Apologies, I though I had I made that more clear than it ended up being. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, "spell" is often used to a generic term for any sort of activated ability in games set in a fantasy milieu.
Thanks, I needed to be sure, because it sounded so implausible, the idea that 'spell' in no way implied 'magic,' that is.
No it's not. It was not said negatively or derisively. If you can reference 3e or other editions without participating in edition warring then I (and anyone else) can reference 4e - either positively or negatively - and not be edition warring.
'Reference' is, indeed, very different from edition warring. I would encourage you to begin doing the former rather than the later.
But there was enough overlap for this to be a relevant discussion point.
There is a great deal of overlap among different class spell lists in 5e, already. The Sorcerer, for instance, has /no unique spells in his list/.
But, the Sorcerer is still casting spells, they can still be countered and dispelled, for instance.
While not every spell can be reflavoured into a martial exploit, that does not mean no spells can be reflavoured into an exploit.
Re-flavoring is not really an option in 5e. Fluff and rules texts are intertwined. The fact that a spell is magical affects how in interacts with other game elements.
Versatility is certainly a factor. Which is why the cleric and other divine casters are potent. But, again, your argument assumes that casters in 5e are equal in power to casters of 3e.
Just pointing out that 5e neo-Vancian casters have greater versatility than Tier 1 classes did in 3e, and indeed, greater versatility than casters in general from any and all prior editions, AFAIK. (Unless there was some late-3.5 Tier 0 outlier that had already combined spontaneous and Vancian casting that I missed?)
Whether and to what degree some spells may have been nerfed or powered up relative to some other edition notwithstanding.
Yes, the fighter is heavily design for DPR.
It sadly eliminates the fighter from consideration as a chassis for a more versatile martial design. Unless there's some unprecedented sub-class that swaps out extra attack and other major class features, which would be tantamount to a new class, anyway.
I'm not certain how 1-3e fighters were more customizable than 5e fighters
3e fighters were, since feats weren't relegated to optional status, and were more granular, and combat rules more detailed (and I have to admit, I've always liked the 3.0 fighter's simple/elegant design). I don't know why you would bring up 1e or 2e fighters, though we can note that 2e fighters, via double-specialization and archery or TWFing dished a tremendous amount of damage, and that 5e's dedicated-high-DPR fighters very successfully evoke that feel, though more with two-handed than two-weapon fighting in melee.
Actually, I'd rather see a class focused on complex martial maneuvers be built on a rogue chassis, although not the rogue class itself. I'd rather see this class NOT get extra attack, or sneak attack, so that the bulk of the utility and damage of the class can be in the maneuvers, just as it is for the spellcasting classes.
Of course, some limited-usage maneuver could include attacking multiple targets or dealing more damage, either based on resource management or situationally.
I would like to see a fighter class whose resource management operates on a round-by-round level (a bit like the token systems in "Iron Heroes," a cool little d20 game which Mike Mearls may perhaps recall). Each round, you accumulate a resource; you spend that resource to do your stuff. So you can get a small advantage every round, or hold off a few rounds and then blow out the enemy.
The main stumbling block would be 5e's 'fast combats' ending before you have the chance. That's something that can vary depending on how the DM designs encounters, though - and /maybe/ on the strategy used by the party.
