Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gargoyle" data-source="post: 5944306" data-attributes="member: 529">Just read the <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dreye/20120613" target="_blank">Discussing Iconics</a> article and my first thought was "Wow, I could care less."  Then I got to thinking more, and realized even though I don't care whether iconic characters are used or not, I do care whether or not there are interesting characters in the rulebooks.  Iconics are almost always not interesting because "iconic" is all too often a synonym for stereotype.  Third edition was the biggest offender.  Regdar is a strong human fighter armed with a sword and armored in plate.  Mialee is a very intelligent elf wizard.  Yawn.  And so on.  But I love characters.  I like to see interesting characters develop, not just in novels, but in RPG rule books.  Despite some disdain for the 3e iconics, I liked seeing updated depictions of them at high levels, or using powerful magic devices or spells.  Character development is interesting.However, instead of preassembling a cast of iconics, one per class with favored races, aka stereotypes, and focusing on them in every book, I would like to see our iconics developed over the release of many products.  If I had it my way, there would be no art or rule examples featuring the same characters twice in the core rules.  Instead, there would be dozens of different characters.  Some of them might fit stereotypes, some would not, and some would be truly oddball.  There might be several fighters and wizards, and even the more esoteric classes like assassins might have a couple of characters depicted.In future releases, designers and art directors would look at these dozens and characters in the core rules and decide which ones to develop further. They would have a lot of "iconics" to choose from, and could pick the most interesting of the lot and ignore the chaff.  As the game develops over years, our iconics would develop with it, in an organic, even evolutionary fashion.  Sure there would be new characters too as needed, but I think it's best to develop existing good ones if they fit the needs of the newer books, and that's why there needs to be dozens of characters, not just ten or twelve.Some iconics would certainly multiclass and take strange combinations of themes or have odd backgrounds, such as a fighter with the magic-user background (I was a wizard's apprentice but I kept blowing myself up, so I finally just picked up a club and started hitting things). Iconics don't need to be stereotypes to provide examples of play, and in fact, I think they need to be the opposite; they need to be intriguing.I think if grown in an organic manner, iconics, and especially artwork, could be much more interesting than in past editions.</blockquote>

Verification