| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me the 4 iconics have lost there meening, both as a way to look at a group and as a way to look at individuals in a group.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
To me it would be tough to consider, say, Valeros the "iconic fighter" without him actually being a fighter. I'd even say the iconics should not be archetyped versions but true examples of the standard base class. For example, Valeros should not be a Two Weapon fighter, despite the fact that he dual wields.
That having been said, there is certainly room to rebuild them using feats/spells/equipment from later books than the core rulebook.
Cap. Darling, I'm not sure I follow your post. My understanding is that the iconics now serve about 2 purposes:
1. Standardized art - each is an example of how a character of a certain class could look, and a reusable character to place in illustrations in various products.
2. Pregens for PFS - here they have stats but they pretty much have to be made with the core assumption so that anyone can play them, and they can't be too good so that players will want to make their own characters to play.
I think they do #1 just fine. #2 is arguable but that debate has happened many a time in other threads, and should probably be its own thing on the PFS forums.
It seems now it should be....Cleric, fighter, wizard, and whatever class does the rogues job better than the rogue...
Too many classes/archetypes steal the rogues kool-aid for it to be iconic.
Maybe: Oracle, Barbarian, Ninja, [caster]
Wizard, Witch, Sorcerer all fill the arcane caster role nicely; but (at least in the archetypal "healer" role) an Oracle can out-cleric a cleric; a barbarian can out-fight a Fighter; and a ninja does pretty much everything a rogue does, but looks cooler doing it.
Of course I am open to differing opinions.
Arcanist, Investigator, Bloodrager, Warpriest!
MWHUAHAHAHAHAAHHA!!!
Arcanist, Slayer, Oracle, Barbarian
If you were to redo the 4 iconics (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) but not with those classes what would do it with?I'm not looking for builds just a more general discussion structured on how you think the base paradigm has shifted? Or has it moved at all?
Replace fighter with Barbarian
Barbarians are martial warriors that are able to unleash supernatural power at higher levels and hit things super hard without needing to know every optimization trick in the book.Replace Rogue with Ninja
Ninjas are Rogue+1, that's all I need to say about it.
Replace Cleric with Inquisitor
Replace Wizard with Alchemist
full spell progression casters get crazy-go-nuts power at higher levels but at the same time filled with waterballoon choices. Inquisitor n' Alchemist provide Divine n' Arcane flavor in a stylish package.
Replace Fighter with Summoner. The pet is good enough in melee. Replace Wizard with Master Summoner. Replace Cleric with Druid (with pet). Replace Rogue with Inquisitor (with a domain with pet) or Ranger (with pet)
Looking at the tropes of the 4 iconics (and not just battle role), we have:
A non-magical Frontline warrior, who is strong, able to take many hits, and while likable enough, does not really care about being all that bright. The Jock type.
Iconically the fighter; Either Barbarian or Cavalier can replace easily enough.
An arcane magic user, who is versatile and intelligent, but not well suited to physical activity. The Geek type.
Standard Wizard; Arcanist or Witch will work here.
A divine magic user, who is kind hearted and honest, the moral compass of the party, who is not afraid of getting into the mix when it is needed. That one kid who is somehow friends with the everyone.
Usually a Cleric; Warpriest or Oracle do the job.
The troubleshooter, who is one part scout, one part trap expert, one part smooth talker, and one part troublemaker. Might use a little magic, but more often relies on their own wits and skill. The lovable rapscallion type.
Normally filled by the Rogue; Ranger, Bard, Ninja, Slayer, Investigator can all work here with the right traits or archetypes (which I believe is why there are so many rogue threads about recently).
BONUS!
The Fifth wheel. They can do a bit of everything, but not quite as good as everyone else. They are skilled in battle, can do a bit of magic, can scout reasonably well, and even do a bit of healing when the divine caster is overwhelmed or taken out. The eternal wingman.
Iconically the Bard; Inquisitor, non-optimised Alchemist,non-optimised Magus, Druid, Monk work here.
To me it would be tough to consider, say, Valeros the "iconic fighter" without him actually being a fighter. I'd even say the iconics should not be archetyped versions but true examples of the standard base class. For example, Valeros should not be a Two Weapon fighter, despite the fact that he dual wields.
That having been said, there is certainly room to rebuild them using feats/spells/equipment from later books than the core rulebook.
Cap. Darling, I'm not sure I follow your post. My understanding is that the iconics now serve about 2 purposes:
1. Standardized art - each is an example of how a character of a certain class could look, and a reusable character to place in illustrations in various products.
2. Pregens for PFS - here they have stats but they pretty much have to be made with the core assumption so that anyone can play them, and they can't be too good so that players will want to make their own characters to play.
I think they do #1 just fine. #2 is arguable but that debate has happened many a time in other threads, and should probably be its own thing on the PFS forums.
I ditent think we were takling about the paizo pathfinder iconics but the 4 archtypes that make up the archtypical Fantasy RPG group.
And it seems most others read it like i did.If it was the paizo pathfinder Iconics that was on debate then the OP wouldent make a lot of sense. To me at least.
The 4 archetypes: Warrior, Thief, White Mage, Black Mage
I always preferred Warrior, Red Mage, Black Belt, White Mage but to each their own. ;)
As to Pathfinder, I think the modern Archetypes would be Barbarian, Trapfinder Ranger, Cleric, Arcanist.
The Ranger slot may change depending on a closer review of the trapfinding ACG classes. A Life Oracle could substitute for Cleric, but I find Clerics to be more versatile.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I ditent think we were takling about the paizo pathfinder iconics but the 4 archtypes that make up the archtypical Fantasy RPG group.
And it seems most others read it like i did.
If it was the paizo pathfinder Iconics that was on debate then the OP wouldent make a lot of sense. To me at least.
Perhap you are right. The thread makes more sense in that light - I saw the word "iconics" which has a very specific meaning in Pathfinder and didn't think about other possible meanings.
I would say that maybe the OP should have picked a different word, but archetypes also has a game meaning so maybe "party roles" or something would have been better. It's always a problem when game terms collide with normal language.
I will start by saying that I find no problems whatsoever with the normal fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard party. Such a group can be very effective and handle a wide variety of challenges.
Here's what I see each of them doing. Note I'm splitting up some normally collapsed things to make sure bases are covered - "healing" for example, is pretty broad. Note this is what they do as stereotypical party roles, I'm certainly not saying they have to be built this way or do these things.
Fighter - hard to hit, damage sponge, uses good weapons, high strength, gets between monsters and weaker party members, consistent reliable damage
Cleric - decent backup melee, heals hp damage, remove status ailments, raises the dead, hard to hit, anti-undead, group buffs, "ask a question" style divinations
Rogue - traps, easy to hit but spiky damage, locks, sneaking, obstacle negation in general, finds things
Wizard - AoE attacks, (mostly) single target buffing, knowledgable, "explore the environment" style divinations, SoS attacks
Any proposed party would need to cover most of these bases.
Actually, the classic 4 can be done with 2.
Warrior: The druid's dinosaur/tiger companion.
Rogue: the summoner's tricky eidolon
Wizard: the summoner
Cleric: the druid.
The wild iconic 4:
Barb (Heavy Hitter)
Ranger (Skill/Scout)
Druid (Divine Magic)
Witch (Arcane Magic)
The civilized 4: Fighter, cleric, wizard, thief. Heh heh.
The noble 4: Cavaliar, Oracle, Alchemist, Bard.
==Aelryinth
I'm wondering if you could go wrong with:
Replace fighter with druid
Replace rogue with druid
Replace wizard with druid
Replace cleric with druid.
And no, it's not a joke.
Yes, there have been parties made of all druid and all cleric. They tend to rock.
==Aelryinth
Yes, there have been parties made of all druid and all cleric. They tend to rock.
==Aelryinth
4 clerics are nice. 4 druids just ROFLSTOMP things.
That's 8 bodies doing standard actions (not counting summons and Leadership feats). They can scout and infiltrate, in form of squirrel or gull or fish. *all of them*. They have a lot of bases covered, you can have a couple of them being melee-oriented, then have some other control or blast oriented.
Clerics are awesome too. But 4 pets is just too much
I'd keep it the same as it is. While barbarian might be stronger than fighter, I think fighter is more the "standard" idea. The iconic in my mind should be relatively simple as a concept, so that you can sort of imagine your own group in their shoes.
I'd use bard instead of rogue. Bard represents everything rogue does: unusual combat style, incredible skill, adventurous without heavy armor, trickery, etc etc. But it also represents spontaneous magic, charisma, team play in a big way, etc etc.
I feel like the Pathfinder rogue tends to disable traps and sneak attack. Nothing wrong with this, of course. But the Pathfinder bard is the dashing one, and I find his character type shows up a lot more in stories about daring adventurers.
True, bard is in many ways a good replacement for rogue. There would be some damage concerns though. One of the things the rogue provides is DPR once it settles into flank. (I'm not saying the rogue is as good at it as it should be, or that the DPR is dependable, but it's there nonetheless.) I'm not sure a bard could provide the damage that a rogue could without being a melee archetype like a Dervish of Dawn. That would likely mean giving up trap finding, which the wizard would have to cover.
Then again, the cleric could step up with a reach or melee buff build and the wizard could could shift to evocation or summoning while the bard steps back into buffing and control. One of the things that makes these classes solid is their flexibility after all. ;)
True, bard is in many ways a good replacement for rogue. There would be some damage concerns though. One of the things the rogue provides is DPR once it settles into flank. (I'm not saying the rogue is as good at it as it should be, or that the DPR is dependable, but it's there nonetheless.) I'm not sure a bard could provide the damage that a rogue could without being a melee archetype like a Dervish of Dawn. That would likely mean giving up trap finding, which the wizard would have to cover.
A bard gives more damage overall to the party, just by giving +3 to hit and damage to the archer ranger. It's stealth damage (it looks like it's the ranger who is doing it), but it's the bard's contribution anyways.
Also, bards need special archetypes to do damage *in melee*. But a standard lvl 7 human bard who pre-buff Heroism on himself (1 hour long buff), with Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Arcane Strike, Deadly Aim and Rapid Shot as his feats, while singing, having cast Haste in the first round (which also help the rest of the party, so it's not a wasted action in self-buffing) and 16 starting DEX, do
+5 BAB +3 DEX +1 Point Blank +1 Magic weapon +1 Haste +2 inspire + 2 Heroism -2 rapid shot -2 Deadly aim = +11/+11/+11 to hit with his shortbow, doing:
1d6 +1 (enhancement) +2 (heroism) +1 (point blank shot) + 4 Deadly Aim +2 (arcane strike) +2 (inspire) or 1d6+10, which is not dependant on flanking.
Compare it to a lvl 7 rogue damage. And then factor in that the Bard is also giving +2/+2 to the druid's pet, the archer ranger and the party barbarian, and haste the whole group.
Cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard will probably always be able to get the job done.
All others, especially wacky optimized versions of anything, need not apply for the age old iconic core four positions. Those types are free to get work on their own solo project, a buddy comedy, or in the all too familiar copper a dozen Legion of Unique Snowflakes specials. Many of the odd suggestions so far are treading into corny Saturday morning cartoon land on the worst network you can think of.
Many of the odd suggestions so far are treading into corny Saturday morning cartoon land on the worst network you can think of.
Funny you mention it, as the old D&D cartoon had Acrobat, Thief, Cavalier, Ranger, Barbarian and Magician
This is a project I have been thinking about for awhile. I take a different approach. I want to see the four iconics be the 4 with the lowest Q scores around here. Something like alchemist, synthesist, samurai, gunslinger. I want to see what happens.
I dont undestand the use of q score and i dont undestand how you can put the samurai and the synthesist on the same list even if it is a q score list.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Glass Cannon, Polymath, Girlfriend, Noob.
This is a project I have been thinking about for awhile. I take a different approach. I want to see the four iconics be the 4 with the lowest Q scores around here. Something like alchemist, synthesist, samurai, gunslinger. I want to see what happens.
They pair of into rivals. The Gunslinger and Alchemist compete for best short-ranged damage dealer (my money is ultimately on the Alchemist). The Samurai brings his A-game to the melee damage (and all-round durability) contest, and the Synthesist player shuffles in 5 minutes before go-time, deeply hung over and completely unprepared, and still makes the Samurai look like Gimli.
Many of the odd suggestions so far are treading into corny Saturday morning cartoon land on the worst network you can think of.Funny you mention it, as the old D&D cartoon had Acrobat, Thief, Cavalier, Ranger, Barbarian and Magician
I enjoyed it during the original run but that does not mean it was any less corny then as it still is to this day. It might go to show how the direction at TSR was all over the place even at those early years. Red Box came out the same year which of course had cleric, fighter, magic-user, and thief as the classes. For the D&D cartoon they choose to include some classes that were only available in 1st Edition AD&D Unearthed Arcana to fit the social tropes better. This only further backs my position on the corny factor that many people seem to like to go with even to this day. It is a personal preference thing on my part.
Hard to argue against personal tastes ;)
Well, I have posted 3 threads on it so far and I am not saying it should be this four. If more people like you contributed to the threads, the list would be out of its first draft.This is a project I have been thinking about for awhile. I take a different approach. I want to see the four iconics be the 4 with the lowest Q scores around here. Something like alchemist, synthesist, samurai, gunslinger. I want to see what happens.I dont undestand the use of q score and i dont undestand how you can put the samurai and the synthesist on the same list even if it is a q score list.
Ok i think some of the mix up is the use of the word Iconics here.
This is, mostly, not about Golarion but about the classic archtypical RPG team and how, and if, to fulfil the roles in PF.