Iconi characters and not wanting to roll one.


Advice


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyone else having the feeling of:

"Oh, so paizo decided that a Goblin should be an alchemist. So, everybody and their grandmother who plays a Goblin will roll an alchemist. I don't want that." ?

(insert every other iconic character in there for reference..)

And as such you are looking for anything -but- creating your own character that is a copy of an iconic?

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean...not really? All Human Barbarians are not Amiri, nor are all Dwarf Rangers Harsk. I wouldn't want to do an exact build/personality match, but Ancestry and Class are not the whole of who a character is by any means.


Valiant wrote:

Anyone else having the feeling of:

"Oh, so paizo decided that a Goblin should be an alchemist. So, everybody and their grandmother who plays a Goblin will roll an alchemist. I don't want that." ?

(insert every other iconic character in there for reference..)

And as such you are looking for anything -but- creating your own character that is a copy of an iconic?

As a GM, I am actually taking this opportunity to make a GMPC (yes, players approved) with a Dwarven Monk. He goes by the name of Ulgrad Stoneridge, as I wanted to test out how the Mountain Style works (hint, it's not conducive to Fighter dedication so you can pull off cool unarmed combat feats, you'd have to take Crane Style and build some Dexterity to do that). Other characters I know of so far are Goblin Rogue (taking the Half-Elf heritage choice which I approved), Elven Wizard, (I think) a Human Cleric, and a Gnome Bard.

There are so many possibilities for character creation (though I personally don't think so for powergaming reasons, that's not a factor here though) that shy away from the iconics that the odds of people wanting to play the iconics with characters they design themselves are very slim. In fact, if people wanted to play the iconics, wouldn't they just say so?

I just think you're buying into the "Flavor of the Month" concept a little too much. Just because they're new doesn't really mean that everyone and their grandma will play them. I honestly don't care for Alchemist as a class (never did since PF1), and Goblins were a niche choice in PF1, and are full of shenanigans in PF2. The odds of me making a Goblin are decent since they are a fairly strong race, even if full of shenanigans. The odds of me making an Alchemist are slim to none, since I don't like the class and they're still pretty sub-par from posts I've seen. Others might feel differently, but I imagine they are more for playing a character (and as such may just wind up with the iconic anyway) than they are for playing a number sheet like myself.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you create a DMPC, I strongly suggest you hand off the character sheet to the most experienced player and have him run it in addition to his own character.

Be sure that the DMPC is a passive character that doesn't come up with his own ideas and just goes along with the group.

Also be sure to treat him like a "red shirt". When the going gets tough, he'll be the first to die. That way you can also test out the rules for the dying condition. <g>


This is nothing new (dwarves making good fighters, etc); have fun mixing it up. Plus, with PF2's generous ability score generation method, everything is pretty much equal, beginning stat-wise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

If you create a DMPC, I strongly suggest you hand off the character sheet to the most experienced player and have him run it in addition to his own character.

Be sure that the DMPC is a passive character that doesn't come up with his own ideas and just goes along with the group.

Also be sure to treat him like a "red shirt". When the going gets tough, he'll be the first to die. That way you can also test out the rules for the dying condition. <g>

I'd actually be careful with this. Maybe it's just the people I've played with, but I've found that I catch more flak for having an incompetent GNPC rather than one that's too competent. Very much a "Why is this person here again?".

I've found a good balance by having a GNPC that's a level behind people, but helps shore up some of the party's weaknesses. Like, say, a guide that knows some stuff about the wilderness we're in.


Odraude wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:

If you create a DMPC, I strongly suggest you hand off the character sheet to the most experienced player and have him run it in addition to his own character.

Be sure that the DMPC is a passive character that doesn't come up with his own ideas and just goes along with the group.

Also be sure to treat him like a "red shirt". When the going gets tough, he'll be the first to die. That way you can also test out the rules for the dying condition. <g>

I'd actually be careful with this. Maybe it's just the people I've played with, but I've found that I catch more flak for having an incompetent GNPC rather than one that's too competent. Very much a "Why is this person here again?".

I've found a good balance by having a GNPC that's a level behind people, but helps shore up some of the party's weaknesses. Like, say, a guide that knows some stuff about the wilderness we're in.

Yes, exactly, no spotlight hogging, but not just a useless wallflower, or worse, a liability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

IMHO, there's a difference between a "GMPC" and an NPC that for whatever reason accompanies the party of adventurers on their mission.

A GMPC is a very dangerous proposition for many reasons that would be totally off-thread to get into. The main ones, though, are:
- Since the DM knows all the secrets, his GMPC should never come up with clever ideas for the party.
- The DM is already rolling for all the adversaries and playing the roles of all NPCs encountered. He shouldn't also be burdened with playing the role of a party member. Less DM focus and less player spotlight time.

I can sympathize with a DM who never gets to just be a player. Try talking some of your pals into doing a rotating DM campaign.

If it's just so you can play with character creation alongside the players, great. But I'd still argue that it's essential to relegate all decisions and die rolling for that GMPC (especially during combat) to a competent player to control, as if he were a minion of some sort.


Wheldrake wrote:

IMHO, there's a difference between a "GMPC" and an NPC that for whatever reason accompanies the party of adventurers on their mission.

A GMPC is a very dangerous proposition for many reasons that would be totally off-thread to get into. The main ones, though, are:
- Since the DM knows all the secrets, his GMPC should never come up with clever ideas for the party.
- The DM is already rolling for all the adversaries and playing the roles of all NPCs encountered. He shouldn't also be burdened with playing the role of a party member. Less DM focus and less player spotlight time.

I can sympathize with a DM who never gets to just be a player. Try talking some of your pals into doing a rotating DM campaign.

If it's just so you can play with character creation alongside the players, great. But I'd still argue that it's essential to relegate all decisions and die rolling for that GMPC (especially during combat) to a competent player to control, as if he were a minion of some sort.

Bingo; and good one about letting one of the PCs run the NPC in combat, that can be fun for the player who wants to try something else out.


Back to the main topic...

Valiant wrote:

Anyone else having the feeling of:

"Oh, so paizo decided that a Goblin should be an alchemist. So, everybody and their grandmother who plays a Goblin will roll an alchemist.

I certainly haven't felt that way. I don't get the feeling of that from the forums here either.

Sure, goblins get an ability or two that synergizes well with alchemist: Burn It, and Charhide Goblin. These abilities also synergize well with fire damage dealing spellcasters.

They also get some abilities that synergize well with rogue: Very sneaky, Goblin Scuttle, and Razortooth Goblin.

So, no. I don't think that the ancestries strongly funnel players into a choice of class. Certainly less so than the 'favored class' rules of D&D 3.5.

And I certainly don't think that the presentation of the iconic characters are promoting a 'proper' way to build characters that everyone is going to follow.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I think it also helps that the books presents multiple different suggested build for each class, that typically look/act/feel very different than the iconic. So while they sill have iconics for narrative/default characters, the variety of character builds/uses is highlighted pretty strongly.

Dark Archive

Valiant wrote:

Anyone else having the feeling of:

"Oh, so paizo decided that a Goblin should be an alchemist. So, everybody and their grandmother who plays a Goblin will roll an alchemist. I don't want that." ?

(insert every other iconic character in there for reference..)

And as such you are looking for anything -but- creating your own character that is a copy of an iconic?

No, not really. I mean, my first character in both 1e and 2e are elven rogues, but neither of them are like the rogue iconic, and I don’t really mind that or even think about her when creating a character beyond how much I like her armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

If you create a DMPC, I strongly suggest you hand off the character sheet to the most experienced player and have him run it in addition to his own character.

Be sure that the DMPC is a passive character that doesn't come up with his own ideas and just goes along with the group.

Also be sure to treat him like a "red shirt". When the going gets tough, he'll be the first to die. That way you can also test out the rules for the dying condition. <g>

Everyone will be new-ish to the rules (they were in the playtest, but for them it's been months since they played it), so I would be hesitant to do that. Furthermore, the players wanted everyone to make a character, myself included, which is fine. I wanted to test out some of the new (and updated) options anyway, and a GMPC is a good way to do that.

Otherwise I'm well aware of this stuff; not the first time I made a GMPC, and if I'm with new players (or if I'm short on players), it won't be the last.


I thought that the whole reason we made the goblin iconic an alchemist was that it was an unexpected combination much like how the iconic ranger is a dwarf. With +dex, +cha, -wis I would have expected more goblin rogues, bards, and sorcerers for goblins with people avoiding playing the wise classes for obvious reasons, and the smart classes for stereotype reasons. I mean, as the only smol ancestry without a strength penalty you'd see a bunch of gobbo martials.


Valiant wrote:

Anyone else having the feeling of:

"Oh, so paizo decided that a Goblin should be an alchemist. So, everybody and their grandmother who plays a Goblin will roll an alchemist. I don't want that." ?

(insert every other iconic character in there for reference..)

And as such you are looking for anything -but- creating your own character that is a copy of an iconic?

No?

Honestly, I find the iconics a puzzling concept. Until I picked up a humble bundle of pathfinder books, I never realized that they were sticking the same characters in the art over and over again, but I still didn't know that these random folks were supposed to serve some sort of purpose.

It wasn't until the Advanced class book previews came out with the 'meet the iconics' articles that I even recognized the term. I still don't really know what the point is. Apart from a couple generic concepts (like elf rogue and old man wizard) they don't match very well to any characters I've ever seen people play at a table.

As for trying to match them, that seems an attempt at self-defeating the point of the game- making your own characters.

Silver Crusade

Voss wrote:

Honestly, I find the iconics a puzzling concept. Until I picked up a humble bundle of pathfinder books, I never realized that they were sticking the same characters in the art over and over again, but I still didn't know that these random folks were supposed to serve some sort of purpose.

It wasn't until the Advanced class book previews came out with the 'meet the iconics' articles that I even recognized the term. I still don't really know what the point is. Apart from a couple generic concepts (like elf rogue and old man wizard) they don't match very well to any characters I've ever seen people play at a table.

As for trying to match them, that seems an attempt at self-defeating the point of the game- making your own characters.

There are two reasons for the iconics:

1. They are the pregenerated characters available for download here on the Paizo site. So if anyone ever needs a pre-built character on short notice for a game, there they are. This happens a LOT in Pathfinder Society. We often joke that Kyra the Cleric is the busiest adventurer on Golarion, since any PFS table that doesn't have a healer will bring her along.

2. The iconics also appear as the main characters in the Pathfinder comic books. I'm not sure if they're also in the novel line, as I've never really looked into those. I only have a few of the comics because of a humble bundle, and I never did get around to actually reading them, though I'm mildly curious to do so.

Silver Crusade

As for the original topic, I don't think so. Actually, I'm expecting to see a lot more goblin rogues than anything else. I'm even considering making one myself. But I'm also considering a much weirder goblin build (champion of Cayden Cailean!), so I might do a different race for my rogue, just for variety.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:

There are two reasons for the iconics:

1. They are the pregenerated characters available for download here on the Paizo site. So if anyone ever needs a pre-built character on short notice for a game, there they are. This happens a LOT in Pathfinder Society. We often joke that Kyra the Cleric is the busiest adventurer on Golarion, since any PFS table that doesn't have a healer will bring her along.

2. The iconics also appear as the main characters in the Pathfinder comic books. I'm not sure if they're also in the novel line, as I've never really looked into those. I only have a few of the comics because of a humble bundle, and I never did get around to actually reading them, though I'm mildly curious to do so.

There's actually a third, the most important one and reason they exist:

3. Art Orders: A lot of artists for Pathfinder don't play the game and don't know what a Fighter or Rogue is in context and might not illustrate that properly, or at least not the way Paizo wanted, so they can instead of worrying about that ambiguity they can just show them an Iconic's picture and say 'Draw this person doing X'.

This makes a lot of things much easier.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Iconi characters and not wanting to roll one. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.