Sure! Let's go back to the levels argument.
Great!
To my mind, "level" is an entirely game-mechanical number that has very little to do with lore or narrative. No fiction I've ever read, even D&D-derived stuff like Dragonlance or Drizzt, ever explicitly states the character level of anyone. So if players come to the table with ANY expectation for what a Level X character of a given class should be able to do, it's based entirely on their experience with previous versions of the game. Not only is this an appeal to antiquity, it's one that's pretty unworkable given that every edition of D&D has presented quite different power balances between classes.
I essentially agree with most of this.
However, even though level is a purely metagame construct, it does interact with the game world. If you're level 1, you're the lowest level you can be (with some exceptions; in any case, there's a bottom). If you're level 20, you're the highest level you can be (again, with some exceptions, but there is usually a max). So I think it's fair that a level 1 fighter should have mechanics that represent how good the weakest possible character who could call himself a fighter should be. And that a level 20 (or whatever number) should be the best that the game world allows. And that the other levels should be somewhere in the middle. So, if a game doesn't provide that, mechanically, I think that's a problem. If (as in one possible example) level 1 characters are better than beginners are expected to be, that can be a balance consideration.
See, this is fairly unworkable, because what the players "expect" from a Level 10 wizard is completely dependent on their experience with past RPGs (mostly D&D). A 3e fan expects a level 10 wizard to be very versatile and powerful; a 1e or 2e fan expects him to be powerful but quite fragile; and a 4e fan expects him to be about as powerful as every other class at that level.
You're right about that much, and it's going to be a big problem for 5e, because one man's balance is another man's dealbreaker.
And while I agree that when I'm at the table I like spending less time in combat than exploring or interacting, the simple fact is that I don't need or want 100 pages or rules and powers to make those parts of the game work effectively. A fairly lightweight skill system and maybe a few spells or "skill tricks' are enough to work as mechanical scaffolding for trade negotiations, or crossing a vast desert, or whatever.
I'm inclined to agree. The amount of text in the rules on a given topic doesn't need to correspond with how much that topic comes up in play. I do like lightweight skill systems and heavier combat rules.
And if they're going to spend years designing and revising those hundreds of pages of combat rules, why the heck WOULDN'T they be shooting for the kind of "balance" that makes each class equally interesting and effective in combat situations?
I don't think having rules that describe combat well is the same thing as having rules that make all possible characters equally effective at combat.
For example, a commoner (or whatever you call an unskilled noncombatant) is clearly not balanced or supposed to be balanced with a fighter in this regard. The thornier issue is whether a bard should be. Personally, I find that players are able to and want to make decisions about how combat-focused their character is. A (pre-4e) spellcaster can and not infrequently does select a set of spells that make him limited or even useless in a fight. Your rogues and bards sometimes focus on Diplomacy and pump Cha and Int instead of Dex. Even some fighters are multitaskers who have careers, while others are purely combat focused.
I think the goal is not to force everyone to be equally effective at combat, but merely to lay out the options so it's clear what will produce effectiveness in combat versus in another situation (transparency).
Then the other question is whether any two characters who are actually designed to be effective combatants should be equally effective, even if they are of different classes. And that's where I think the more legitimate disagreement is. I don't think that this should be the case. If I'm playing a 20th level wizard, I expect to be able to cast Wish. If I'm playing a fighter, I don't expect anything equivalent. In practice, I think some degree of balance is achieved through resistances, saving throws, and various DM tools made to screw spellcasters, but I don't think that it will ever be enough for some people. And if you're expecting that, I'm not sure that we can get to the same place mechanically. But maybe, if the "dials" of 5e were designed right, it would work.
Out of combat is a different, and IMO somewhat easier, balancing act. What you really need there is for each class to be able to contribute meaningfully to the majority of common out-of-combat challenges, like diplomatic encounters and traversing difficult terrain. If the wizard can cast Teleport with little risk or effort and the fighter's stuck carrying the bags, that's less fun than if, say, the Teleport ritual requires you to have a handful of the soil from your destination, and the whole party can work to attain that sample from a recalcitrant local merchant.
As I've said earlier, there are a few aspects here: first, wizards shouldn't be able to bypass major aspects of exploration and interaction with a single spell. They've already "fixed" this in 5e IMO. Second, the fighter class specifically should be able to contribute effectively, especially at high levels, which I think they need to work more on.
I think that any character should be able to bypass major aspects in some cases, but it can get out of hand. I think limiting the ability of spellcasters to do that is important. For example, I think the 5e teleport is better than the 3e version. You still get the effect, but with more limits and later on. The handful of dirt idea is good as well. I think that's the right kind of compromise. There's probably other good compromises to be had on some of these oft-discussed effects.
As to fighters, I agree completely, but I don't think it's possible to do well unless you grant them sensible abilities to bypass the hp system as spellcasters do (as discussed many pages ago), or change the hp system to allow them to do more.
