Bah, your picture looks NOTHING like a gnome.I'm a Gnome in real life, imagine how I feel.
Bah, your picture looks NOTHING like a gnome.I'm a Gnome in real life, imagine how I feel.
I'll note that after 4E was announced there was a thread on the WotC forums asking whether there should be 4E iconics, and if so whether any or all of the 3E iconics should make the leap. The sentiment in that thread was heavily against having any iconics (to my regret, being pro-iconic).When all is said and done, the lack of "iconic" characters is the greatest 4e mystery to me.
Given how helpful they are to art orders and branding and how easy it is to license and merchandise their images, their absence is an enigma.
Someone must have put their foot down on this matter, and that person made the wrong call.
It would be pretty trivial to turn the Fourth Edition class portraits into iconics, if you wanted to do that. I hope they don't, because they're pretty boring: all white-skinned (if they can be, and even the tiefling warlock looks less red-skinned than white with firelight casting a colour shadow), 75% male (only the ranger and warlock are female), et cetera.
4e does have one iconic, but he's a monster.
Eh, kinda, or he could just be grimacing in the midst of combat. It's pretty ambiguous, and that's the point: they all look white, there's no explicit diversity.You think so? I thought the Cleric was kinda asian-looking, on a weird way
"Here's what I think of your dear little Regdar," is not what I would call passive aggressive.
Four words: Samus is a girl.
I'll note that after 4E was announced there was a thread on the WotC forums asking whether there should be 4E iconics, and if so whether any or all of the 3E iconics should make the leap. The sentiment in that thread was heavily against having any iconics (to my regret, being pro-iconic).