Did anyone else find the choice of Iconic characters presented in the module odd.
Human Monk with an 8 chr
Gnome Druid with a 15 chr
Human Barbarian with an 8 chr
Dwarf Ranger with a 6 chr
These are the Iconic characters presented in a campaign which features leadership(the idea, not the feat), building a nation and diplomacy. Really? Not a single character is presented as taking diplomacy, ever. This group is great for the wilderness and exploration parts of the game. But I doubt they could found and run a kingdom.
Thoughts?
The iconics are only chosen to give a coherent art-style to the module. If you look at their backstories, things make even less sense (the Monk is looking for his sister? what?) Don't try and think of them as example PCs: they're not.
This is one of the many reasons iconic statblocks will be dropped from all future APs.
Art style is how they choose the Iconics?
I'm not too sad to see them go.
Creative Director
|
Art style is how they choose the Iconics?
The main two purposes the Iconics serve us at Paizo are:
1) To establish the Paizo brand and look and feel;
2) To give our artists "control" models for characters. If we tell an artist to paint a wizard, we can't assume the artist knows the rules, and we have a good chance of getting a wizard that doesn't look like a wizard, for example. By using the iconics, we can simply say "paint this character" and not have to send a long description of what the character can and can't be doing in the illustration.
When we pick iconics to "star" in an adventure path, we tend to pick the ones that are the most thematcially appropriate for that AP. For Kingmaker, which is (among other things) the AP where you explore the wilderness and build your own kingdom, we chose four Iconics who have a better chance to survive in the wild than those who would rather stay home in the big city. That meant barbarian, ranger, and druid—we rounded things out with the monk because he hadn't starred in an AP for a while and because monks are very self-sufficient.
Note that while it DOES help to have a high charisma character in the role of "king" in this AP... that's not required. The kingdom rules very specifically present roles for ALL walks of character, including those who don't have high charisma scores. It's perfectly fine for a Kingmaker campaign to proceed with an NPC king, or with a king who's Charisma isn't super high.
There does seem to be a lot of dislike floating out there in regards to the iconics. I think it stems from other settings like Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance. You see this whenever someone mentions Elminster or Drizzt. One is an over the top Mary Sue, the other was a novel idea that got beat to death with a rock. The result was having the players live and adventure in the shadows of the all powerful NPC's. WOTC claimed they were getting away from this with the 3.5 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. But right after the Table of Contents, for no reason at all and totally out of place is a full page statblock for Elminster.
Personally, I like the iconics. The best part is their back stories which flush out the world view through the perspective of a single person. But they do it without casting an overpowering shadow on the rest of the world. They also give you a good idea where heroes fit into the world as well. The only oddity I have noticed among the iconics is Valeros, the iconic fighter. His stats say Neutral Good but he seems to act Chaotic Good.
This brings me to the question: What about the iconic Inquisitor, Antipaladin, and Witch?
Thanks for the response James Jacobs.
I noticed how they were good wilderness types, and I know you don't HAVE to have a good chr character to lead/rule/etc..., but it sure is EASIER if you do. Not to mention, how are the Iconics supposed to recruit NPCs into the other ruling positions when none of them have any diplomacy and only 1 has a positive chr modifier? (rhetorical question, I'm not really looking for an answer) I just find the iconic choices in Kingmaker funny.