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="FireLance" data-source="post: 1736337" data-attributes="member: 3424">A word of warning: I am actually going to be serious in this post.I guess the difference between the 3e iconics and the 2e iconics is that the former are based on generic concepts while the latter were based on specific characters. It wasn't that 2e did not have a lot of artwork featuring the same characters, often in portrait poses as well. I'm sure we all remember seeing many illustrations of Raistlin, Kitiara, Lord Soth, Strahd, Elminister, and other "iconic" 2e characters. However, we did have more insight into their personalities than the 3e iconics. We knew what they did and what they were like. The 3e iconics are more blank slates for us to fill in their personalities. Somewhere along the way, the community consciousness has made Regdar into an amiable dolt and Hennet a fashion-conscious poseur, for example. The line of books featuring the iconics has not done much to establish their personalities, one way or the other. Or perhaps it's just me since I've never read any of the books. 3e may develop its own character iconics along the lines of Mordenkainen and Bigby. One prime candidate in my mind is the Lord of Blades from Eberron.The 3e generic iconics should not be compared to luminaries such as Tanis Half-elven and Tasselhoff Burrfoot. Rather, they are the equivalent of the generic 1e and 2e iconics. How much do we really know about Rath the dwarf and Delsenora the mage? Apart from the DMG write-up of the fight, what else can we say about Barjin and Gutboy Barrelhouse? Are the 3e iconics any less interesting than they are?</blockquote>

Verification