I'm not interested in faceless sample characters for the iconics, in other words. They have personalities and histories, and their stats should reflect that. And I'm not sure how many people realize or even want that.
That is exactly what I would want, at least. It's the personalities and histories that make them iconics, not how well optimized they are :)
So! If you want sample stats, would you prefer us to stat up the iconics (warts and sub-optimal choices and all) or would you prefer us to just provide sample "good builds" for all the classes?
As someone who likes to build characters around a story, rather than optimizing for a specific purpose (not that the two are always mutually exclusive) I would love to see the iconics statted up as the developers envision them. That said, I wouldn't personally get much use out of those stats, they would just be fun to read.
Sample "good builds," on the other hand, would likely see a fair amount of use when I'm teaching new players or trying to judge the baseline strength of an average party. It would also probably help quell some of the "Paizo sux at optimizing" that I so dislike reading.
So if I had to choose only one, I would request the faceless sample builds. But in a perfect world I would get both.
So! If you want sample stats, would you prefer us to stat up the iconics (warts and sub-optimal choices and all) or would you prefer us to just provide sample "good builds" for all the classes?
Not that I have a big horse in the race, but my personal suggestion would be not to do generic sample builds. They're flavorless and colorless and generally not very useful.
Go with the character background, and make them effective at the given level, and be done with it. Note that effective does not mean super optimized. Even a sub-optimal character can be effective at a given level. As long as they aren't completely broken (like a wizard with a 12 int or something) I think you'll be fine.
Yeah great way to misrepresent what I said and did.Look, I don't have a beef with you AB - you seem like a very helpful person and you have offered a ton of technical advice to other posters. So your help with other people here is appreciated - I'm sure of it.
The way the whole thing played out though - it just seemed like you went a little nutzo on Tanner.
He took his cue from Wesley Schneider to drum up support and not only did you drum down his idea you started throwing out some crazy stuff -3rd world despotism, arguing against it because the material would cause more arguments (as does every other bit of material Paizo puts out), racism, stereotypes, etc. He created the post to get some traction - guess what, if no one was interested there would be no responses. And he was not quelling your dissent, he was looking for interest. Not posting a response is a response, but on top of all of that you started attacking his character.
Just seemed excessive, yeah we get it - you don't want the iconics presented in a free format. The guy was trying to gauge support and you stomped on his head.
Just my view of things, I could be wrong though.
I understand that my walls of text can be a bear to get through (and if ravingdork is watching this thread this is why I bold things!) -- however I did state in every post after my initial one that I did not have a problem with the fact he was asking for something -- namely that the iconics get statted up as a free download, my issue was entirely with the way he tried to shut me up after I voiced an opinion contrary to his own.
I maintain telling me that just because my opinion differs that I shouldn't share my opinion on a subject in a thread about the subject is more than a little insane.
Then when I reply and point out the inanity of doing such, he tells me that my opinion doesn't matter and since someone that works with the company likes the idea I should shut up and realize I'm wrong.
Which is problematic on several new points -- which I again pointed out.
I made comparisons -- accurate ones too -- on how he was going about ridiculing my position by changing what I was stating, and how my position had no meaning since it didn't match his (which are both fallacies).
My position was further stretched, after I said I would leave it be.
While I was willing to leave the thread in peace I am not going to let people misrepresent what I say, and then ridicule me for what their misrepresentations.
I strive for honesty and truth in everything I do, say, and hope to achieve. If I am mistaken or provide false information I do my utmost to inform everyone once I have learned of my mistake.
Now again I don't mind that he has his opinion -- I don't mind that he shares it -- I don't think that having an opinion make someone comparable to a dictator.
I do think that trying to shut down any opposition to your opinion through ridicule, misrepresentation, and outright dismissal without consideration are actions comparable to a dictator however, and are actions that people should be called on.
I am sorry for yet another wall of text -- however, I must try to make my position clear.
So! If you want sample stats, would you prefer us to stat up the iconics (warts and sub-optimal choices and all) or would you prefer us to just provide sample "good builds" for all the classes?
I personally very much enjoy Treantmonk's guides to various classes. I feel such things are more useful than a list of iconic character's stats.
After all I'm unlikely to want to play the iconics -- I have characters of my owe to play and my own story I want to be a part of -- not just another Drizzt's clone (or some other iconic). As such advice on good character building (with examples) would really be much more useful to me.
I also feel that it would benefit the community more as a whole -- after all anyone can make 'flavorful' bad choices -- that isn't hard. People can also make 'unflavorful' bad choices -- again not hard.
Making solid good choices though is much more difficult -- and almost anything that helps people make better choices is something I'm for.
|
I like the idea of a compilation of Iconic stat blocks at various levels. It could do double duty as both a source of pregenerated characters for those who don't have the time or inclination to roll one of their own, and as a source of potential NPCs for GMs to use as allies or opponents.
I also like the idea of not necessarily building them "optimized". Let them be organic/interesting characters, not just optimized adventuring machines.
All above, IMHO.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to give examples of character builds, I feel it is more useful to have members of the community present various potential builds on the forums. Then have the community at large participate in discussion concerning the various options and eccentricities of each build.
A single sheet with choices made for you is really only good for the "Oh crap I need a character now", newbies who just need to play a bit before diving into character creation, or group meets where there is no time to build a character from scratch.
I do feel these builds would be useful, but they do not need to be optimized. The time and place where pre-gens are useful optimization shouldn't be expected. In fact I would prefer some more flavor to the builds and encourage players to build unique characters as opposed to optimized characters.
In summary, I would like to see pre-gens at various levels, but would rather these be rich and interesting characters as opposed to being focused on optimization points.
|
|
So! If you want sample stats, would you prefer us to stat up the iconics (warts and sub-optimal choices and all) or would you prefer us to just provide sample "good builds" for all the classes?
I support the "good builds" option: I think those might be very useful for unexperienced DMs and players, in particular if they come with a little "design notes" section explaining the salient aspects.
They don't need to be excruciantly optimized builds, of course, "good" is good enough.
I too think it would be a waste of time for Paizo to stat these out. It seems like something the community can/should do, and then even, oh I don't know, host them on some random fan site that has infinite free storage :)
Having sample hand-out characters is always a plus. If they are adjusted to be suitable for the AP at hand, that is MUCH better. So, I don't want to see a Generic build...but I definitely don't want to see the kind of uselessness that Valeros had for the SSkull AP.
At the very least, follow your own gameplay advice on building up characters, both in gear and covering defenses. A 10th level character with a +5 will save is not something to hand out to anyone.
==Aelryinth
I too think it would be a waste of time for Paizo to stat these out. It seems like something the community can/should do, and then even, oh I don't know, host them on some random fan site that has infinite free storage :)
I pretty much concur with j here, though I don't think it would be a waste of time per say, but I do think the community could do this just fine. A few of the Rules board frequenters would have a field day with these.
I think they could be helpful for many for many of the reasons already posted. Add me to the list of 'me too'.
Creative Director
|
Neither really. I'd rather have you do something else: scan and post ACTUAL character sheets that you and your fellow Paizo people have used in actual play. I'd like to see them, warts and all, scribbles, and doodles and everything. The older the better!
We never got to see these things with Gygax or Arneson or the creators from that generation so it would be neat to see your stuff while we can and while we care.
That's an interesting idea... but I'm not so sure I'd be into that. It's bad enough having folks point out stat block errors in Adventure Paths and Bestiaries. It'd be worse to have folks point out errors in a character I've been playing for a year but that I've never noticed an error in. No thanks. :-)
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm not interested in faceless sample characters for the iconics, in other words. They have personalities and histories, and their stats should reflect that. And I'm not sure how many people realize or even want that.
So! If you want sample stats, would you prefer us to stat up the iconics (warts and sub-optimal choices and all) or would you prefer us to just provide sample "good builds" for all the classes?
I would prefer the iconics to be stated with their warts and sub-optimal choices. One of my biggest pet peeves is players that build characters that never reflect their experiences throughout the campaign. If I want 'optimal' builds, I just have to read the forums and check out the flavorless and metagametastic builds therein. (You all know who you are!)
A 1st level ranger with dragons as a favored enemy for example and no back story to support the choice is another peeve. Especially when the characters history says his family was killed by goblins in Isger...
|
I'd really like to see a PDF with 1,4,7,10,13 and 16.
I don't need them to be "good" builds, I'd want them to be playable and appropriate to the characters. Alongside their respective portraits and stories. So that'd mean we'd have to catch up on the "Meet the Iconics" articles ;)
Pathfinder Society legal would be good too, because then people would have a lot of options for the "Play Play Play" rule.
|
|
I'm not interested in faceless sample characters for the iconics, in other words. They have personalities and histories, and their stats should reflect that. And I'm not sure how many people realize or even want that.So! If you want sample stats, would you prefer us to stat up the iconics (warts and sub-optimal choices and all) or would you prefer us to just provide sample "good builds" for all the classes?
For the iconics I would prefer the personality and history first (did the monk ever found his sister?) with at least an idea on how and why they evolved in a specific direction.
Then some stat block that would support that idea and evolution, even if it is sub optimal for power munchkin.
"Optimal" builds are a matter of opinion. In a lot of campaigns getting as much DPS as possible is the key of a optimal builds.
In others campaign a fighter that hasn't at least some level of diplomacy is a failure.
A "optimal" build will never satisfy more than a small percentage of the guys for wick optimization is a primary goal and will annoy most of the people that like the iconics more like role playing exercises, with their flaws and suboptimal builds (that would not justify a unplayable build, but that is another matter).
It seems like some of the criticisms for any pre-gen stat blocks is the assumption that people would be somehow obligated to use them. I may be off, but even if the stat blocks were available in pdf, you would not be compelled to use them any more than when they were published in the AP. Their purpose would be for quick use; perhaps an RPG virgin shows up to play and you don't feel like spending an hour helping them build a character, or you need a sock-puppet PC because you don't have enough players for the adventure you have planned. If anything, having them in electronic format will decrease the rigidity issues.
I do like the idea of perhaps having them available through <d20pfsrd.com>, or some other vehicle for fan-support.
.
..
...
....
.....
The general inability to handle criticism around these parts amazes.
O_O
Granted a fair amount of what could be construed as an 'inability to handle criticism' is seemingly a case of not wanting to deal with the SHOUTING and Maa@@aadness such critiques have a tenancy to generate.
Hmm..
I don't really have an opinion on whether or not the iconics' stat blocks should be created. Honestly, it's nothing I'd ever use.
However, Mr. Jacobs (<3) mentioned making "guide" builds for each of the classes. I'm totally in favor of that. Having something from the creators of the game to guide you on making a effective, not exploitative or munchkiny, character around a particular concept would be greatly appreciated. That wizard who lives by the sea tried their hand at this a couple times, and their advice was downright horrible. I know that Paizo can do so much better.
I think it's important to focus on character concepts though, rather than idealized classes. With the breadth of options made available to each class, even core, they can't simply be summed up as "this is an effective fighter." It would be great if they produced one(ish) build for each class that helped define a concept the class could fill. Examples: support evoker, disarm specialized fighter, spelunking ranger, summoning druid, beguiling rogue, archer paladin, etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, would love to see an actual Chronicles paperback that just had a writeup for each iconic a levels 1-20, with an emphasis on their personalities vastly more than mechanical efficiency.
It would be extra cool if their progression through the levels told a kind of story; where they got certain items, or why they picked certain feats ("Precise shot because I kept hitting Val"), etc.
I think that would make for a really interesting product.
I don't really have an opinion on whether or not the iconics' stat blocks should be created. Honestly, it's nothing I'd ever use.
However, Mr. Jacobs (<3) mentioned making "guide" builds for each of the classes. I'm totally in favor of that. Having something from the creators of the game to guide you on making a effective, not exploitative or munchkiny, character around a particular concept would be greatly appreciated. That wizard who lives by the sea tried their hand at this a couple times, and their advice was downright horrible. I know that Paizo can do so much better.
I think it's important to focus on character concepts though, rather than idealized classes. With the breadth of options made available to each class, even core, they can't simply be summed up as "this is an effective fighter." It would be great if they produced one(ish) build for each class that helped define a concept the class could fill. Examples: support evoker, disarm specialized fighter, spelunking ranger, summoning druid, beguiling rogue, archer paladin, etc.
If they're going to go this route, I think I'd rather see something like the following (note, I'd only like to see this if it doesn't affect the time line of things being put out crunch wise).
Start a forum thread, allow posters to type up one, and only one, character background. This is not a class wish list or equipment checklist. An actual background, where born, family background, early adventuring career, etc. Any equipment mentioned in the background should be their signature equipment (similar to the iconic barbarian, whose backstory includes why she uses such a big sword).
Then let an intern or something weed through the posts each month and pick 3 of them and hand them off to a dev who wants to do this. Then let the dev pick one and stat them up at 1st and 6th and 11th levels. Then they can post it on the blog with a couple of paragraphs from the dev on why they made the choices they did for that character and why they liked that background. Alternately, instead of stating them up at 1st, 6th, and 11th, they could be stated up at 11th in 3 different builds, to show alternate ways of doing them (multiclassed, or different classes doing the same build to show different ways of building the same concept).
I, for one, would love to see an actual Chronicles paperback that just had a writeup for each iconic a levels 1-20, with an emphasis on their personalities vastly more than mechanical efficiency.
It would be extra cool if their progression through the levels told a kind of story; where they got certain items, or why they picked certain feats ("Precise shot because I kept hitting Val"), etc.
I think that would make for a really interesting product.
Now, this idea I could get behind. very cool.
Now that I've had an hour to think about it, I think an iconics book would be great for a number of reasons. The biggest reason, though, is that as an actual book Paizo could make some money on it, which would move the iconic treatment from "free PDF" to actual product. I have noticed that Paizo tends to let "free" project languish for a very good reason.
Once the book was done, they could put the PDF (or just some select levels or classes) out for free, filling the niche of the aforementioned free product! But the crucial difference is that the full product would make money, and thereby justify the labor that went into it.
Many people want to know more about the iconics and their stories. I know that you can tell a story with a statblock, and I think it is an under-used medium at that.
So yeah, I hope lots of people back me up and we see an iconics book with free PDF sections. I'd buy the book.
|
It would be extra cool if their progression through the levels told a kind of story; where they got certain items, or why they picked certain feats ("Precise shot because I kept hitting Val"), etc.
If they did this, it might save space to simply give a 1st level stat block; and then along with the narrative, tell what was "picked up" at each new level. Then maybe show the full stat block for level 20.
I'd love to have stat blocks for Iconics with warts and all, not faceless optimized (or even very efficient) characters. I'd use them too -- I don't have many friends to play with so using Iconics to fill in the party is very handy.
As far as a book of Iconics, while I think it'd be a fascinating read I think having a backstory (beyond the prologue of how they got to level one) is problematic. The Iconics don't have their own narrative but rather fit into whatever Paizo needs them to be.
Six months ago our 1st level Iconics were dusting sand off their knees and trying to survive on a tropical island. This month our 1st level Iconics are bearing a casket of a friend. There really isn't a single narrative for them beyond their back-story and I like it that way.
A +1 from me.
I would like to see the iconics statted up ONLY using the options in the rulebook they appear in, plus the core rulebook. Thus, the rogue would only use the core rules, while the oracle would use options from the core and from the APG, and the magus would use rules from Ultimate Magic and the core.
A very resaonable rule to limit the source books available.
Nor am I interested in this being a "How to numbercrunch the most optimized character" demo, either. If we DO present the iconics as sample stat blocks, their builds won't be optimized (and I honestly don't think any one build can ever be so perfectly optimized anyway to satisfy all optimization demands, so it's kinda pointless for us to even try). And in some cases, their builds might be deliberately SUB-optimal in order to account for character quirks and eccentricities.
A thousand times yes! Please give us interesting characters with suboptimal choices, yet still functional.
I'm not interested in faceless sample characters for the iconics, in other words. They have personalities and histories, and their stats should reflect that. And I'm not sure how many people realize or even want that.
So! If you want sample stats, would you prefer us to stat up the iconics (warts and sub-optimal choices and all) or would you prefer us to just provide sample "good builds" for all the classes?
Give us the warts and all!
Any reason why this has to take up precious time from the Paizo developers? Make it a community effort. Paizo staff (James) could pick an iconic, post a level 1 stat block and design brief (Valeros is a dual-wielding fighter who is both quick and strong) and let the community build their versions. Then, the community could vote on which build progression they prefer.
Pick a different iconic each week (post on Monday, vote on Friday) and see how it goes for a few weeks? Make sure the community understands it's not a DPR optimization challenge, of course. Just a suggestion.
I may go home and build out Valeros in Hero Lab from 1 to 20 just for the heck of it. Could be interesting.
So! If you want sample stats, would you prefer us to stat up the iconics (warts and sub-optimal choices and all) or would you prefer us to just provide sample "good builds" for all the classes?Either/Or - whichever.
I'd welcome some more generic choices, Iconic or nay. Many a good use for them has been stated, another good use I can think of is back up PFS characters.
I was recently looking through the old WotC site on 3.5, and I really enjoyed how they gave an indepth look at the class, giving hints on how to use it.
I thought it'd be a great idea for PF too.
|
|
I love Paizo content. Would I love to see the iconic stat blocks taken through their level progression? Yes. Would I love to see "class guides" or other such material? Yes. Would "fan produced material" that was given a stamp of approval from HQ suffice? Yes. Even if it were eventually posted on a fansite such as D20PFSRD? Yes. I honestly don't see the negatives of having extra material available. I would not be dishonest by saying that there is official and unofficial content that I have yet to see. Because of that, I am not using it in my games. Those games are not suffering unduly because of it, in fact, I'm finding them quite enjoyable (see first statement). If the information is out there and you don't want to see it, then don't use it.
Here is a quick attempt at statting out Valeros from 1 to 20. Gear selection is a personal choice and should follow wealth by level guidelines. I varied him up slightly from his published stats by focusing on shortswords rather than longsword/shortsword. This is not optimized (obviously), but is a rough draft if you will. Feat selection should be reviewed for order chosen since some of the ones I picked up later on (Iron Will I'm looking at you) would be more meaningful if selected much earlier on. Anyway, here goes, for better or worse...
Valeros, iconic fighter
NG Medium human (Chelaxian) fighter 1
Init +6; Senses normal
DEFENSE
AC 18, touch 12, flat-footed 16 (+6 armor, +2 Dexterity)
hp 12 (1d10+2 including favored class bonus)
Fort +3, Ref +2, Will +1
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.(20 ft. in armor)
Melee shortsword +3 (1d6+3, 19-20/x2) and shortsword +3 (1d6+1, 19-20/x2)
Ranged shortbow +3 (1d6, 20/x2; 60 ft.)
STATISTICS (15-point buy)
Str 16 (base 14+2 racial)
Dex 15 (base 15)
Con 12 (base 12)
Int 13 (base 13)
Wis 8 (base 8)
Cha 10 (base 10)
Base Attack +1, CMB +4, CMD 16
Traits (PC only): Fortified Drinker, Iron Liver
Skills: 4 ranks per level, suggest Climb, Intimidate, Survival, and Swim
Feats:
(H)-Improved Initiative
(1)-Weapon Focus (shortsword)
(F)-Two-Weapon Fighting
Advancement:
(2)-Feat: Two-Weapon Defense
(3)-Feat: Combat Expertise
(4)-Feat: Weapon Specialization (shortsword); Stat: Dex +1
(5)-Feat: Power Attack; Ability: Weapon Training (light blades)
(6)-Feat: Double Slice
(7)-Feat: Combat Reflexes
(8)-Feat: Improved Disarm; Stat: Str +1
(9)-Feat: Improved Critical (shortsword); Ability: Weapon Training (bows)
(10)-Feat: Greater Weapon Focus (shortsword)
(11)-Feat: Critical Focus
(12)-Feat: Disarming Strike; Stat: Str +1
(13)-Feat: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (assuming can get a Belt of Incredible Dexterity +2); Weapon Training (hammers)
(14)-Feat: Bleeding Critical
(15)-Feat: Iron Will
(16)-Feat: Greater Weapon Specialization (shortsword); Stat: Con +1
(17)-Feat: Improved Iron Will; Ability: Weapon Training (close)
(18)-Feat: Lunge
(19)-Feat: Toughness
(20)-Feat: Two-Weapon Rend; Ability: Weapon Mastery (shortsword); Stat: Con +1
I thought Valeros used a bastard sword.
|
The best reason I can think of to do the iconics up for several levels is this. It would let people run demo games at local stores to show off Pathfinder. Especially if the iconics where done up the way the characters in the new Basic Boxed Set was done. So a person could just print off the character sheets and hand them to a person and they would have all they needed to start playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've talked about doing this for a long time and I think it's a great idea. So does everyone else here.So, Paizo Community, if you want to see this accomplished, please make your voices heard. Even a simple '+1' would be great.I don't think you really read the first post. I'm not asking for a vote on the subject, I'm asking for anyone who likes the idea to speak up. If you are worried about how the write-ups may change as new products become available, then wouldn't it be easier to amend them if they were in electronic format rather than printed permanently in an AP?
+1
I thought Valeros used a bastard sword.If you look at the paintings he's shown in combat it's with two swords that look about the size of short swords. he's a TWF.
He has a long sword and a short sword.
Citation: The premade version of him in the From Shore To Sea module.
I, for one, would love to see an actual Chronicles paperback that just had a writeup for each iconic a levels 1-20, with an emphasis on their personalities vastly more than mechanical efficiency.
It would be extra cool if their progression through the levels told a kind of story; where they got certain items, or why they picked certain feats ("Precise shot because I kept hitting Val"), etc.
I think that would make for a really interesting product.
my thought but better written and with out misspellings
|
Reaper Miniatures
|
Given that I GM at my local FLGS across fromt he local HS and get a new player, one who has never played an RPG before ever, every few months, access to iconic pre-gens would be great.
Right now, each time a new player joins, I grab an AP off the shelf and they run one of the pre-gens from that the first week, to learn the rules. Then we spend time before session 2 creating a new build. This works ok, but I'd love to have choices among all classes, and in enough variety of levels to be helpful to the party - every odd level is fine.
TBH, I'm considering just using Hero Lab to build a character of every class, and saving copies of each one at every odd level on my own. Not sure how optimal they'd be, but they'd at least get the new player on the table running right away.
Then again, if Paizo made the document available for free, it would save me so much trouble.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
If this thread's any indication of the type of arguments and crankypantsness that putting up some iconic stat blocks might generate, that right there's a great reason for us not to do it.
Please leave the petty bickering and pointless arguments about what someone else may or may not have said at the door. Use this thread to lets us know if you'd be interested in seeing us post sample builds for the iconics somewhere online, please.
Well said, Mr. Jacobs!
I would like to see the iconics statted up ONLY using the options in the rulebook they appear in, plus the core rulebook. Thus, the rogue would only use the core rules, while the oracle would use options from the core and from the APG, and the magus would use rules from Ultimate Magic and the core.
I'm not interested in setting a precedent that each time we present new rules for characters we have to update and further specialize the iconics.
I absolutely agree. Just because there is a new option available doesn't mean they need to be rebuilt. Particularly if the iconics do not represent a super-optimized build. A fighter built using the Core Rulebook is just as valid as one built using all the new supplements.
I'm not interested in faceless sample characters for the iconics, in other words. They have personalities and histories, and their stats should reflect that. And I'm not sure how many people realize or even want that.
I would! Iconics that have stats reflecting their personalities and quirks are *much* more interesting than an "optimized" build. Now, I do believe they should be effective characters and be able to perform their party roles. But they don't need to be min-maxed in order to do that.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
TBH, I'm considering just using Hero Lab to build a character of every class, and saving copies of each one at every odd level on my own. Not sure how optimal they'd be, but they'd at least get the new player on the table running right away.
Someone's already done that. Check out the Pathfinder Society Pregens on Pathfinder DB.
I love love to see the iconics stated out!