D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

[Kaervaslol]

AD&D mechanics are somewhat dissociated (there are a lot of special abilities that are exclusive to monsters) while still keeping some sort of relation with character rules (HD, THAC0, saves, spell levels).

It works fine for the most part and makes creating monsters in the spot a breeze.

[Ashdate]

"Sorry guys, that craptastic display was a daily power, we're SOL."

I would note that despite being a "save multiple times or lose" power and with (typically) having a better than 50% chance to save out of any effect (like Sleep), 4e's Sleep spell is still considered a strong power, even without the boosters that can make it even better. If anything, when designing 5e's "Sleep" spell they should look at 4e's and make it worse.

[1337 b4k4]

Second, the main problem is that SoD/SoS effects exist. It has nothing to do with PC/NPC symmetry.

This of course assumes that you think save or die is a bad thing.

[Craft (Cheese)]

This of course assumes that you think save or die is a bad thing.

Yeah, actually, I do. They're not (in the long term) fun to use, they're not fun to get hit by. The only valid reason for the Medusa to have that gaze attack is because that's what the mythological Medusa could do.

[Acanous]

Personally I enjoy SoD/SoL.
As long as it is available to both PCs and NPCs alike, it's just another tactical option to be considered.

You're doing Group on Group combat. One character or monster death isn't going to end the *Combat* much less the campaign.

That's why Reincarnation comes on line at the same time as Phantasmal Killer.

[tbok1992]

As a little bit of an aside to less-serious 5e matters, anybody hoping that when they make Dragonborn subraces, we get Linnorm, Oriental Dragon and Gem Dragon based subraces along with the obvious Chromatic and Metallic ones? Or that we get Warforged Scouts and Chargers as subrace options, as well as the "Mageforged" implied with the recent Con/Int Warforged?

Because, I'd like that a lot. In fact, I'd have to say that baking in the concept of subraces to the basIc racial mechanics of 5e is one of the neatest things about the edition. So many possiblities!

[Zeful]

This is so laughably ridiculous I don't even know where to begin. First of all, there are plenty of games that treat PC and NPC statblocks differently without being nothing but hack and slash adventures. Granted most of these are radically different from how D&D works, like In A Wicked Age.

Second, the main problem is that SoD/SoS effects exist. It has nothing to do with PC/NPC symmetry.

I'm not talking NPC statblocks. I'm talking NPC STATS and the mechanical backing behind them. Including many iconic fantasy effects requires them to be Save Or Die or Save Or Suck, so the the problem of them existing is one of genre convention, and thus have to be worked around rather than solved.

Which was the whole point of my post. Playing an Iconic fantasy RPG and having parity between what NPCs can do and what PCs can do is not possible without excising entire sections of what is part of iconic fantasy to allow for the game to be playable, as well as allow all heroic archetypes to participate meaningfully. The other option requires drastic differences in what players and NPCs are fundamentally allowed to do within the system if you are even accounting for the interactive RPG aspect at all. This isn't a book after all, the simple act of including randomness and player agency into the system changes literally everything about what the limits and goals of the experience are.

This creates a problem when players try to do something unexpected, like trying to talk to the dragon rather than immediately fight it, if the dragon has it's own set of rules and statistics that are different from PC rules and statistics, the sudden shift in player priority is going to be hard to adapt to on the fly, and make adding those rules seamlessly into the encounter hard to do.

Personally I enjoy SoD/SoL.
As long as it is available to both PCs and NPCs alike, it's just another tactical option to be considered.

Except in "optimal" play they are so much more effective than other options, you essentially turned all non-casters into porters/maids for the casters. And if the GM uses them, (at all) it's essentially roulette, do you GET TO PLAY or do you sit on your butt doing nothing while everyone else gets to have fun.

That is a fundamental problem with such effects. Player agency is fundamentally undermined every time they are used, for or against. Imparing player agency is something that can kill interest in a game. Hell, it's one of the reasons DMs are encouraged not to play their casters like the PC's casters in 3.5. I mean how fun would it be that after level 10, you had better than a 50% chance of simply not being allowed to play in an encounter?

You're doing Group on Group combat. One character or monster death isn't going to end the *Combat* much less the campaign.

But it's going to tank your interest in the combat if you're suddenly removed from it on one roll. As no, it's NOT Group on Group combat, it's a group of individuals fighting a group, which is fundamentally different.

That's why Reincarnation comes on line at the same time as Phantasmal Killer.

What's that got to do with... well, anything?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Except in "optimal" play they are so much more effective than other options, you essentially turned all non-casters into porters/maids for the casters.

Correction: in optimal 3e play they're the dominant strategy. In AD&D, where save DCs are constant based on your level rather than variable based on your opponent's level and they get better as you level, SoDs/SoSs become less effective as you level, meaning Ref half and no-save spells are preferable. The effectiveness of SoL spells depends on the save system more so than the effects themselves; if enemies save on a 4 rather than a 16, say, then SoL goes from being the optimal strategy to a corner-case "Nothing else works on this guy, let's spam a SoD until something happens" and buffs, utility, and blasting rise to the top.

So it's possible to make SoL spells work out without being too powerful as long as you skew the save system to make people more resistant by default; multiple rolls and/or degrees of success help with that as well. That doesn't help with the removal of player agency, but it does make it less likely to happen.

[Draz74]

Correction: in optimal 3e play they're the dominant strategy. In AD&D, where save DCs are constant based on your level rather than variable based on your opponent's level and they get better as you level, SoDs/SoSs become less effective as you level, meaning Ref half and no-save spells are preferable. The effectiveness of SoL spells depends on the save system more so than the effects themselves; if enemies save on a 4 rather than a 16, say, then SoL goes from being the optimal strategy to a corner-case "Nothing else works on this guy, let's spam a SoD until something happens" and buffs, utility, and blasting rise to the top.

So it's possible to make SoL spells work out without being too powerful as long as you skew the save system to make people more resistant by default; multiple rolls and/or degrees of success help with that as well. That doesn't help with the removal of player agency, but it does make it less likely to happen.

SoD/SoS spells actually ran the risk of being too boring in 2e, from a game design perspective. I think regardless of whether saves are made 80%, 50%, or 25% of the time, the ideal is for spells that offer a save to have partial effects on a passed save.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

SoD/SoS spells actually ran the risk of being too boring in 2e, from a game design perspective. I think regardless of whether saves are made 80%, 50%, or 25% of the time, the ideal is for spells that offer a save to have partial effects on a passed save.

They were certainly fairly boring since they were usually all-or-nothing, but adding an appropriate partial effect is secondary to making sure the primary effect isn't too powerful and doesn't land too frequently, particularly since you'd want to adjust the strength of the partial effect based on the chance of the primary effect working; if characters save 90% of the time, you'll want a more interesting/effective partial effect than if they save 50% of the time.

[Stubbazubba]

THAC0 and Base Attack Bonus are the same mechanic, mathematically, and we all know which one is better.

Touche.

I think it would be more accurate to say there are mathematically incorrect ways to accomplish a stated design goal, rather than saying there is a mathematically correct way to accomplish the goal.

I humbly accept this revision of my original statement.

Sure it might not make sense that the barbarian can lose a wrestling match to a cripple based on the math, but sometimes, it's more important that when the wizard fights the Balrog on the way down to the center of the earth, that he has a statistically significant chance of living.

I think that has more to do with PC-centric rules vs. non-PC-centric rules than big picture vs. little picture, though.

Thinking about it, I don't actually believe that good mechanics sell a game.

I actually agree. As much as I obsess over mechanical finesse in a system, what sells a system is kind of what sells anything else; a combination of high production values, effective marketing, superb customer service, and then the quality of the product itself. Pathfinder managed to do at the very least 3/4 and rocketed to a major player while never actually addressing the most egregious of 3.5's flaws. As much as I wish game companies would really put some scientific rigor into their design process because I think the hobby deserves that level of professionalism, that by itself does not a successful product make, not by a long shot.

From my experience, people that grew with d20 tend to be more mathematical inclined that other roleplayers. Part of the fun is doing numbers and metagaming.

I suppose that's one interpretation, but many of us are mathematically inclined for completely non-metagame reasons. I just want the rules as written to do what they claim to do. I think we, as consumers, deserve that much. I feel like many, if not most, games promise a certain experience but then the way their system is written makes that experience occasional and fleeting at best and literally impossible at worst. If I'm going to drop that much money on a game, I want it to actually fulfill my expectations. Otherwise, that money is better spent on video games, which have better production values and are far more rigorously designed and polished better.

There isn't a way to fix that without making NPCs and players mechanically different on several scales (meaning that information in an NPC statblock is mostly, or totally non-compatible with the PC statblock). Which causes even more problems for games that aren't just hack and slash adventures.

To offer a counter-point, there is a growing tide of people who want to play adventure games that maintain narrative fidelity, and PC/NPC asymmetry is almost requisite for that. So there are quite a few different angles on RPGs, and while some require PC/NPC symmetry, it's far from the majority.

Personally I enjoy SoD/SoL.
As long as it is available to both PCs and NPCs alike, it's just another tactical option to be considered.

Perhaps it could be, but in practice it usually ends up being the defining tactic in any given encounter, and your entire strategy ends up being catered to countering the enemies' SoL spells and making sure yours get through their counter-measures. That, unfortunately, restricts the playspace dramatically and marginalizes all the other tactical options. It sets up two tiers of tactics; SoLs and SoL counter-measures, and then everything below them. They don't really interact, one is (in 3.5) unequivocally more powerful than the other, and the powerful one is for casters only.

You're doing Group on Group combat. One character or monster death isn't going to end the *Combat* much less the campaign.

As was pointed out, a character death does in fact end the combat for one player, and prevents them from playing the game for possibly even longer, while either waiting to be resurrected or making a new character. If the entire party was controlled by one person, then you'd be right, but as a designer you have to focus on each player individually more than the party as a whole.

[Kaervaslol]

I suppose that's one interpretation, but many of us are mathematically inclined for completely non-metagame reasons. I just want the rules as written to do what they claim to do. I think we, as consumers, deserve that much. I feel like many, if not most, games promise a certain experience but then the way their system is written makes that experience occasional and fleeting at best and literally impossible at worst. If I'm going to drop that much money on a game, I want it to actually fulfill my expectations. Otherwise, that money is better spent on video games, which have better production values and are far more rigorously designed and polished better.

Here is the key to the issue: expectation.

I find it very valid and completly rational for one to ask for rules that do what they claim to do. The fact is that AD&D actually did that. The premise of the game was not the same as the following itinerations. AD&D was a game to be played in Greyhawk, with Oerth's tropes and assumptions, and the limits of such system showed in settings such as Dark Sun or Spelljammer, in which it was obvious that it didn't quite fit.

Still, with time the taste of gamers changed, and so was the game obliged to do, else it would remain trailing behind. And we got the splatbooks for AD&D 2 and after that 3.x. At this point shifted from adventurer to heroes, with expanded rules for combat and social interaction.

What I'm going to is AD&D works fine, I know that because I've directed and played in hundred of games with the system. It stops working when you step in the direction of the Player Options from the late TSR.

The question now is, should Next be its own thing? With its own assumptions, mechanics, etc much like AD&D with rules limited in scope to one thing. Or try and follow the direction of it most recent predecesors and attemp to homogenize to the point where one can run a game in Magnamund, Middle Earth or the Forgotten Realms all with the same system?

[Yora]

3rd Edition is mostly fine, except for monks. There are some spells that can be broken badly, but most of the trouble comes from the hundreds of Prestige Classes and Feats from splatbooks.

And I am sure 5th Edition will also be fine. And then become broken once the splatbooks flood the market.

[Kurald Galain]

I find it very valid and completly rational for one to ask for rules that do what they claim to do.

I agree. Remember how magical items are supposed to be rare and not for sale, and then you get a table of how many items you are expected to find every encounter, and a list of magic item prices?

[Doug Lampert]

So he's not talking about actually changing resolution mechanics or anything, it's just the ol' "Give SoDs multiple saves to nerf them" thing. Makes sense.

WRONG! The discussion was about HAVING a different variance for single roll resolution mechanics from combat resolution mechanics.

His suggestion was that save or dies need to use the single roll resolution mechanic.

Thus if you want an 18 vs. an 8 to be significant it's fine for it to be +5 on a d20 in combat, but that's NOT ENOUGH in single roll resolution mechanics, it needs to be a +10 or more there or a +5 on a d10 or on 3d6 or something.

So his suggestion was that if you use a different mechanic for single roll situations that you allow save or dies to use the single roll resolution mechanic even though they are in combat.

[1337 b4k4]

They're not (in the long term) fun to use, they're not fun to get hit by. The only valid reason for the Medusa to have that gaze attack is because that's what the mythological Medusa could do.

This is of course your opinion. I on the other hand do find them fun and useful tools. They can turn certain otherwise weak monsters into something that must be handled with care, and they allow for monsters who have a default defeat strategy of something other than "Hit it with a full on frontal assault with a really big sword until it stops moving"

That is a fundamental problem with such effects. Player agency is fundamentally undermined every time they are used, for or against. Imparing player agency is something that can kill interest in a game.

Save or die does not impair player agency any more than any other mass damage dealing event. Player agency is about the choices the players make having a real impact on the world, not about players never having a moment of suck.

Not allowing the players to hit the bad guy because you don't want him to die yet is eliminating player agency. Having your PCs conveniently run into that band of bandits that moments ago was to the east and your party went west is eliminating player agency. Declaring that the scroll of dismiss undead you gave your players can't be used against Strahd because he's the big bad guy is eliminating player agency. Giving your player 10 different ways to break into the fortress and having the same identical set of encounters no matter which way they choose is eliminating player agency.

Having a player die suddenly because they chose poorly and missed their save is not eliminating player agency. That's having the player live with the consequences of their choices. That said, it is vital that save or die effects be discoverable on your players parts, whether it's through obvious investigation or through rumor and hints. That is to say, it's not fair to drop a medusa out of the sky on your players as they wander the desert. But it's perfectly fair to have warnings of an evil creature that turns people to stone living in a cave to the west, and letting your PCs die because they decided to venture forth without proper preparations or ignored the number of lifelike statues outside the cave.

This creates a problem when players try to do something unexpected, like trying to talk to the dragon rather than immediately fight it, if the dragon has it's own set of rules and statistics that are different from PC rules and statistics, the sudden shift in player priority is going to be hard to adapt to on the fly, and make adding those rules seamlessly into the encounter hard to do.

This is only true if there aren't sufficient guidelines to the GM for how to adjudicate things that fall outside the "rules". There's nothing that says that NPCs and PCs have to operate by the same rules other than it being a form of logical consistency. Give the GM good adjudication guidelines and you could have monsters that consist of nothing more than fluff descriptions, damage and hit dice and still have a perfectly workable system. Now we can argue over whether such a reliance on GM adjudication is a good thing or not, but it's perfectly reasonable to design a system with different rules for different sides of the table.

They were certainly fairly boring since they were usually all-or-nothing, but adding an appropriate partial effect is secondary to making sure the primary effect isn't too powerful and doesn't land too frequently, particularly since you'd want to adjust the strength of the partial effect based on the chance of the primary effect working; if characters save 90% of the time, you'll want a more interesting/effective partial effect than if they save 50% of the time.

I'm all for something like this. I don't necessarily have a problem with the multiple saves before an SoD effect takes place, I just have a problem with how 4e does it, where every save is pure 50/50 and saving more or less eliminates the effect completely. I'd be just fine with a multiple save system, but even when you save you still have a minor and "un-saveable" effect.

I think that has more to do with PC-centric rules vs. non-PC-centric rules than big picture vs. little picture, though.

I think this is a distinction without distinction. If you buy into the argument that the game should allow players to be(come) unmatched grand heros, then by definition, PC-Centric rules are "big picture" since the PCs are the big picture. Conversely if you think that the PCs are just actors in a larger play, then the fact that btb the barbarian can lose to the town cripple is largely irrelevant because that particular moment is not a big picture moment.

Perhaps it could be, but in practice it usually ends up being the defining tactic in any given encounter, and your entire strategy ends up being catered to countering the enemies' SoL spells and making sure yours get through their counter-measures. That, unfortunately, restricts the playspace dramatically and marginalizes all the other tactical options. It sets up two tiers of tactics; SoLs and SoL counter-measures, and then everything below them. They don't really interact, one is (in 3.5) unequivocally more powerful than the other, and the powerful one is for casters only.

I can't help but notice that 90% of the complaints I see over "old school" D&D mechanics specifically cite the 3.x edition of D&D. This is made even more interesting to me because most of the time, the problem in 3.x was that they brought the effect over without bringing the balancing factors over as well. I can't help but wonder how much of the negative reaction to various mechanics is because the mechanic itself is bad, or because 3.x implemented it badly, and that's the system most people here have experience with.

As was pointed out, a character death does in fact end the combat for one player, and prevents them from playing the game for possibly even longer, while either waiting to be resurrected or making a new character.

To me, this is the greatest flaw in having massively complex char gen and the elimination of NPC porters and men at arms. In the OD&D games I've run, when a PC dies, that player immediately jumps into the roll of one of the NPC men at arms, only rolling their stats when they become necessary or when they have some down time. Total time that the player is out of commission, maybe 2 rounds. After that the player can continue playing with their man at arms or roll a new PC. Heck, one of our most long lived characters was just such a promoted NPC.

Or try and follow the direction of it most recent predecesors and attemp to homogenize to the point where one can run a game in Magnamund, Middle Earth or the Forgotten Realms all with the same system?

I think the only way to do this properly is to either pare the system down to a bare roots thing (like say M20), or to beef it up so much that it has rules for everything, and then make it clear that when you sit to play a game, rules selection is mix and match, not include it all (a la GURPS). Personally, I think they can have a fairly generic system, but it is going to require that "core" is almost as light as M20, and then everything else (including most of the classes) are going to have to go in modules with each module clearly indicating the style of fantasy it's supporting. Whether this is the ideal way to go or not is another matter.

I agree. Remember how magical items are supposed to be rare and not for sale, and then you get a table of how many items you are expected to find every encounter, and a list of magic item prices?

I think this is a presentation issue. The rules should state that "magic items are rare and not for sale, but if you want to include a magic item in a particular encounter or set of encounters, or you need to know the relative value of a magical item (for example, for creation costs) then here is a table that provides some guidelines"

I would much rather a table that says "now that you've decided to include a magic item, here's a table of guidelines" than a table that tries to be usable as a "always roll to see if an encounter has a magic item" table.

[Morty]

3rd Edition is mostly fine, except for monks. There are some spells that can be broken badly, but most of the trouble comes from the hundreds of Prestige Classes and Feats from splatbooks.

And I am sure 5th Edition will also be fine. And then become broken once the splatbooks flood the market.

I thoroughly disagree. Prestige classes and feats from splatbooks do not make 3rd edition any worse than it is in the core. In fact, I think the real situation is completely the other way around - splatbooks help make 3rd edition playable. Not just in the sense of class balance, but in terms of what I've begun to consider the biggest problem of 3rd edition - its prohibition of character concepts. The more splatbooks you have, the easier it is to craft a character that deviates from the handful of pidgeon holes the core rules give you.
I gave examples earlier in this thread - making an effective archer rogue in core is impossible, and making one that uses a crossbow is even harder. With enough books, you can manage to do so, even if you have to jump through hoops. Same with a dexterous duelist type - with splatbooks, you can actually create one that works. Making a character focused on throwing also becomes viable with splatbooks, and it's not really possible in core. Dual-wielding is out of luck no matter what you do, though. But other concepts can be made to work.
So if D&D Next is to succeed, it needs to pay attention to giving players options and flexibility.

[Scowling Dragon]

Well I disagree with the above concept. Not every character created idea should be equal. Should WOTC kater to the people that want to play a character who spits elephants from their nose as a reasonable character choice?

[Morty]

Do you really think a crossbow-sniping rogue or a nimble fighter with two shortswords are as outlandish as an elephant-spitting character?

[noparlpf]

Crossbow-sniping is a perfectly valid concept. Some climbing and hiding, good aim and damage bonuses at a distance.

Nimble fighter with two short swords is actually great. Might not be as common historically as armored warrior with two-handed greatsword, but it works well.

Spitting elephants from your nose, now...that'd be a wizard build.

[ThiagoMartell]

I believe what he's trying to say is that proper math is necessary to good design; that doesn't mean that it's sufficient for good design, as other things may be equally necessary.

That makes a lot more sense. I'd go an extra step and say that math helps achieve good mechanics. Games are more than mechanics and good mechanics are not the same as good design.
You'll notice I said 'helps achieve' and not 'is necessary', because there are good games out there that use little to no math and have functional, elegant mechanics. Just check Bliss Stage, Danger Patrol or Mist Robed Gate.

Thinking about it, I don't actually believe that good mechanics sell a game. I'm saying this because the most popular RPGs (such as any edition of D&D, as well as oldstyle Whitewolf) have numerous well-known mechanical flaws. People who dislike <insert game here> tend to point vocally at these flaws (because how can anyone enjoy a game where you can <insert flaw here>!!!!!), but people who play the game just shrug and keep playing.

Yeah, very much this. White Wolf games have some mechanical flaws, but they are very good with lore and immersion. You dive headfirst into their games and it just works. The math sucks but hey, they are improving with every book. There was a big difference between Vampire the Masquerade 2nd Edition and VtM Revised and a giant leap in quality when it came to New World of Darkness.
I think the only game that remains consistently in the market only because of it's mechanics is GURPS. People may point out balance problems, but balance was never GURPS point anyway. It's a hardcore simulationist system and I don't think any other system gets even close at achieving the level of commitment GURPS has.

Basically - mechanics are obviously important for getting a game together, but they alone do not a good game make.

[Menteith]

Well I disagree with the above concept. Not every character created idea should be equal. Should WOTC kater to the people that want to play a character who spits elephants from their nose as a reasonable character choice?

I actually could make a character who "spits elephants from their nose" work just fine in 3.5 (probably with just Core; who are you to say my Summon Nature's Ally spells don't work that way?), so your appeal to the absurd doesn't actually work that well. With that said, Wizards of the Coast should try and make as many concepts viable as possible. I do think that every character should have the potential to be equal. What you find silly or stupid may be what another player finds compelling, and I don't believe that your (or anyone's) viewpoint should suppress another playstyle because one finds it distasteful. I can accept that not every concept is going to be viable because there's a limited amount of effort they can put into the game, but I don't think it's a good idea to impose limits based on gut feelings - this is a big reason I disagree with the notion of alignment restrictions in general.

[ThiagoMartell]

I actually could make a character who "spits elephants from their nose" work just fine in 3.5 (probably with just Core; who are you to say my Summon Nature's Ally spells don't work that way?), so your appeal to the absurd doesn't actually work that well.

His meaning works perfectly, because 3.5 does not make all concepts equal. Try playing characters focused on disarming, compare Power-Attack + two-handed weapon versus two weapon fighting or heck - compare spellcasters to no spellcasters.

D&D Next has these concepts they are trying to make work. First, they need to makle sure those concepts work. Then and only then will they try to make nimble dual-wielders and crossbow users work. And that is the best design decision possible, IMHO.

[Menteith]

His meaning works perfectly, because 3.5 does not make all concepts equal. Try playing characters focused on disarming, compare Power-Attack + two-handed weapon versus two weapon fighting or heck - compare spellcasters to no spellcasters.

D&D Next has these concepts they are trying to make work. First, they need to makle sure those concepts work. Then and only then will they try to make nimble dual-wielders and crossbow users work. And that is the best design decision possible, IMHO.

I agree wholeheartedly with you - there are good reasons why not every concept is going to be possible, and Wizards should focus on making sure they get the iconic builds right on the first pass, and allow splatbooks and modules to enable other characters. I was objecting more to the notion that splatbooks enabling new concepts decreased the quality of the game. While I'll fully admit that increased content added to the raw number of "broken" things in 3.5 (a list I feel is often overstressed), but the potential balance problems are vastly outweighed by the increase in diversity of experience (at least, to me).

[ThiagoMartell]

I agree wholeheartedly with you - there are good reasons why not every concept is going to be possible, and Wizards should focus on making sure they get the iconic builds right on the first pass, and allow splatbooks and modules to enable other characters. I was objecting more to the notion that splatbooks enabling new concepts decreased the quality of the game. While I'll fully admit that increased content added to the raw number of "broken" things in 3.5 (a list I feel is often overstressed), but the potential balance problems are vastly outweighed by the increase in diversity of experience (at least, to me).

I agree, but then again I think balance should get back to WoW and stay there forever. I enjoy the idea that the ability to break the laws of physics through sheer willpower is more powerful than swinging a blade down very hard.
I usually play fighter-types and I simply love when I get to defeat a spellcaster through guile and skill, not because someone decided blade and magic should be 'balanced' in the worst ways possible.
I know this sounds a bit like a rant, but my desired 'balance' is something like AD&D did. Magic is more powerful than swords, plain and simple. But magic is dangerous to use. I know they are not going to do this in D&D Next, thought, so I shouldn't be ranting. *shrugs*

[Morty]

You see, I really don't see why a rogue who uses a bow or crossbow is less iconic than one that uses a pair of daggers. Or why a swordsman who relies on his quickness and guile rather than brute strenght is less iconic. And so on and so forth. It occurs to me that the reason people consider some character concepts iconic is that they have always been the only viable ones without splatbook-juggling and hoop-jumpig.

[Dienekes]

The obvious follow-up question then would be, what archetypes should be easily implemented and relatively equal in strength/versatility?

[Menteith]

I agree, but then again I think balance should get back to WoW and stay there forever. I enjoy the idea that the ability to break the laws of physics through sheer willpower is more powerful than swinging a blade down very hard.
I usually play fighter-types and I simply love when I get to defeat a spellcaster through guile and skill, not because someone decided blade and magic should be 'balanced' in the worst ways possible.
I know this sounds a bit like a rant, but my desired 'balance' is something like AD&D did. Magic is more powerful than swords, plain and simple. But magic is dangerous to use. I know they are not going to do this in D&D Next, thought, so I shouldn't be ranting. *shrugs*

I honestly don't know what I want them to do with Magic in D&D Next. I came into D&D relatively late, and I've only experienced 3.5/4E to any real degree. I want them to support as many playstyles as possible - I want to be able to play a game where I defend my farm from kobolds, a game where I defend my kingdom from dragons, and a game where I defend reality itself from insane gods, and I want these games to be different in ways beyond simply numbers. The biggest draw 3.5 has for me is that I can do almost ANY story and make pretty much any character concept work - and I don't think that would be possible in a "balanced" system.

EDIT
And no, I don't have a list of which classes would be the most "iconic". I'm guessing that's the reason WotC has been reviewing every Player's Handbok base class from every edition. I honestly don't know nor really care about whether or not I'm playing an iconic role, am I'm certainly not qualified to say what is or isn't iconic.

[ThiagoMartell]

You see, I really don't see why a rogue who uses a bow or crossbow is less iconic than one that uses a pair of daggers. Or why a swordsman who relies on his quickness and guile rather than brute strenght is less iconic. And so on and so forth. It occurs to me that the reason people consider some character concepts iconic is that they have always been the only viable ones without splatbook-juggling and hoop-jumpig.

Or maybe, just maybe, that's because those concepts represent the characters most players wnat to play, the characters more commonly found in heroic fantasy works and (most importantly) the characters people remember when they think about D&D. Rogue/thief + dagger is so iconic it goes beyond D&D.
Also, if people consider such and such iconic, it's not that 'they consider it' iconic. It just is iconic because that's what iconic means.

[Morty]

The obvious follow-up question then would be, what archetypes should be easily implemented and relatively equal in strength/versatility?

Now that's a good question. We do need to draw the line somewhere, but I think that a good baseline question should be "Does this character concept fit the heroic fantasy genre?" If it does, it should be supported.

Or maybe, just maybe, that's because those concepts represent the characters most players wnat to play, the characters more commonly found in heroic fantasy works and (most importantly) the characters people remember when they think about D&D. Rogue/thief + dagger is so iconic it goes beyond D&D.
Also, if people consider such and such iconic, it's not that 'they consider it' iconic. It just is iconic because that's what iconic means.

Of course that the iconic concepts of D&D are also iconic for heroic fantasy. My point is that they're not the only ones. Grey Mouser is a skilled, clever swordsman who relies on his wits and quickness rather than strength, which is Fafhrd's forte. And yet, building him in 3rd edition D&D would be problematic. Unless you want to tell me Grey Mouser isn't an archetypal adventurer...
That, and restricting viable concepts to a handful of "iconic" ones - however we decide which ones are iconic is another question - is just bad design.