A: Definitely new iconics, if any at all. I really would love just having the art throughout the books have different characters throughout, or have a few characters for each class. 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.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
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.
I think it does, because iconic characters are a part of such 'fluff'. Just as a first-time DM might not have enough time to make a real campaign setting, a first-time player might not know what kind of character to make.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
I think the nature of iconics needs to be changed up a bit. Iconics, by their nature, limit the range of art available for depiction - I think 3.0 and 3.5 suffered for this in multiple ways.
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.
Hmmm, well written opinion. Though I'd point out that 4E IS creating party roles (leader, controller, striker, defender) ala D&D Modern, and that the coming Iconics will flow out of those roles.
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.
What I evidently didn't say clearly enough is that rather than having iconics for each class, have them for each role.
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.
I hope that when they describe character roles in the PHB, they also explain how the fighter/wizard/cleric/rogue each fill the leader/striker/defender roles, and with some tweaking, how they can fill the defender/striker/leader roles instead.
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).
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
