Community

A. 2, here as well please. All new Iconic characters.

If we can't convert our characters, neither should you.

B. Dwarven Wizard.

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. If you asked what an Elven Ranger looked like you would get a million differing answers and you can never please everyone.

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'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.

Not too fond of iconics either, but at least this hasn't degenerated into a "kill Mialee" thread.

... Yet.

A. Create new 4E iconics.

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