|
6 years ago ::
Oct 13, 2007 - 8:34AM
#761
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 14, 2007 - 2:05AM
#762
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
Late to the thread but I'm very glad that you're asking this.
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)
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2007 - 6:01AM
#763
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2007 - 6:29AM
#764
|
Date Joined:
Dec 15, 2006
|
After considering many things, I think I will post my thoughts: A) Create new 4e IconicsEven 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
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 26, 2008 - 7:20AM
#765
|
|
|
I know this thread has been dead for a fair while, but as more info regarding 4e has come to light I thought it bore revisiting.
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.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 26, 2008 - 11:04AM
#766
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
A- Create new 4e IconicsNew 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 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 28, 2008 - 1:45PM
#767
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
While I do like the idea of repeated character depictions so that there are actually names and backgrounds associated with the characters in artwork, it is also true that having certain preset characters-- especially when those characters are pretty much going to inevitably be bland and generic, limits the range of likely artwork far more than we would like. 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"
Show
 [/hide]Give them names and have them appear regularly to keep in the player's minds that they have a wider selection of races available to choose from.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 11, 2008 - 7:40AM
#768
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2007
|
Create new 4E iconics. My personal combination would be Tiefling Warlock/rogue:D Because they are sly and dangerous.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 12, 2008 - 11:22PM
#769
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 12, 2008 - 11:31PM
#770
|
|
|
I vote no iconics...we didn't have them in OD&D or AD&D and we don't need them now. WoTC employees some spectacular artists, I say give them free reign to shine.
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.
|
|
|
