This is really my fault for using 4E parlance to make a general point. I dont think I can explain to you any longer at this point.
If you can't explain it to someone who disagrees with you, is that a reflection on the person disagreeing, or on the idea that legitimately cannot be communicated? Because I'm inclined to say the latter.
IDK, why dont all the fighters suck folks take this advice?
What advice? I'm not asking to be a Wizard. I'm asking to be a Fighter that is actually
good and
effective without using magic. YOU'RE the one who keeps saying that the one and only possible way I could ever be happy is to be a spellcaster. I don't want that! I don't WANT to be a spellcaster. I want to be someone who never--not even once!--casts a spell,
and yet gets to contribute as much to the party's success as the spellcasters do.
I mean, follow the tactical role prescribed by your class or fail could be seen as coming to your own decisions I suppose...
Where is this "fail" coming from? I said that it tells you something which is effective. That doesn't mean literally everything else is
ineffective. That's an assumption you inserted into it.
Which part, exactly?
I think you are taking this too personal. The once an hour BS was designed to tell all of us to shut up.
I genuinely thought this was a serious comment, not a joke. Still not sure what's supposed to be humorous here.
You're only ever a spectator if you proactively choose to be a spectator.
Yes, because someone else being better in every way at fixing the group's problems
definitely means we should be having BMX Bandit solve them instead while Angel Summoner takes a coffee break.
Not being optimal at something is no excuse not to stick your oar in anyway and give it a go. If it's a diplomacy scene and my Cha-6 boor of a War Cleric is present, it's damn sure I'll get him involved somehow - even if doing so might not be in the party's best interests.
"Do things that actively hinder your party" is not a great selling point.
If it's a mass melee and my flimsy little Illusionist finds herself fighting a couple of Orcs she's going to fight them even if her combat skills are only slightly better than those of a kitten. If it's an exploration scene and I'm the clanky tank who can't perceive the nose on his own face I'm still going to stick that nose into unexplored dark corners.
Ditto. You're not selling me on the concept here. If anything, you're making it sound
worse.
Two things here.
1 - ritual casting, along with any other casting that doesn't use slots, needs to die in a fire never to be reborn.
2 - some of the spells you list are already known to be broken in 5e (e.g. LTH) and-or have had their balancing risks from prior editions removed (e.g.
Find Familiar).
And yes, I'll still go ahead and suggest spells shouldn't be chooseable at level-up.
None of these three points will ever happen. They are simply unpopular with players--and always will be, because that's literally the whole point. These are player-frustration features--what I have been calling "tedium"--used to gate power. But players can, and will, optimize the fun out of games. They will do the tedious in order to get the power. Consistently. You've got a long history of playing the game; surely you have seen this firsthand, many a time even.
I would much prefer seeing each archetype done well rather than seeing one class trying to accomplish too much and stretch all the archetype concepts too thin like butter scrapped over too much bread.
Exactly. There is, of course, a concern for diminishing returns; sometimes it really is best to express multiple archetypes under the same umbrella. Neither of us is saying that there should be anything like, say, four dozen classes. But trying to shoehorn 17 different things into one universal basket is a losing move. Most of them will fail to actually capture the spirit of the thing, for exactly the reason that the Eldritch Knight fails to capture what being a Wizard should be.