Iconic Classes and Specialties

[Dhampire]

To help speed up character creation, I've put together the attached table.
It lists the Iconic Classes and Specialties for the species that have them.

This should help situations such as:
Someone missing that an Elf can be a Captain as an iconic class, until he sees the Hart Nation feat, and then rebuilding his character to better suit his concept.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, that a Rootwalker can be iconic as a Sage, which would be quite important for imparting Wise Council.

[Daedalus]

Pretty cool quick reference.  It's most of my player's wishes to play humans since talents are kinda neat, but I hadn't taken a good look at the other race's feats until now.  Interest piqued, many (if not all) of them are on par with talents it seems! 

[Rhishisikk]

Yes, but you spend a feat to get there.  If you find the 'Racial Feats' offensive, let Human players suggest feats from other sources as Human racial feats.  Trust me, players are MUCH better at finding these than GC (especially if you want a life outside of gaming), and if they understand a 'tough but fair' policy, they are eager to find a similar mechanic in another race's feat so it actually balances.

Now I just need to beat into their heads that CLASSES (especially prestige classes) don't transfer.

[Crafty_Pat]

Would you like us to host this in our Fan Submissions section?

[Dhampire]

Sure.  That would be nice.

[Crafty_Pat]

Done!

[VisualStatic]

A quick question about Iconic Classes and Specialities, is the only benefit to them is not loosing 2 action dice for the class, and the speciality feat.   Or is there something I"m missing?

[Aragathor]

A quick question about Iconic Classes and Specialities, is the only benefit to them is not loosing 2 action dice for the class, and the speciality feat.   Or is there something I"m missing?

Not really. "Iconic" specialties and classes are a way to say to the player "if you take these, you won't get punished by thinking out of the box".
I don't like them and I think that they railroad the character development towards certain builds.
I know they are a way to balance the "awesome" abilities of species, but I would have preferred the D&D approach that allows players to create wacky character concepts without taking something from them.

[Mister Andersen]

Yeah, they're a right pain in the arse, especially at low levels, but they are a mechanism that lets you say "my elves aren't like your elves" by changing their iconic limitations.

[Morgenstern]

A quick question about Iconic Classes and Specialities, is the only benefit to them is not loosing 2 action dice for the class, and the speciality feat. Or is there something I"m missing?

They aren't benefits at all. They are purely drawbacks that offset other benefits the package offers beyond the normal level of awesome for an Origin. Drawbacks that can be casually avoided by fitting in with the archetypes presented.

Being an iconoclast is allowed, but doing so has value, and so it also has a cost.

[VisualStatic]

Thanks guys, I now know how I'll handle them.   I just wasn't sure if I was missing something in the FC book, I couldn't seem to find a definition anywhere other then what was listed under each species.

[Morganti]

Thanks guys, I now know how I'll handle them.   I just wasn't sure if I was missing something in the FC book, I couldn't seem to find a definition anywhere other then what was listed under each species.

How do you plan to handle them? I am curious.  The various outcries about the banned/iconic stuff has been pretty amusing to witness.  But I subscribe to the theroy, everything has a price.

[Mister Andersen]

Random selection?

[Aragathor]

How do you plan to handle them? I am curious.  The various outcries about the banned/iconic stuff has been pretty amusing to witness.  But I subscribe to the theory, everything has a price.

Yeah, because no one has the right to feel differently than the authors, right? And anyone against the limits is a yahoo.

Sarcasm aside, the species presented in FC are not the same species as those in D&D (only the names are identical), and certain ideas used in their creation stand in conflict with things that some people liked in the 3.5ed.
In fact I see the "iconic" limitations as a step backwards towards the AD&D, which I do not really welcome.
But to each his own.
I am however thankful that Blankbeard has done the point lists for species/talents/specialties. This will allow for a quick and limitless conversion of the 3.5 races.

[Morganti]

Even in 3.5, power came with a price, ECL and the like made some concepts unplayabe at low levels, and when they came into play, were flat out better than non ecled options.  The favored class mechanic in 3.x sucked.  The ECL mechanic, sucked.

I am the first to say ima die hard crafty fan boy, but that was born of how much 3.x and d2 moderned felt crappy after playing with and expermenting with the crafty systems.  So yeah its amusing to see peoples reactions to balancing mechanics especially in light of comparing them to 3.x which imho has pretty crapy balancing mechanics and some poor design decisions >because< they are beholden to some sort of paradigim.

The first thing I would tell someone when looking at the fantasy craft races, is they are not 3.5.  And to look at some of the characters from fiction, who broke tradtion.  Did they struggle for there eventual power gain? Did they have it easier or harder than there conformist brethern?

Now a completly seperate discussion is are the prices paid for being non conformist, worth it? To much? To little?