He who claims that Lidda is hot is just afraid of Mialee.
None of the iconics are "hot."
Something that has me curious though: Are there stats for the iconics?
Quote from: RedFoxNone of the iconics are "hot."
Something that has me curious though: Are there stats for the iconics?
In 3.0 there were, in Enemies & Allies, in 5-level increments.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadIn 3.0 there were, in Enemies & Allies, in 5-level increments.
Hm.
What about 3.5?
I haven't seen any stats for the Iconics in any 3.5 products that I came across, which is a fair number of them.
Quote from: RedFoxNone of the iconics are "hot."
Something that has me curious though: Are there stats for the iconics?
Depends on what your definitions are. Are any of them on fire?
I would totally buy a supplement called "Mialee on Fire."
Peace,
-Joel
Pfft.
None of them hold a candle to Morgan Ironwolf.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityHe who claims that Lidda is hot is ...
...one mentally disturbed individual.:rolleyes:
Quote from: UmaSama...one mentally disturbed individual.:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
I can play this game too!
Quote from: RedFoxHm.
What about 3.5?
Yes, but I don't know if they have been published in any material. WotC uses the iconics, at each level, to playtest new monsters for the Monster Manuals. They send them to each of the writers of the Monster Manual.
Quote from: GunslingerYes, but I don't know if they have been published in any material. WotC uses the iconics, at each level, to playtest new monsters for the Monster Manuals. They send them to each of the writers of the Monster Manual.
I love this idea, it's like the rpg equivalent of crash test dummies.
"We've found that Lidda's skull cracks really easily when power attacked by a Frost Giant Mauler who's raging."
Superb. :)
Quote from: Thanatos02:rolleyes:
I can play this game too!
Zing!
Quote from: DrewI love this idea, it's like the rpg equivalent of crash test dummies.
That's truer than you might think. I don't know anybody that makes characters like the icons and I don't consider myself a munchkin. I believe a group of 3rd level generated PCs could take out the 5th level icons.
Quote from: Drew"We've found that Lidda's skull cracks really easily when power attacked by a Frost Giant Mauler who's raging."
Don't threaten Lidda ever again! That makes us Lidda fanboys angry. You wouldn't want to see us angry. ;)
Quote from: SosthenesDon't threaten Lidda ever again! That makes us Lidda fanboys angry. You wouldn't want to see us angry. ;)
For some reason I've a mental image of the nerd pitch invasion from the Simpsons...:D
Someone has made GURPS stats for all the iconics.
Me ? I like Lidda ever since the "Scorge of Worlds" DVD thing.
A slightly older version of Lidda was an NPC in my recent BANESTORM mini-campaign
- Ed C.
Quote from: SosthenesDon't threaten Lidda ever again! That makes us Lidda fanboys angry. You wouldn't want to see us angry. ;)
What are you talking about? I never wanted to see you
at all. :p
!i!
Quote from: GunslingerThat's truer than you might think. I don't know anybody that makes characters like the icons and I don't consider myself a munchkin. I believe a group of 3rd level generated PCs could take out the 5th level icons.
It's been pointed out to me before, that CR is built on the assumption of less than optimal character builds.
It's not a bad idea really. And sort of counters the accusation so often made that D&D somehow requires you to min-max, because the game just flat isn't built like that.
You can suck at making characters, and still do pretty well.
Quote from: J ArcaneIt's been pointed out to me before, that CR is built on the assumption of less than optimal character builds.
It's not a bad idea really. And sort of counters the accusation so often made that D&D somehow requires you to min-max, because the game just flat isn't built like that.
You can suck at making characters, and still do pretty well.
This is true, and I absolutely love it. If you want to spend all of your feats on Skill Focus: Profession, it won't ruin your enjoyment of the game. Baseline competency is hard to fuck up in D&D.
Quote from: J ArcaneIt's been pointed out to me before, that CR is built on the assumption of less than optimal character builds.
It's not a bad idea really. And sort of counters the accusation so often made that D&D somehow requires you to min-max, because the game just flat isn't built like that.
You can suck at making characters, and still do pretty well.
There are a lot of different skills involved in playing D&D. Ideally, you try not to suck at any of it. Just missing one part usually won't damn you though.
And yeah, CR is wonky. Dragons and undead are too hard for their CRs, outsiders too easy. Almost every monster has the "Alertness" feat instead of a more useful feat pick.
It's also predicated on having four encounters / day, which often doesn't hold in games where you're doing more than dungeon exploration. You might have to plow through a fortress in a single day in-game, while next session, you have one fight period. People are resistant to fiddling with the CR, even though the game material encourages you to.
As for the iconics, I've never seen their stats, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't particularly good. I doubt anyone's ever actually played them.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineAs for the iconics, I've never seen their stats, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't particularly good.
Neither would I. But I wouldn't be surprised if they were better than Rath, Cwell the Fine, Delseonora and the gang. :D
Quote from: PseudoephedrineAs for the iconics, I've never seen their stats, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't particularly good. I doubt anyone's ever actually played them.
All WotC creations use the 15/14/13/12/10/8 array, including the iconics.
Quote from: SosthenesAll WotC creations use the 15/14/13/12/10/8 array, including the iconics.
Consensus over at ENWorld (for whatever that's worth, though it rings true to me) is that the elite array assumption is low-balled compared to the distribution most groups use. The standard method (4d6-lowest) results in a better spread on average than the elite array, and most groups seem to add some more stuff on top of that, like extra sets to choose from, or whatever.
So yeah, the elite array basically sucks. :)
Quote from: RedFoxSo yeah, the elite array basically sucks. :)
Yep, on average the 4d6 route will lead to better results. Average is the key word, though. It gets even worse, considering that most DMs allow re-rolls, so the distribution is weighted towards the top end.
And of course 32 points point buy is better than pre-defined 25 points. Who would argue against that?
Yet the elite array has some advantages. The 8 value forces a weakness onto every character, it's not very min-maxed and generally leads to more archetypical play, especially at lower levels. You just can't be good at everything.
My main peeve is that it basically forces you to use those stupid attribute boosters -- one of the 3E innovations I dislike the most.
People use the attribute boosters no matter what. This is why I say magic items are the 'point based character building system' of D&D. The points you buy and sell with are 'gold', and the boosters and character features you buy are the items and gear.
Although I think you have one thing a bit wrong: the attribute boosters (and here we're talking about the 'gloves of dexterity/headband of intellect variety right?) are most commonly used to boost the strongest attributes into.. even stronger versions!
Because the point of it all is playing to your strengths, not averaging out. Your weakness is (hopefully) going to be covered by a teammate. This is a feature, not a bug. It also facilitates wildly divergent and diverse characters, encourages 'concept characters' and helps to support team cohesion.
I'm looking at my own characters and they reflect this, for the most part- I have a gnome sorcerer with a 17 charisma.. and a strength of 6. I've never bothered to boost my strength.. or even pick up a melee weapon (he's still carrying around the club he was equipped with at level 1. He's never used it, in any of his adventures.. instead, he uses his spells, and if need be- his crossbow, which isn't affected by a strength penalty). I also have a Spellscale bard with a charisma of 20, and a wisdom of like.. 8.
This is also why I shake my head at anyone who complains about the d20 not being a bell curve. The point is not to be average!
Quote from: Abyssal MawAlthough I think you have one thing a bit wrong: the attribute boosters (and here we're talking about the 'gloves of dexterity/headband of intellect variety right?) are most commonly used to boost the strongest attributes into.. even stronger versions!
Con-, dex- and wis-boosters are quite happily received all the way round.
IMHO stat boosters are way too cheap and lead to much less important natural stats. Yes, gold as point-buy mechanism is prevalent in third editon, but that's a rather poor solution. In most other respects the designers were pretty adamant about separating mechanical and role-playing terms (sometimes too much), but by making balance dependent on the free availability of made-to-order magical items, they basically enforced a certain economy in standard games.
The Magic Item Compendium fixed some of the weak points and I hope that future publications (including the mythical 4E) will have further effect on this.
Quote from: SosthenesThe Magic Item Compendium fixed some of the weak points and I hope that future publications (including the mythical 4E) will have further effect on this.
Hmm. Just how did it do that? I'm genuinely curious. I know nothing of it except that three of my fellow players have all purchased it (WTF?!) and are constantly jizzing on it, and the DM now seems to be rolling loot exclusively from it. What is the MIC other than simply more items and a few new categories of effect?
Peace,
-Joel
Magic Item Compendium: I don't actually own it yet, but three other players in my group have it, and we've agreed to use it to generate loot. So I've used the table in the back a few times.
I'll probably get it eventually.
Yeah, whats the insight on that one? I'd like to know as I'm a casual user of the book only.
The didn't actually do that much, but at least I now know that they understood that there's a problem. People would ignore all kinds of cool items because they already had some "better" items in the relevant slots (the "Big Six" ability-score boosters, saving throw boosters, natural armor bonus, deflection bonus, weapon, armor).
One change they made is that adding additional abilities doesn't cost more. So yes, you could take your cool Cloak Of Somethingorother and add a saving throw bonus to it.
Also, they introduced the very video-game-like augment crystals, which give weapons or armor special abilities. Most of them don't even overlap with the normal bonuses. With a few of those the golf club syndrome gets pared down a little...
Like I said above, not much, but it's a step in the right direction (I'm sad to say: backwards. Most of these problems were introduced in 3E)
My understanding is that they cleaned up the magic items quite a bit. It's not just a reprint of 'all the magic items we've put out' that it seems like at first glimpse.
The WoTC board had some designer notes about catagorizing items utility and necessity and all that, something that I think went from being a 'designer use catagory' into actual player use.
I could be lying however, I haven't gamed in a month, and D&D purchaces are a low priority for me...
With the Magic Item Compendium, WotC took the opportunity to look over the magic item system / economy and shore up any weaknesses as much as possible.
The main perceived weakness they found was the prevalence of the Big Six items, which caused PCs to sell items that didn't fall into those categories (mainly simple boosters) in favor of improving them. Another was the prevalence of just plain sucky magic items. Stuff with opportunity costs or utility functions that no player in their right mind would spend the gp (and xp in the case of crafters) on.
So they introduced ways of adding secondary magical effects to items more cheaply, reduced costs across the board for "non-Big Six" items, and especially for those items that seemed especially expensive for their perceived utility. That's in addition to re-listing and updating the best items they could find in the book, and creating new random treasure tables and a new "CR" type system for guidelines of magic items appropriate to PC party level to make their placement in the game easier for DMs.
Something I just discovered: The iconic characters are actually included as the default pre-rolled characters in the Temple of Elemental Evil CRPG.
Actually, some (the main ones, sort of) of them are on Wizards' site. It just took me a bit to find them. mrlost pointed out how to do so, though. They're in a section called "NPC Closeup" and are listed under generic class names, like "Wizard," "Cleric," and so forth. Seems to be 3E stats, but it shouldn't take much to convert them to 3.5e.
Go here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/cc) and scroll down to the bottom of the list to find them.
Gods, I hate navigating Wizards' site, sometimes. :p
Quote from: Pierce InverarityHe who claims that Lidda is hot is just afraid of Mialee.
and hasn't taken a look at the Cladio Pozas versions (http://www.enworld.org/Pozas/dnd_iconics.html) of Alhandra and Vadania. (the other two aren't bad, just not as nice. :))