Side By Side Iconic Evolution Comparisons


Second Edition

101 to 150 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Based on Amiri's look she should be build as a medium str character with a focus on other abilities that compensates for the lack of top-notch strength. In PF1 that would have been invulnerable rager (to survive the lack of armor protection), and a bunch of the supernatural rage powers. No clue what's the equivalent in PF2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:

One thing I was pondering lately - I watch Game of Thrones (am quite the fan, actually) and you see all manners of people brandishing swords and other melee weapons on the show. Arya, with Needle, would probably be some kind of rogue or other Dex martial if translated to PF, but Jon Snow for instance is a very good fighter, and you wouldn't give him Str 18 if you just judged him on his physique. Same for Ser Jorah Mormont or Beric Dondarion. They do need it in PF, but they're not the typical big muscular people you'd associate with it. Ned Stark was another fighter who didn't look super strong, but if statted out would just need a top Str, just to be decently optimized. Podrick has become a very good fighter too. Jaime Lannister doesn't fight very well since losing a hand, but before then he was one of the best in Westeros, and he's another fit but not powerful fighter if you look at him.

Now, the Hound, Brienne, Tormund Giantsbane - they all look the part of the big burly fighter, sure. But that's an advantage they have over other swordsfolk, not their defining trait (now, the Mountain was probably more in the 20s, and right now... who knows. Probably even more).

Essentially, if you wanna depict a range of physiques for your martial types, even setting apart the lightly armored finess types for the rogue class, you just can't portray them all with obvious max Strength, they would all look the same and it wouldn't even be very realistic.

So, Amiri might be too skinny, sure (although that seems to be part of the art style too if you look at Seelah's waist) - but that's just the way you draw a fighter without letting yourself be shackled by the numbers on the character sheet. Otherwise all fighters and champions would have very similar, very powerful physiques... which just doesn't look like most warriors from fiction (shrug).

That's a perfectly reasonable approach if you think she doesn't look quite up to 18.

If someone thinks, as Garretmander said, she looks around 10, it doesn't even make any sense.

We're all reading different things into the art. We're not starting from the same place when we're talking about this. There's really nothing more to say here than "Nah, she looks strong enough to me."

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Ned Stark was another fighter who didn't look super strong, but if stattd out would just need a top Str, just to be decently optimized
Eh, I can't speak from the 2e point of view,but do he? Is the difference from 16 to 18 that much in terms of to hit and damage? It wasn't the case in PF1. Moreover, (at least from a PF1 perspective) If they are fighters and they don't want to be some babbling morons, then they would not have the point buy for 18 str in a low fantasy game.

Most of those listed (except for Beric Dondarion and Jorah Mormont) are considered among the best warriors in Westeros (ie: among the highest level Fighters, among other things). It's a low level game, but that pegs them at a minimum of 5th level, with the stat-ups that one would assume would follow...starting with anything less than a 16 does not generally make one a renowned Fighter by PF2 standards, so they'd almost certainly all have 18s by 5th level.

Jaime Lannister in particular should be as optimized for personal combat as you can make a character. The whole reason the loss of his hand was so meaningful is that before that he verged on unbeatable in personal combat (this is also why Brienne holding her own against him is so impressive).

And we're talking PF2 rather than PF1, and it's pretty easy to make a PF2 Fighter who is mentally and socially competent without low Strength.

Nicos wrote:
Moreover, the Iconics are not meant to be optimized (correct me if that policy is intended to be changed in 2e).

They aren't intended to be entirely optimal, but the Iconics are supposed to be viable, well-designed, PCs who can be used as pickup characters in, say, PFS. The PF1 versions didn't always achieve that, but got much better at it as time went on, and I doubt they're reversing course.

Nicos wrote:
So, 14 or 16 str would be just fine for a good game of thrones fighter.

I strongly disagree, at least if talking about 5th level Fighters considered some of the best in the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Consider that They are the best in the world because they are 5th level fighters not because the difference between 16 and 18 str. A 5th level fighter is elite by comparison to 1st and 2nd level dudes, str 18 or not.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Consider that They are the best in the world because they are 5th level fighters not because the difference between 16 and 18 str. A 5th level fighter is elite by comparison to 1st and 2nd level dudes, str 18 or not.

Many were notable and ridiculous even when they were younger and less experienced. Jaime was a member of the Kingsguard (the most elite order in Westeros in terms of personal combat) when he was 16 years old, and that was before he'd done anything that would gain someone experience.

Others are arguable, as I said, but Jaime Lannister basically must be the most optimal Fighter possible prior to his maiming.


6th level for him then. Or maybe he has a higher dex than usual for fighters in that setting.

Yeah, I know that there is not a 1-to-1 correspondence between fantasy characters from fiction and characters from the game. But it seems to me that there are better explanations than to say they all have the physical str of a powerlifter without actually having it.


Amusingly enough, in the actual ASOIAF RPG, Jaime Lannister is the third most combat proficient character statted out. He falls behind Gregor Clegane who in turn gets mudstomped by none other Bobby Baratheon.

Ignoring that the entire argument of trying to bolt ASOIAF into a D&D framework is kinda dumb to start with, it is amusing that the two best beatsticks are indeed the musclebound oafs.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
6th level for him then. Or maybe he has a higher dex than usual for fighters in that setting.

Given that he wears plate and uses a longsword (or lance), Dex is irrelevant, and it seems unlikely he was high level as an untried 16 year old.

Nicos wrote:

Yeah, I know that there is not a 1-to-1 correspondence between fantasy characters from fiction and characters from the game. But it seems to me that there are better explanations than to say they all have the physical str of a powerlifter without actually having it.

But you're the one assuming that's what Str 18 means. It doesn't necessarily mean anything of the kind.

Str 18 makes you as strong as is possibly useful for a starting character to be in terms of carrying capacity and combat effectiveness. It is the maximum practical combat strength, the maximal amount you can carry for long periods without fatigue.

But feats of strength in general fall under Athletics (lifting a gate and smashing through walls are listed Athletics actions, not functions of Strength alone). A powerlifter is not someone with high Str, but with high Athletics (which, admittedly, will tend to necessitate having high Str). In the final rules, a 1st level character with 14 Str and Trained Athletics will have a higher bonus than someone with 18 Str but without Athletics at Trained. Indeed, the Str 18 person has an identical bonus to a 2nd level person with Str 10 and Trained Athletics. And many of the characters we're talking about might easily fall into that category.

Now, Amiri, as it happens, does have Trained Athletics, but I can see a lot of explanations for that involving rage's mystical elements, adrenaline bursts, and the like, but if that's insufficient as an explanation for you, perhaps the issue is her training in Athletics rather than her Strength score.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If someone asked me what the best system for representing GoT would be, PF1 and 2 would be in the bottom half of that list (and not lower only because a bunch of games are thematically inappropriate like all Sci Fi games.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Nicos wrote:
6th level for him then. Or maybe he has a higher dex than usual for fighters in that setting.

Given that he wears plate and uses a longsword (or lance), Dex is irrelevant, and it seems unlikely he was high level as an untried 16 year old.

Nicos wrote:

Yeah, I know that there is not a 1-to-1 correspondence between fantasy characters from fiction and characters from the game. But it seems to me that there are better explanations than to say they all have the physical str of a powerlifter without actually having it.

But you're the one assuming that's what Str 18 means. It doesn't necessarily mean anything of the kind.

Str 18 makes you as strong as is possibly useful for a starting character to be in terms of carrying capacity and combat effectiveness. It is the maximum practical combat strength, the maximal amount you can carry for long periods without fatigue.

But feats of strength in general fall under Athletics (lifting a gate and smashing through walls are listed Athletics actions, not functions of Strength alone). A powerlifter is not someone with high Str, but with high Athletics (which, admittedly, will tend to necessitate having high Str). In the final rules, a 1st level character with 14 Str and Trained Athletics will have a higher bonus than someone with 18 Str but without Athletics at Trained. Indeed, the Str 18 person has an identical bonus to a 2nd level person with Str 10 and Trained Athletics. And many of the characters we're talking about might easily fall into that category.

Now, Amiri, as it happens, does have Trained Athletics, but I can see a lot of explanations for that involving rage's mystical elements, adrenaline bursts, and the like, but if that's insufficient as an explanation for you, perhaps the issue is her training in Athletics rather than her Strength score.

Thats all good, but her raw combat effectiveness IS down to her Str score. Athletics is all well and good for everything else, but if people think it looks like her arms would bend in the middle lifting that sword in combat then no amount of Athletics training is going to help that. The mystic stuff doesn't work for me because she mechanically operates just fine with that sword when not benefiting from it at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Loving new Seelah, almost pure upgrades compared to the previous one. Analyzing the artwork made me realize PF1 Seelah carried around the Palaidn helmet, but that seems to be gone now.

She was never a victim of cluttered inventory like other chars, so you can really admire every difference a lot better. Her big armor makes her less susceptible to that "super thin" syndrome other chars are suffering.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting Subscriber

Actually, according to the fluff from PF1, she does NOT operate just fine with that sword without raging. She requires the rage to be able to use a sword that is meant for someone a size category bigger than she is. We don't have stats for her in PF2 yet, so who knows what she looks like stat wise, but she's never been able to properly wield the sword without rage.

Meet the Iconics: Amiri wrote:

She values her oversized sword (even

though she can only truly wield it properly when her blood rage
takes her)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting Subscriber

Also from her stats:

Amiri Pathfinder Society Pregen wrote:

Large Bastard Sword The sword Amiri carries is difficult for her to

wield because it was created to be swung by a giant. She takes a
–2 penalty on attack rolls with the sword (this is already calculated
into her attack bonus). Though a bastard sword can normally be
wielded in one hand, Amiri must use two hands because the
sword is sized for a Large creature. The sword deals 2d8 points of
damage because of its Large size.

Melee Large bastard sword +3 (2d8+6/19–20)

Whereas Valeros when only using his long sword comes in at:

Valeros Pathfinder Society Pregen wrote:
longsword +5 (1d8+3/19–20)

Again, these are for PF1 because we don't have stats yet for PF2. Probably best to wait on discussing their stats until we know what they are, huh?

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Thats all good, but her raw combat effectiveness IS down to her Str score.

My point is rather precisely that being good at combat is actually almost all Strength represents for some characters.

Malk_Content wrote:
Athletics is all well and good for everything else, but if people think it looks like her arms would bend in the middle lifting that sword in combat then no amount of Athletics training is going to help that. The mystic stuff doesn't work for me because she mechanically operates just fine with that sword when not benefiting from it at all.

Who says? She has a Giant Totem in PF2, which explicitly says the following:

"You can use a weapon built for a Large creature if you are Small or Medium (both normally and when raging)."

So...she explicitly has a superhuman power that lets her wield her enormous sword at all times. And would do so even if she were a Str 10 Halfling. It clearly allows otherwise physically impossible feats of strength of a specific variety. Saying it also increases her actual mechanical Strength score is not a stretch, flavor-wise.

Cori Marie wrote:
Again, these are for PF1 because we don't have stats yet for PF2. Probably best to wait on discussing their stats until we know what they are, huh?

We actually do have playtest stats for her (which do indeed involve Str 18 and being Trained in Athletics).

Sovereign Court

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

dot

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:


Moreover, the Iconics are not meant to be optimized (correct me if that policy is intended to be changed in 2e).

In PF1, the gaps between, low, medium, and high optimization are much more pronounced than in PF2, so ideally the gap between the iconics and an "optimized" character will be much smaller in the new edition. I use quotes around "optimized" because there's a few different ways to interpret that word and what it means in game parlance. For these purposes it means "built towards the maximum effectiveness possible within the class' intended role".

The somewhat infamously low optimization of characters like Harsk in PF1 isn't so much an expression of designer intent for what the relative power of an iconic should be compared to a PC as it is a manifestation of the fact that what PF1's core expectations are for a PC and what the system can allow you to build are incredibly far apart.


Michael Sayre wrote:
Nicos wrote:


Moreover, the Iconics are not meant to be optimized (correct me if that policy is intended to be changed in 2e).

In PF1, the gaps between, low, medium, and high optimization are much more pronounced than in PF2, so ideally the gap between the iconics and an "optimized" character will be much smaller in the new edition. I use quotes around "optimized" because there's a few different ways to interpret that word and what it means in game parlance. For these purposes it means "built towards the maximum effectiveness possible within the class' intended role".

The somewhat infamously low optimization of characters like Harsk in PF1 isn't so much an expression of designer intent for what the relative power of an iconic should be compared to a PC as it is a manifestation of the fact that what PF1's core expectations are for a PC and what the system can allow you to build are incredibly far apart.

Speaking of PF1 Iconic optimization. PF1 Amiri was ridiculous! At level 1 she could probably beat any other 3 iconics combined it felt. Even as she leveled up, she took the most obviously optimal and straightforward options, it was crazy!

Going back to Harsk a bit, I think the changes to his build (And Valeros too) are a result of not wanting to fall into the same trap as PF1. Essentially "Crossbow Rangers and TWF Fighters suck, so the iconic based on them will also suck". One would think you'd want to show how the old builds can be strong in the new edition rather than change them to fit the more tried and true builds.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

17 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
One would think you'd want to show how the old builds can be strong in the new edition rather than change them to fit the more tried and true builds.

Iconics have a lot of work they're expected to do. In addition to serving as stand-ins for PCs, the iconics are supposed to teach a player how to play the game and how a class functions. They also serve as cultural touchstones for our licensed products.

In the case of Valeros, his death and subsequent return to life in Spiral of Bones has made him a bit more cautious and led to him taking up a shield. This also helps make him better at his job of being an iconic since he has the capacity to help teach both two-weapon fighting mechanics and shield mechanics, instead of just two-weapon fighting alone. The shield is also something that is mechanically much more favorable for Valeros in the new edition since two-weapon fighting is a much less onerous demand on your character resources, and the cost–benefit angle to having two distinct weapon types rather than trying to balance weapon types for mechanical effectiveness is much better in the new edition. Valeros is showcasing both how to play a fighter and a lot of the improvements between editions.

In Harsk's case, the player is already needing to learn a variety of mechanics like Hunt Target, so adding in reloading as a mechanic that needs to be managed with his primary fighting style raises the cognitive load of playing him quite a bit above any of the other non-caster classes and iconics (especially since he still needs to have a decent melee option regardless of where his primary focus is). Instead of pushing the added complexity of being a dedicated crossbow user onto new players, he has the easier to grok two-weapon fighting base while still having his crossbow available for use (and potentially support as potent a switch-hitter in the later levels).

The actual character sheets for the iconics are still being built (and have already changed a few different times as the playtest has evolved and the needs each iconic needs to fill have evolved along with the production schedule) so there's still potential for some flex in the degree to which either of those characters explores the secondary elements of their build, but the general point is that the iconics are doing a lot from a business perspective, and they're needing to speak to the widest audience possible while providing the most benefit to Paizo, the organized play campaign, and Paizo's business partners.


Michael Sayre wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
One would think you'd want to show how the old builds can be strong in the new edition rather than change them to fit the more tried and true builds.

Iconics have a lot of work they're expected to do. In addition to serving as stand-ins for PCs, the iconics are supposed to teach a player how to play the game and how a class functions. They also serve as cultural touchstones for our licensed products.

In the case of Valeros, his death and subsequent return to life in Spiral of Bones has made him a bit more cautious and led to him taking up a shield. This also helps make him better at his job of being an iconic since he has the capacity to help teach both two-weapon fighting mechanics and shield mechanics, instead of just two-weapon fighting alone. The shield is also something that is mechanically much more favorable for Valeros in the new edition since two-weapon fighting is a much less onerous demand on your character resources, and the cost–benefit angle to having two distinct weapon types rather than trying to balance weapon types for mechanical effectiveness is much better in the new edition. Valeros is showcasing both how to play a fighter and a lot of the improvements between editions.

In Harsk's case, the player is already needing to learn a variety of mechanics like Hunt Target, so adding in reloading as a mechanic that needs to be managed with his primary fighting style raises the cognitive load of playing him quite a bit above any of the other non-caster classes and iconics (especially since he still needs to have a decent melee option regardless of where his primary focus is). Instead of pushing the added complexity of being a dedicated crossbow user onto new players, he has the easier to grok two-weapon fighting base while still having his crossbow available for use (and potentially support as potent a switch-hitter in the later levels).

The actual character sheets for the iconics are still being built (and have already changed a few different times as the...

Consider my mind blown with this in-depth reply. Thanks!

Guess during the super early days when the 1e versions were created they were just messing around, not thinking about this.

Paizo Employee Designer

14 people marked this as a favorite.

All of what Mike said as well as one other important thing:

Iconics should be iconic of what people think of with those classes to help people understand and get in touch with that class, and to the extent that in early days some iconics intentionally broke stereotypes for their ancestry or class, they probably shouldn't break stereotypes too much for their class or they cease being emblematic. Imagine if Navasi in Starfinder had been built like the sample vesk envoy build using advanced melee weapons and tons of Strength. It's a perfectly effective character, excels even, but it might not give the best idea of what an envoy's shtick is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

All of what Mike said as well as one other important thing:

Iconics should be iconic of what people think of with those classes to help people understand and get in touch with that class, and to the extent that in early days some iconics intentionally broke stereotypes for their ancestry or class, they probably shouldn't break stereotypes too much for their class or they cease being emblematic. Imagine if Navasi in Starfinder had been built like the sample vesk envoy build using advanced melee weapons and tons of Strength. It's a perfectly effective character, excels even, but it might not give the best idea of what an envoy's shtick is.

Well yeah, but the PF1 iconics did get created at some point, and after years of super bland generic D&D ones, I was like "Whoa, these guys actually have gimmicks, not just Fighter mcFighterson". Not really a selling point, but gave me a good impression of the developers.

Makes sense that you're going back to the old formula if the goal is just to "introduce newbies to the hobby", since the explanations you guys gave only really work in their context. I've had great success with the PF Beginner Box (which also removes TWF from Valeros) so there's likely truth in this!

I never felt the boring iconics from other editions ever helped them (Playerbase only declined since 1e all the way to 5e, neither of which feature them), but the Pathfinder ones do have more interesting backstories and personalities, which may be what was missing.

Summary: Pathfinder 1 is the only game I've played where the iconics were meaningful, but some of them were also pretty jank. I don't think there is a correlation, but dunno what other data there is to work with.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:

I never felt the boring iconics from other editions ever helped them (Playerbase only declined since 1e all the way to 5e, neither of which feature them), but the Pathfinder ones do have more interesting backstories and personalities, which may be what was missing.

Summary: Pathfinder 1 is the only game I've played where the iconics were meaningful, but some of them were also pretty jank. I don't think there is a correlation, but dunno what other data there is to work with.

Yeah, I feel like Merisiel, for instance, is way more of a character with a history and a life and a personality of her own than, say, Lidda or Mialee or Regdar. (At least some of that is James Jacobs doing, although even the PF Iconics that he hasn't breathed so much life into personally, like Ezren and Seelah and Seltyiel, feel more 'real' than Jozan or whoever-the-3.5-Iconic-Bard-turned-out-to-be.)

That said, I always wanted more info on Naull and Kerwyn.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

All of what Mike said as well as one other important thing:

Iconics should be iconic of what people think of with those classes to help people understand and get in touch with that class, and to the extent that in early days some iconics intentionally broke stereotypes for their ancestry or class, they probably shouldn't break stereotypes too much for their class or they cease being emblematic. Imagine if Navasi in Starfinder had been built like the sample vesk envoy build using advanced melee weapons and tons of Strength. It's a perfectly effective character, excels even, but it might not give the best idea of what an envoy's shtick is.

Well yeah, but the PF1 iconics did get created at some point, and after years of super bland generic D&D ones, I was like "Whoa, these guys actually have gimmicks, not just Fighter mcFighterson". Not really a selling point, but gave me a good impression of the developers.

Makes sense that you're going back to the old formula if the goal is just to "introduce newbies to the hobby", since the explanations you guys gave only really work in their context. I've had great success with the PF Beginner Box (which also removes TWF from Valeros) so there's likely truth in this!

I never felt the boring iconics from other editions ever helped them (Playerbase only declined since 1e all the way to 5e, neither of which feature them), but the Pathfinder ones do have more interesting backstories and personalities, which may be what was missing.

Summary: Pathfinder 1 is the only game I've played where the iconics were meaningful, but some of them were also pretty jank. I don't think there is a correlation, but dunno what other data there is to work with.

That you have been able to separate out these two elements and determined there probably wasn't a correlation shows deep insight of your impressions. You're right, of course, that being off-model for their class doesn't necessarily yield a deeper or more interesting character, and honestly it would be hard for me to say Harsk is the most interesting iconic, compared to other iconics that played to what you'd expect from their class like Merisiel or Amiri or Kyra.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting Subscriber

Sorry it's late but here's Seoni I really like this one.


Still got them thighs!

Dataphiles

I like Kyra's original art better. Everything felt more detailed. The cloth looked like you could literally feel the weave in it if you were to touch the page. She looked amazing and like someone not to be trifled with. That original piece is one of my top two pieces of WAR art period.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think new Seoni is a straight improvement compared to the old version.


New Lem is a definite improvement - more real, less doll-like - and new Seoni is better in the same way. Some of the others I don't like, e.g. Merisiel really should have an abdomen noticeably larger than her thigh, but most are about the same quality IMO.


Kind of a mixed bag for me -- some of them I prefer the old, and some of them I prefer the new, and some are about even.

Amiri: old
Ezren: even
Harsk: even
Kyra: even
Lem: new
Lini: old
Merisiel: new
Sajan: even
Seelah: even
Seoni: new

(Fortunately I kept going through the thread to see the higher resolution new versions, or a lot more would have been tilted towards the old.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To flesh out what I wrote before:

Amiri: old -- although the new one looks a bit meaner, the old one looks more capable of backing up that meanness.
Ezren: even -- both nicely detailed, poses different, but neither one ahead of the other.
Harsk: even -- these look like brothers rather than both being Harsk, but I can't figure out which one to prefer.
Kyra: even -- both nicely detailed, poses different, but neither one ahead of the other.
Lem: new -- the old one has eyes that are too big, and a flute that has modern keywork on the near end transitioning to finger holes at the far end, which is the opposite of what you would want on a flute, especially if you need the modern keywork to extend the effects that you can produce with small hands; in the new one, the flute probably needs modern keywork for the same reason, but at least it's consistent from end to end rather than being reversed.
Lini: old -- the new one has Lini's eyes too big (although with Gnomes being semi-Fey, this is less of a problem than for Lem), and Droogami's teeth look too Humanoid.
Merisiel: new -- more sensible clothing (giving a bit better protection), and lost the piercings over her eyebrows.
Sajan: even -- both nicely detailed, poses different, but neither one ahead of the other.
Seelah: even -- the old one gets points for showing her helmet, while the new one gets points for showing the front of her shield.
Seoni: new -- in addition to having more sensible clothing (giving a bit better protection), she also looks like she's paying attention to stuff, rather than gazing vacantly like in the old one.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think all the new 2e designs are very well done. But i will also say that the vision for the characters in 1e are much more clear. You can distinguish who they are, see the fine details of what they are wearing, even get a good idea of what they are capable of and how different they are from one another. The 2E designs really come off looking like they wanted to cram so much on them (or clothe them more in Sajan and Seoni's case...bleh...) that it makes them less appealing. At least to my eyes. They all have a similar vibe and sort of blend together. I'm not trying to dump on them. They are good pieces of art but they overall seem less like individuals and appear to have all come off the same conveyor belt if you will. Just my 2 copper.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting Subscriber

Alright, here's everyone!

And if you just wanted Valeros, here you go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me...

Like Amiri's old pic better. The new one looks... punk more than barbarian I guess.

Like Lems new pic slightly better.

Seoni ... *flips coin* the new one is a little bit brighter...

Like old Valeros. New has a narrow chest and I'm not a fan of his expression.

Limi herself is pretty close but the old one I guess. The new one seems to double down on the fey aspect of her race I think I'd prefer the opposite. Her 'pet' on the other hand is no contest: old one wins hands down. The new one has a 'blunt' pushed in face and thick un-cat like legs.

Harsk: the new one wins out slightly. I like the bright red hair but am slightly bummed he lost his 2 handed axe.

seelah: it's a tie! The new face is too angular for my taste but I like the body proportions better on the new one.

sajan: It seems to have gotten colder where the new version lives! ;) The new one seems gaunt in the face but that's not exactly not monk like and I don't really like either outfit.

merisiel isn't close, it's the old one by far. The new one took her diet way too far and seem far too thin.

ezren is another toss-up.

So three and half clear winners for the old versions for me [Amiri, Valeros merisiel plus a pet] and the rest were pretty close.

PS: thanks for the pic links Cory. ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Enjoying Valeros' new face a lot more than the old one. Armor real shiny too! He looks cleaned up now compared to some drunk bandit before. Also nice that he still has the shortsword in there.


ChibiNyan wrote:
Armor real shiny too!

This seemed to be a theme. Everyone seems brighter and cleaner in the new pics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe it's practical. These are reference pictures for the iconics in other artwork. Perhaps the brighter colours will make the insert easier.


ChibiNyan wrote:
Enjoying Valeros' new face a lot more than the old one. Armor real shiny too! He looks cleaned up now compared to some drunk bandit before. {. . .}

I wouldn't be so sure about his getting less drunk. For one thing, his tankard got bigger.

Also, did anyone notice that his shield really looks like a kite? Although I could see how he might pick up the wrong object when arming himself . . . .


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Having finally looked at this great side by side, I am not as bothered by Amiri anymore. She always was very slender, the armour just hid it better.
Everything is much much brighter, which is probably good if you want to jump off the page, but I liked the grittiness of the old somber tones. Well, these are only the first illustrations, lets see what Valeros breastplate Looks like in a sewer.
Also much more improved and varied facial expressions, Wayne really has learned a lot in between regarding faces.
I am not so sold on Merisiel, but her Alien proportions are a choice. It's just not one that I like. Pathfinder Elves as spindly twigs is not my Preference.
And Droogami has been replaced by his own plush toy.


New Valeros' facial expression seems like someone you might want to play. Old Valeros' face...wasn't that. I don't actually like either picture, but the newer one's better for that.


I just really hate that shield though. Like REALLY.

Dataphiles

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Seelah got tired of smelling Valeros on the front line, so she and the girls made him got take a bath while they cleaned the funk off of his armor.

Everyone is happier for it... except Valeros.


j b 200 wrote:
I just really hate that shield though. Like REALLY.

Why?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
j b 200 wrote:
I just really hate that shield though. Like REALLY.

Just wait a while. He'll get a new one after his next battle.


Wonder of the symbol of Valeros' shield means something. Doesn't seem like some flag or heraldry I know. Is it just some generic thing...?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
Wonder of the symbol of Valeros' shield means something. Doesn't seem like some flag or heraldry I know. Is it just some generic thing...?

Wayne said his equipment was basically "found"/"randomly bought" from his adventures, so probably it meant something for the person that owned it before, but not exactly for Valeros.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"So why are you carrying a shield that's got the mark of Asmodeus on it, Val?"

"Well, I figure it'll create a salt mine I can sell for a profit when the thing gets cleaved in half in my next fight."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It could even be an ancient magic shield he found in some dungeon for all we know. The symbol could refer to some obscure faction of fighters or champions from a thousand years prior. Hell, maybe it's hobgoblin craftmanship. Or something even more bizarre.

It is growing on me though. Initially I found the bright red clashed a little too much with the slightly softer colors in the rest of the pic, but I must say, now that I've had time to metabolize I've become quite fond of it. Weird how even a little time can sometimes change your perspective.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
Wonder of the symbol of Valeros' shield means something. Doesn't seem like some flag or heraldry I know. Is it just some generic thing...?

It's target, it draws your eye towards it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Wonder of the symbol of Valeros' shield means something. Doesn't seem like some flag or heraldry I know. Is it just some generic thing...?
It's target, it draws your eye towards it.

You jest, but the word target in fact derives from targe, a type of shield (usually round, as exemplified mostly by the Scottish examples of it). During jousts you aimed your lance at the targe/target of your opponent, and there you have it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Roswynn wrote:
Rysky wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Wonder of the symbol of Valeros' shield means something. Doesn't seem like some flag or heraldry I know. Is it just some generic thing...?
It's target, it draws your eye towards it.
You jest, but the word target in fact derives from targe, a type of shield (usually round, as exemplified mostly by the Scottish examples of it). During jousts you aimed your lance at the targe/target of your opponent, and there you have it.

I wasn't jesting but thank you for the jousting, I did not know that actually :3

101 to 150 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Side By Side Iconic Evolution Comparisons All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.