What makes the icons so iconic?

[Tegu8788]

First off, this is my curiosity, nothing to do with Next.

As I look at the various classes to hybridize, I really look at crunch and fluff, and sometimes there seems to be no reason for it. It's gotten me thinking about what is it, both crunch and fluff, that makes a class that class? What is it that makes a Ranger different from a Rogue? A Fighter from a Barbarian? A Paladin different from a Cleric? Sorcerer and Psion?

I don't need an explanation of roles as why you feel each class makes sense in the role. I know the Avenger, Warden, and Swordmage sometimes feel forced to fit a source for every role, but who doesn't love the Warlord? As someone that measures his game time in months, I'm asking those how have played for years, what is it that you find iconic about your favorite class?

Bonus: All the same, but for the Races.

Edit: To be clear, I am asking for opinions, with some degree of cross-edition gameplay. This thread is about your personal opinions. Opinions that I'm sure not everyone will like, but if you have a different opinion, just state it. No need to get into an argument, I just want as many peoples thoughts, different as they may be, heard here.

[incandescent]

I started playing this game as a warlord around the time it came out but i didn't ha e a clear definition of the leader role or the class itself so every feat of mine was spent on weapons and armor (i was sporting plate and a greatspear at level 8), so i've always had a skewed view of the warlord since then as a class that's supposed to be a fighter and healing heavy hitter.

However, the class i came to see as iconic due to the interaction of its mechanics is the warlock. In the PHB 1 days there wasn't really anything like it in the book (to me anyways). It had wizardly control elements in its attack powers, light skirmishing capabilities with shadow walk, inherent toughness in the infernal pact boon, and each boon felt like it made each warlock a different class. It was also the only class at the time that so directly rewarded you for downing an enemy which gave real mechanical benefit to the pact fluff. It had at least one aspect that could fill several gameplay niches. Hellish rebuke is still one of my favorite at will powers in the game as well.

So these days, even with all the options out there and all the DDI stuff, i still think of the warlock as one of y go to classes because of the uniqueness that comes from its generality.

[Ashdate]

RANT INCOMING.

From my perspective, I don't really know what the difference is between a fighter, a ranger, a warlord, and a barbarian. Certainly, they all play differently in the context of 4e, but their core mechanics (defending, two-weapon fighting, healing, raging) don't really properly define the class for me. The same goes for the cleric-paladin "divide" (and with 4e, add the avenger/rune-priest/invoker to it), and the wizard/sorcerer/warlock one too.

The worst is that the flavour of each is so bland (I'm not talking about 4e specifically; this was an issue for me in 3e) that many can use a class completely divorced from the flavour. If you're a ranger, I expect that you should have trained in the woods somewhere and fought bears or something. Not necessary!

And I don't necessarily have a problem with that; I would rather they just call someone who wields two-weapons with skill a "fighter" and (if the player wants) throw on some sort of ranger "kit" that gives them some nature-y skills and maybe an animal companion or something.

To me, there are only a handful of archetypes to D&D; the Fighter, the Cleric, the Rogue, and the Wizard (add the Psion if using psionics). Nearly every class neatly falls into some variation of those four. I imagine I would like 4e (and to be clear, I DO like 4e) a lot more if it based itself off of those archtypes, rather than trying to pretend that a "Seeker" is worth having it's own class for.

Although they won't for 5e (and I think it's a missed opportunity to bring the game back to something more fundamental), I would prefer if you have a core fighter who was the skeleton for the ranger/barbarian/warlord. Want to defend allies? Take the Paladin kit. Want to deal lots of damage? Take the Barbarian kit. Want to be a skill guy? Take the Ranger kit. Want to be a leader? Take the Warlord Kit, Want to be a generalist? Here's the core fighter kit which has bits of all of them.

Okay, rant over.

[Tegu8788]

Please, I actually want that kinda rant. The good, the bad. Want to elaborate on why you like the "core four," and why those four, as opposed to say Paladin, Ranger, Druid, and Sorcerer?

[Ashdate]

Please, I actually want that kinda rant. The good, the bad. Want to elaborate on why you like the "core four," and why those four, as opposed to say Paladin, Ranger, Druid, and Sorcerer?

Because at their core, a Paladin is just either a pious Fighter (or a Cleric with a bigger weapon), a ranger is just a fighter with a nature-tinged flavour, a druid is simply a cleric who specializes in nature-themed magic, and a sorcerer is just an alternate wizard whose magic comes naturally, rather than through study.

Starting with the latter four as a "base" all of a sudden skews the "core" nature of each character (i.e. you can't be a "fighter-type" without being at least slight gung-ho for religion). Not that that wouldn't make an interesting setting (or another game), but it wouldn't make an interesting "core" D&D.

The Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard I think are broad enough archetypes that are vague enough to build most any concept of a character around (some think the cleric and wizard are too similar, which I won't contest. It would simply be a personal preference to have them split up).

[Kurald Galain]

The first question is, which races and classes actually are iconic? Arguably, a sorcerer or psion or avenger isn't iconic at all, but just created for the sake of some mechanical gimmick, or for the sake of printing more books.

Can you find a character in literature or in movies that clearly (and without too much argument) represents a certain class? If so, then you have an iconic. For instance, Conan is clearly a barbarian, and Pug/Milamber is clearly a wizard. It's as easy as that. On the other hand, can you give me any well-known character from fiction that is clearly a battlemind? I didn't think so.

[Surrealistik]

Psions are _not_ iconic?

What?

[incandescent]

It's not classic fiction but i see many of the biotics from the mass effect universe as battleminds and psions. :smalltongue:

[Urpriest]

By the fiction criteria, I would argue that Factotums are iconic, since pretty much every "stat up X fictional character" thread is filled with Factotums.

[Surrealistik]

I'm personally under the impression that powerful psychics (psions) of various kinds are actually very much iconic given their distinct prevalence in sci-fi, fantasy and gaming alike.

[Ashdate]

On the other hand, can you give me any well-known character from fiction that is clearly a battlemind? I didn't think so.

Ever see this movie called "Star Wars"? Nah, it's probably too obscure.

[LaZodiac]

To me, atleast for the divine classes, it was HOW they delivered their divine powers that made the difference, and made them cool and iconic. Paladins smite at foes with powerful strikes, but at the end of the day they don't use much holy power, just enough to make their sword all glowy. Cleric's speak the words of gods, and for me this should show in their powers. For instance, a Lance of Faith from a Cleric of Bahamut is going to look different then from one of Kord. This is something I've got in mind for all the other divine classes, but it shows most in the Cleric, which makes them iconic for me.

Avengers more buff their body then their weapons, which gives them a sort of aura of their god, which is what makes them iconic for me. The image of a Paladin, sword glowing, is different to me then an Avenger's body wreathed in a godly aura. Runepriests, meanwhile are covered with scripte, and draw runes in the air, which seems quite different to me from the other classes.

Invoker's are basically Gandalf, shouting the word (be it heaven or otherwise) at their enemies.

So yha, that's how I differentiate between the divine classes :smalltongue:

[Reluctance]

There doesn't need to be the split between holy magic guy and other magic guy, so the UA generic classes really do cover all your basics. The core four (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard) are just the purest expressions of combat, skills, holy magic, and other magic respectively.

As for what makes a class iconic at this point in the game, I'd have to say precedent. Oh, it helps a lot if you can point to a bunch of fantasy characters and say "it's kinda like this", but things like the paladin benefit more from showing up as core in so many editions of D&D than they do from showing up in so many movies.

Races have a similar "they've been a core part of D&D for so long" thing going for them. Except in the case of races, the LotR influence is much clearer. Both on D&D directly, on fantasy after that, and noticeably, in how D&D itself has influenced fantasy to a significant degree. And has been influenced in turn.

[Kurald Galain]

Ever see this movie called "Star Wars"? Nah, it's probably too obscure.

Snark aside, what do you actually mean? If you go to a random person on the street and ask him "is Gandalf a fighter or a wizard?" they will say "wizard, duh". If you ask them whether Obi-Wan is an ardent or a battlemind, they will just look at you in confusion. This is precisely why wizards are iconic and ardents are not.

Note that Obi-Wan is just my example; I have honestly no idea which character you're referring to that might be considered a 4E psionic class.



By the fiction criteria, I would argue that Factotums are iconic, since pretty much every "stat up X fictional character" thread is filled with Factotums.
And yet they are not, because the average person has no idea what a "factotum" is. Note how many, many games have fighters and wizards in them, and only 3E D&D has factotums (the other editions don't, even). They're actually a pretty good example of a class that exists only to show off some mechanical gimmick.

[Gorbad]

Psions are _not_ iconic?

What?

I don't think so, no. They are magic, you are just supposedly doing it with your mind rather than some other force. So its just an additional magic system that seemed to require reams of rules to try and be special. Now magic it self is fairly fundamental to D&D. Even if you are running a very low magic setting there will likely be magic somewhere. If there is no magic at all it starts becoming a different game.Psionics on the other hand are IMO very much an optional extra, it won't feel any more or less like D&D if you have it or not. Now if we are talking about Dark Sun I'd say its iconic and part of the reason you play that, but outside of that its a fringe aspect of the game.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't think so, no. They are magic, you are just supposedly doing it with your mind rather than some other force.
Precisely. In that, they are exactly the same as wizards in most fictional settings. There's nothing iconic about psions, in that you won't find them anywhere outside D&D fiction.

[Urpriest]

And yet they are not, because the average person has no idea what a "factotum" is. Note how many, many games have fighters and wizards in them, and only 3E D&D has factotums (the other editions don't, even). They're actually a pretty good example of a class that exists only to show off some mechanical gimmick.

Oh rest assured, I'm not asserting that the concept of Factotum itself is iconic. That said, it clearly covers an iconic fantasy concept, and a far more common one than Fighters, Wizards, or the like, namely that of the Action Hero, or Protagonist. When most fantasy protagonists have a smattering of magical and martial ability and solve most problems not through being more powerful than their opponents in any particular dimension but through cleverness and plot, the idea that recognizable fantasy archetypes give rise to iconic classes tends to break down.

[Ashdate]

Snark aside, what do you actually mean? If you go to a random person on the street and ask him "is Gandalf a fighter or a wizard?" they will say "wizard, duh". If you ask them whether Obi-Wan is an ardent or a battlemind, they will just look at you in confusion. This is precisely why wizards are iconic and ardents are not.

You're shifting the goal posts. You asked for a "well-known character from fiction that is clearly a battlemind", not a "well-known character from fiction who people identify as a battlemind".

(Obviously, they don't need to refer to Jedi as "battleminds" in Star Wars, and D&D can't refer to "battleminds" as Jedi in D&D, but they're essentially the same concept. )

Don't get me wrong, I see your point (and while I would seperate psions and wizards, fair enough if you want to combine them and clerics into a big catagory known as "magic"), and agree that it's silly to create classes to fill "gaps"; just create classes that can fill multiple archetypes/stereotypes/tropes/whatever and give them substantial enough options to focus them in a particular direction.

[Kurald Galain]

You're shifting the goal posts. You asked for a "well-known character from fiction that is clearly a battlemind", not a "well-known character from fiction who people identify as a battlemind".
No, that is what I meant the first time. To be iconic, it has to be recognizable to many people; not just those who read a particular D&D rulebook.

Besides, according to the D&D rulebook, battleminds transform into liquid goo to increase your damage; hit a guy with a stick to make him feel bad about himself; turn their blade into mist to make it easier to hit people; set themselves on fire in order to hurt people; and steal a foe's appearance, which makes him attempt suicide. None of that is particularly associated with Jedi in any Star Wars movie that I've see.

[Reverent-One]

Besides, according to the D&D rulebook, battleminds transform into liquid goo to increase your damage; hit a guy with a stick to make him feel bad about himself; turn their blade into mist to make it easier to hit people; set themselves on fire in order to hurt people; and steal a foe's appearance, which makes him attempt suicide. None of that is particularly associated with Jedi in any Star Wars movie that I've see.

The problem with this argument is there is a lot of stuff a D&D wizard does that we never see Wizards like Gandalf do.

[Raimun]

I guess I can't see the issue here? I can usually see the niche a class was build for.

For example, divine classes. All might gain their power from the same source but they apply the power in different ways and have distinct roles in society.

Cleric is basically a priest. Most often a spiritual leader of a community.

Paladin is a knight empowered with divine power. He's the champion of the people.

Avenger is divine assassins. They might use more questionable methods than Paladins in pursuit of their duties. Normal people might have never even heard of them.

[Kurald Galain]

I guess I can't see the issue here? I can usually see the niche a class was build for.

Well, according to the book there are also paladins who are spiritual leaders of the community, and also clerics who are knights empowered with divine power. And this is before the whole concept of "4E fluff is interchangeable", too.

[Surrealistik]

Precisely. In that, they are exactly the same as wizards in most fictional settings. There's nothing iconic about psions, in that you won't find them anywhere outside D&D fiction.

I think there's plenty to differentiate Psions from Wizards; the delineation between psychic powers and magic is very clear and apparent, even if there is some overlap between what the two can actually do. While they're probably not as prolific as Wizards in fiction, they are certainly widespread, popularly known and featured in it if by Psions we mean powerful psychics ala Akira, the Combine, Yuri of the Red Alert series, countless superheroes, Star Trek characters and the like.

[Raimun]

Well, according to the book there are also paladins who are spiritual leaders of the community, and also clerics who are knights empowered with divine power. And this is before the whole concept of "4E fluff is interchangeable", too.

So... by that logic Avenger is the most iconic divine class? :smalltongue:

[Zombimode]

Don't get me wrong, I see your point (and while I would seperate psions and wizards, fair enough if you want to combine them and clerics into a big catagory known as "magic"), and agree that it's silly to create classes to fill "gaps"; just create classes that can fill multiple archetypes/stereotypes/tropes/whatever and give them substantial enough options to focus them in a particular direction.

But why is this any less "silly" than just having a larger range of classes to begin with?

Why is picking the "Fighter" class and then the "Paladin" theme any better then just picking the "Paladin" class?

[Tegu8788]

But why is this any less "silly" than just having a larger range of classes to begin with?

Why is picking the "Fighter" class and then the "Paladin" theme any better then just picking the "Paladin" class?

Or "Fighter with a Cleric MC." Or "Cleric with a Fighter MC." This is what I'm looking for. Is the Wizard defined by the mechanics it uses, it's apparel, or the fact it can cast fireball and magic missile?

Does the skill monkey character make you a rogue, or is it using light blades, or being sneaky? How does it compare to a bard or ninja? It is a matter of X+Y+Z=Fighter where as X+Y+Q=Paladin?

[Ashdate]

But why is this any less "silly" than just having a larger range of classes to begin with?

I was specifically referring to 4e's strange desire to have a primal "defender", a primal "controller", a primal "leader" (etc.) when there was no real precedent. Despite my disagreement with Kurald that there is no "iconic Battlemind", he has a point; there were many classes there were created in 4e for the sake of having them (i.e. the Seeker, the Swordmage), rather than because they were filling some "gap". But to your other question...


Why is picking the "Fighter" class and then the "Paladin" theme any better then just picking the "Paladin" class?

Because the two, traditionally (that being the fighter and the paladin, and I would add, the barbarian and ranger there too), aren't very different, mechanically speaking.

You could theoretically have an arbitrarily large amount of classes (Thief! Rogue! Swashbuckler! Thug! Acrobat! Ninja!), but I think that just leads to unneeded bloat and complexity.

Consider a model like 4e's, where you have a "fighter" class and a "ranger" class. This means you also have fighter specific powers, feats, feats, paragon paths, etc. as well as a ranger specific powers, feats, paragon paths, etc. That's a lot of segmented design space for two classes that are VERY similar (mechanically speaking).

[Tegu8788]

I was specifically referring to 4e's strange desire to have a primal "defender", a primal "controller", a primal "leader" (etc.) when there was no real precedent. Despite my disagreement with Kurald that there is no "iconic Battlemind", he has a point; there were many classes there were created in 4e for the sake of having them (i.e. the Seeker, the Swordmage), rather than because they were filling some "gap". But to your other question...

I think it would have been wiser to have more Role based "builds" or sub-classes than necessarily extra classes, but no one would question that Captain America is clearly a Warlord, the Hulk a Barbarian, and Legolas is a Ranger. Jedi certainly do what a Battlemind does, but I don't see them as a perfect 1 to 1. If you view a psion as using "psychic magic" then I completely understand why you'd see it as just another Wizard. But if you, like me, view it as a matter of Wizards manipulating an outside force, while Psions channel an innate internal power, they feel pretty different. That then blurs the line with Sorcerers, but that's another matter.

[Kurald Galain]

You could also say that Jedi are clearly a swordmage, or clearly an avenger. Just saying.

[hamishspence]

There's swordmage powers that feel pretty Jedi-ish (or rather, Sith-ish- lifting target up and choking them, for example)- what produces a Jedi feel to the avenger?

[Kurald Galain]

There's swordmage powers that feel pretty Jedi-ish (or rather, Sith-ish- lifting target up and choking them, for example)- what produces a Jedi feel to the avenger?

That the force feels like divine power, and that they are very, very accurate. I find this a better match than the shapeshifting and illusion-wielding constitution-based battleminds. But personally I would go for swordmage, hands down.

[Tegu8788]

Well, the wisdom focus for one. Using supernatural powers to rush around a battlefield to slash something with your giant one hit kill glowing sword is another. Cloth robes also look right.

Gandalf is clearly a wizard, but things like Jedi, while clearly iconic, don't have a perfect match. Once you explain what a class is I imagine certain people would pick different classes, it's just the fact that ardent isn't nearly as popular as a fighter.

But if you ask someone that doesn't play any games what a cleric or rogue is, I suspect you'd get some rather different answers. Fighter and wizard are well known.

[NotScaryBats]

I hate skillmonkeys. I think the concept is lame. If you're a hero, you should be able to deal with traps, deal with locks, etc. The idea of having a class based around that is really lame to me.

I don't like how 'archer' is not an iconic thing in D&D. Is it a Rogue? Ranger? Fighter? Hailey from OotS is a Rogue, but is Legolas? Hawkeye?

D&D is a game, and LotR isn't, and I have never really thought you could 'play Gandalf' so the argument / thought process of 'Gandalf is a wizard, so wizard is iconic to D&D' doesn't jive with me. You don't have to state all of your fiction characters' powers, abilities, and skills, but you do for a character in a game.

I think the iconic roles of D&D should be:
Melee person. Please don't be worse in every way than everyone else.
Gish. Its cool to be able to swordfight and magic things to death.
Healer. You gotta have a healer for some reason. Its nice when they can do something else too.
Blaster. Spells to kill people with.
Ranged. Guns or bows. It'd be cool if Melee Person could do this too, but its a game, so you can only be good at one thing.

I think the iconic roles of D&D actually are:
Melee guy. You start strong and will become obsolete, sorry.
Healbot. You can buff too, sometimes. Buff yourself and cheat the system!
Shapechanger. I don't know when this happened but its been everywhere for awhile, now.
Magic guy. You start weak and get stronger later.
Sneaky guy. High Dex, light armor, can do more with a dagger than fighter can with a greatsword. Also can do traps and sneak and...

Those are the ideas that hold the most traction with me. I think 4e hit the nail on the head by making everyone good at combat. They did a lot for making everyone good at skills, too.

[Tegu8788]

Just to be clear, I'm asking about icons in gaming, not just in D&D. Granted, an incredible amount of games and fantasy genre has be partially or heavily influenced by one version of D&D or another, but I don't want people to restrict themselves to just D&D icons.

[NotScaryBats]

Oh, I missed that.
In something as broad as gaming in general, I think icons would be more like:

Good Guy. paladin, cop, the guy who is a hero
Outlaw. rogue, criminal, the 'do what he wants' guy
Smart Guy. wizard, scientist, the brains

Then just variations of that. A Smart Outlaw? Probably a Bastard. A Good Outlaw? Han Solo.

[Lord Raziere]

I dunno.

I kinda like how each and every class is subtly differentiated.

I would hate to see a Paladin play the same as a Fighter, or a Ranger play the same as a Rogue and so on and so forth.

I mean, if I have a Psion and a Wizard, but they use the same mechanics and only their fluff is different…..then its not really a Psion or a Wizard. different energies and methods mean different kinds of mechanics for doing them.

[Tegu8788]

And those are what I'm looking for, how similar can you get before you completely lose the difference? The Controllers and Strikers have gotten a bit of a raw deal in 4E on that regard.

[Raimun]

And those are what I'm looking for, how similar can you get before you completely lose the difference? The Controllers and Strikers have gotten a bit of a raw deal in 4E on that regard.

I think Strikers are a diverse bunch.

Basically there are two main branches, melee and ranged:

Melee
-Rangers are woodsmen (+two weapon fighting)
-Rogues are urban thieves (can be ranged too)
-Avengers are setting specific, robed, mystical warriors (yes, it's an archetype :smalltongue:), like jedi
-Barbarians are berserkers
-Monks are martial artists
-Assassins are assassins
-Vampires are, well, vampires
-Slayers are warriors (as in "shock troopers" not "bodyguards")

Ranged
-Ranger is hunter
-Warlock is faustesque magician
-Sorcerer is natural born magician

Also, I'd like to ask is it a problem if a class isn't iconic or archetypal, as long as it has a distinct feel?

Let's take a look at Warden: a tough, "bodyguard" type warrior of the wilds who has mystical, nature themed powers. I can't think of any other examples from any piece of fiction that matches the description. That's distinct. In a way, Warden is an archetype of its own but it just isn't known outside of D&D.

Example B: Jedi. Psychic, space warrior-monks with laser swords. I'm quite sure there wasn't anything fitting the description in any piece of fiction before 1977 and Episode IV. Apparently, that wasn't a problem for the general public and now in 2012 jedi is an archetypal figure people recognize.

What I'm saying is that iconic archetypes are always a combination of different characteristics, even such basic ones as "warrior". What makes them iconic is how well known they are.

[tarlison]

Well the force in starwars is not exactly pure psionics its alot of stuff maybe part divine part arcane part primal and part psionic so its possible a jedi is some sort of a avenger

[Tegu8788]

I feel like we've mostly figured out what is iconic, class wise. Now, why?

What are the elements that shout "Wizard" the second we see Gandalf? I think we would all agree that mechanically Indian Jones is a rogue, but why? Why is a Roman Gladiator clearly a Fighter?

[tarlison]

I feel like we've mostly figured out what is iconic, class wise. Now, why?

What are the elements that shout "Wizard" the second we see Gandalf? I think we would all agree that mechanically Indian Jones is a rogue, but why? Why is a Roman Gladiator clearly a Fighter?

Well Gandalf might been a wizard/swordmage hybrid :-) you could make him like that :-) since he fights with a blade and cast spells at the same time :-)

[NotScaryBats]

Looking at some famous books I've read, I ... guess I don't really see iconic D&D classes there.

Wheel of Time
Rand. Uses a sword like a boss, casts the best magic, so he's a super awesome gish.
Perrin. Talks to wolves, uses an axe super well, so is he a ranger? He doesn't dual wield, he's a blacksmith, and he only has the wolf thing.
Mat. Lucky, has some magic powers, so a bard? I guess?

Sword of Truth
Richard. Fights awesomely, is magical, so he's a super awesome gish.
Zed. A wizard, who is fairly wizardly.

Looking back at some more obscure ones, like Mercedes Lackey books and Piers Anthony... Maybe my memory is failing me, but isn't almost every main character a magical swordfighter?

[Kurald Galain]

Looking back at some more obscure ones, like Mercedes Lackey books and Piers Anthony... Maybe my memory is failing me, but isn't almost every main character a magical swordfighter?

No, really not. Lackey's characters are fairly well split between swordfighters (e.g. Tarna, Kerowyn) and casters (e.g. Kethry, Vanyel, Lavan).

Anthony's characters (assuming you meant Xanth, his main fantasy series) are mostly ordinary peasants with one gimmicky power that just happens to be useful throughout the book.

But if your point is that Gish is a common fantasy archetype, then yes, it absolutely is. It's also one that D&D has not always represented well, although I feel that 3E's duskblade and 4E's swordmage do a good job at it.

[NotScaryBats]

Sure, Tarma is a swordfighter, but Kethry is a powerful mage with a magical sword that makes her a master swordfighter.

In most fiction, the delicate, physically useless mage just really doesn't seem to be a thing, either because they have a magical item that curtails the problem (above), 'magic is a seriously physical exercise, so you need to be in good health to practice it (The Glass Dragon),' or something.

On the flipside, most magic users in fiction aren't 'universe rewriters' a la 20th level mages.

But most of all, I think the crux of the matter is that D&D is not fiction. It can't be. Comparing the two is not really very useful, in my opinion, other than 'this would be a cool idea to see what my players do with it.'

But, as this is all just my opinion on the matter, take it with how ever many grains of whatever spices you desire.