Boarstorm said:
I understand the complaint, and were the sketches meant to represent someone in particular, I'd agree (the image of Irontooth bothers me for this same reason -- where's his giant facial tattoo?). But the "character" sketches are NOT meant to represent anything other than the archetype (human wizard, halfling rogue, etc).
...
Hence, I don't consider it a valid complaint.
I disagree. The purpose of a character sheet is to portray
a specific character. The picture on the sheet (if there is one) should be a quick-view "Do you want to play this guy?" illustration. In the case of the KotS illustrations, most of the characters shown in the pictures are not respresentative of the characters set out in the rules on the sheets. And in some cases (such as the fighter) it's a pretty big mismatch.
Obviously that criticism can only be taken so far given that the sheets were intended to be used for male and female characters, but incorrect gear is a much easier issue for WotC to resolve than incorrect gender.
I would agree entirely with your position if someone were criticising the placement of the KotS dwarf picture (sword and board) in the PhB fighter description or near the Maul stats. The fighter class chapter and "weapon section" are inherently generalised and a general picture is appropriate in that context.
On a character sheet however, it's a different story IMO.
On a more specific note, WotC have admitted that powers were left off the half-elf cleric for space reasons. In effect, they chose to "underpower" a pre-gen for the sake of including an inaccurate picture of that character. IMO that's a BAD decision.
Overall, the pictures aren't a massive deal for me personally. I'm familiar enough with D&D4E and with character sheets specifically that I glanced at the pretty picture and then went in search of the specifics. Someone new to the game might not be able to (or want to) do that.
That mismatch is inherently confusing, and IMO as a general rule should be avoided.
