• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Do you like the use of iconic characters in the Pathfinder 1e and 2e artwork?

Do you like the use of iconic characters in Pathfinder artwork?

  • 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I like them and am glad 2e retained the same characters used in 1e

    Votes: 13 46.4%
  • I like them but wish 2e had developed new iconic characters to replace the 1e ones

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Don't really care one way or another

    Votes: 7 25.0%
  • I don't necessarily object to them, but dislike Pathfinder's iconic characters

    Votes: 4 14.3%
  • I do not like iconic characters, Sam I Am

    Votes: 3 10.7%
  • None of the above; I'll explain in the thread

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    28

vivsavage

Explorer
Pathfinder 2e has continued the use of the iconic characters from 1e, using the exact same characters. Do you like the use of iconic characters?
 

JeffB

Adventurer
Rurik Runepsear? Awesome.

Capt Jameson- Indeed.

Foxbat? Yes, please.


But when it comes to D&D and PF- I just cannot gel. I had a severe dislike for the 3.X Iconic characters and like the PF versions even less. It may be the ridiculous amount of Dungeon Punk- Spikes, gigantic swords, bandoliers of daggers/potions/components/wands, buckles, straps, tats, earrings, and the like. In fact I know it is.

Fresh look is always best for a new edition.
 

Kaodi

Adventurer
I am fine with the Pathfinder Iconics, though I suppose they could have made new ones for the new edition reused the old ones as older, more powerful, and better equipped. I think v3.5 had "epic level" versions of their Iconics? The Iconics have pretty good backgrounds at this point though. Maybe if PF3 rolls around one day they can switch them up.
 

Green Onceler

Villager
I really like some iconics, am indifferent to others, and strongly dislike a few. I am happy with Paizo continuing to use their established iconic characters, that makes sense to me. Although, from what I've seen, I generally prefer the original iterations to the re-imaginings of 2e.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
The useful thing about Pathfinder's iconics is that when you see them in art, you immediately recognize that the art was done for Pathfinder. That is the strong selling point for iconics in TTRPG books. I don't really have strong feelings one way or another about the PF iconics, but I can't deny their usefulness for brand recognition.
 

Kaodi

Adventurer
Of the core Iconics I mostly just find Lem to be utterly forgettable. His only selling point for me is that he has an evil brother, Meligaster, the Iconic mesmerist. I am also not as keen on Fumbus as he is not as wickedly cutesy as the 1e goblins.
 

pcrotteau

Villager
I like that they continued the Iconics from 1e. However I will miss Damiel, the Iconic Alchemist. Fumbus is a good replacement.

The art style tends to reflect the way I have kitted out my adventurers in the past, showing all the crap that I buy for them.
 

Advertisement

Top