Incenjucar
Legend
The zorbo is already a thing.
D&D 5E D&D Next Art Column: June! And July!
- Thread starter Klaus
- Start date
The zorbo is already a thing.
Klaus
First Post
Fiendish Echidna? You mean the howler?
Klaus
First Post
Note that this bear is looking down (the top of its head is lower than its rear end), whereas the Grizzowl is facing forward (its head is level with its rear end). And its limbs are far too short, more in line with a bulldog than a bear.I don't think it is hunchbacked, it is just flaring its feathers out. You can clearly see the line of the back goes in a more bear-like shape behind the feathery bit.
Also note, some bears look pretty darn hunchbacked themselves at times:
Hussar
Legend
Yeah, I can totally see that Klaus. Like I've been saying all the way along, baby bear need back.
But, a bit of streamlining in the front is certainly a good idea. I got no problems with a feather "mane" which is pretty owly. But, a bit more bear and a lot less gorilla or bulldog is a good idea.
Klaus
First Post
New article is up, focusing on "iconics": http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dreye/20120613
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I don't think One Mascot is a good idea.
I was fond of the 3e iconics, and part of the reason I was fond of them was because there was a lot of them. D&D wasn't represented with one thing, it was represented with a lot of things.
But I don't think that they need to be exclusive. Having a "core four" or so that are present in many different roles throughout the books would be nice. There needs to be a diversity.
I was fond of the 3e iconics, and part of the reason I was fond of them was because there was a lot of them. D&D wasn't represented with one thing, it was represented with a lot of things.
But I don't think that they need to be exclusive. Having a "core four" or so that are present in many different roles throughout the books would be nice. There needs to be a diversity.
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
I liked the iconics in the 3.0 main book, but I grew tired of them in later supplements, and really didn't like seeing them used to show off alternate class features and the like.
Also, I want to see different variations of each class and race. My suggestion is to have iconics, but on a book by book basis. No iconic would show up in more than one book. Tell a story, then move on.
Also, I want to see different variations of each class and race. My suggestion is to have iconics, but on a book by book basis. No iconic would show up in more than one book. Tell a story, then move on.
Mercutio01
First Post
I like iconics because they make the example play and flavor text bits more interesting, but I'll be honest in that I didn't really attach any significance to any of the ones in 3E or Pathfinder. I probably can't even name more than a couple from either game.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
30-40. Or more. PHB could have about 20, other products about 5-10.
The human barbarian, the half orc barbarian, the human bard, the half elf bard, the gnome bard, the elf cleric, the dwarf cleric, the human cleric of this, and the human cleric of that, the human druid, the half elf druid, the halfling druid, the elf archer fighter, the dwarf fighter...
The human barbarian, the half orc barbarian, the human bard, the half elf bard, the gnome bard, the elf cleric, the dwarf cleric, the human cleric of this, and the human cleric of that, the human druid, the half elf druid, the halfling druid, the elf archer fighter, the dwarf fighter...
Kaodi
Hero
I think that the effectiveness of Iconics is going to be completely tied up in how spiffy they look. 3e's Iconics had some issues in that department, if you ask me. Pathfinder did this better.
But something that neither 3e nor Pathfinder did well was "alternate costumes", to borrow a term from video games. They wore more or less the same thing everywhere, all the time.
What 5e Iconics really need is a static theme, not a static costume. The two places that jump to mind here in terms of art direction are Smallville and Battlestar Galactica. As I hear it, Clark Kent wore Red, Blue, and Yellow in pretty much every episode, or even every scene. But that does not mean he wore the same thing. And in Battlestar Galactica, they very deliberately used a washed out colour palette to keep the show looking dark and gritty.
For the Iconics, what I think they ought to do is: 1) Give them one item or visual element that is with them in every picture; 2) Choose three or maybe four base colours that are going to be used in all of their costumes; 3) Be consistent with each character's colour palette being bright, normal, or dull.
But something that neither 3e nor Pathfinder did well was "alternate costumes", to borrow a term from video games. They wore more or less the same thing everywhere, all the time.
What 5e Iconics really need is a static theme, not a static costume. The two places that jump to mind here in terms of art direction are Smallville and Battlestar Galactica. As I hear it, Clark Kent wore Red, Blue, and Yellow in pretty much every episode, or even every scene. But that does not mean he wore the same thing. And in Battlestar Galactica, they very deliberately used a washed out colour palette to keep the show looking dark and gritty.
For the Iconics, what I think they ought to do is: 1) Give them one item or visual element that is with them in every picture; 2) Choose three or maybe four base colours that are going to be used in all of their costumes; 3) Be consistent with each character's colour palette being bright, normal, or dull.
grimslade
Krampus ate my d20s
Iconics
I had typed up a long diatribe involving semiotics, Eastern Christian iconography and the power of symbolic resonance. It was even less exciting than the preceding sentence. Ahem...
Iconic imagery can link ideas together much stronger than words alone. By choosing a strong set of icons to represent the typical adventuring party, WotC can, through art demonstrate the rules written. If 5E is truly going to be a modular system, the icons can represent the layering of the modules, a visual depiction of how the game changes.
So five icons for the typical party, human cleric, elven wizard, halfling rogue, dwarf fighter, and 5E poster boy race/class (Lizardfolk mystic{psion} ;>P )
Now more difficult to pull off, but keeping the iconics fresh and giving artists a little more freedom, would be to surround each Iconic character in symbolism. The superhero uniform, if you will, of each class. The fighter always wears red for the blood she will spill. Even while wielding a two handed weapon, there is at least an implied shield somewhere on the fighter. He is decorated in symbols denoting strength, the bull, the bear and the boar. No matter what race, culture, theme or background the fighter morphs into he is still recognized as the 5E Fighter.
This gives huge freedom and variety to the art department in showing off all the goodies 5E has to offer, while still cluing in the readers/players about who the Icon is.
I had typed up a long diatribe involving semiotics, Eastern Christian iconography and the power of symbolic resonance. It was even less exciting than the preceding sentence. Ahem...
Iconic imagery can link ideas together much stronger than words alone. By choosing a strong set of icons to represent the typical adventuring party, WotC can, through art demonstrate the rules written. If 5E is truly going to be a modular system, the icons can represent the layering of the modules, a visual depiction of how the game changes.
So five icons for the typical party, human cleric, elven wizard, halfling rogue, dwarf fighter, and 5E poster boy race/class (Lizardfolk mystic{psion} ;>P )
Now more difficult to pull off, but keeping the iconics fresh and giving artists a little more freedom, would be to surround each Iconic character in symbolism. The superhero uniform, if you will, of each class. The fighter always wears red for the blood she will spill. Even while wielding a two handed weapon, there is at least an implied shield somewhere on the fighter. He is decorated in symbols denoting strength, the bull, the bear and the boar. No matter what race, culture, theme or background the fighter morphs into he is still recognized as the 5E Fighter.
This gives huge freedom and variety to the art department in showing off all the goodies 5E has to offer, while still cluing in the readers/players about who the Icon is.
Incenjucar
Legend
A handful of iconics could be okay, but 3E introduced us to Mr. Buckle Pants and Mailee the Pouch Lion. A single iconic per class would rely heavily on the art department staying out of the fun parts of Seattle for longer than usual.
Last edited:
Klaus
First Post
I'd change the human to Fighter and the dwarf to Cleric. I see humans as being the one race that lives or dies by their own resources, and that resonates well with the Fighter, while dwarves are almost universally devoted to Moradin (and a dwarf cleric can feel as warlike as any warrior).
Hussar
Legend
Heh, I wonder if Jon is reading En World. I put up this topic a couple of weeks ago and it got lots of response.
Hussar
Legend
On a side note, looks like we all like the Grizzowl most.
Why not two iconics for each race? Obviously a male and a female one. But, then you can have those iconics for different classes and mix them up. Sometimes the Female Dwarf Iconic is a cleric and sometimes a wizard. That sort of thing.
Then, in the fiction in the game, you introduce the Many Worlds concept - so that the idea is that while these same ten or fourteen iconics do exist somewhere, they don't exist together. It fits with the idea that your game world is yours but is still linked, in some fashion, to all the other game worlds out there.
Maybe you have five or six iconic worlds/settings that you present the art from. You have Dwarf Male Barbarian in Lost World with Dinosaurs in one picture and the same Dwarf Male Barbarian in Weird World with Steampunk (aka Eberron) in another.
Heck, you might, from time to time, mix them up, particularly if you're showcasing any sort of planar travel stuff. Epic Dwarf Male Barbarian from Lost World with Dinosaurs is fighting some Far Realms Beastie while Epic Female Elf Rogue from Weird World with Steampunk is standing in the background.
Why not two iconics for each race? Obviously a male and a female one. But, then you can have those iconics for different classes and mix them up. Sometimes the Female Dwarf Iconic is a cleric and sometimes a wizard. That sort of thing.
Then, in the fiction in the game, you introduce the Many Worlds concept - so that the idea is that while these same ten or fourteen iconics do exist somewhere, they don't exist together. It fits with the idea that your game world is yours but is still linked, in some fashion, to all the other game worlds out there.
Maybe you have five or six iconic worlds/settings that you present the art from. You have Dwarf Male Barbarian in Lost World with Dinosaurs in one picture and the same Dwarf Male Barbarian in Weird World with Steampunk (aka Eberron) in another.
Heck, you might, from time to time, mix them up, particularly if you're showcasing any sort of planar travel stuff. Epic Dwarf Male Barbarian from Lost World with Dinosaurs is fighting some Far Realms Beastie while Epic Female Elf Rogue from Weird World with Steampunk is standing in the background.
tuxgeo
Adventurer
Heh, I wonder if Jon is reading En World. I put up this topic a couple of weeks ago and it got lots of response.
For the sake of reference and continuity: this thread.
Hussar
Legend
A thought occurred to me while I was cogitating in the ... well... a thinking place.
We think that characters are going to be built on 4 things - race, background, theme and then class. At least, I think that's the order of things. Why not reflect that in the iconics?
So, we have a male and female iconic dwarf - Bob and Daisy. Under the Racewarf section, we have a picture of Bob and Daisy, a very image of dwarven living - maybe they're pounding rocks or something in a mine. Gold twinkles in the background. Then, under Backgrounds, we have Noble - and Bob and Daisy are now bedecked in dwarven finery sitting around smoking cigars and whatnot. A few pages later, we have Theme: Religious Folks and Bob and Daisy are in the front pew of a sermon being delivered by a dwarven priest of Moradin. Then, finally, under Class:Cleric, we have Bob and Daisy, in full Priest of Moradin regalia and whatnot, pounding the snot out of some poor skeleton or other dastardly nasty baddie.
Might work. You get a nice story. The idea of iconics is to fuel the imagination and we walk through the entire chargen process using the iconics.
We think that characters are going to be built on 4 things - race, background, theme and then class. At least, I think that's the order of things. Why not reflect that in the iconics?
So, we have a male and female iconic dwarf - Bob and Daisy. Under the Race
warf section, we have a picture of Bob and Daisy, a very image of dwarven living - maybe they're pounding rocks or something in a mine. Gold twinkles in the background. Then, under Backgrounds, we have Noble - and Bob and Daisy are now bedecked in dwarven finery sitting around smoking cigars and whatnot. A few pages later, we have Theme: Religious Folks and Bob and Daisy are in the front pew of a sermon being delivered by a dwarven priest of Moradin. Then, finally, under Class:Cleric, we have Bob and Daisy, in full Priest of Moradin regalia and whatnot, pounding the snot out of some poor skeleton or other dastardly nasty baddie.Might work. You get a nice story. The idea of iconics is to fuel the imagination and we walk through the entire chargen process using the iconics.
Similar Threads
