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.
I'm with you on level 1 characters - at the very least the game should have straightforward rules for creating a character below level 1, so that if I want to start out playing a teenager wielding his grandpa's rusty broadsword who can barely survive an encounter with a single kobold, or an apprentice wizard who can't reliably light a fire yet, that's a real option. (At the same time, I wouldn't want a default level 1 character to be this weak, because that might be a turn-off to a lot of beginning players who want to feel like heroes from their very first session.)
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.
No, but if you're going to put a lot of work into the former, and the latter will make a bunch of people (tactical players) happy with little tradeoff, why not do both?
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.
One of the changes they seem to be making in 5e is limiting this kind of trade-off. Like, you still have a lot of the same non-combat spells in 5e, but as long as you leave at least one slot for Magic Missile and/or learn one offensive cantrip you can still contribute to combat. And a rogue with high Charisma can use skill tricks to mind-screw his enemies on the battlefield. I think this is a good thing, because it means that you aren't forced to "gimp" yourself in combat to be powerful and well-rounded outside of combat.
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.
But are you okay with the current Wish, which is about as powerful as 3e but comes with more immediate drawbacks, like you can't cast any more spells that day and your strength is sapped? Because I think of that as a great example of how powerful spells can be effectively balanced.
Meteor Swarm is another cool one: as I read it, the different meteors' damage doesn't stack, so you can't do more than 12d6 damage with it... but you can cast it from A MILE AWAY, annihilating an enemy encampment while you're still a speck in the distance. The balancing factor is that any horde of enemies that are wiped out by 12d6 damage probably wouldn't last more than a few rounds against a level 20 fighter, either.
Meanwhile, the fighter gets Combat Surge, which isn't as flashy as summoning meteors, but in combat can do way more single-target damage, or achieve a lot of other impressive tactical feats. And the rogue gets the awesome Ace in the Hole, which lets him do a lot of things the wizard couldn't without a great deal of luck.
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.
I agree. I think most of the flame wars about caster effectiveness ignores the fact that most of the big BALANCE issues of these spells can be fixed without eliminating them altogether. Scry and Teleport aren't inherently bad spells; they're just way too powerful and low-level in 3e, and should come with trade-offs and requirements that actually make them more interesting.
The "concentration" mechanic is another great example: it lets wizards use all their cool buffs, like polymorph and stoneskin, but it eliminates the stacking problem that made them overpowered, and it actually does so in a way that fits the way we expect magic to work.
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.
I think this is the idea of maneuvers. Hopefully they scale well at higher levels!
