rd and 3.5th edition and a fantastic way of welcoming the new iconics.
A: 2. New iconics for a new edition!
B: As others have said, this is VERY DIFFICULT not knowing the choices. Regardless....
Shifter Barbarian
Dwarf Cleric
Halfling Druid
Orc Fighter
Aasimar Paladin
Elf Ranger
Tiefling Rogue
Half-Orc Sorcerer
Half-Elf Warlord
Human Wizard
I was thinking a Cyran human female Ranger (with dragonmark)
Halfling Artificer
Warforged Fighter
Changeling Wizard
Gnome Bard
Tiefling Barbarian
Kalashtar Psion
Half Giant Psychic Warrior
Elven male Sorceror
Dwarven male Cleric
Shifter Druid
Half Orc Monk
Aasimar Paladin
Half elven Rogue
How's that?
A little too obscure?
There is no reason for there to be more cleric or fighter iconics than any other kind. Also, why do we need a bloody human iconic for every class? If you have to, have a one of the two be a human iconic specifically for cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard because those are the classic classes, but after that all bets are off.
I said IF any classes had more, it would probably be those, because they have racial differences in style. We might not see the Halfling Cleric or Gnome Fighter much, but they would be there. It's a thought, not a necessity.
Also, I said that most of the classes would have a human as one of the two, but not all.
You CAN have women's armor that is protective and yet allows the woman to look like a woman, just lose the cleavage 'valley' while still admitting that she has breasts.
Of course you can. The shape of the body, the presence of breasts, that's all essential, but you can 'admit' she has breasts without showing them directly by leaving them unprotected, and without a big metal funnel channeling blades inward. I have trouble imagining the armor you linked to as being functional armor if it was crafted with breasts, although it would be superior to the 'low cut breastplate' (!?) in this image.
Just sayin'.
I was thinking a Cyran human female Ranger (with dragonmark)
Halfling Artificer
Warforged Fighter
Changeling Wizard
Gnome Bard
Tiefling Barbarian
Kalashtar Psion
Half Giant Psychic Warrior
Elven male Sorceror
Dwarven male Cleric
Shifter Druid
Half Orc Monk
Aasimar Paladin
Half elven Rogue
How's that?
A little too obscure?
Thats not bad at all. Its the right amount of Uniqueness and Recognizability.
You've obviously never looked at comic-book artist Rob "All my heroes have big chests, big arms, big guns... and feet so teeny we can't move or we'll fall over, not to mention heads so tiny we can't even eat grapes without cutting them up" Leifeld, have you? Or 2nd ed AD&D artist Tony "Even My FIENDS look cuter than the Smurfs!" Di Terlizzi (Planescape)? Compared to them, Reynolds is the equivalent of Da Vinci.
I don't care for Rob Liefeld, either, and I completely disagree with and consider your opinion of DiTerlizzi uninformed and dismissive. I go out of my way to collect DiTerlizzi's art and find it widely expressive and consistently high-quality. But then again, I know people do the same for Rob Liefeld.
Any lack of talent those two artists may display, however, does not somehow magically improve WAR's ability.
EDIT - Sorry, all, this post was completely off topic. I'll try to rein it in in future.
B.
Dwarf Cleric and Wizard
Halfling Rouge and Fighter
Elf Sorcerer and Paladin
Tiefling Rogue and Wizard
(Half) Orc Barbarian and Ranger
Half-Elf Bard and Druid
Human (just about every class)
As for a new iconic: ironically playing against type with a hard-as-nails female elven fighter with a giant freaking flail.
I would have to agree with the majority in this case. I want new iconics. I want iconics that make me say "wow, THAT'S what a human fighter should look like" or whatever the class/race combo happens to be. Only a handful of the 3.x iconics really jumped out at me: tordek, nebin, and devis were really the only ones I liked at all.
As far as race/class combos, I'm sure after 15 pages most of the possibilities have been covered ad nauseum. So whatever's clever, I'm not too picky. Just make them POP with the artwork. Wayne Reynolds FTW!! :D And Brom too. In my perfect core set, the artwork would be done by Wayne Reynolds, Wayne England, Brom, and Larry Elmore; kind of a mix of classic and contemporary fantasy artwork.
I think an awesome Iconic would be a gnome cleric. Full plate, tower shield and a huge pick. Either that or a dwarven barbarian, since everyone loves a ****** off dwarf.
Thor
Having things way off base, like Ogre Paladins, or Aasimar Rogues, is missing the point of what an iconic should be.
While there are many wonderful and brilliant racial/class ideas out there, none of them are "iconic" in a way that I feel the designers are asking.
When I see a picture of Regdar, I think "Yeah, that's a fighter! Tactical and cheap scale mail at level 1, greatsword in hand, and bow. Just what I need to kill kobolds!
Krusk? He's a what? A Half-Orc? Look, piece meal armor, axe head with a stick shoved into it? War trophies all over? That's a barbarian!
Lidda the rogue? Small, nimble, and deadly! Just what I want to be to sneak into the dragon's lair, draw a map, steal some gold, and take a power nap without waking old Smaug.
So, while male or female can matter, I just don't see two or three "Iconics" for each class or race. It's not feasible. And it isn't "Iconic".
And not to put anyone down, but i think this thread is losing sight of what it was meant to be. It has turned into a "who can come up with the most wierd and varied race/class combo to be drawn on paper" contest.
14 year old Joey at the bookstore wanting to play 4e for the first time isn't going to get very far showing his mom the artwork of Grumgog the Ogre paladin, but showing her fantastic imagery of Sovella, the female elven ranger stalking "bad-guy" looking orcs, or Regdra, the female human fighter defending her friends by shielding them from dragon fire will tell mum "hey, a heroic game of fantasy adventure where my boy can learn a few metaphors about life and tell a good story, and it gets him away from Evercrack and World of Methcraft!
But anyway........
New Iconic: Clippy the paperclip. Everyone loves Clippy. I bet Microsoft would give you the license free since you would be cross-branding.
The whole point of iconics is to to be....well...Iconic! That means, just looking at a picture of the iconic will instill within you a sense of everything that class is.
Well, that's the name.... Iconic, but a weak argument. I agree that have some of these "example characters" (because that's what we are really talking about here) be stereotypical is a great idea, but I think it helps to encourage creativity on the part of new players if they can see how less obvious combinations could work. If you want to give them different names like Iconic Characters and Counterpoint Characters that's fine, but let's not discard this notion of having non standard example character's out of hand.
Having things way off base, like Ogre Paladins, or Aasimar Rogues, is missing the point of what an iconic should be.
Well, they wouldn't have to be completely mismatched to show a good variety of class race combos, but what's so bad about one or two bizarre combo's anyway.
While there are many wonderful and brilliant racial/class ideas out there, none of them are "iconic" in a way that I feel the designers are asking.
See my response above. Also if you'll look back through the thread the WizO that responded seems to like the idea fairly well.
When I see a picture of Regdar, I think "Yeah, that's a fighter! Tactical and cheap scale mail at level 1, greatsword in hand, and bow. Just what I need to kill kobolds!
Also, boring and obvious to many players, though it certainly has it's place.
Krusk? He's a what? A Half-Orc? Look, piece meal armor, axe head with a stick shoved into it? War trophies all over? That's a barbarian!
Lidda the rogue? Small, nimble, and deadly! Just what I want to be to sneak into the dragon's lair, draw a map, steal some gold, and take a power nap without waking old Smaug.
Again, it's great to have these examples of typical race class combos, but I don't see how that should exclude giving examples of other slightly less obvious choices.
So, while male or female can matter, I just don't see two or three "Iconics" for each class or race. It's not feasible. And it isn't "Iconic".
Why not?
You could have some of the pictures done in pairs or triplicate. You could even have two Fighter Iconics dueling, or two Bard Iconics performing together. Besides that having a larger selection of Iconics to choose from would mean that they wouldn't have to use pictures of the same character as often.
And not to put anyone down, but i think this thread is losing sight of what it was meant to be. It has turned into a "who can come up with the most wierd and varied race/class combo to be drawn on paper" contest.
Some people have been kind of slipping into that mentality, but there are a lot of very good suggestions.
14 year old Joey at the bookstore wanting to play 4e for the first time isn't going to get very far showing his mom the artwork of Grumgog the Ogre paladin, but showing her fantastic imagery of Sovella, the female elven ranger stalking "bad-guy" looking orcs, or Regdra, the female human fighter defending her friends by shielding them from dragon fire will tell mum "hey, a heroic game of fantasy adventure where my boy can learn a few metaphors about life and tell a good story, and it gets him away from Evercrack and World of Methcraft!
But anyway........
You don't think his mother might appreciate that the game portrays values that are more than skin deep. I think it seems like the game is simple minded even racist when it only fits characters and race together along set typical lines. You might get the impression that "Half-Orcs are too brutish and stupid to ever be paladins or wizards" or that "Halfings are too small and weak to ever be Fighters", etc. Doesn't that seem kind of like saying that Asian people suck at basketball or that black people don't make good politians?
If they stay, I would go with new iconics rather than reusing the existing ones.
FartKnocker
Heh, yeah. That whole era had some strange things going on . . . like one Dragonlance module cover where, as I recall, they changed Goldmoon's outfit to give her buckskin leggings rather than bare legs (or perhaps vice-versa, it's been a long time) simply by repainting the skin tone . . . as if leather pants and bare skin look exactly the same, except for the colour!
That was by Clyde Caldwell. I recall reading something he wrote, saying that he met the companions and then painted their pictures (it was in a Dragonlance book, so they were pretending the characters were real for their intros). He said that he was enraptured by Goldmoon, and while she would never bare her legs like that, he couldn't help painting her that way.
Kinda offensive, if you think about it.
Well, that's the name.... Iconic, but a weak argument.
To quite one of my favorite BBEG's, Damodar, "Oh, you want to play?"
How is my argument weak? It's a statement. It states what an iconic is. Let's waste some more time and look up the word Iconic.
Typing in Iconic at Wikipedia redirects you to Secular Icon. It defines an icon as "a graphic device that represents some object or action, the graphic device being ascribed symbolic meaning(s) beyond the object represented."
My original statement said "The whole point of iconics is to to be....well...Iconic! That means, just looking at a picture of the iconic will instill within you a sense of everything that class is."
The Wiki also goes on to say that "A symbol has only the meanings ascribed to itself, representing only a concept and not recognizable as a particular object."
So basically, an iconic character is supposed to be a generic interpretation that anyone can recognize. It is culturally and socially neutral. Joe from sporting goods whose never played D&D can see a picture of Regdar and realize he's a warrior.
For a non-gaming Iconic, think Merlin. How many wizards are based from Merlin, the classic Iconic wizard? Or Sir Lancelot, the classic Iconic paladin? or Conan, the classic iconic barbarian?
How many people go around playing "Native American" style barbarians, ala Dragonlance? Not many have I seen. Most try to emulate Conan-esque characters, or savage beasty half-orc types.
So, I guess part of the fault lies with the original poster. Maybe he should define what it is he is looking for or what an iconic is supposed to be or not to be before posting his questions.
Weak argument indeed. ;)
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
Iconics don't matter to me, yet I do recognise their purpose in existing and if it is thought necassary to continue filling that role I'd be for new Iconics.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
I will add my support for 3 Exemplars for each class (because really thats all the iconics are to most of us).
1 Human for every class. 1 Typical Race . 1 Atypical Race.
eg:
1 Human Female Barbarian, 1 Orc Male Barbarian, 1 Halfling Male Barbarian.
1 Human Female Paladin, 1 Aasimar Male Paladin, 1 Tiefling Male Paladin
1 Human Male Ranger, 1 Elven Female Ranger, 1 Dwarf Female Ranger
This presents a character that is readily associated with the viewer ie a Human, a Character readily associated with the Class, and a "cool idea" character. One that says "not everyone has to fit the mold".
The Gender framing is based around placing the human (most easily identified with) in the center of the triplet as an art piece. So the Barbarian page might have a picture with the Human Female in the foreground charging out of the page and the Orc and Halfling males behind her charging out at a 45deg angle.
Further using 3 exemplars lets you give artistically, and when mechanics are given rules wise, 3 different takes on the class. Again Barbarian you can have the "The Jungle Savage" "The Berserker" and "The Noble Savage" - Stereotypes readily identified by the viewer given a new visual element.
We don't really need an example of each gender for each class, unless they somehow play differently. Which I *highly* doubt will happen.
Similarly, I don't know why we'd need three different icons to cover the three different tiers of play. As someone else mentioned earlier, it's cool to see old familiar characters with higher levels and better gear.
Finally, multiple iconics per class will just get crazy when later PHBs come out. If we end up with 20+ classes, each one with about five iconics to cover everyone's tastes....these characters no longer become iconic, merely confusing (what class is this guy again? Oh yeah, he's one of the barbarians).
Just gotta make sure the iconic designs are simple and flexible enough to be used in many different situations. Mialee failed in this regard, as did Vadania.
either a new set of iconics ( that are wisely built from the system, sheer whoop dee do should not come into it, but rather show some very basic strong combos to highlight both race and class) or none at all.
I can somewhat sympathesize with the whole "Iconics portray the game as overly simple/straightforward/unimaginiative" but the fact of the matter is I think they help people begin imagining, most people start with the simplest characters (dwarf fighters anyone) rather than Half Gold Dragon Ithlid Spawn Choatic Good Paladins of the Dreaming Dark. The System speaks for itself as far as depth and complexity go imho.
That said I hope that the Iconic are truly " Campeign " Independant, but from what i've been hearing I have high hopes on this accord
So basically, an iconic character is supposed to be a generic interpretation that anyone can recognize. It is culturally and socially neutral. Joe from sporting goods whose never played D&D can see a picture of Regdar and realize he's a warrior.
Unfortunately, I don't think there is any such thing as a culturally and socially neutral icon. Besides would he really have trouble recognizing a vicious looking halfing armed with a battle axe and wearing chainmail as a warrior. What would he think he is? A Sorceror? A Ninja?
For a non-gaming Iconic, think Merlin. How many wizards are based from Merlin, the classic Iconic wizard? Or Sir Lancelot, the classic Iconic paladin? or Conan, the classic iconic barbarian?
Yah, those are all iconic to Western European culture and I don't have a problem with representing all those Western European icons, because they are well recognized and easily related to by many people. But that is no argument against including iconic characters that might be representative of other cultures or time periods.
How many people go around playing "Native American" style barbarians, ala Dragonlance? Not many have I seen. Most try to emulate Conan-esque characters, or savage beasty half-orc types.
I don't really see how relevant that is. I know that I have played a lot of characters with different cultural inspiration then those you suggest and the D&D game should be about creativity and possibilities, not limitations. Besides if people are already playing all those characters, maybe a little inspiration could help them come up with new types of characters that they would really enjoy playing.
So, I guess part of the fault lies with the original poster. Maybe he should define what it is he is looking for or what an iconic is supposed to be or not to be before posting his questions.
Weak argument indeed. ;)
Sure, but he was referencing something specific, rather then something that was rooted completely in the definition of the words used to name it. I don't think he was looking to rigidly control the discussion, because he didn't define what an Iconic character is he left that up to us.
7) That's a great idea. I loves me some contests. Maybe we could have people submit their playtest characters, complete with backstory, to enter into iconic voting. If we do that, I think I've just volunteered myself.
I think the coolest thing about the 3/3.5 iconics was that there was no backstory given. Their appeal was in part that they were mysterious but, I think, mostly that they stood for whatever the reader wanted them to represent. They conveyed just enough information to let you know their race and class, leaving the remaining details to the imagination.
Unfortunately, I don't think there is any such thing as a culturally and socially neutral icon. Besides would he really have trouble recognizing a vicious looking halfing armed with a battle axe and wearing chainmail as a warrior. What would he think he is? A Sorceror? A Ninja?
But then, your Halfling becomes the iconic.
We are dealing with finite rules, no matter how many options you throw out there, there will always be a race that is better suited to a class, and hence an iconic.
Gimli, as portrayed by John Rhys Davies, for example, has become an iconic for dwarves. Anyone playing a dwarf who has seen that movie will at least once in that characters career think to Gimli and either say or do (or make out of game jokes) something he did in the movies.
So we know that dwarves make good melee fighters. BOOM! Iconic.
PLus, the pic of the iconic has to draw you in somehow. Every person has a primordial urge to play a certain type of character, and when looking at the socially and culturally neutral images of the iconics, sooner or later one of them will strike a chord, and you will say or think to yourself "That's exactly what I want to play!"
I, as a dm, look to images all the time for storylines, or characters. Many is the time i found a pic and the name, background, and motivation just jumped at me, as if it were there just waiting for me to discover it.
Iconics are supposed to work in that same fashion. generic and dumbed down for the everyman.
It might insult many old shool grognard player's intelligences, but the game HAS to be readable, approachable, and playable by everyone, thus the iconics gotta be culturally and socially neutral, at least for thier own part in the matrix.
Also, it gives players a base example to hail from for all play examples. Instead of many differing examples, we can now see Regdar the fighter from concept to creation, all the way to epic levels, and have a good idea of how it is supposed to be done, and what a good progression might look like.
But anyway, Bob Saget's on HBO.......
2. New Iconics please.Except for Lidda-love that chick.
B.A BLACK Human Fighter named Roy.And no, Im not kidding.He is a great example of what a fighter can be. Plus, being male and having no hair, means the artists only have to focus on one thing they aren't used to-skin tone.
Embers illustrations reveal a serious lack of experience in depicting Black skin,Black hair, and seriously muscular women.
To quite one of my favorite BBEG's, Damodar
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
oh my GOD.
There's been a lot of discussion about the word 'iconic.' However, there's one thing I believe that many of those posters missed. The word refers back to the root word, 'icon.' "A sign or representation that stands for its object by virtue of a resemblance or analogy to it." What are the characters representing, exactly? The races and classes that they're created with? I say that they should represent the new system itself, and all the great options we'll have under it. One of the themes I seem to see reflected in the design articles is not only streamlined play, but also options - making sure players always have a number of appealing options to choose from. I believe that the iconic characters should demonstrate this convincingly.
When I say that there should be both a typical and an atypical character for each base class, I don't mean that they should go across type often. Sure, a dwarf Fighter could be an obvious choice. A halfling Fighter to accompanying him? Sure, it'd be possible, but he would look out of place. A tiefling Fighter, on the other hand? Not what you expect to see there, but viable. Especially since it appears that Fighters can emphasize almost whichever abilities they wish to contribute to their abilities, including those a tiefling is naturally strong in. So, it would be one character just as you might expect it, and another character who isn't a race you'd ordinarily expect to fill that role, but fits adequately if you think about it, precisely if the designers use the combination to highlight combos that are suddenly more viable due to the changed rules.
How many people go around playing "Native American" style barbarians, ala Dragonlance? Not many have I seen. Most try to emulate Conan-esque characters, or savage beasty half-orc types.
In Europe, actually, this is a bit more common. Ever seen Brotherhood of the Wolf? Apparently, they view Native Americans more or less the way we view ninjas in America. There was a notorious gang in France called the Apaches, and to this day, "l'Apache" means a toguh guy. Broaden your mind a bit...
Choose B is Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
Broaden your mind a bit...
Don't be hatin.
In any event: The "Native American as ninja" concept is oddly endearing, IMHOP. It's not *well* known here in America, but it's quite the thing in Europe somehow. If TWF with a handaxe and short sword made sense in D&D it would be great; there are some lovely fight scenes with that weapon style in Last of the Mohecians.
An elven barbarian that can go all ninjalicious would be incredibly amusing. If, as has been speculated, then barbarian and monk have been rolled into the fighter, then we could actually end up with something similar to this... fun times.
Sorry. I'm rough around the edges this morning for some reason.
In any event: The "Native American as ninja" concept is oddly endearing, IMHOP. It's not *well* known here in America, but it's quite the thing in Europe somehow. If TWF with a handaxe and short sword made sense in D&D it would be great; there are some lovely fight scenes with that weapon style in Last of the Mohecians.
An elven barbarian that can go all ninjalicious would be incredibly amusing. If, as has been speculated, then barbarian and monk have been rolled into the fighter, then we could actually end up with something similar to this... fun times.
That sounds amusing in deed. But somehow I see the Elf go bonkers when someone miss use the forest :D.
Don't be hatin.
Perhaps you should listen to your own advise Darth.
You keep repeating the phrase "Culturally Neutral Icons", but I just don't see it. What's socially and culturally neutral? It seems more to me like your hating on cultures other than your own through the guise of claiming your culture is "culturally neutral".
I you really want the iconics to be socially and culturally neutral, then you need to present a wider range of social and cultural icons, rather than just portraying Western European social and cultural icons. That would be socially and culturally neutral.
Iconic Character: Venger the Warlock from the D&D cartoon:evillaugh
My Sith Brother...
Venger is not a Warlock.
As quoted from the Animated Series Handbook, Venger is a Male Half-fiend human sorcerer 13 / Archmage 5
So bust out the sabers, as there can only be two sith, and I already have an apprentice ;)
Perhaps you should listen to your own advise Darth.
You keep repeating the phrase "Culturally Neutral Icons", but I just don't see it. What's socially and culturally neutral? It seems more to me like your hating on cultures other than your own through the guise of claiming your culture is "culturally neutral".
I you really want the iconics to be socially and culturally neutral, then you need to present a wider range of social and cultural icons, rather than just portraying Western European social and cultural icons. That would be socially and culturally neutral.
?
Eh?
I was discussing "culturally neutral" icons. You're saying I'm hating cultures?
A "culturally neutral" icon is a symbol that means the same thing just by looking at it no matter who is looking at it.
Look at many of the myths from ~sings~ 'way way way way back in the day' that have the same symbolism, and yet were many many miles apart.
How can so many cultures that live so far apart and have nothing to do with each other all celebrate a "rebirth" scenario around the time of the Winter Solstice, and many of these rebirth scenarios share common "symbols" or meanings.
So you cannot tell me there is no such thing as "culturally neatral" icon.
Another example is blood. Human blood is red. Humans use red as a sign for danger. According to the Star Trek Enterprise Novel, "The Good That Men DO" (Which tells the true story of what happened to Trip Tucker during the final episode of Enterprise, so go read it! Can you tell I'm a Trip fanboy much? heh heh); Romulans have Green Blood, and Green meens danger to them.
It's a culturally Neutral icon.
But anyway, this banter between you and I started with discussing iconics, and turned into one of us throwing insults at the other, and it has gone way off topic, so I am done with it, and I wil no longer respond to your posts regarding this matter.
Thank you
My Sith Brother...
Venger is not a Warlock.
As quoted from the Animated Series Handbook, Venger is a Male Half-fiend human sorcerer 13 / Archmage 5
So bust out the sabers, as there can only be two sith, and I already have an apprentice ;)
My apologies, as I do not have access to that book. I was assuming he was a Warlock because in every episode I saw he was using an Eldritch Blast and trying to steal the magic items the kids had, because he lacked the power to destroy Tiamat. But as an Archmage, I suppose that would answer for his "Arcane Fire". Warlock is still cooler though, and does match his evil character look. BTW I saw your apprentice back at the cantina and killed him after spiking his Wookie Water ;)
Sorry. I'm rough around the edges this morning for some reason.
In any event: The "Native American as ninja" concept is oddly endearing, IMHOP. It's not *well* known here in America, but it's quite the thing in Europe somehow. If TWF with a handaxe and short sword made sense in D&D it would be great; there are some lovely fight scenes with that weapon style in Last of the Mohecians.
An elven barbarian that can go all ninjalicious would be incredibly amusing. If, as has been speculated, then barbarian and monk have been rolled into the fighter, then we could actually end up with something similar to this... fun times.
That movie rocked! I actually did a whole adventure once a few years back based on Last Of The Mohicans. It was sweet.
I didn't know that Europeans were fascinated by the Native Americans that way. When I was stationed in germany, one of my best friends was a Navajo (The other was a black man) from Arizona, and the germans treated them like dirt, while me having the blonde hair and blue eyes was usually treated well.
My post wasn't meant to insult anyone, and as usual you can't be PC all the time, someone will get thier feelings hurt. I was just saying that people match iconics with thier own ideas of what "said character" should be, and go from there. Especially newbies.
In america, you say Barbarian, most people think Conan.
You say Fighter to the uninitiated, they probably think Rocky Balboa.
You say football to an american, he thinks Redskins ~insert optional team here~
You say football to Jose from Bogota, he thinks Soccer.
That's why iconics need to be "Culturally Neutral" to us in real life, while staying true to thier D&D core selves. Regdar is no more american than he is russian or japanese. But anyone seeing him will know he is a warrior.
Just like most anyone that has been alive and in civilization the past few years will recognize Gimli as a dwarf, or harry potter as a wizard.
icons
My apologies, as I do not have access to that book. I was assuming he was a Warlock because in every episode I saw he was using an Eldritch Blast and trying to steal the magic items the kids had, because he lacked the power to destroy Tiamat. But as an Archmage, I suppose that would answer for his "Arcane Fire". Warlock is still cooler though, and does match his evil character look. BTW I saw your apprentice back at the cantina and killed him after spiking his Wookie Water ;)
Oh, man, he still owed me 5 bucks!
Anyway, venger would make a great iconic i think, for fallen paladins. Apparently, he was a great paladin that took the fight to evil so hard, and got frustrated with the ongoing fight, that he traded a piece of his soul for greater power, then realized he was tricked. Over time he turned to evil. But in the end, the kids were able to bring him back to the good side.
I think I got that right!
A.
2. New Iconics please.Except for Lidda-love that chick.
B.A BLACK Human Fighter named Roy.And no, Im not kidding.He is a great example of what a fighter can be. Plus, being male and having no hair, means the artists only have to focus on one thing they aren't used to-skin tone.
Embers illustrations reveal a serious lack of experience in depicting Black skin,Black hair, and seriously muscular women.
Regdar is a black human fighter. Look at his picture, he is not white and was intended to be black, although I'll admit his skin is a little light. If you have a chance check out Scourge of Worlds. it's an interactive DVD where you can really tell Regdar is black(and Milae is not ugly in the movie).
I loved the strip where the mind flayer was picturing each member of the Order of the Stick as a meal. Vaarsuvius, the androgynous elven wizard was pictured as a big juicy hamburger. Roy, the fighter and leader of the Order, was pictured as a turkey dinner.
In Europe, actually, this is a bit more common. Ever seen Brotherhood of the Wolf? Apparently, they view Native Americans more or less the way we view ninjas in America.
But how many people would have, if attempting to simulate the character from Brotherhood of the Wolf, would roll up a Barbarian? I have to think that most would have jumped right to Ranger (I, in fact, did play a character like this at one point... Rgr 2/Mnk 3/Drd 5... I had good rolls, and decided to run embrace my multi-ability dependency... :D).
Additionally, we should remember that there is a very specific target audience for the iconic characters: new players. Sure, we want you guys to love 'em too... but they actually serve a purpose for new players, as a visual "symbols" of what a class is capable of. The only requisite for an iconic is that it be representative of what that class can actually do. That said, I think it is possible to make an interesting iconic without pushing them too far off the recognizable path. However, if our rogue looks too tough, that may be a bit misleading, considering the subpar BAB and HP. If he's too big to be very adept at skulking in dark alleys, then we're probably not on target either. But, if it looks like it could kill an enemy with a single stab in the back... well, then I think we're on to something.
So, in conclusion... could a Halfling barbarian work? Sure... he'd just better be the most muscular Halfling you've ever seen. He also shouldn't have any of the "trappings of civilization" on him. Could an Ogre rogue work? Probably not. Because no matter what you do, it's not going to be a very good rogue... and even as a "Rogue" in class, he's still more of a "Fighter" in spirit. Sticking feathers down your pants does not make you a chicken (edited for the kiddies).
In Europe, actually, this is a bit more common. Ever seen Brotherhood of the Wolf? Apparently, they view Native Americans more or less the way we view ninjas in America. There was a notorious gang in France called the Apaches, and to this day, "l'Apache" means a toguh guy. Broaden your mind a bit...
No, Indians are more like rangers than rogues. But definately not like barbarians. :D
Are the Iconics for such as you, with an a wealth of gaming history? Or are they there for the person who is just begining? I would hope we suffer through them because the are a learning aide for those of us in the early stages of learning the concepts of role playing. Just because you think something is cool doesnt make it (A) useful in helping others unstand what is being presented, (B) as cool as you think it is.
Personally, I think they should be kept as more a very basic concept of the various classes and/or races. That way, when you need to use them to explain a specific skill, feat, ability, effect, or what ever, it is easier to apply that attribute to them. Then, you can just as simply strip it from them when they are used for another example later.
Sorry. I'm rough around the edges this morning for some reason.
In any event: The "Native American as ninja" concept is oddly endearing, IMHOP. It's not *well* known here in America, but it's quite the thing in Europe somehow. If TWF with a handaxe and short sword made sense in D&D it would be great; there are some lovely fight scenes with that weapon style in Last of the Mohecians.
I actually preferred the two handed weapon scenes with that axe, or, as I call it, the hockey stick from Hell.
Regdar is a black human fighter. Look at his picture, he is not white and was intended to be black, although I'll admit his skin is a little light. If you have a chance check out Scourge of Worlds. it's an interactive DVD where you can really tell Regdar is black(and Milae is not ugly in the movie).
Yup.
Don't really care for Iconics.
I think that it gives it flavor. I just wish they either have a comic series based off them or a cartoon. But that is wishful thinking.
I think that it gives it flavor. I just wish they either have a comic series based off them or a cartoon. But that is wishful thinking.
Iconics without a story don't do much for me. I can see Drizzt being Iconic since we have a lot of stories with Drizzt. Some random character called an Iconic does nothing for me.
smoker
Iconics without a story don't do much for me. I can see Drizzt being Iconic since we have a lot of stories with Drizzt. Some random character called an Iconic does nothing for me.
smoker
The problem with Drizzt being iconic is that if you got most of the DnD community to tell you precisely what Drizzt represented to them, you would not get a very nice answer. Drizzt represents mechanics, ideas, and attitudes in the game that are (thankfully) long past. Those that like him can seek him out. Speaking for the rest of us - please, keep Drizzt, Elminster, and the rest out of our Core!
I think there should be an iconic for multiclassing, too. The first thing that comes to mind is Elf Fighter/Mage.
This is part of the reason why I advocate two iconics per class. That way, one of the two can represent straight progression, while the other can have some dipping and prestige class sort of things. The iconic characters should represent the strengths of the new system, and I think they should emphasize the system's (hopefully, and based on what they've told us so far) more consistent multi-classing possibilities right alongside the (please, please, please) viability of staying focused on a single class and its progressing power.
Few issues would bring me to read that many before posting.
But icons are important. They are symbols we identify with.
Iconic characters were a good addition to the game. It seems most of the people who posted agree with that and want revised icons for 4th edition.
What we have in 3rd edition is a mix of success and failure among the offerings of icons. The ones that worked should be kept and the ones that didn't work need to be replaced. When an icon works it is not hated or loved for its character but accepted and understood as representing something.
Icons are symbols. Iconic characters are not about unique and diverse elements that stretch the game. That is not their function. The function of an icon is to be an easy to grasp symbol representing a broad spectrum in a very limited space. Thus any iconic character needs to depict what the class and race looks like in D&D. Think stereotype.
Don't get self righteously politically correct on me. This is a game. Dungeons and Dragons IS stereotyping. It is not realistic, it is imaginative fantasy.
It is a game about heroic characters defeating monsters and other challenges for the sake of glory and loot.
Theoretically it can be about storytelling and playing the role of a character with complex motivations amid clever plots woven by a creative game master.
But you don't need a rulebook to tell a story or play "lets pretend we are fantastical creatures in an imaginary world".
The core rulebooks introduce a game in which statistics are used to represent the attributes of characters with math and dice are rolled to decide outcomes of conflict. The style and mood are established with art and prose. Examples are given to make clear the intent of the rules.
Iconic characters need to work regardless of style. You can change styles to reflect a funny wizard or a serious wizard. If your taste runs like mine you may enjoy a manga style wizard yet not when playing D&D. I don't want cartoon style in D&D, the mood is wrong. But a Wizard icon will be recognizable no matter the style. The core of something is what makes it an icon. We want and even need icons to simplify complex things. That is the essence of good games.
In summary: yes to icons. keep what works and replace what doesn't thats what makes a revised edition better and keeps it from being a new game that is not D&D. If you have read all this, thank you for your patience.
Icons are symbols. Iconic characters are not about unique and diverse elements that stretch the game. That is not their function. The function of an icon is to be an easy to grasp symbol representing a broad spectrum in a very limited space. Thus any iconic character needs to depict what the class and race looks like in D&D. Think stereotype.
The problem is, a big part of the new game is about flexibility. Being able to customize the base classes more than ever before, so that each character's unique and exciting nature is emphasized, even in the rules. They don't just look and act different, but they play differently, too. Embracing stereotypes is precisely the wrong approach. Instead of showing everyone what a class is supposed to be like, they need to show disparity, having more than one example of what each class can be like.
I'm still firmly standing behind my assertion that the iconic characters should represent the features of the new system, and not simply a sample member of a given class.
How many people go around playing "Native American" style barbarians, ala Dragonlance? Not many have I seen. Most try to emulate Conan-esque characters, or savage beasty half-orc types.
I pride myself on being a (mostly) rational post-er, so I'm having a hard time looking at that comment objectively and not being offended by it. (I'm part Cheyenne.)
Personally, I've always seen '"Native American" style barbarians' as being rangers, not barbarians. (Well, except maybe the Mohicans and the bloody psychotic Toltecs...)
Originally Posted by smoker
Iconics without a story don't do much for me. I can see Drizzt being Iconic since we have a lot of stories with Drizzt. Some random character called an Iconic does nothing for me.
Ooh, boy, my attitude concerning that guy has changed over the years. First the fanboy reaction "Wow, a ranger who's not Strider or Legolas in disguise!" to "In the name of all the gods, quit WHINING, you friggin' ANGST MONKEY!", then to somewhere in between. (Especially since the latest book, where he quits simpering like some nerdy high-school freshman, and literally sweeps Cattie-Brie off her feet for a little dark-elf lovin'.)
However, going with the multiple Iconics concept, if Drizzt ever gets picked, we must have Greyhawk's equally cool ranger, the Justicar, as his counterpoint.
I should never have to look at my book and say "thats kewl but i cant do it, because their are no Underdark monkey drow in eberron or whatever.The more iconics their are the more likely that will be true.
It seems to me that the person who is like, The iconics need to represent the core abilities of the class, but not be sterotyped is contridicting themselves. If someone called it archtyped would it make you fret less? I want sterotypes/archtypes so i can understand what the class is all about without angsting/tweaking my chaacter before i am ready to.
L
and this whole, if FR gets in then GH etc whinning/pinning is why the iconics shouldn't be campeign specific.
I should never have to look at my book and say "thats kewl but i cant do it, because their are no Underdark monkey drow in eberron or whatever.The more iconics their are the more likely that will be true.
It seems to me that the person who is like, The iconics need to represent the core abilities of the class, but not be sterotyped is contridicting themselves. If someone called it archtyped would it make you fret less? I want sterotypes/archtypes so i can understand what the class is all about without angsting/tweaking my chaacter before i am ready to.
L
Then you should read the class. From the little information we have, the idea that one example character can show you 'what the class is all about' is right out. That's why we need more than one iconic character per class, showing more facets of each one.
B. Gnome Warlock, Save the gnomes or fear their wrath!
So for instance just what immediately comes to mind:
Fighters:
Human Fighter with a Greatsword (Iconic of a Barbaric Warrior)
Dwarven Fighter with a shield and hammer or axe (Iconic of a Professional Soldier)
Elf Fighter with a Rapier and Main Gauche (Iconic of a Swashbuckler/Duelist)
Rogues:
Human Rogue (Silver Tongued Scoundrel)
Half-Orc Rogue (Street-Savy Thug)
Halfling Rogue (Willey Catburgler)
Wizards:
Human Wizard (Generalist Wise Old Wizard)
Dwarf Wizard (Evoker Magical Artillery)
Elf Wizard (Enchantress)
Ranger:
Human Ranger (Hunter/____-Killer)
Halfling Ranger (Stealthy Scout)
Elf Ranger (Warden/Naturalist)
Clerics:
Human Cleric (Healer/Holy Warrior "Christian")
Elf Cleric (European Druid)
Half-Orc Cleric (Native American Shaman)
Sorcerors:
Human Sorceror (Dragon-Blooded)
Elf Sorceror (Fey-Blooded)
Dwarf Sorceror (Elemental-Blooded)
Tiefling Sorcerer (Demon-Blooded)
I'd say brand-new iconics may work best. As nice as the idea of iconics were for 3.0/3.5, I think new ones would work nicely for the new edition of the game.
I think that the new iconics should showcase the possibilities with races & classes in the system, instead of just reiterating the stereotypes of the genre. Why not have an iconic half-orc wizard? Or an iconic dwarf rogue? Or an iconic elf fighter? one of the big things I like about the newer edition of D&D (& dislike about WoW) is that the race/class restrictions of old are gone.
But, for an added twist, the old iconics of previous editions should be used for examples of higher-level characters (the older the edition the iconic appeared in, the higher level the character is). Perhaps the 3.X gang could represent examples of higher-level Heroic (1-10 level) characters, while AD&D iconics (1st & 2nd ed.) could represent the Paragon (11-20 level) characters, and the OD&D iconics could represent the Epic (21-30 level) characters.
Or, on the other hand, the 3.X iconics could be statted up & presented as a Dragon article, along with other notable D&D characters like Aleena and Bargle, the D&D toyline characters (notably Warduke), 4E versions of the D&D Cartoon kids & Venger, etc.
I pride myself on being a (mostly) rational post-er, so I'm having a hard time looking at that comment objectively and not being offended by it. (I'm part Cheyenne.)
How did it offend you? It's a statement of perception. I don't see many people playing "Native American" style barbarians ala Dragonlance.
Personally, I've always seen '"Native American" style barbarians' as being rangers, not barbarians. (Well, except maybe the Mohicans and the bloody psychotic Toltecs...)
I feel this way also. Being part Mohawk myself ;) Dern Mohicans killed my great-great (I think just two greats, might be three or four, lol) grandfather! (Family still has a braid of his hair from when he went off to war).
If we're going to have iconics, they shouldn't necessarily be stereotyped.
Incorrect. Iconic items - in any context - are, by definition, stereotypes.
Making all the iconics unusual would reduce their perception as iconic characters; they would merely be strange examples dotting the book.
Making the race at least somewhat match the class, points out to the new player the idea of mechanical synergy. It is also important, in the core books, to demonstrate the basic flavour of the classes and races. Combining the Dwarf with the cleric works to reinforce the player's concept of Dwarves and clerics, because the little he may know about either one, is reinforced by what he knows about the other. You can assist him in building the concept of 'cleric' and of 'dwarf' by pairing them up in this enriching fashion.
In the same draft, confused signals are *not* what you want to transmit here. A half-orc bard, while possible, is unusual. To make this work would require a unique build - a very particular personality-building limbo act that isn't important for a new player to see. There's no reason to scare him away by making him think about the idea.
Summarily, a person cannot appreciate what is unusual without knowing what is usual. "Unusual builds", while a treat for the bored veterans, are only negatives for the audience targeted by the iconic characters: newbies.
It would be good to pepper 4e with one or two unusual builds, for the purpose of encouraging the player to innovate, but that would be the limit. I expect Wizards already knows this, and is reserving the right to ignore any comments here that fail to appreciate this wisdom.
Incorrect. Iconic items - in any context - are, by definition, stereotypes.
Making all the iconics unusual would reduce their perception as iconic characters; they would merely be strange examples dotting the book.
Making the race at least somewhat match the class, points out to the new player the idea of mechanical synergy. It is also important, in the core books, to demonstrate the basic flavour of the classes and races. Combining the Dwarf with the cleric works to reinforce the player's concept of Dwarves and clerics, because the little he may know about either one, is reinforced by what he knows about the other. You can assist him in building the concept of 'cleric' and of 'dwarf' by pairing them up in this enriching fashion.
In the same draft, confused signals are *not* what you want to transmit here. A half-orc bard, while possible, is unusual. To make this work would require a unique build - a very particular personality-building limbo act that isn't important for a new player to see. There's no reason to scare him away by making him think about the idea.
Summarily, a person cannot appreciate what is unusual without knowing what is usual. "Unusual builds", while a treat for the bored veterans, are only negatives for the audience targeted by the iconic characters: newbies.
It would be good to pepper 4e with one or two unusual builds, for the purpose of encouraging the player to innovate, but that would be the limit. I expect Wizards already knows this, and is reserving the right to ignore any comments here that fail to appreciate this wisdom.
It's entirely possible to have iconic characters - ones that represent Fourth Edition, not necessarily the class itself - that have both an unusual race/class combination and mechanical synergy. After all, as we've seen from the development articles, classes in 4E appear to be able to take advantage of different ability scores, if they choose, and an unusual racial choice would underscore the flexibility of the new system. Now, when I say 'unusual racial choice,' I don't mean 'half-orc wizard.' There's no reason to be counter-productive with the choices. But a halfling wizard, for instance, might be a fun character.
In the same draft, confused signals are *not* what you want to transmit here. A half-orc bard, while possible, is unusual. To make this work would require a unique build - a very particular personality-building limbo act that isn't important for a new player to see. There's no reason to scare him away by making him think about the idea.
Precisely. Iconics should be the most common kind of that class that a player can expect to meet as an NPC, based on the fluff description of each class. Most rangers, for example, are human, elven, or half-elven. Ergo, one of those should be used as the iconic race/class combo for ranger. Take my choice for a new Ranger Iconic - a elf (preferrably wild) wearing green armor, camo cape, and face paint. That's what I think of when I think ranger. A gnome ranger in the PHB would just be distracting.
Precisely. Iconics should be the most common kind of that class that a player can expect to meet as an NPC, based on the fluff description of each class. Most rangers, for example, are human, elven, or half-elven. Ergo, one of those should be used as the iconic race/class combo for ranger. Take my choice for a new Ranger Iconic - a elf (preferrably wild) wearing green armor, camo cape, and face paint. That's what I think of when I think ranger. A gnome ranger in the PHB would just be distracting.
Or it might just redefine what you think about the Ranger class, because it could no longer be limited to the elven shtick. A class is an ability set, not a character concept in itself, so let's not make the two cleave so closely this time around. It would reduce player assumptions and encourage roleplaying to learn more about the individuals involved.
This is why we need two iconics per class. A traditional example, and a counterexample.
Or it might just redefine what you think about the Ranger class, because it could no longer be limited to the elven shtick. A class is an ability set, not a character concept in itself, so let's not make the two cleave so closely this time around. It would reduce player assumptions and encourage roleplaying to learn more about the individuals involved.
This is why we need two iconics per class. A traditional example, and a counterexample.
Fine by me, as long as the classic example is actually a "classic", such as a dwarven fighter, or half-orc barbarian.
This is why we need two iconics per class. A traditional example, and a counterexample.
Oh, boy, I can see it now, already. . . the "counterexample" will be an insulting, politically correct, knee-jerk, contrived bone-throw as opposed to any genuine exercise in creativity.
Call me a cynic, but I'm used to disappointment in these cases. When we call for non-traditional, the order from the boss' desk is never, "Have fun with it," it's, "Sate the radicals."
Oh, boy, I can see it now, already. . . the "counterexample" will be an insulting, politically correct, knee-jerk, contrived bone-throw as opposed to any genuine exercise in creativity.
Call me a cynic, but I'm used to disappointment in these cases. When we call for non-traditional, the order from the boss' desk is never, "Have fun with it," it's, "Sate the radicals."
Explain to me who will be insulted by a tiefling rogue? Or a gnome rogue? Or a human rogue or an elf rogue or a dwarf rogue or a half-orc rogue?
Despite the discussion iconics are not that much of a divisive issue. They don't add or subtract much from my enjoyment of the game.
Despite the discussion iconics are not that much of a divisive issue. They don't add or subtract much from my enjoyment of the game.
Well, they do me! I just can't run a proper game knowing that Regdar isn't in there to greet me while I duel with my rules lawyer. It just wouldn't be the same. I would have to retire, burn all my books, and be one of those people who say they'll never buy a WOTC product again!
But then again, I could always cut the old pic out and paste it in the new book, heh heh heh silver lining in every cloud.
I've been a very vocal opponent of iconics. They limit the apparent scope of the game. It's not impossible, but it's more difficult to teach new gamers that the game has limitless possibilities when the only WotC artwork of a wizard they ever see is a scantily clad female elf, for example -- and the same one, every time.
Second, it takes away from the creativity of the artists. I'd love to see official D&D artwork flourish with countless interpretations of what, say, "wizard" can mean. Iconics force every artist to draw the exact same character, in only variations of its original image.
D&D's strengths are its versatility and diversity. Iconics run away from them like no tomorrow.
I'm well in the minority here, but as long as I have a voice, I'll use it.
Oi, I agree 100%
I never liked the iconics, every artistic depiction should be different, IMO. I really did get sick of seeing Krusk and Mialee in every book that mentioned a barbarian and a wizard. So, I say get rid of them! Let every illustration be unique. D&D = unlimited possibilities so show it.
classes like the warlock, can we please remove the stupid costumes. People do not go around dressed in skulls, evil people can wear normal clothes, etc. As for the male half elf rogue, how about a normal set of clothes, not ridiculously loose or tight, with several buckled straps(not like hennet, maybe a waist band, something on either leg) and weapons and tools all over the place. I think we should have a male half orc monk, as that would be really cool. Also like I said, the clothes and hair and stuff should be practical. Things that aren't armor should look like they would be easy to put on, for instance pants, shirts, cloaks, a few straps or buckles, simple shoes. Hennets suit looks like it would take forever to put on with all those buckles. While I'm at it, we need a hafling barbarian, with a sword. The fighter gets the spear, because spears are awesome. The fighter should also have a sling.
The iconic character(s) need to be automatically associated with the game (like Laura Croft). Dungeons and Dragons has never really had that. No one character is instantly recognized as representing the game. Dungeons and Dragons have produced films, and cartoons and still nobody can really say that we as a hobby have the "face" of the game. Asking the question has loaded the pages of forums with a million answers most of which can not even agree what Iconic is, within the three major settings let alone the game itself. Like a comic strip character, the Icon needs to be posable in a variety of various settings. The figure should also be totally transferable from one setting to the next representing the "concept" of the game more than a particular favorite class or whatever.
This is a great point. The game could really do well with a new "brand name" or two. I would go with three characters, a warrior, caster, and a skill-based character. In other words, enough to form a party and write books about. ;)
"You are too stupid and unimaginative to think about what a (race/character/class) would look like, so we'll do it for you."
This is the message that having "Iconic" characters sends to me:
"You are too stupid and unimaginative to think about what a (race/character/class) would look like, so we'll do it for you."
Or they could just be intending to enhance the books with nice artwork. Even if they don't have "iconics" the likelihood that they're not going to have images of the classes is next to nil. The "iconic" part is putting a name to the face.
Actually, either get rid of them or create new ones.. They aren't that important for the players/readers, but they do give some handy guidelines for the writers I imagine, enables them to concentrate on the important stuff instead of making new creative character concepts for all their examples and such.
This is the message that having "Iconic" characters sends to me:
"You are too stupid and unimaginative to think about what a (race/character/class) would look like, so we'll do it for you."
You've convinced me. All future D&D products should be pure white with no colour or pictures whatsoever, with the only font being neutral Arial. It will be so awesome, because it will be much cheaper. Except, you know, when you find that there is no one else to play with because no one wanted to buy such an unattractive and boring looking product.
Wait a second though, if you are suffering from an excess of imagination, why exactly do you need D&D in the first place? I mean, having a huge book with all those rules just sends the message, " You are too stupid and unimaginative to think about what a (race/character/class) should be able to do, so we'll do it for you. " So yeah, WotC should just totally stop publishing D&D so that they no longer prevent our minds from running wild with endless possibilities.
As for showing new players an example of the "usual" way that a rogue or a fighter looks... okay. Do that once, on the class's page in the PHB, maybe even once or twice more later, showing the caster types again in the spells and magic sections, and the melee types in the melee section, etc. Then forget about them. After the PHB, you're not really looking at "new" players anymore. If it's a supplement, generally you're looking at a previous customer coming back for more. They know what a thief looks like, whether it's the same character or not.
So, keep the Iconics in the PHB, where they might serve some purpose, and give the seasoned customer some interesting artwork in all the other stuff.
So, keep the Iconics in the PHB, where they might serve some purpose, and give the seasoned customer some interesting artwork in all the other stuff.
Or, make the iconics interesting, so that any art featuring them is interesting artwork, and let the supplements benefit from a psychological association effect when the readers see the iconics in multiple books.
B. Human Paladin
I really feel Paladins have always got the short end when it came to artist representations in the game. I'd like to see at least one Male Paladin and possible a very charismatic Female Paladin or Cleric Added to the mix.
As with most others I also agree that the sheer quality of the art should increase. The Iconics should jump at you and make you say "I want to be that..." as well as be able to get those unfamilier with the game to stop and give it a look. They may say "Don't judge a book by it's cover." but the truth is most folks do. Take advantage of that.
You've convinced me. All future D&D products should be pure white with no colour or pictures whatsoever, with the only font being neutral Arial. It will be so awesome, because it will be much cheaper. Except, you know, when you find that there is no one else to play with because no one wanted to buy such an unattractive and boring looking product.
Wait a second though, if you are suffering from an excess of imagination, why exactly do you need D&D in the first place? I mean, having a huge book with all those rules just sends the message, " You are too stupid and unimaginative to think about what a (race/character/class) should be able to do, so we'll do it for you. " So yeah, WotC should just totally stop publishing D&D so that they no longer prevent our minds from running wild with endless possibilities.
I see you took my post as something of a personal attack. I'm sorry you feel threatened by my opinion that "Iconic" characters don't bring anything useful to the PHB/DMG/MM.
I'm wondering, however, why you took my opinion and extrapolated to the illogical conclusion that "art is bad" and then attributed this attitude to me? Is that because, at some level, you personally feel the game would be better without art?
Art isn't the problem. Character illustrations are okay, well, apart from the overall poor quality, that is. IMO, the only good pictures are those of Redgar, Lidda, and Tordek. All the others are just ugly.
Where the problem lies is in the designer's implied attitude that "These are the ICONIC characters, and if you're not playing something VERY close to them, you're not really playing a (race/character/class), you're just playing something sub-optimal."
I am sorry you feel threatened by a couple of paintings. Your conclusion that there is an implication that you are stupid if your fighter is not a dwarf is far, far more illogical than mine.
I'll remember to cry out in anguish next time I try to play a detective and I am forced to give him a rotund sidekick and distinctive cap because Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was so damned inconsiderate as to make the iconic investigator. Or, maybe I'll throw something by Robert E. Howard when I am forced to make my barbarian wield a greatsword and no armour because of Conan.
Iconic does not imply a straightjacket, just as reptilian does not implies Godzilla.
As for showing new players an example of the "usual" way that a rogue or a fighter looks... okay. Do that once, on the class's page in the PHB, maybe even once or twice more later, showing the caster types again in the spells and magic sections, and the melee types in the melee section, etc. Then forget about them. After the PHB, you're not really looking at "new" players anymore. If it's a supplement, generally you're looking at a previous customer coming back for more. They know what a thief looks like, whether it's the same character or not.
So, keep the Iconics in the PHB, where they might serve some purpose, and give the seasoned customer some interesting artwork in all the other stuff.
Good points
B. Half-orc wizard - I like the idea of challenging cliches and conventions.
A. Create new 4E iconics - I enjoyed the 3.5 iconics, but think that the creation of new iconics offers an opportunity for creativity.
B. Half-orc wizard - I like the idea of challenging cliches and conventions.
Tiefling Paladin as well then. If for no other reason so I can see the line "Why, I've never seen a horny paladin before."
Tiefling Paladin as well then. If for no other reason so I can see the line "Why, I've never seen a horny paladin before."
Tiefling paladin? I've got one word for you:
Hellboy.
The only new iconic I would want to specifically see is a human female spear-wielding fighter.
Half-Dragon Sorcerer
also hmmm..race/class ... gnome barbarian! (beware ye ankles! )
Most character art in 3e really focused on the individual. What if 4e went a different route and focused on teamwork?
So instead of `Mialee casts Enlarge Person' it becomes "Mialee casts Enlarge Person on Lidda". The art isn't used so much to illustrate the self-only spells and feats and such, but more the group-oriented stuff.
You could have a wilderness party, a dungeon party and an urban party (and for epic maybe a planar party), each composed of a different set of archetypes, and possibly each representing a different setting.
So basically less focus on individuals and more on groups. Give them fancy names and such.
You could even put up character backgrounds for characters and parties as a pre-release thing - have one be a `you meet in the tavern' party, one brought together by fate, and maybe a mercenary one.
Tiefling Paladin as well then. If for no other reason so I can see the line "Why, I've never seen a horny paladin before."
Did you put that double meaning on purpose? :P
Not we have seen a horny paladin either ...
i like artwork, and the icons from 3.x left the mialee looking like something else with those goblin ears instead of elf hears
Just had a thought, what if we had iconic parties instead of iconic characters?
Most character art in 3e really focused on the individual. What if 4e went a different route and focused on teamwork?
So instead of `Mialee casts Enlarge Person' it becomes "Mialee casts Enlarge Person on Lidda". The art isn't used so much to illustrate the self-only spells and feats and such, but more the group-oriented stuff.
You could have a wilderness party, a dungeon party and an urban party (and for epic maybe a planar party), each composed of a different set of archetypes, and possibly each representing a different setting.
So basically less focus on individuals and more on groups. Give them fancy names and such.
You could even put up character backgrounds for characters and parties as a pre-release thing - have one be a `you meet in the tavern' party, one brought together by fate, and maybe a mercenary one.
That's sort of what I was thinking in my earlier comments.
Tiefling paladin? I've got one word for you:
Hellboy.
I don't recall Hellboy using lay on hands... Sure he's close, but he's not exactly a fantasy world character. He likes his gun. That and I think he's actually a full demon isn't he?
Did you put that double meaning on purpose? :P
Not we have seen a horny paladin either ...
Maybe I did, maybe I did.
- Create new 4E iconics.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? High Elf Ranger
I dont really care if it's tordek casting a cleric spell, or Gartak the magnificent. Just make it clear that he's a cleric (easy enough, say 'gartak the cleric casts his once per day Prayer of Healing to save the wounded fighter)
I mean, every prestige class uses a different character, not an iconic.
Just make em flashy, and for the love of all that is holy -GIVE ME MAGIC ITEMS THAT ARE FASHIONABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-
MIC finally gave me good looking stuff, and then 3.5 dies. Coincidence? No.
Conspiracy!
Not everyone looking at the Player's Handbook has been playing D&D for fifteen years or whatever. Jozan is a new player's first impression of "This is what a D&D cleric is like", and he does a pretty good job of it. You show him turning undead, you show him healing a guy, you show him mixing it up with a lizardman, that's a D&D cleric. A Hobgoblin cleric of Deep Sashalas 'challenges conventions', but it also does an incredibly terrible job of showing a new player what a typical PC cleric is like. Very uncommon race/class combinations also misrepresent what the culture of the core races is like.
that said, if they include them:
B. Dwarf Ranger with giant as favored enemy, and a Human Druid
I really like this one, too:
Edit: Just realized both pics have the characters TKing something with their right hand. Odd, that.
I agree with whoever said we needed some brandable D&D characters. Maybe when 4e rolls around we'll see some television advertising, just maybe. At least during prime geeky shows.
The Eberron race reported to be a candidate for the PHB was the Changeling. If changelings are in the PHB, I retract all of my previous statements and instead submit that there should be only ONE Iconic, to be featured in all of the class pictures, a female changeling, hehehe...
were can you give us a link
Personally I'd vote Male Tiefling Wizard as my favorite.
My two other ideas.
1) Female Human Cleric: I remember a picture somewhere of a female human in chainmail praying (Though I can't remember where), and I think that that was one of the best pieces of DnD art I've seen. In any case, I'd like the Cleric archetype to focus more on piety then "The Cleric is always either healing, or using his undead be gone"
2) Changeling Rogue (has changeling been confirmed or denied?). The Penultimate Rogue, the only problem is that her appearance would change to much to be identifiable by the art. (Though Races of Eberron did a decent job at keeping Changelings identifiable).
B) CG human-raised drow elf Rogue 5/Thief-Acrobat 2 "Iliira of Gell's Pass"
:D
Sorry, but I'd really like to see her actually drawn up.
2) I agree with the mutliple iconics thing, both standard and challenging Conventions
Druid - Elf (Pretty standard, elves love nature and all) and Gnoll (A savage humanoid, some would say mroe beast than man, at home in the wilderness trying to live his own way)
Paladin - Human and Orc (The blessings and call of goodness are limited not by race or homeland)
Rouge - Halfling and Half Orc (Forced to the edges of society this hero is forced to adopt a new skillset to live)
Barbarian - Orc and Human (Not all humans live in the urban city-states, many still hold the older ways)
Sorcerer - Human and Kobold (The blood of dragons runs through the small reptilian's veins)
Wizard - Elf and Orc (The path of the wizard is one of determination and training, something limited not by race)
Warlord - Human and Halfling (Small stature does not limit tactics and charisma. Though not as tough as her followers the halfling warlord bravely leads her followers to battle)
Cleric - All races should be represted here equally
Fighter - Dwarf and Kobold (Though lacking the raw power of the dwarf the Kobolds high dex and natural armor alow him to nimbly fight with two weapons while rarely being harmed)
I would love to see a halfling fighter-type. I'm thinking an obviously over the edge pole-arm wielder (ideally halberd, so s/he could be depicted as hacking with it). The pole-arm wielder should likes the fighting just too much probably making a better barbarian. Definitely depicted as being enthused and happy (read smiling maniacally in dangerous situations (i.e. combat and climb checks on a cliff), but bored, distracted or simply disinterested in low stress situations.
In other words, I think iconics should have personality beyond their race/class combination. This would also allow unusual feat choices to be displayed (Russel the Strong Hero took stealthy?) biased on fitting with the character, rather than class, which in the long run are more interesting. Just be consistent please (huh, ever notice the iconic solider has the same name as the guy with dread-locks?).
And ones that do not, like Mialee (to (quote a very wise Lich) less resemble a person who fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch one the way down and more one who climbed down carefully in a tight spiral, repeatedly headbutting every. single. branch. until it snapped off, but actually are somewhat more inspiring.
This does probably mean, granted, given human tendancies, making them them attractive (or at least not rabidly unattractive to either gender). Ideally, you shold be going for something so freakin' awesome that you get people1 like me to go "wow, I wanna play that!" (Mind you, that'd be pretty impressive to pull off.)
B: Race class combination...heck, I don't really care that much, so I'll go with the totally outside Lich Psionic Martial Adept. Y'know, just because.
1I use the word 'people' in it's broadest possible sense...
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
As this is our discussion forum, please discuss and support your response. Thanks!
-Mike
A.
I would advocate for New 4E Iconic characters. I believe the old characters were very useful in the 3.0 ed. in teaching players new to the game the basic concept of character class and fleshing out a character for game. I would also like them to be new because I like to see the new art and the new concepts come to life with new characters.
B. I would like to see a Human Male Paladin for an Iconic Character. Perhaps I'm old school, but I just like my Pallys to be Humies. Manly men too, with cool mustaches like Vercingetorix.
1) New Iconics, with better art.
2) I agree with the mutliple iconics thing, both standard and challenging Conventions
Druid - Elf (Pretty standard, elves love nature and all) and Gnoll (A savage humanoid, some would say mroe beast than man, at home in the wilderness trying to live his own way)
Paladin - Human and Orc (The blessings and call of goodness are limited not by race or homeland)
Rouge - Halfling and Half Orc (Forced to the edges of society this hero is forced to adopt a new skillset to live)
Barbarian - Orc and Human (Not all humans live in the urban city-states, many still hold the older ways)
Sorcerer - Human and Kobold (The blood of dragons runs through the small reptilian's veins)
Wizard - Elf and Orc (The path of the wizard is one of determination and training, something limited not by race)
Warlord - Human and Halfling (Small stature does not limit tactics and charisma. Though not as tough as her followers the halfling warlord bravely leads her followers to battle)
Cleric - All races should be represted here equally
Fighter - Dwarf and Kobold (Though lacking the raw power of the dwarf the Kobolds high dex and natural armor alow him to nimbly fight with two weapons while rarely being harmed)
Too many orcs! Make the orc wizard a gnome illusionist. Also 2 kobolds is too many. Make the kobold fighter a human. Or an elf, archer style or dextrous style.
I suppose that there's some truth to the notion that a new edition needs new iconic characters. I'll sure miss Lidda, Regdar and Jozan. Wasn't too fond of the others really. Well, I guess I liked Kerwyn, but he didn't get much press. At least he knew what a rapier looked like!
And we so need an Elf-Rogue (arrows + sneak attack ftw!).
B.
Human/Barbarian - Think conan style style with the greatsword and all that.
Dwarf/Cleric - Dwarfs just fit the cleric Role so well.
H. Orc/Druid - This would be pretty cool have him set up like a shaman wearing pelts pelts and would be outside the box for sure.
H. Elf/Bard - make this one female with exotic clothes that is sophisticated not slutty.
Halfling/Rogue - Go male this time with a sly smile and shifty eyes.
Gnome/Rogue - Maybe go female tinker rogue with this one can just see a gnome female with her hair tied in a bun with lick picks poking like chop sticks.
Gnome/Wizard - Kinda go with a young apprentice male with a close cut beard and short cropped hair due.
Elf/Sorcerous - Definiteley gotta be female with exotic garb.
Human/Fighter - Female amazon would be pretty cool for this maybe Red Sonja for inspiration.
Human Fighter - Kinda cliche but making two fighter types seems to be a smart thing just because fighter is ultimately an easier class to play then the others. Make this fighter a male with the typical scale mail but give a great axe with a devil horn helmet.. You cant go wrong with horned helmets.:D
Dwarf/Paladin - Dwarf Paladin just works in so many ways. Maybe with a dwarfen waraxe and shield with holy symbol on it
Elf/Ranger - Elf works very well for this theme but have em be more Robin Hood in design with the cloak and bow.
There you go 12 different characters designs..some are cliche but hey cliche can still be cool so why not. Also......SAVE THE GNOME!!!....
It had to be said.
For the artists, please remember these are adventurers, and not a) "ladies of the night" advertising their "wares" and b) not bondage fetishists that need two or three other people to get them into their clothing when they wake up in the morning.
Draw practical clothes that actually have some protective value (i.e. covers all the skin) with only necessary straps and buckles, and armor that appears like it's supposed to protect, not just hang around being decorative.
Armor should be symmetric, not asymmetric; asymmetric armor is harder to make and more likely to have flaws in its defensive capabilities. And use real-world examples of weapons, not "fantasy" drawings thereof... I know of no real-world falchion that looks like an oversized two-handed scimitar, nor a rapier that has a curve in the blade (hint, it's called a saber when it has that curve).
Again, the male and female, fighter and magic-user (in whichever combination) would be the best bet. obviously if you could get some good fantasy fiction novels out about them too, that'd probably help them be more identifiable and iconic than the 3.5 series... Who were nothing more than pictures with no hint of identity.
Of course, I do wonder if the popular novel characters might not help due to their already considerable popularity and media presence.
Create new 4E iconics.
As long as we don't have an iconic that looks as ridiculous as Kursk, I might be happy.
Krusk look angry at you!
:D
As long as we don't have an iconic that looks as ridiculous as Kursk, I might be happy.
Are you kidding me? "Krusk Demonstrates the Kick-in-the-Door Style of Play" is one of my favorite pieces of D&D art ever.
The artist captured the facial expressions of Krusk and the beholder perfectly.Are you kidding me? "Krusk Demonstrates the Kick-in-the-Door Style of Play" is one of my favorite pieces of D&D art ever.
Krusk's facial expressions are the best. My personal favorite is in the Player's Handbook when that cleric is using Krusk's head as a boost during his climb.
In many of the 4e thread's, there are several arguments.
I think it is funny that WOTC is asking our opinions on the game, and of course everyone has thier opinions, and so you are getting arguments left and right about what people think is right, or how they think 4e should be.
People cannot usually 'have thier cake and eat it to', and Wizards has given us a piece of cake in asking us our opinions, and as usual a majority feel they need to argue about it.
This is absolutely hilarious.
I think they've managed to draw the "The Fighter Sucks!" people and the "The Fighter is Good!" people into an all out war with the "There is too such a thing as CODZILLA!", while the "My Warforged cleric is not MECHACODZILLA!" people are standing by on the sidelines to mop up and take over.
lol
people are funny
Are you kidding me? "Krusk Demonstrates the Kick-in-the-Door Style of Play" is one of my favorite pieces of D&D art ever.
The hair is what kills me…
I was just checking the forums this morning, and I noticed something.
In many of the 4e thread's, there are several arguments.
What Gamer Zer0 really needs to do is disentangle the arguments and set up new threads: one for skills, one for alignment, that sort of thing.
I'm not sure that he's that masochistic, though.
Or he could just unlock the forum. Just sayin'.
With a new edition I think we need some new iconics.
:bounce:
Unless races such as the Tiefling and Aasimar become core and are put into the races section along with humans elves and hobb...I mean halflings, you won't see Tiefling Iconics.
Which is, I believe, confirmed.
EDIT: And we argue in here because people aren't just offering their position, but attempting to support that position in an attempt to bring more people to their side with logic. Such as, selectively choosing one definition of the word 'iconic' and using it to claim to have the only literally correct viewpoint.
B:
Human Fighter, carries two-handed sword all around
Dwarf Cleric, worships Thor
Elf Wizard, of yet unknown gender
Human Rogue, female, red haired
Halfling Ranger, Psychotic Evil murderer
Seriously. That would make cool face of 4E.
All new Iconics, But they have to be really cool guys, CONCEPT DRAWN BY WAYNE REYNOLDS!
Human Cleric
Gnome (or kobold or whatever if gomes are out) Sorcerer
Halfling Ranger
Half Elf Fighter
Dwarven Warlord
Tiefling Rogue
ORC barbarian
Aasimar Paladin
Elf wizard
I'm not sure of the format you've decided on, yet, but I've always enjoyed the anecdotes from the character's perspective. As the game focuses on the player's characters, so should these iconic characters have complete backgrounds, explanations about how they came together (a roleplaying opportunity that all my groups have always loved), and maybe even some kind of reaching narrative arc of their adventures in the books themselves. One fine example of this was the story from the "Quintessential Paladin" from Mongoose. The main character in the story was provided background, motivations, NPC interaction, villains, and a definitive end to his story-arc.
I vote for new iconic characters. Bring in some fresh blood!
I'm not sure of the format you've decided on, yet, but I've always enjoyed the anecdotes from the character's perspective. As the game focuses on the player's characters, so should these iconic characters have complete backgrounds, explanations about how they came together (a roleplaying opportunity that all my groups have always loved), and maybe even some kind of reaching narrative arc of their adventures in the books themselves. One fine example of this was the story from the "Quintessential Paladin" from Mongoose. The main character in the story was provided background, motivations, NPC interaction, villains, and a definitive end to his story-arc.
That's a great idea! a on-going story-like presentation would be really cool, If they have great backgrounds and act accordingly in the "examples" they would be REALLY ICONIC, not just a name and a face.
I even disliked that the iconics in 3rd Ed. got Names, always thought it somewhat strange.
B.) Half-Orc Ranger or a Drow Monk.
Do a pair of iconics per class, one male, one female each based on a different style/build for that class. Please excuse my terrible names, it's my Achilles Heel
Ex:
Fighter, Female Dwarf, Male Elf.
"In combat, Aranael uses his speed to his advantage, avoiding attacks, while Durna shrugs off all but the strongest hits."
"You are too stupid and unimaginative to think about what a (race/character/class) would look like, so we'll do it for you."
No, that would be the captions to each illustration that made the artwork feel like "Dungeons & Dragons: The Far Side".
please get rid of MIALEE! She is like the ugliest elf EVER.
I'm somewhat disturbed by the calls to get rid of Mialee on the grounds that she's ugly. This is fantasy, but that makes the passion to "burn the witch" all the more ridiculous. I'm all for getting rid of Mialee myself, but mostly because she's a patronizing patchwork of smutty clothing and lazy artwork. "Oh, let's just toss out some hastily-drawn harlot for the horny masses," was the message I got.
I get a bit uncomfortable when the "Get Mialee" crowd validates the perception that gamers are shallow, horny bastards who only want their T&A.
people are funny
You're free to go, armchair quarterback.
I'm somewhat disturbed by the calls to get rid of Mialee on the grounds that she's ugly. This is fantasy, but that makes the passion to "burn the witch" all the more ridiculous. I'm all for getting rid of Mialee myself, but mostly because she's a patronizing patchwork of smutty clothing and lazy artwork. "Oh, let's just toss out some hastily-drawn harlot for the horny masses," was the message I got.
I get a bit uncomfortable when the "Get Mialee" crowd validates the perception that gamers are shallow, horny bastards who only want their T&A.
I suspect that if she was a fully clothed, somewhat homely character, as opposed to a scantily clad grotesque, you wouldn't get the same outcry. We don't hate her because she's not hot. We hate her because she apparently thinks she's hot, but is in fact actively repulsive, with a face that frightens children. And adults, for that matter.
I suspect that if she was a fully clothed, somewhat homely character, as opposed to a scantily clad grotesque, you wouldn't get the same outcry. We don't hate her because she's not hot. We hate her because she apparently thinks she's hot, but is in fact actively repulsive, with a face that frightens children. And adults, for that matter.
Simple fix: Redraw the character in a new style with a new artist.
Personally I don't care if she stays or goes, but honestly, she was drawn more like a Shadowswyft than an Elf.
B: Kobold sorcerer - focusing in fire
Blue Goblin Psion
Dwarven Axe Fighter
Assimar Paladin
Tiefling Assassin
Halfling Bard
Assimar Paladin
:P
I'd like to see gender parity, but I don't have any problem with the iconic characters being a stereotypes... I mean isn't that at least partly the point. The trick is to also make them cool characters in rules and roles and art.
Please make the art have more detail & realism. I don't care for the water color art. Also if eye candy is going to be done, have it be done in equal amounts for both genders.
Iconic Character Ideas
Muscular (toned & cut not beefy) Male human wizard: Carrying a quarterstaff made of metal or heavy wood that looks like he could break your ribs with a well placed hit. Wearing just hakama pants, no shirt with runic tattoos
Female gnome warlock (similar look to the races of stone whisper gnome) Looks feminine and dangerous at the same time.
Male Half-Orc Monk/Unarmed combat expert Demeanor of a zen pacifist, that looks like he could head butt you 3 feet into the ground.
Female Tiefling Ranger Crouching/Stalking position with a look that makes you think you are what's for dinner (and not in a good sense)
Male elf fighter Strong enough to use a bow that go through small trees
Female Dwarf Paladin CN/CG in armour with a hexblade feel to it
Male Half-elf Warlord Light armour Chain or studded leather armed with a spiked chain
Female Changling Sorceress Drop dead gorgeous, uses her good looks catch her foes off gaurd before unleashing arcane death upon her foes.
Froth Halfing Male Barbarian With his trusty battleaxe "Ankle-biter" he'll bring any of his foes down to size. (ok, so he might have been a character I ran:D )
You're free to go, armchair quarterback.
?.
Hmmm, the basic iconics were a nice touch to introduce 3E, made it easier to comprehend by giving examples. Since 4E is a complete revamp of the dynamics, it only stands to reason that we get updated versions of the original ones. That way it's a nice comparison and ease the switch. IE= this is Lidda 3.5 and this is Lidda 4.0. Might even help with trying to convert (ok, make a new one based on the old one) existing personal PC's
This isn't a revamp of the old mechanics. It's a completely new system, and more or less everything from the past is going to be mechanically incompatible.
I'd like to see something similar for 4E iconics. Two classes for a race that really fit, and one that might not play to the race's strengths, but serves to stretch the imagination. So, we might have a tiefling rogue, wizard, and, as the unusual, a paladin or fighter.
Thump the Barbarian
Back in the archaic days of 2nd Edition, there was rolled into creation a pitiful creature who would come to be known as the barbarian Thump. The DM running the game in which Thump's player was participating insisted on the Gygaxian method of attribute generation (that is, 3d6 placed in order). Now, while barbarians as a group are reputed to have lower than average Intelligence, Thump's player had the misfortune of rolling a score of 3. That's right. 3.
The gods (read: DM) saw Thump's barely above fungus Intelligence, and took a degree of pity upon him, granting him the strength of an ancient dragon (No, I don't know the exact stat, so :P). Thus, Thump could crush your skull with his bare hands . . . if he could figure out what your skull was.
Thump's vocabulary was incredibly limited. As it has been related to me, Thump could only speak one two-word phrase; "Thump go." It was discovered, through unfortunate trial and error, that this phrase meant one of four things:
1. Thump wanted to leave.
2. Thump was leaving, with or without the group.
3. Thump needed to go to the bathroom.
4. Thump no longer needed to go to the bathroom. "What's that sme . . . aww, Thump!!"
Jim of Georgia
A friend of mine, while stationed in Georgia, had the misfortune of being in a group with a man named Jim. Jim always played the paladin, the cavalier, the questing knight . . . and always played Lawful Good (read: Lawful STUPID!). It was widely accepted that the average life expectancy of a "Jim character" was roughly 7 turns. Below are a couple examples of why.
The party was traveling (destination unremembered), and the DM was throwing out flavor text, describing the road, the fields, the mountains, etc. As part of his description, he related, "Far off in the distance, a red dragon glides majestically through the sky." Jim, playing a paladin, reared up his horse, shouted, "Forsooth! I shall slay thee!", and promptly rode off after the dragon, much to the surprise of the DM and the chagrin of his fellow adventurers.
Realizing they . . . "needed" Jim's character, the party pursued, only to find Jim face-to-face with a very old red dragon. The DM, not wanting to wipe out the entire party with an unplanned encounter due to one persons ignorance, relayed to the party that the dragon had an ultimatum: either they killed Jim, or the dragon would kill them all. It is reported that Jim's character took enough damage in the back to kill him ten times over.
During another adventure (Jim again playing the stalwart paladin), the party came upon a bridge. This bridge had been "commandeered" by a massive fire giant, who demanded a toll for crossing. Most of the party members, being very low-level, began digging through their coin purses. Jim challenged the giant.
To his credit, he rationalized his actions. The giant was charging an unfair toll on a bridge he did not "legally" own. Unfortunately, he was not powerful enough to take on a giant with aid, much less solo. The party took a huge step back. The giant, visibly angry, demanded payment, "Or else." The party took another step back. Jim refused, uttered his now famous last words (see above), and was promptly flattened. The remaining party members paid the toll, scooping up the Jim Jelly to have him raised.
I suspect that if she was a fully clothed, somewhat homely character, as opposed to a scantily clad grotesque, you wouldn't get the same outcry. We don't hate her because she's not hot. We hate her because she apparently thinks she's hot, but is in fact actively repulsive, with a face that frightens children. And adults, for that matter.
Amen to that. If the is a nerd book-eater wizard eith no charisma that's ok... but this... it's like seing the nerd girl trying to look hot (trying too hard)
The thing is, it does not look like an Iconic elf wizard should look like. Tordek and Vadania, for example, fill the 'icon' role more effectively, I think.
1. Half-Orc Wizard
2. Dwarf Rogue
3. Elf Cleric (Drow) LG
4. Halfling Sorcerer
5. Dwarf Warlock
I can't believe this thread has generated this many responses. I didn't know so many people were so passionate about iconic characters.
Methinks it's not that so much as this is a very simple discussion. It doesn't take much time or thought to rattle off one's opinion vis-a-vis iconics, as well as a few token suggestions. You don't need to read 20 pages of commentary to dive into the fray without looking foolish.
I personally think iconics are a colossally bad idea. That said, it's WotC's ship to sink, and I don't lose any sleep fretting over them. But when WotC invites me to voice my opinion on their forums, I'm not shy about speaking my mind.
B. If there is a sorcerer or warlock class, the tiefling would, of course, be a perfect fit. I'd like to see an elven cleric and a halfling druid. A dwarf or half-elf rogue would be nice to see.
The art was almost photo realistic with great lighting and shadow work. It may have been in the RPGA hall at GenCon. I thought I saw it on one of the Website pages in Wizards. I just don't remember!
Help!
Sidestepper
People who have played D&D for awhile know that you can move beyond these icons and do your own thing. The books clearly explain what you can do and how to do it. Various accessories have lots of illustrations and example of options and looks.
Remember that the icons are great for starting players.
I do like the example an earlier poster made for making one or two of the icons the "face" for D&D. Perhaps it is time to have an actor or actress do a series of commercials or ads that do for D&D what Mickey Mouse or Mario does for thier empires.
Later,
Sidestepper
I can't remember where are saw this, but there was a new piece of art that featured (I believe ) Jozan, Mialee and Tordek fighting a white ape-like creature near a dungeon door.
The art was almost photo realistic with great lighting and shadow work. It may have been in the RPGA hall at GenCon. I thought I saw it on one of the Website pages in Wizards. I just don't remember!
Help!
Sidestepper
It's in the web-enhancement for Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk, and it's by Michael Kormack.
Perhaps it is time to have an actor or actress do a series of commercials or ads for D&D
Vin Diesel?
Because Riddick is the iconic assassin.
Vin Diesel?
Because Riddick is the iconic assassin.
...and also an avid D&D/fantasy geek.
I vote for new iconic characters. Bring in some fresh blood!
I'm not sure of the format you've decided on, yet, but I've always enjoyed the anecdotes from the character's perspective. As the game focuses on the player's characters, so should these iconic characters have complete backgrounds, explanations about how they came together (a roleplaying opportunity that all my groups have always loved), and maybe even some kind of reaching narrative arc of their adventures in the books themselves. One fine example of this was the story from the "Quintessential Paladin" from Mongoose. The main character in the story was provided background, motivations, NPC interaction, villains, and a definitive end to his story-arc.
That's a great idea! a on-going story-like presentation would be really cool, If they have great backgrounds and act accordingly in the "examples" they would be REALLY ICONIC, not just a name and a face.
I like this idea; it's what I was thinking when I suggested a group of "iconic villains" to be the nemesis for the iconic characters. I'd quote my post, but there's so many pages in this thread now that I can't remember where it is.
I think iconics are a good idea, but I also think that some different characters should be presented when(if) 4E splat books start to come out.
I also still think that some sort of connection between the 3E iconics and the 4E iconics should be made. Some have mentioned the idea of the 3E iconics being the example for high level heroes; I like that idea. Others have mentioned the idea of having the 3E iconics being NPC characters (i.e. Regdar owning a weapon shop); I like that idea as well. My idea was Jonath the Half-Elven fighter; offspring of Regdar and Mialee.
On second though, I was thinking that Jonath could be the "iconic" multiclass character for 4E; being a fighter/wizard. Use him as an example of how multiclassing works in 4E.
- Create new 4E iconics.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick?
Goblin Bard
...and also an avid D&D/fantasy geek.
So's Steven Colbert.
He could show off the new Paladin.
Also:
A.
New Iconics
B.
Halfling Barbarian
B If necessary, a human iconic character for every class, and an iconic character for every race representing the preferred class (or the 4e equivalent).
Use males for the martial classes and females for the "smart" ones, certainly use male dwarfes!!!
I know the second "what combo" query was meant to generate feedback and give WizOs some numbers ("43% are leaning toward kobold paladins!"), and that's cool, but I really don't have a preference worth registering. OK, fine, er... Black Dragon Artisan (shoemaker).
What I would like to recommend is that you familiarize us with the iconics on an intimate, stat level, and that you use those iconics in examples of play mechanics. I personally never had much difficulty with the various twitchy rules, but I have had players who have, and it would've been nice if the PhB had examples (perhaps in a sidebar) that showed how something worked. Like maybe next to the rules on Grapple, if they had Tordek try to grapple Lidda, and showed what each Iconic had that modified their rolls (Tordek has +0 due to size, +4 from Improved Grapple, +3 from his 17 str, etc... Lidda has -4 to size, blah blah).
I'm not saying we need full on character sheets or anything, but if relevant info was provided when an iconic was used for an example, and if the correct iconics were chosen to illustrate how various mechanics worked, I think a lot of players (and some DMs) would catch on to things quicker. I don't really think the grapple rules are all that confusing, and I don't think the people who have trouble with it are at all sub-par... I think some people learn differently than others, and that a lot of my players have understood grapple (and been much more willing to use it) once I explained, with examples, how all the various bits work.
Iconics do serve a purpose. When recruiting new players to the table, crack open a book and flip through the chapter on classes, and something will undoubtedly catch their eye - and a new player is hooked. This means more sales of books, more fun at the gaming table, and more incessant banter and frustration (which is just as much a part of D&D as RP and combat sequences and is just as much fun imho).
I think the idea of multiple iconics per class is great, and since we have already heard that there will be 3 tiers of levels (heroic, paragon, and epic), I would like to encourage an iconic of each class for each tier. Equal gender representation is a must. The first tier should be of the standard races available (whatever they may be *cough no warforged please cough*). The second tier may be something slightly different (i.e. a lizardfolk sorceror instead of an elf, a half-orc illusionist instead of a gnome, or a Killoren Druid instead of a Human, etc...). The third tier I'm somewhat torn between two ideas. The first (to encourage reading and sales of D&D-related novels, and to satisfy the existing gamers) would be to use iconics from novels etc... (Raistlin as the Wizard, (regrettably) Drizzt as the Ranger, Caramon or Sturm as the Fighter, etc...). They could have some history, a handful of "greatest quotes", and a "first appeared in _____" for those who have never heard of them, but like what they see. The second idea would be to get the community to do a massive poll/submission for the 3rd tier iconic (based on your beta testers' characters). It sticks with the fresh start idea more, but I think I'm leaning towards the first idea actually.
If I had to pick one class/race to be a new iconic (based on what's likely to be in the PHB) it would have to be a male dwarven fighter (all hail the stumpy-legged tank, heroic), a female bugbear fighter (paragon), and a male minotaur fighter (epic).
If i could pick one class/race to be a new iconic (based on what I wish would be in the PHB) it would have to be a female albino human psion (heroic), a male Illithid-touched psion (paragon), and a dark-skinned female half-elven psion (epic).
B: Dwarf Barbarian.
I wouldn't even repeat them two times in the same book...
My opinion is that we should get some new icons in here, change things up a bit and also give someone something else to look at.
B. If the idea of prefered classes for multiclassing is going away, I would say some non-intuitive combinations would be cool, half-orc cleric of a good god, halfling fighter with a 2-handed sword. But, keeping the races and classes closely tied with their stereo type/racial culture helps people to define what it means to be a dwarf, halfing, etc (dwarves have a strong warrior tradition with a few clerics [who focus on crafting and fighting] here and there; halflings are small and tend to try to stay out of the way of big folks so tend toward the rogue class, they sometimes go towards clerics or wizards, they rarely specialize in standup toe-to-toe fighting).
And B)
Yes, I go with the Tiefling Paladin on this one a well :P .
As I stated earlier, I would like to a see a mish mash of old and new iconics. Regdar needs to stay simply because I am a Regdar fanboy. PLus, I am not going to spam the thread for 17 pages with 'Keep Regdar' propoganda. Even Conan eventually died.
I like Regdar as well.
Off the top of my head even though it would be very unlikely...
Changeling Wizard preferably Aundairean,
Halfling Artificer preferably a halfling sized version of a certain Firefly engineer...
Human female Combatmaster sorry I should say Ranger/Fighter/Psychic Warrior with dragonmark giving the impression of someone of great experience and confidence and yet has the commanding presence to really stand out sort of a Genie from the Louie the rune soldier series,
Shifter female druid who looks like the catgirl from Ruin Explorers but by that I mean looks young for her age but has the obvious wisdom and charm her position merits,
Half Orc Monk because I really like to see one rech icomic status!
Dwarven cleric because it just feels so right!
Elven sorceror because I always thought making them wizards really cheapened their true nature
I think I'll stop there and see what the rest of you think is an appropriate choice for an iconic character for 4e...
"So after Xialim, the 10th level Wizard casts Bull Strength on Gorbak the 8th level Dwarven Fighter with 17 STR equipped with a +1 Battle Axe and a Glove of Ogre Strength and having the Weapon Focus, his attack bonus would be +15".
Oh yeah, Elven (or half-elven) Sorceress...
Others could be the Human Female Paladin but with a better drawing than Alhana´s.. that was just awful.. I´ve never seen a nice pic of her.
Human Cleric like Warhammer´s PC Game Cleric (I dont know the game, I´ve just seen the teaser´s.. the bald cleric-like guy rocks.. now THAT is a Cleric)
plus new players do think that their pc will look just likethe pic they dont understand that your characters appearance depends on your ability scores
but in the end i believe we should just get new iconic characters
Maybe have a Halfling Barbarian. Or have a Half-Orc Barbarian carry a giant backpack with a Halfling Rouge hidden inside.
Suggestions:
Female Elven Bow-fighter.
Male halfling Wizard (trickster-y type)
Female Human Rogue (back-stab inducing kind)
Scrawny Male Half-elf Barbarian!
that's all that immediately comes to mind.
B. Human Barbarian - I always think of Conan rather than some bestial freak
Halfling Cleric - They're so cute how could they not make good clerics, and the favored class rouge space is getting crowded. Lets make a clean break with hobbits.
Gnome Bard - As if anyone belives either of these will exist.
Tiefling Rogue - Umm... Tiefling? Yeah thats tasy.
Elf Sorcerer - Their magic always fealt like it should be more the intuitive type to me.
Asamir Paladin - Yeah I guess i put both the planetouched in their default roles, but then I'm thinking that means those races are well suited for their expected roles.
Dwarf Fighter - move along nothing intresting here.
Human Wizard - yeah humans have to work hard to have power but thats what they do.
Half-elf Ranger - though please stop showing rangers in studded leather - they all know mithral chain shirts are the way to go and as a misfit in both human and elf lands i think the ranger isn't a bad fit.
Half-orc Druid - Now thats some orcish mojo, lets go with a shamanistic/ nature cultist for a change.
I'd like to see the different iconics for each class in on place, rather than somewhat scattered like in the current edition, with the exception of the fighter class. Regdar and Tordek are under the same class. The iconics are reminiscent of the LJN AD&D figures like Peralay, Ringlerun and Mercion (and all the rest!), and I've always loved the idea of iconic characters in D&D. I'm usually in the minority in a lot of things; this won't be any different.
If there will be new iconics in 4E, it would be nice if there were a tool or something that would allow the fans of v3.5 iconics to convert their favorites to 4E, if it wouldn't be too much effort or trouble.
I've seen Dwarven Cleric mentioned a lot and I think it's a great idea! I'd like to see a Kobold Rogue too, since they are already great with traps. I also agree with a male and female iconics for each class. I don't agree with things that are way off and absurd for imageing iconics. Here are my suggestions
Barbarian: Female Half-orc, Male earth genasi
Bard: Male Half-elf, Female Halfing
Clerics: Male Dwarf, Female Aasimar
Druid: Female Gnome, Male Half-Orc
Fighter: Female fire genasi, Male Halfing (ranged focused, bows and throwing weapons)
Monk: Female Human, Male water genasi
Paladin: Male Elf, Female air genasi
Rogue: Male kobold, Female half-elf
Sorcerer: Female kobold, Male Gnome
Wizard: Male Elf (conjurer), Female Dwarf (abjurer).
Yeah, I'm a planetouched fanatic...
I think a great idea would be to have racial iconics filling each of the new party roles - and maybe mixing up the classes based on racial roles. It could also help showcase a race's diversity.
So instead of 1 class = 1 iconic, it would be 1 race = 1 iconic per role. And maybe that works out to about 1 iconic per class anyways.
I suggest attach the iconics to roles in the party rather than character clasess so their would be a tank, skill monkey, blaster, etc. This could also show how different combinations of races, classes and prestige classes can make interesting versions of the traditional roles.
Well, I would definitely not be opposed to keeping the iconic warlock from Complete Arcane... I always liked the armor and everything, so long as whoever did the picture of him zapping the gnolls is kept well away from him! :pile:
Also, if we go with a list of established characters, please, PLEASE don't make Driz'zt the iconic ranger. Please?
Option A 2 - Create new iconics
I also agree that it is perhaps the best to have two iconics per class (as was in 3.5 with the fighter, cleric and wizard). These two iconics would be best of different sex and different race, trying to show that few different talent trees you can get quite different i.e. fighters.
Although if the same iconics were kept they could be used to see how 3.5 can be converted into 4.0 if at all.
Although if the same iconics were kept they could be used to see how 3.5 can be converted into 4.0 if at all.
This would encourage people to try to convert, when backwards compatibility is expressly impossible. Thus, a Bad Thing.
FEMALE DWARVEN DRUID
A couple suggestions:
Female nymph druid
Female succubus rogue (or sorceress...)
P.S.
...please keep druid in PHB I...
B - Dwarven Cleric.
Llarish
I think the idea of iconics is a good one, but I think everyone grew tired of seeing Regdar, Mialee, Krsuk etc over and over again for too long, and appreciates a change every once in a while. I really enjoyed seeing the new iconics introduced by Dungeon magazine, and now meeting new Pathfinder iconics.
How the 3.5 group tackles a challenge is going to be completely different than how Trask the Samurai, Ghar the Warlock, Perlidan the Favored Soul and Lydia the Scout approach the same challenge. A major component of 4E is supposed to be in defining class roles, so show new players that 1) there are more than the core classes and that 2) how their choice of characters have an impact on how the game is played.
B. The timeless race/combo for me is the elf ranger, dwarf cleric, human rogue, etc. But I think it's important to also show how different race/class combos can have an impact on the game as well. I think showing how race affects class is important, again, with constrasting examples.
The halfling knigt does less damage, but has weapon finesse and can make a bulwark of defense in a way that, for example, Tordek can't.
New players often are confused by having too many options, but on the other side of the coin, need to see that the game isn't Gauntlet as well. Teaching them how options have an impact on game play is part of training good players who will be willing to try more options and invest in more materials.
When 3.0/3.5 came out I did like seeing iconic characters but there were too many! I know they wanted to show what each class looked like and all but it was over done.
Four or five iconics make an adventuring party in my opinion.
Definately add a tiefling if it's a new core race. Being some classes are folding into each other, you don't need the traditional stereo-type character looks.
These iconics don't have to be pretty! Well maybe a hot female elf is fine but where's the older gruff fighter? Not shaven, messed up hair, muddy boots and a cloak with holes or blood stains.
Giving the new icons some wear and hardness from adventuring.
EK
I would like to see a dwarven paladin leading a charge against the bad guys. Maybe a gnome wizard, a human rouge and an elven cleric. The evil characters could be lead by a sorcerer or an evil cleric. Just a thought.
Later,
Orthix
In a postmodern/multicultural way they avoid complaints about fitting to pre-existing stereotypes by creating their own. Use them to free D&D from such stupid concerns, but not much more than that.
Keep art varied and interesting, in keeping with your enthusiasm for options in the new rules, let artists go wild! Don't tie them down with excessive brand compliance.
Oh and have a teifling cleric!
Been gaming over 20 years, I don't need handholding...
Race/class: Help noobs break the mold, go w/something other than the 'human fighter' fallback: how about, halfling ranger?
This picture is now my desktop wallpaper and I think it would make a great cover for the players handbook!
I would like to see a half-ogre Knight. That would be cool.
But if it is done by class then drop the whole starting package sections and actually stat out the Icons as first level characters instead.
And maybe a feral halfling barbarian shaman with juju stick (a la Darksun from back in the day) for comic relief and an elven archer extraordinaire. I don't know what's more iconic than that one.
I think the old Iconics should be made in to iconic villans and new iconics be made shoing off 4E.
If they do that, Mialee needs a big hooded cloak and something wrapped around the lower portion of her face. Then a black cricket suit, with improvements. We don't need to see her face again, ever.
Kill Icons totally. Have about three or four example characters of a class in each class section. Just some small illustrations showing them performing various class specific actions, and vary their gender/race. Nothing fancy, just a few small illustrations with a subtle italicized caption!
In other words, iconics.
The iconic characters (Tordek, Lidda, Mialee, and co.) were pretty prominent in 3E/3.5. There's been some speculation that some of the concept art shows iconics for 4E.
How would you like to see them handled in 4E?
WotC_Logan has specific instructions for how you should reply to make his data collection easier.
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
As this is our discussion forum, please discuss and support your response. Thanks!
-Mike
A: Create New 4E Iconics. Cool ones!
B: Warforged Warrior
For specific race/class combinations, I feel they should embody what 4th edition is all about and as such, they should be based on PC roles, rather than specific classes. So, for instance, you have a Striker, Defender, Leader, and Controller, with the most common race/class filling each role.
* Note: since the specifics have not been disclosed yet, I am only guessing as to what classes are designed to fill what roles, but this should get my idea across. *
So, for example:
Human fighter
Halfling rogue
Dwarf cleric
Elf wizard
This would be the "Typical D&D Party", and could be used to develop an overall look and feel for 4th edition as well as being the basis for playtesting new rules and adventures. These iconic characters would be used in all gameplay examples, descriptions of PC roles, and most branding art (like posters and ads). You still need an example character for each class, but these do not need to be fleshed out as much and should not be considered iconics.
You can then expand on this concept by having a different Iconic party for each major setting, so for instance, the Eberron Iconic party is:
Shifter ranger
Changeling rogue
Warforged paladin
Kalashtar psion
While the Forgotten Realms Iconic party might consist of:
Human barbarian
Wild-Elf ranger
Halfling bard
Gnome sorcerer
You can even have an Iconic party for the Monster Manual to use in examples of tactics and such:
Orc barbarian
Goblin rogue
Gnoll cleric
Kobold sorcerer
The main point is to have a smaller number of iconic characters that can be used in more situations. With 2 or 3 iconics for each class, you only see a few of them at a time and never the same one very often, so they don't really become "Iconic".
Or have a Half-Orc Barbarian carry a giant backpack with a Halfling Rouge hidden inside.
As a picture or as an actual iconic? Because that team would make a great iconic. :D Can't you just see the barbarian smuggling her into an orcish village? Or perahps it's a way to keep her above water while wading through the Murkmush Swamp. Maybe she leaps from his back during combat, vaulting over foe's heads for the sneak-attack flanking death!
Oh, the possiblities.
I don't think that the iconics have to be typical - in fact, I think that pigeon-holes new players into believing that certain races just shouldn't be certain classes. I think the idea of an elven fighter, gnome cleric, dwarven mage, etc. is fine.
Also, on a side note, I like the older full page art of 2nd ed. The iconic character art of the 3/3.5 ed. just didn't inspire me.
I'm also with others that there needs to be more than one for each class. Using variations of each, one Stereotypical and another more off-beat to show the variations allowed.
i.e. Half-orc and Gnome Barbarians
Halfling and Dwarven Rogue
Human and Elven Wizards
my 2 bits
However: Get them designed by someone who designs characters for a living. I'm sure someone in the Comics industry or the like would LOVE to lend some ideas.
Make them interesting, make them people, make them make sense as a group.
And show them out of "dungeon mode" at some point. In normal, setting-appropriate clothing, instead of just in armor and spellcaster bikinis.
Heck, give them a shallow but running story that gets used in the flavor text examples and art work.
And put up a couple iconics for each class. I think that would promote the sense of the possibilities. Perhaps one iconic could have a "traditional feel" like a human sword & board fighter, and the other could be "tricksy" like a thri-kreen duelist.
B: Elven Druid
The iconic characters (Tordek, Lidda, Mialee, and co.) were pretty prominent in 3E/3.5. There's been some speculation that some of the concept art shows iconics for 4E.
How would you like to see them handled in 4E?
WotC_Logan has specific instructions for how you should reply to make his data collection easier.
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
I think that iconics should be in 4th edition because they can provide someone with whom a player can identify. This is especially important for new and younger players. I like the 3.5 iconics, but they really need to be given more depth for players to make a real connection with them.
So I say for question A: Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition., but improve them by giving them more character development.
For question B I pick human fighter. If there is to be a single icon for the game then it should be used to recruit new players, this is most easily done by using something familiar. Everyone understands the job of a person with armor, shield and sword, they also know what a human is like. Therefore, this is the race and class with whom those who don't currently play D&D can most easily identify.
Bill
B: I can't pick just one!
I also hesitantly agree with some others in the thread that using the famous characters from the novels would be ok. I imagine that there are some people out there who have read a few Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance novels but who haven't played D&D, and they would be excited to see Raistlin or Drizzt in the rulebook and might be encouraged to give the game a shot.
Mostly though, I don't see the point of iconics. Is it to establish some sort of brand identity? I don't think it's worked so far. Generally, it just seems to force the artists to constantly draw the same unexciting characters in all the illustrations for various spells and items. I would much rather see a new character every time. The point of artwork in the books should be to inspire the imagination of the player, NOT to try to hammer a series of trademarked intellectual properties into his head.
[INDENT]Bring in new iconics. EXCEPT... Keep Regdar, Lidda, and Gimble.[/INDENT]
B.
[INDENT]Gnome Paladin!! (Show that small characters can be good meat shields (in 3e, they get a bonus to attack ((which negates the strength penalty , except for the damage penalty)) and a bonus to AC. Less damage, more defense).[/INDENT]
- Create new 4E iconics.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick?
- Warforged Warlock
B. A halfling rogue... named Lidda! XD
Jeremy Puckett
For example of the druid:
Create a good neutral druid ,tree-hugger elf style.
A neutral neutral druid "predator" style (A druid that live in the forest ,but like one more, He hunts animals to eat ,he defend his territory from others animal ,etc..)
A evil neutral druid ,a druid that uses the forest in his own profit :3..
[INDENT]Bring in new iconics. EXCEPT... Keep Regdar, Lidda, and Gimble.[/INDENT]
Good call! Toss the other iconics and keep only these three. I think there should be 1 inconic for each of the classes build varient/starting package in the PHB (assuming this section stays in the PHB).
As for race/class combo, there must be a dwarf cleric, you can't get much more iconic than that!
Bring in new iconics. A new edition calls for a new iconics. Maybe switch up the class race combos a bit. This would be especially good if favored classes have been done away with. So maybe an elf cleric, a half-orc fighter, a human barbarian, a halfling wizard, and a dwarf rogue for example.
agreed.
examples: Half-elf bard, human barbarian, half-orc wizard
This post is full of awesome and win.
New Iconics, if Iconics there must be.
I think a Human version of each class, paired with a nonhuman version for contrast would be just keen.
To be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing classic "Iconics" such as Morgan Ironwolf, Emirikol the Chaotic, Indel the Elf, Grimslade, Barjin, Halfdan the Necromancer, Warduke, Rath & Delsenora and the like reappear, with stats.
Hmm, as for a race/class combo, logically to fit with an iconic mindset, you would select a race/class combo that was favored for them. Mind you I don't know if favored classes or a similar mechanic exists in 4.0, but if it does, then those would be my choices across the board. Halfing rogue, Elven wizard, Half orc Barbarian, Dwarven fighter.
My personal favorite race is a toss up between Elf and Rogue, but at the same time, an elf or rogue barbarian doesn't sit right with me as "Iconic". They are kind of the exact opposite in my view.
Iain.
The iconics should not play against type, but they shouldn't play to cliche. Since I don't know much about the new races and classes, I can only speculate what would be appropriate.
Human leader (make him an iconic multiclass of some sort)
Half-elven fighter
Half-orc monk
Elven cleric
Halfling druid
Tiefling rogue
Aasimar bard
Dwarven wizard
Gnome sorcerer
I feel that the old iconics, although nice, really should be used to define 3e. Since it seems that 3.5 aren't easily convertible to 4e, I feel that it would give the wrong impression.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. )
Well, A dwarven bard. Why? Because, part of DnD is expressed in the ability to be flexible in a character. Very simply put, A Dwarven Bard is a rare sight, but it would showcase that such characters are playable.
B. My vote for the new iconic: How about a Vanara Wizard? Or, for more conventional fare, how about a Dwarf Sorcerer.
For text examples, you could always give new characters that best suit the scenario at hand. Iconics were for text examples a name paired with a class, after all, nothing more; no need to keep giving the same name over and over again.
For illustrations, different artist have differetn styles, but not all took kindly to the iconics' character designs. In 3e, this resulted in Mialee's constant facial degeneration in many illustrations when the artist could have made a better character design of their own. Also, in many illustrations Hennet seems to change ethnicity. Why go through the pains to make all the characters in illustrations look the same (boring) or shift around so much at times they look like different people wearing the same costumes (annoying/boring)?
The same illustrator could have recurring characters, but keeping the characters the same across different illustrators I feel restricts the art. You could have so many more colorful characters if each illustrator had their own cast of characters! For text examples, you could have one cast of characters for one chapter and another for the next. This gives the feel at times that you're visiting someone you know, but no restriction to iconics gives everyone the freedom to introduce different people for different situations, and so the readers don't get bored.
B. Catfolk ninja. I'm (half-) serious! OK, OK, don't hurt me! How about an Elf bard (female; all the 3e bards were male)? But PLEASE, whatever you do, if you have iconics at all, give them interesting (NOT cliché) personalities. That's why the "Lidda finds that using magic devices can be risky" PHB illustration is so great!
Female Dwarven Wizard
Female Half-orc Rogue
Female Half-elf Warlord
Female Tiefling Fighter
Male Elven Cleric
Male Eladrin Druid
Male Halfling Ranger
Male Human multiclass
?? Warforged Paladin
A. Create new 4E iconics... except for Lidda. Keep Lidda. For the love of God, keep Lidda!
B. A halfling rogue... named Lidda! XD
Sneak Attack!!
I'd like to see not one, but two icons per class - one male, one female, with different "takes" on the class shown with each icon. Along the same lines, each duo could show a "conventional" and unconventional class member. Here are some good combos:
Male half-orc and human female fighter
Female tiefling and male halfling rogue
Male elf and female dwarf wizard
Female half-elven and male gnome bard
Human male and female elf ranger
Awesome idea. This is what is needed for the iconics. They should display the diverse choices availables to players.
I understand that shifters are a race, not a class, but the argument remains the same for the purpose of example.
Bring in new iconics. A new edition calls for a new iconics. Maybe switch up the class race combos a bit. This would be especially good if favored classes have been done away with. So maybe an elf cleric, a half-orc fighter, a human barbarian, a halfling wizard, and a dwarf rogue for example.
Well if the characters weren't representative of the majority, they wouldn't be iconic, would they?
I say stick with iconics. Should you change or keep the existing ones? That's debatable. The game does revolve around humans, but it does also introduce many fantasy races. Perhaps a human iconic contrasted with a fantasy race iconic is what is needed. It provides a standard as well as fleshes out the other races by giving a living example.
Here's an idea: why not have have real world icons or at least characters from other media serve as examples? Alexander the Great or even Achilles would be the perfect Fighter. The best part is, there's no copyright infringement that you have to worry about. Einstein could serve as an equitable wizard. Advanced science seems like magic to the common man. Maybe real life people are too much for the gamer's mind. Perhaps sticking with literature and other media would do. But I can think of a number of historic figures that fit the mold just perfectly. Even if they're not real, just as well. This is fantasy. How about Merlin the druid?
Finally, concerning favored class; I actually like the concept. I've never had to enforce the rules simply because my players have a sense of the game that doesn't include exploitation of the rules. Maybe I'm just lucky. Or maybe simply having the rule there keeps my players from stepping too far from the idealized game world. I mean, sure the players have characters and should be able to build them as they like, but we all play at the same table... together. Therefore there should be some sort of verisimilitude among the table. Stating that dwarves make good fighters sets a precedent for that race and prevents craziness with such characters as a dwarven rogue/wizard/warlock/psion/cleric/monk/barbarian. Where would that character stand in the world? First, it's hard to imagine and therefore believe, and second... No! If I had a player that insisted on the idea, I'd say they weren't even trying. How many times have you seen that sort of character in a movie? It's just too unbelievable and it serves simply to exploit the rules. Players to live to exploit the rules drive we DMs nuts.
As a side note, I admire that you all have come to the people to seek what we desire in a game, but I would not seek our council for every facet of it. As you can see, some of the responses are quite radical. Icons are meant to be icons, shining examples of a race and class, paragons of their kind, if you will. Please disregard the abnormalities that are being thrown about by some of the estranged populace. You at Wizards know what a wizard should look like. The answer is instantaneous. When I say "Wizard," your mind throws up an image. What is it? Probably not a halfling. It's probably an elderly fellow carrying a staff, maybe a book, spectacles, and wears a long beard. Keep it real... in fantasy sort of sense. I hope that helps.
While I enjoy the various incarnations of our 3E heroes (Big Pimp'n Krusk, anyone?) They feel forced at this point.
B. An Elven Gish. Someone who mixes might and magic in a seamless blend. Deliberately vague. I believe that Iconics -could- benefit from being deliberately vague, especially from the artists' perspective.
I like the idea of having just two iconic characters: A male and a female human, but expanding on it, one could do this: Simply have a few iconics (one for each of the core races maybe?) less labled by class and more categorized by concept. The potential is there, IMHO.
So, ditch the iconics and show us some variety. We can figure out our own character continuity -- that's our job as players.
A. 2, here as well please. All new Iconic characters.
If we can't convert our characters, neither should you.
There is truth in this hilarious comment.
Personally, my choices for 4th Ed. would run along these lines:
Warforged fighter (with a face that looks like the front of a helmet)
Elven rogue (with a hooded cloak and a bow)
Planetouched cleric
Halfling arcanist (complete with pointy hat and beard)
Human warlord
and Chip the Goblin.
Why Chip? Because he can be the designated "victim/fool/luckless monster" for feat/class ablity/special combat moves illustrations and explanations.
i.e. "...in this case, we'll use [warforged] and Chip as examples.[warforged] decides to sunder chip's shortspear. He makes his roll, and succeeds, for enough damage to overcome its hardness and shatter the weapon. Chip is now holding the remains of his precious heirloom, and has to spend an extra action drawing his dagger..."
Or "...target per round. For example, Chip is charged by two angry dwarves. He can use his Dodge feat to give himself +1 AC against dwarf A, and only dwarf A. Dwarf B may make his attack against Chip's normal AC."
Or (illustration caption) "Chip fails to notice [elf] sneak up behind him, leaving himself vulnerable to a sneak attack."
Just something to think about.
B. Definitely the planetouched (preferably aasimar) cleric. Faith would literally be in her blood.
B: Gnome Rogue. It's just always halflings, halflings, halflings. :P
There are, however, some characters that actually succeed: Nebin, Lidda, Krusk, and Regdar. The question then is not should we import the iconic characters over to fourth edition, but what makes some of these characters ‘work’ while others fail so spectacularly. The answer is simple.
Art.
Each of the characters mentioned above ‘work’ expressly because the artists involved are able to articulate the concepts of the character classes. John Foster’s Lidda actually feels like she could be studying every minute detail of her lock-pick, looking for the slightest defect that could end in disaster for her. Todd Lockwood’s Regdar and Scott Fisher’s Krusk look fierce in their battle ready stances. Fisher’s Krusk in particular is an image that has launched 10,000 barbarians, each more primitive and brutal than the last. And Sam Wood’s Nebin overwhelms the imagination as a gnome illusionist hurls spells across the battlefield and strikes his enemies with deadly precision as he hurls his malicious club about. In other words, they work because each character is beautifully articulated to accentuate the most alluring and heroic aspects of the class. None of the other iconic characters can be said to do the same. Instead they look plastic, lifeless - and worse still – boring.
I don’t care who you bring into the new addition so long as you are able to make each class’ art as spectacular as Scott Wood’s Nebin. And this is paramount, please do not make the new art look as horrific as the computer generated ‘artwork’ that pollutes so many of the current edition books. Give us something that moves us. Give us something that will inspire us. Give us the art we deserve.
B: I would love to see a Human Wizard.
I personally think the iconics are a good addition to the rule books because it personalises them. However, although the iconics in the PHB 3.0 etc looked good in the artwork, there was very little about them that gave them a sense of personality, and apart from Redgar, none of them captured my imagination.
For 4th edition I would include brand new iconics, and not just do a spiffy piece of artwork for them, perhaps include a little history and something about who and what they are as well. Turn them into fully-fledged PCs - this will give them much greater depth and interest.
As for choosing 1 iconic...um...well, I guess I would have to choose the Cleric. I favour druids, but I think having a cool looking kick-butt cleric in the PHB etc would be the type of character which could evoke an excellent atmosphere, not just in a piece of artwork, but also when it came to detailing their history, etc. It could include details on magic, combat, and even his/her view of the multiverse/cosmos (depending on what the 4e take on this is).
B: I would like to see a hybrid iconic ie: Half-orc fighter/wizard
I like the idea of 4E having a spokes-character. I think that character should be a human fighter. I think Regdar (or a Regdar type) would be perfect. He could "talk" to the players and narrate the books. Possibly even talking to the other iconics when examples of their strengths are needed.
How about Regdar and a new human female wizard iconic.
Then at Gen Con 08 WotC could have a couple fill those roles.
It would be good for the new iconics to also highlight the changes to 4th ed D&D.
This should be the new Iconic Party, Seriously first of all for those who dont know anything about anime, the Wammy House Boys are from Death Note its not a giant mecha series, but they are wearing uniforms of Gundam Seed, so long story short: D&D 4th Edition needs Extremely Hot Boys with lots of Sexually Compromising Pictures featuring them and Giant Arcane Mecha!
Lol.
Forserious, funny as anything! I love L, N, and M, the pwn.
so we can have this:
Personally the further we get away from contrived concepts like techological/magical stagnation for thousands of years to no end the better, it works in some civilizations but not in ones that have the tools and will power to improve themselves, which most D&D civilizations do have.
But it is a sad fact, that it took almost 2000 years until europe surpased the niveau of technical knowledge the romans allready head and even they didn't invent it, but just collected huge numbers of nice little inventions from all over the known world.
But I agree, there's something wrong when things are displayed in a way that says that nothing has chance the slightest in the past 40.000 years.
I'm currently creating a setting, that is meant to be "4000 years in the past" although this is actually the present and there is no setting in the future, but I think you get the idea. Places like Waterdeep, Sharn or Minas Tirith are unthinkable in this world and if you want heavy armor, you'll either have to ask dwarves (that is taking a 6 week journey through the mountains to meet people who don't speak your language) or go to the capital, where maybe the kings personal master of armor-smithing can help you. It's fun. :D
I want a dwarf fighter. It strikes me as something that's actually iconic (although maybe it's just stereotypical). Also I love dwarf fighters like nothing else in this world.
My suggestions? Well, I'm not sure what the race/class list will be, like others have said. And I agree more than one for each class is a good idea. Like, one stereotypical Human Fighter, and something unexpected. My ideas:
Elven Ranger
Half-Orc Bard
Dwarven Rouge
Halfling Cleric
Centaur anything (I love centaurs!)
A. I say use existing popular D&D characters as iconic characters:
1. Wizard - Raistlin Majere or Elminster
2. Ranger - Drizz't Do'Urden
3. Fighter or Paladin - Sturm Brightblade or Caramon Majere
4. Rogue - Jarlaxle Baenre, Artemis Entreri, or Tasselhoff Burrfoot
5. Cleric - Goldmoon, Fzoul Chembryl
I would vote for new iconics and second this suggestion...
1. Wizard - Elminster
2. Ranger - Drizzt
3. Fighter - ???
4. Rogue - ????
5. Cleric - ????
6. Warlock- ????
I'd tend to not use the Dragonlance characters, but instead focus on Forgotten Realms or Eberron for iconic creatures.
Even sticking with very traditional class race interactions I think it's easy to come up with compelling Iconics. Besides with the reduction of the number of class in 4e from 11 to (probably) 8 (Druid, Barbarian, and Bard look like they will probably be subsumed into other classes), there are multiple strong archetypes within each class. Some of the range of other non-core classes has apparently made it into the core 4e classes as well as evidenced by the comment about the Ranger taking the Scout's stuff.
So for instance just what immediately comes to mind:
Fighters:
Human Fighter with a Greatsword (Iconic of a Barbaric Warrior)
Dwarven Fighter with a shield and hammer or axe (Iconic of a Professional Soldier)
Elf Fighter with a Rapier and Main Gauche (Iconic of a Swashbuckler/Duelist)
Rogues:
Human Rogue (Silver Tongued Scoundrel)
Half-Orc Rogue (Street-Savy Thug)
Halfling Rogue (Willey Catburgler)
Wizards:
Human Wizard (Generalist Wise Old Wizard)
Dwarf Wizard (Evoker Magical Artillery)
Elf Wizard (Enchantress)
Ranger:
Human Ranger (Hunter/____-Killer)
Halfling Ranger (Stealthy Scout)
Elf Ranger (Warden/Naturalist)
Clerics:
Human Cleric (Healer/Holy Warrior "Christian")
Elf Cleric (European Druid)
Half-Orc Cleric (Native American Shaman)
Sorcerors:
Human Sorceror (Dragon-Blooded)
Elf Sorceror (Fey-Blooded)
Dwarf Sorceror (Elemental-Blooded)
Tiefling Sorcerer (Demon-Blooded)
Though I would have to state that this poster makes very good suggestions, assuming that multiple iconics are able to be used.
I also liked to imagine the concept of favored class for races being discarded (or, at least, ignored in this) and would like to see some combinations like male human barbarian, female elf bard, male dwarf cleric, warforged fighter, male halfling ranger, female gnome wizard, etc.
If classic iconic were to be used, then, they would have to be ICONIC...like: ranger, fighter, barbarian, and rogue taken from certain Salvatore's novels; Wizard taken from a certain Dragonlance novel, and so on... ;)
Either, I'm really late to the party, or I made a neat discovery. I was looking at the 4E preview art and I thought the characters fighting the trolls looked, well, awesome. Then it hit me. Those are quite similar to the current icon. (Left to right) Lidda, Regdar,Mialee, and Tordek. If they plan on using these as the current icon artworks, keep the old icons.
I take the opposite view. If we have to choose between Mialee and a pretty-and-apparently-fully-clothed elf chick as a wizard iconic, I'm going with the latter, thank you.
Either, I'm really late to the party, or I made a neat discovery. I was looking at the 4E preview art and I thought the characters fighting the trolls looked, well, awesome. Then it hit me. Those are quite similar to the current icon. (Left to right) Lidda, Regdar,Mialee, and Tordek. If they plan on using these as the current icon artworks, keep the old icons.
That fighter is TOTALLY retro 1st edition style!!! I love him!
I'd say "Create new 4E iconics". And I'd love to see master Todd Lockwood's artwork being done in this, but then... :/
You mean Godd Lockwood, don't you? :D
That fighter is TOTALLY retro 1st edition style!!! I love him!
On the other hand, it really gives the finger to the people calling for functional armor. "Hey, check out my femoral arteries!"
That fighter is TOTALLY retro 1st edition style!!! I love him!
Get some pants!
What's next? Hide-Armor bikini in arctic mountains again? :D
Many of the 3E Iconics have become just that. Joining the Pantheon of beloved TSR/Wizards Characters, be they from Novel, Written Adventure Mods, or Source Books. Carrying over some of them is totally needed, as for which ones.....? I'm sure that's a discussion in and of itself.
B. Male Tiefling Ranger
B: Human paladin!
Things I would like to see would include the most profound iconic racial figures such as...
Dwarven Defender (with a big axe, and an even bigger sheild!)
Elvish Striker (archer type, with fast stike and reteat sword maneuvers)
and whatever else... i'm waiting to see how they do the races and classes before I make any more call on what I want to see.
Chances are though that the new (or old if the redesign them) iconics will take shape along not really "class types" but the "Roles" in which those class types represent. We wont really bwe able to say Human Fighter, because it would have to be role defined.
Does that make sense to anyone else?
And 2) Dwarf Rogue, woo! A mean little dwarven exile who struggles against dwarven stereotypes at every turn. He sports a clean shaven chin, and traded in his ancestral axe for a gladius and a buckler. Ever pragmatic, he uses his dwarven affinity for stonework to dodge traps and find hidden treasure. No, I've never played a dwarf rogue but I've wanted to for a long time ;]
That fighter is TOTALLY retro 1st edition style!!! I love him!
Same here! I'd love to see more like this.
They made a huge amount of money on the Transformers movie - and one of the main reasons for that is that they own the characters in their entirety. No lisencing fees for the toys.
It's in Hasbro's best interest to encourage this game to produce marketable characters.
... Chip the Goblin.
Why Chip? Because he can be the designated "victim/fool/luckless monster" for feat/class ablity/special combat moves illustrations and explanations.
This is a great idea! I think Meepo would make a great addition to the hapless iconic group ... unless you plan to make kobold a standard PC race.:D
And 2) Dwarf Rogue, woo! A mean little dwarven exile who struggles against dwarven stereotypes at every turn. He sports a clean shaven chin, and traded in his ancestral axe for a gladius and a buckler. Ever pragmatic, he uses his dwarven affinity for stonework to dodge traps and find hidden treasure.
I have nothing against characters that go against stereotypes, but no beardless dwarfs, please. That's just pushing it to far...
"Not the beard" ;)
The other iconics are pretty much fine. The bard could use some help, but Gimble just needs more support.
And 2) Dwarf Rogue, woo! A mean little dwarven exile who struggles against dwarven stereotypes at every turn. He sports a clean shaven chin, and traded in his ancestral axe for a gladius and a buckler. Ever pragmatic, he uses his dwarven affinity for stonework to dodge traps and find hidden treasure. No, I've never played a dwarf rogue but I've wanted to for a long time ;]
That's nuts! dwarves have no skin under their beards! If they shave they bleed to death in a disgusting scene.
B) Dwarf Paladin
I think that Iconics help draw together generics settings, and lend consistency throughout core rulebooks.
As for the Dwarf Paladin-Dwarves are displayed as religious, honorable, and fighter-types. That just screams paladin.
B. Characters that actually show different ways to play the same class as previously stated. Such as a rogue who is more of a gather information/face and then one that prefers to keep to the shadows and do the stabby bits. I'd love to see a changeling rogue as one of the iconics, but that's probably going to need to wait for Eberron.
It would also be helpful to have characters that are of the various alignments (assuming, of course, that we still have alignments) and how it affects their actions, particularly in mixed alignment parties. The one paragraph descriptions from 3/3.5 need some improvements.
The new iconics should be.... Order of the Stick!
Yes!
Erm, well, no, but still...
A. New Iconics
B. Orc Barbarian. Covered in warpaint and/or the blood of his (or her) enemies, and preferably doing the Cap'n Morgan on a pyramid of ex-kobolds.
B. Elf Rogue: The true favored class for elves.
Dwarven Fighter: Always a classic for us.
HAlf-Orc Monk: Best combo ever!
Halfling Barbarian: Always fun to have!
Aasimar Paladin
Human Bard
Tiefling Wizard
Drow Sorcerer
Half-Elf Ranger
Dwarf Cleric
Human Druid
Maenad Wilder
Elan Psion
Half-Giant Soulknife
Human psychic warrior
And... if possible... Cactacae fighter, for when New Crozubon finally becomes a setting...
There ya go.
I think these might be cool options:
Eladrin Wizard
Elf Ranger
Drow Rogue
Dwarf Fighter
Half-Elf Warlord
Halfling Cleric
Half-Dragon Warlock
Tiefling Bard
BTW, I don't know if anyone has suggested this yet, but it seems to me that the H1 Adventure coming out before the PHB will likely have any new Iconics.
B. Simply - dwarf cleric, human fighter, elf ranger etc.
And... if possible... Cactacae fighter, for when New Crozubon finally becomes a setting...
I'm reading Perdido street station right now, and I am already planning on using New Crozubon as a campaign setting.
As for the iconics, make new ones that aren't your typical run of the mill clichés; a female dwarf bard, a halfling paladin, a half-orc rogue or an elf barbarian.
b) Tiefling (LG) Paladin. Nothing like a red-skinned, horned and barbed-tail humanoid smiting you in the face with a holy longsword for being evil. Villains everywhere would be flat-footed against them due to the 'wtf' factor.
The iconic characters (Tordek, Lidda, Mialee, and co.) were pretty prominent in 3E/3.5. There's been some speculation that some of the concept art shows iconics for 4E. How would you like to see them handled in 4E?
A. Choose one of the following:
Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
Mialee.
As this is our discussion forum, please discuss and support your response. Thanks!
I like the idea of some character continuity. Not that it matters when the stats are never supplied. ;)
A. I say use existing popular D&D characters as iconic characters:
1. Wizard - Raistlin Majere or Elminster
2. Ranger - Drizz't Do'Urden
3. Fighter or Paladin - Sturm Brightblade or Caramon Majere
4. Rogue - Jarlaxle Baenre, Artemis Entreri, or Tasselhoff Burrfoot
5. Cleric - Goldmoon, Fzoul Chembryl
You get the idea. Instead of spending time creating new iconic characters, why not use existing popular characters?
I agree with that sentiment entirely. Using existing characters to illustrate the game is a much more practical way of doing so, particularly if you show the characters at very different levels, i.e. 1st, 12th & say 24th level. What would be really cool would be to show them as a party, Drizzt, Wulfgar, Cattie Brie etc and how each of them would fill the 'roles' in the party. Also chuck in a couple of iconic villians, Blackguard, evil cleric/wizard and so on.
Part B: A halfling wizard. Small in stature, but packs a real punch. Particularly when able to cast Contingency and Tensers transformation - Woderwick to the wescue!
A. Choose one of the following:
- Bring the 3.5 iconics to the new edition.
- Create new 4E iconics.
- Iconics don't matter to me.
- Please get rid of iconics totally.
B. If you had to pick one race/class combination for an iconic, who would you pick? (And don't just use your own character. :P)
A: Iconics don't matter. They are small bit of artwork puff and possibly a small help to new players framing the characters. But really they don't matter much, nobody references them or talks about them except to comment on how little a certain female elf is liked.
B: If you do need iconics, a human fighter is required.
Jay
B) Halfling Cleric, hard to hit and easy to defend.
Bel
A) Create new Iconics. If you keep the old ones, they'll always bring back their 3e legacy with them. New ones mean that you can start out fresh and cool.
b) Tiefling (LG) Paladin. Nothing like a red-skinned, horned and barbed-tail humanoid smiting you in the face with a holy longsword for being evil. Villains everywhere would be flat-footed against them due to the 'wtf' factor.
Oh, no more of these, please!! A BBEG that sees a drow or tiefling adventurer KNOWS he is good despite the looks (no divination required)
Oh, no more of these, please!! A BBEG that sees a drow or tiefling adventurer KNOWS he is good despite the looks (no divination required)
****, I forgot about the "Drizzt Do'Urden" law. Right, nevermind.
Human fighter is staple iconic, but not Redgar.
I want new iconics for the new edition of the rules.
The best case I can think of would be four iconics for every class to get a good feel of variety and options. Two human and two non-humans. Two males and two females. And a range from classic stereotype (human male paladin in shining plate) to crazy ground-breaking new guy (tiefling woman draped in the hides of demons she's killed herself, but still a paladin).
-Human barbarian à la Conan. Classical, but always a seller.
-Elven ranger - an Aragon + that elf.
-I agree with the dwarf rogue.... bearded if it absolutly must.
-A classic hooded robe mage, human.... A generic version of a Red Wizard of THay + Raistlin.
-Half-elf psionic man,. bald and all?
B. Something standard fantasy, Human Fighter, Elf wizard.
*I think iconics have not been executed correctly (to me an iconic character should represent D&D itself, not a particular race/class combination), instead of presenting a single iconic character for a particular class they should be presented in pairs, to reflect the diversity and possibility of different race/class combinations.
Presenting them in pairs with a typical/non-typical character would perhaps help people see the possibilities in mixing things up (Dwarf Cleric vs Gnome Cleric).
I would also like to see expanded information about the iconic characters, to give new players an idea of how to create a character background, and really make a character, not a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper.
One last thing. Take them out of the players handbook, I personally don't think they belong there. Stick them in a splatbook like the Hero Builders Guidebook and bundle it with PHB's; or, stick them in a comic book with stat blocks at the end and distribute them for free to get people interested. Either way the PHB is a rules reference, Iconics are fluff.
stick them in a comic book with stat blocks at the end and distribute them for free to get people interested.
This may have been a tossed off the cuff idea but it's actually pretty good.
Think about it:
A simple comic book, maybe fifteen pages at most, featuring four adventurers accepting a quest to go into a dungeon/temple/whatever in order to defeat some terrible beast. You see the adventurer's go in and bump into a group of somethings and a fight subsequently follows. After a couple of flashy spells and well-placed hits on the fighter's side (if there is one), there's a gigantic roar of some sort and one adventurer utters the words "It's a dragon."
Hand it out for free with the last page saying something like "How does it end? You decide." And then an advertisement for the PHB or a basic set. The comic book would probably cost like a dollar to print but the added revenue due to the advertisement would probably make it worthwhile.
It's cheesy I know but it probably would work given the correct modifications.
Additionally, I'd really like if the character design, especially in costuming, was a lot less outlandish. I think everyone would like to see a wizard in actual robes. This applies for the more unconventional iconic of a pair even more so. Ideally, someone will think "Gnomish paladin? What on earth is that supposed to look like?" see the art of the iconic, and think that's exactly what a gnomish paladin should look like.
A pair of sample iconics:
tank-style Orcish Fighter (female. With actual armor.)
bow-style Dwarven Fighter (male. Like a dwarven robinhood.)
Human Cleric
Dwarf Fighter
Elf Ranger
Halfling Rogue
Tiefling Warlock
Eladrin Wizard
For Paladin and Warlord, Orc Paladin, Gnome Warlord?
...the PHB is a rules reference, Iconics are fluff.
Why do people keep confusing the Players Handbook with the SRD?
My question to others is; how many times have you read or referred to the Iconic characters in the PHB?
- Half-Elf Warlord - fits perfectly with the freedon of Elves, yet has the Cha of a Half-Elf. I mean, the iconic Marshal was a Half-Elf, and the'y're basically going to be the same.
- Dwarf Fighter - They've been doing it for editions now; why stop it?
- Halfling Rogue - See the above
- Elf Ranger - Now that Elves are the more woodsy version now, this fits fine.
- Eladrin Wizard - They're the arcane half of the Elves now. This will likely be evey-other Eladrin's class.
- Human Cleric - Because nothing works better for faith
- Tiefling Warlock - This class was included with them in mind, and they both have dark pasts.
- Paladin? Gnome? Orc? Who knows!
If I had to choose one, I'd go with a Gnome Wizard, or, if that doesn't work, Eladrin/Tiefling Warlock.
B: Elf Warlock.
Rust, other than the Iconic characters and the bits about the Gods (which should be in a setting specific book, not the PHB), what part(s) of the PHB are not purely rules(not counting the narrative bits, as they are there for the purpose of explaining rules)? The PHB is the SRD with the rules for leveling.
At the very least all of the race descriptions and class descriptions are fluff, as is much of the spell section. I disagree that buying a setting specific book should be mandatory to play the game, all you should need is the core books, which means putting in enough fluff to make them usable without additional books. But that's just my opinion, if WotC makes the core books encyclopedic I can still make use of them, I just probably won't read them much.
Rust, other than the Iconic characters and the bits about the Gods (which should be in a setting specific book, not the PHB), what part(s) of the PHB are not purely rules(not counting the narrative bits, as they are there for the purpose of explaining rules)? The PHB is the SRD with the rules for leveling.
My question to others is; how many times have you read or referred to the Iconic characters in the PHB?
About every third session.
I don't understand why people are saying, 'a conventional & unconventional pairing' for every class, for two reasons; the nature of 'iconic' & well, the nature of 'iconic'.
iconic=
# Resembling real-world objects (of signs) -see also arbitrary, indexical and symbolic.
freespace.virgin.net/brendan.richards/glossary/glossary.htm
# The iconic is defined by the dominant signs that signify a particular person or object. Eg. Chaplin would be defined by a bowler hat, a moustache, a cane and some old boots.
faculty.harker.org/BeverleyM/LITINTOFILM/glossary3.html
# relating to or having the characteristics on an icon
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# An icon (from Greek , eikon, "image") is an image, picture, or representation; it is a sign or likeness that stands for an object by signifying or representing it, or by analogy, as in semiotics; in computers an icon is a symbol on the monitor used to signify a command, file or record; by ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconic
4: emblem, symbol
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/iconic
Having a conventional formulaic style. Used of certain memorial statues and busts.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/iconic
1. of, or having the nature of, an icon
2. done in a fixed or conventional style: said of certain statues and busts
http://www.yourdictionary.com/iconic
So, 'a fixed or conventional style'; you cannot do an unconventional iconic. Whatever iconic is made; that becomes the conventional clas/race for the game.
Also, you only need ONE icon for each class; additional ones make it more confusing, like using a top hat and a bonnet to represent hats.
As for not including the 'iconics' in the Player's Handbook; think about this. What is the purpose of an iconic character? I'll tell you; to give people a conventional idea of how something is supposed to work. There are several levels of this, amoung them would be the iconic DnD character/party, or an iconic representation of a race/class. You would use more of the latter when teaching how to play DnD, but only 3-5 of the former when you are explaining what DnD is. So this thread is about the iconic characters for the Player's Handbook to aid in teaching new players how to use 4th Edition Rules.
Another book could be used to explain how to role-play and filled with fluff as prongbuck suggests. Personally, I find the SRD too dry to teach how to play the game, but the Handbook, with it's pre-built characters and flavor, is an excellant tool.
Or you could just make your own setting. Why does nobody remember this?
I assume that most of the people on this board have their own setting rattling around in their head somewhere. But I bet you didn't the first time you heard of D&D. I didn't say that the core 3 should have so much fluff that you never need to buy another book ever, all I said is that the game should be playable "out of the box", which means having enough fluff in main books to get a new group on their feet.
But this has nothing to do with Iconic Characters and I don't even remember how this tangent got started, so I'll stop the threadjacking now.
First, the same characters appeared over and over. I found myself skipping over iconic art, attracted to the "unknown" characters much more. There was no variety between different depictions of the iconics, unless you were talking about the skill of the artist. Even things such as the "epic" iconic pictures were...well...the same. Ugh.
Secondly, it tended to pidgeonhole characters and classes way too much. I've seen too many players stuck in the rut that their concept was limited by the name or image of a particular class. There's little reason a ranger/rogue couldn't be a "ninja", or a fighter can't be a "paladin" or "samurai". The iconics, in my opinion, reinforce the perception that the names used in rulesets = names in character - and this has proved far more harmful to the full range of imagination that can used in character development than anything else I've seen.
I can understand the usefulness of named characters that everyone can enjoy as part of an introduction to D&D, but I would suggest freer representations - rather than have iconics assigned to classes, have them assigned to these new 'roles' that 4E is talking of - d20 modern's iconics did this a bit. The "smart" iconic was illustrated with advanced classes that fit his "smart" status. So make a Defender iconic, and illustrate him alternately as a Fighter and a Paladin. Then, if Paladins are a crossover between Defender and Leader, illustrate the more Leader-heavy type of Paladin with the Leader iconic. That way, roles and general character concept (emphasis on CHARACTER!) are tied to these iconics, not class. Class is just the name assigned to a set of rules for ease of reference - YOU define your character.
That's my two cents.
I'd also point to CrazySamaritan's post on what the meaning 'Iconic' actually is.
Additionally, I'd suggest checking out some of the lesser known Iconics from E3; Regdar, Ebrek, etc.... Characters who were out there, but didn't get much love/Press. Point being, Iconics in the past HAVE come in more than one flavor.
Also, for good or ill, a line of novels were published using the Iconic characters, I've read them all and while I won't give my opinion on the content, I will say that they really provided some MEAT to the 2-D Iconic Representations.
I hope 4E sees such Iconic stories being published as well.
Bob the Striker as a Wizard, or a Rogue - not as "Bob is the iconic Wizard", but "Bob is a Striker. Here he is as a Striker described by the Wizard mechanic". Ann the Controller could also be described by the Wizard mechanic - but the specifics of her build would be markedly different. Thus their iconic status is attached to their role, not their class.
My concern is I see too many people tying their character to a class based on representation or name, then twisting the character to meet these preconceived notions.
Case Study: A player wanted a "princess" type character - spoiled rich girl, usually guarded and cossetted, escaped into the scary real world for a bit, and made her way surprisingly well with her winning ways, an ability to lie and cheat with facility, and quick thinking. She returned to her home, was scolded and welcomed, and has become a diplomatic powerhouse, helping her merchant prince father with negotiations and diplomacy. She didn't like to fight - disdained it, in fact, and build her stats accordingly. To me, this screamed "Bard". Mechanically, the high skill points, emphasis on charisma, interpersonal interactions, and the sprinkling of magics all seemed to fit. But the player refused to consider bard because "She's not some singer". She picked a rogue, instead.
Her choices is not wrong or stupid - but I do think the automatic rejection of Bard as a possible class because of the singing underscores my basic issue - I like to decide what my character's main points wikll be, and find mechanics that fit as closely as possible. I try not to let myself get tied up by class names into saying "No! You're character's a rogue! You can't call yourself a 'ninja'!"
I think by tying a small group of iconic characters to specific roles rather than specific classes, you give yourself some serious flexibility in the representation of the character (Bob the Striker as a Barbarian today, Sorceror tomorrow) while keeping certain essential characteristics of the character unchanged ("I like to hurt things!"). It also encourages freedom in which mechanics are used to achieve which character concepts.
Sure, that assassin could have the assassin PrC. Or maybe they're a rogue/shadowdancer. Rogue / Ranger. Monk / Shadowsun Ninja.
You have basic concepts for all classes, and traditional representations of what characters of each class are like. We have to assign them names, for our sanity's sake. But at the same time, I think using the ideas of iconic representations of each role rather than each class will underscore the inherent duality of naming mechanics, and naming characterizations - and thus encourage enough distance to give both new and old players greater freedom in how they build their characters to make them true to the original concept, rather than to the name assigned a certain in game mechanic.
But yes, one of the ways I stopped worring about the complex multiclassing was simplifying the characters I make into; this is a ranger (despite the fact that he is a rgr/clr/barb/ftr/PrC).
I assume that most of the people on this board have their own setting rattling around in their head somewhere. But I bet you didn't the first time you heard of D&D.
Actually, I did, and I would assume most people did, although it may not have meshed with D&D well, because it has so much predefined(ie spells). Of course, I came to D&D after doing a lot of short stories for fun, and a game known as Um, which is statless, diceless, roleplaying(ie, conversations, and you describe attacks and blocks in combat), that I created, although it has been played before and created before by other people. I think most people like to create their own setting, its just that it involves a lot of work. And there are tons of settings from various fantasy books(Lord of the rings, Eragon, The Journey of the Catechist, etc.) so we don't need one for D&D. Heck, you can just take basic medieval europe, add in predifined spells, add in predefined monsters, and have a D&D setting.
I am of a mind that we can use iconics. They're not essential, and some of them do turn out goofy, but there are some good and quite living ones (I haven't read the books but some really are more characterized more than others in art, quotes and etc.)
so...
A: Create new 4E iconics. I would also not be against bringing some of 3.5 iconics to 4th edition, but not all. They could be veteran trainers, teachers and something.
B: an Orc Shaman (That's likely half-orc cleric or etc. but you get my meaning. I think that concept has a lot of freedom for everyone with some fixed values)
Case Study: A player wanted a "princess" type character - spoiled rich girl, usually guarded and cossetted, escaped into the scary real world for a bit, and made her way surprisingly well with her winning ways, an ability to lie and cheat with facility, and quick thinking. She returned to her home, was scolded and welcomed, and has become a diplomatic powerhouse, helping her merchant prince father with negotiations and diplomacy. She didn't like to fight - disdained it, in fact, and build her stats accordingly. To me, this screamed "Bard". Mechanically, the high skill points, emphasis on charisma, interpersonal interactions, and the sprinkling of magics all seemed to fit. But the player refused to consider bard because "She's not some singer". She picked a rogue, instead.
Her choices is not wrong or stupid - but I do think the automatic rejection of Bard as a possible class because of the singing underscores my basic issue - I like to decide what my character's main points wikll be, and find mechanics that fit as closely as possible. I try not to let myself get tied up by class names into saying "No! You're character's a rogue! You can't call yourself a 'ninja'!"
Thank you for posting this. I try to play the same way. I wanted to try a "masked adventurer" type of hero (sort of a Zorro type), and ended up going with a Rogue/Swashbuckler/Vigilante combo that fit the character, and focused on social and movement skills, not the thiefly stuff. I needed four books to do what I wanted (PHB, Complete Warrior, Complete Adventurer, Complete Scoundrel), but I pulled it off. And I suppose I could have simply made a fighter/rogue, and that would have worked too.
The problem is that D&D doesn't directly encourage you to create a concept first. If the Iconics can be positioned to help players conceive of their characters, that's good. If the Iconics limit that conception, that's bad. Personally, I like them -- anything we do in-game is somewhat derivative anyway, so providing players with another source of inspiration is not bad.
A) Create new 4e Iconics
Even though I really like the 3e characters, and many of them had exciting events, several were ilconceived and poorly introduced. There are several 'lesser' iconics that would be just fine to use. PHBII character/class examples were just fine (mostly), as were some from the "Complete" line. However, in all honesty, it might just be easier to make all new characters and introduce them in a meaningful way than to try to ditch all their history in art when they are reintroduced in 4e.
If Malee, Lidda, Regdar, and Tordek could be reinterpreted in 4e art, I would like that. However, our first look at Lidda should not make her look like she has a bloody nose, and I won't even START on the look of several 3e elves. (However, I really appricated Malee's look in Heros of Horror.)
B) Half-elf Warlord (or) Paladin
The first thing that jumps to mind is Lady Sora from PHBII, the knight. The class I would say she had would be a Warlord, but if Paladin fits her personality, than that would do. We just can't have another Ahlondra (or whatever her name was) with her
Capitan Planet haircut.
I liked the whole Iconics idea. I like the visual hook and throughput that was carried through the product line and would like to see it continued in 4e (though the time for that decision, one way or the other, is likely long past).
In 3e the Iconics represented, well, iconic race & class combinations: the elf wizard, the dwarf fighter, the halfling rogue, etc. That was fine and dandy, but potentially limiting and problematic in 4e. The reasons for this are that, with the changes in races, we may not yet know which race/class combos are as iconic and the addition of the party role concept.
To that end, I would suggest a number of Iconics - perhaps 4 for each class - representing a handful of races best suited to it and also illustrating the application of that class to different party roles. Some of them can easily carry though from 3e - Tordek, Lidda, Regdar, etc. - while more would need to be created specifically for 4e. This continues the idea of visual throughput, gives more options and variety in the artwork, allows the mix of Iconics to be best tailored to a specific usage, and continues enforcing the party role concept.
New edition, new iconics. There are new base races, new base classes, substantial changes in other classes... There are so many new elements that a new iconics design is needed.
B-
I think there should be an iconic for every race and 50% iconics for each gender.
Maybe there could be 2 iconics for every class, to show how the new rules allow players to make very different characters builds using the same class.
The iconics should have a little background described, like the one in the class description in the Ebberon CS Book.
Some easy iconics suggestions:
Female Tiefling Warlock - An infernal path warlock, keeping in touch with is demonic blood. The tiefling in the mini D&D cartoon seen on the D&D webpage is a good candidate for the role!
Male Eldarin Warlock - This shows how much two warlock can be different.
So this is my idea... if someone at WoTC is interested in hiring me for designing the iconics just send me a PM ;) ;)
I guess it depends on how many there are.
If there are only 8-10 repeated characters and they are all Race + most likely class or class + most likely race, it would be dull.
If we have 30-40 often cited characters and they cover a gamut of showing races BOTH from the PHB and the MM (so let's see some Orcs, Hobgoblins, Githyanki and Gnomes at least!) and cover BOTH a good number of males and females and show various races in BOTH martial and spell-flinger classes without tying one of those too much to the male or one too much to the female, then it would work out.
So instead of the caption for an Elf casting a spell at a Orc reading "Eldarin wizard casts a stun spell on an Orc warrior" it would read "Illyana staves off Unegen's Berserker Charge with a Hold Person spell" and then in other pictures you'll see similarly an Eldarin female with the same features and similar costume called "Illyana" and "Unegen" may be viewed in other pictures in the books as well, perhaps including the Orc profile in the Monster Manual and in the DM guide when referencing a feat of strength or leadership over henchmen.
Or these two:
Hobgoblin Ranger
[/hide]
[/hide]A. Definately create new iconics, if only for a new season of PHB PSAs.
The core races and classes will likely be prone to change anyways.
Sorry, but I never want to see a new picture of hennet, the leather fetishist/sorcerer again.
"I where belts on my chest to show off my chaotic nature"
Sooooo lame.
B. kobold barbarian
Darn tootin' we need more PHB PSA's
"I hate dungeons & dragons! See, with dungeons, stuff tries to kill you...with dragons, stuff tries to kill you. You know what my favorite game is? How about Regdar gets some lovin' and a burrito...fun for the whole family!"
(edited for content)
For those of you who have yet to witness the comedic genius of these video bits...they can be found here
But if we really must have iconic D&D spokescharacters, then I vote for:
Human Cleric
Dwarven Fighter
Dragonborn Warlord
Eladrin Wizard
Tiefling Warlock
Halfling Rogue
Half-Elf Paladin
Elf Ranger
Because it's important that we keep perpetuating stereotypes.