Iconic Classes and Specialties

[spinningdice]

To put it another way, you want to play something wacky, play it for Roleplaying reasons so you can earn those missing AD back.

[Gentry]

Or play an iconic specialty or class against type. Be a Rootwalker Explorer, but take the Fist specialty to be a wandering martial artist. 

[Daedalus]

To put it another way, you want to play something wacky, play it for Roleplaying reasons so you can earn those missing AD back.

Also suggesting successful subplots like "Getting my fellow Rootwalkers (family, community) to accept me as a martial artist."  Or taking Fortunate to increase action die pool size.  I think there's plenty of ways to get around it.

Or play an iconic specialty or class against type. Be a Rootwalker Explorer, but take the Fist specialty to be a wandering martial artist. 

This is kinda fun.  According to the OP document, the Elves are the only race that have both Iconic classes and Specialties, but this is typical of elves in many fantasy setting including Tolkien.  Elves aren't necessarily fond of change, but they're damn good at what they do, often better than any human could be.

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.

If you're going to eliminate these restrictions, at least add some flaw that encourages (not forces) a different play style, like hollow bones for Elves, Materialism for Dwarves, Hunted for Drakes, etc.  I think that the iconic limitations are a good holdover but I can definitely see where houserule and your personal setting becomes the rule of law.
 

[mach1.9pants]

My problem with it is not if you go against the iconics, but with. If you go with your iconics you are felt out more powerful than the average (I am taking humans as the average). But I also am a bit disappointed in such a great toolkit set of rules they have applied one version of fantasy culture to race, mechanics wise. I am a big fan of splitting cultural mechanics from racial mechanics. I find it a little (because it is almost every rule system and I am resigned to always having to house rule it out) annoying that all elven cultures prefer Sage or Scout. What if my elves have a similar culture to Anglo Saxon Britain? Then Sage or Scout doesn't fit.

So I have to go through the races and split purely physical characteristics (e.g. elf sight) from assumed cultural tendencies. That is easy but then I have to balance it so every PCs race are equal and all the cultures I design around are equal. Just a pity this wasn't done as the standard in FC, it seems a real backwards step from being a toolkit design.

[Daedalus]

My problem with it is not if you go against the iconics, but with. If you go with your iconics you are felt out more powerful than the average (I am taking humans as the average). But I also am a bit disappointed in such a great toolkit set of rules they have applied one version of fantasy culture to race, mechanics wise. I am a big fan of splitting cultural mechanics from racial mechanics. I find it a little (because it is almost every rule system and I am resigned to always having to house rule it out) annoying that all elven cultures prefer Sage or Scout. What if my elves have a similar culture to Anglo Saxon Britain? Then Sage or Scout doesn't fit.

So I have to go through the races and split purely physical characteristics (e.g. elf sight) from assumed cultural tendencies. That is easy but then I have to balance it so every PCs race are equal and all the cultures I design around are equal. Just a pity this wasn't done as the standard in FC, it seems a real backwards step from being a toolkit design.

The four Elven nations add choices to their iconic classes, but these usually come with a disadvantage or only a small benefit.  The disadvantage here being (as mentioned earlier) that you're a feat behind a standard character (human) who could just hop right on in.

 An alternative to this would be to wrap up racial variant into Racial Talents similar to human talents, with the main benefits being a cultural one (like removal of iconic specialties/classes) and the access to culture-specific feats.  This way he elves aren't that far behind humans, but each culture comes with advantages and disadvantages to be fair.  This essentially seems like it's unbalanced in the favor of the non-human races, but 5 out of my 7 players have chosen to be human so far, since human talents weigh in heavier (or provide unique bonuses) compared to racial feats.

[Morgenstern]

What if my elves have a similar culture to Anglo Saxon Britain? Then Sage or Scout doesn't fit.

The bottom line there is that if that's the case then your elves aren't the ones in the book - 'elf' has multiple meaning to multiple people and trying to make a universal version of 'elf' that is all things to all people would have been savagely gumbo and at the end of the day dull. Crafty cannot possibly be held responsible for creating everyone's "my elves" with a single example. What you see in the book is a specific type of or take on 'elf' and I genuinely hope it's not for everybody. It's pretty clear that swapping Iconic Classes and specialties to a different set of equal size doesn't change the overall balance of the races. I'm pretty sure there is a sidebar about that in the Origin of Species products. And if that's not enough to mold them to what you want, then yes, Blankbeard's deconstruction thread might be of use to you in adjusting it further while being confident that your creation is in keeping with Crafty's ideas about balance between the various species - if that even matters to you.

I absolutely agree that in the long run getting the tools to make your own playable species will make Fantasy Craft and the Mastercraft system as a whole into stronger games, but the timing on that is up to the Crafty². Clearly there is demand for it.

[Morgenstern]

So I have to go through the races and split purely physical characteristics (e.g. elf sight) from assumed cultural tendencies.

*Chuckle* Why would you assume that Iconic Class or Specialties are cultural?

[Psion]

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.

To each their own indeed. As for me, I was sort of getting tired of how different races had almost devolved into "humans in funny suits" in D&D 3e; an NPC in a city could randomly be just about any major playable race. I appreciate that in FC, it seems like there's a concerted effort to make non-humans appear... well, non-human!

As for "what if elves in my world are different..." the Pat, Alex, and Scott have always been big on the idea that "it's your game now". During the early days of Spycraft, that might not have been too obvious if you weren't engaged with them. However, this time around, they make this philosophy pretty clear, I think, on page 315 of "Fantasy Craft", under the section "Changing the Rules."

However, I believe the rule as written will functionally fulfill what most people want to do with it most of the time.

[mach1.9pants]

So I have to go through the races and split purely physical characteristics (e.g. elf sight) from assumed cultural tendencies.

*Chuckle* Why would you assume that Iconic Class or Specialties are cultural?

So you'd say an elf brought up amongst dwarves would still have sage/scout? Well I really disagree but it is only opinion.

To your previous post I am not wanting crafty to make my elves but (as a toolkit approach) I think having any cultural aspects tied to race is a negative. But it certainly isn't hard to change the iconic classes/specialities to what fits my campaign

[Morgenstern]

*Chuckle* Why would you assume that Iconic Class or Specialties are cultural?

So you'd say an elf brought up amongst dwarves would still have sage/scout? Well I really disagree but it is only opinion.

Salmon would rather die than swim up a creek other that the one they were born in. Some biological proclivities are REALLY STRONG. Elves are FEY, not folk. Not biological creatures at all. To say growing up around dwarves is a stronger influence than the call of the woods and growing things that is the very essence of their other worldly existance is to show how human youur thinking is and how little you understand the fair folk... Or, at least I could make a case for it .

[Morgenstern]

And basically the rules as they stand would allow an elf raised around dwarves to take any class he chooses - he'd just be a bit conflicted by having ignored the callings of his people (-2 action dice) and have to be played well to overcome that. But he's also got the iconoclast's benefit that anyone expecting 'just another elf' is gonna get a rude surprise in what this one can actually do.

And in my personal vision of dwarves, his guardians and caretakers would be totally understanding about the young elf's difficulties. Family is crucial, but blood will not be denied. Dwarves know that, right down to their stones.

[mach1.9pants]

Those are really good points and a good way of looking at it. Maybe my fault is just thinking of elves/dwarves etc as too much humans with pointy ears/beards.....You have really given me something to mull over, thanks! My culture thing is because it annoys me that only humans have different cultures in 'standard' DnD -to such an extent that in 4E elves got split to clear up the different standard elf cultures: woodsman/loremaster. But a biological imperative I really really like! It is great to have ones preconceptions/ideas changed.

Back to the drawing board on my campaign now

[MugMug]

*Chuckle* Why would you assume that Iconic Class or Specialties are cultural?

Because we all know the differences between groups of people are entirely cultural, and with just a little more of the right education can be completely overcome. Or, at least that's what we've been taught in the US for the last 50 years or so. That reminds me, being the enlightened fellow that I am I've offered to my wife to carry our next child to term.

Walter

[VisualStatic]

Well, first, I didn't mean to start such an out cry.  I was trying to see if I was missing a section of the book or something giving more detail about the Iconic classes and specialities.

Second, since what is listed is all there is to iconics, I haven't completely decided how to handle them.   My first, thought is that characters shouldn't be punished/penalized for doing something original.   

So I could just toss them out, but that sees to be a waste.

My idea is that playing an iconic is not playing something traditional or formalistic.   Maybe I'm just thinking of it differently, players should may get something extra instead of having to play something to get whatever one else would.

[Daedalus]

My idea is that playing an iconic is not playing something traditional or formalistic.   Maybe I'm just thinking of it differently, players should may get something extra instead of having to play something to get whatever one else would.

I think you're on to something here.  If you keep it so that not playing iconic inflicts RAW penalties, you might just have to provide them with RP opportunities to validate their contrarian choices and give them the AD back.  It seems like it could be extra work for you.  I think some good ideas were shared here.  I didn't think of it so much as an uproar.