My experience with magic in 5th edition was trying to create a non magical rogue because the entire rest of the group had access to spell lists.
And then eventually settling on just being a battlemaster with the criminal background and an extra skill proficiency bummed off a kind GM.
Weird how the fighter archetype that just has spells by another name is the best one for getting to feel like a dramatic and heroic rogue in combat with choices out side "I stab the monster".
The Battlemaster is 100% not "spells by another name"
Like, unless your definition of 'spell' is "anything that does anything other than just a bit of damage" and/or "anything that involves a check to prevent/minimize/stop" in which case grappling is a spell by another name.
In the way 5th edition structures itself I would absolutely describe a limited use resource to do fancy options as being mechanically identical to spells.
Which is a good thing because as discussed 5th edition is a game about magic and it’s spell list so a fighter class just being a ‘spell list’ about how cool you can fight is a step in the right direction.
I played an evil cleric in a very silly high-power Pathfinder campaign once
that was an extremely broken build
Animate Dead let you create and automatically, indefinitely command 4HD of skeletons or zombies per caster level, or 8HD per caster level if you use Desecrate as well, plus the 1HD/caster level of other undead you can control with the Command Undead feat, which I reserved for the results of my use of Create Undead.
I... did not have to do much fighting myself.
There is a problem with that build, which we found out in a Pathfinder game I was playing in a couple of years ago. We all thought we were hot shit cause my friend played a necromancer and had lots of tough zombies and skeletons around us. And then an enemy got a lucky hit in and dropped him.
And then all hell broke loose as the skeletons and zombies were no longer under his control. Between the enemies and the new enemies over half the party died.
+9
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
My experience with the phrase "spells by another name" is that 85% of its use cases is people who don't like 4th Ed D&D explaining that the reason they don't like 4th Ed D&D is because all the classes have "spells" - which, in my experience, typically means "classes other than wizards and clerics have options in combat beyond 'hit them very hard' and 'hit them very hard from a distance'". I absolutely believe that there are people who don't like the flavoring - that some abilities for traditional non-magical classes seem too magicy - but in most cases I see this complaint targeted at mechanics.
The first D&D I was introduced to was 2nd Ed AD&D, I read those books front to back, I played the Infinity Engine games for I don't even know how much time; 2nd Ed formed my first understanding of what RPGs are like and what to expect from the standard classes. 2nd Ed fighters were "here is a sword, now poke it at that dragon until the mage can do the actual work".
I started playing WoW a few months after launch. After I made a Warrior and found myself with an action bar with different abilities on it, I was absolutely flabbergasted. What do you mean I can do things other than auto-attack? That's wild!
My experience with the phrase "spells by another name" is that 85% of its use cases is people who don't like 4th Ed D&D explaining that the reason they don't like 4th Ed D&D is because all the classes have "spells" - which, in my experience, typically means "classes other than wizards and clerics have options in combat beyond 'hit them very hard' and 'hit them very hard from a distance'". I absolutely believe that there are people who don't like the flavoring - that some abilities for traditional non-magical classes seem too magicy - but in most cases I see this complaint targeted at mechanics.
The first D&D I was introduced to was 2nd Ed AD&D, I read those books front to back, I played the Infinity Engine games for I don't even know how much time; 2nd Ed formed my first understanding of what RPGs are like and what to expect from the standard classes. 2nd Ed fighters were "here is a sword, now poke it at that dragon until the mage can do the actual work".
I started playing WoW a few months after launch. After I made a Warrior and found myself with an action bar with different abilities on it, I was absolutely flabbergasted. What do you mean I can do things other than auto-attack? That's wild!
I came up under the 2nd ed Revised era, with the Player's Options books, so the idea that fighters could do other things was just starting to show up.
Just to give credit to the original source, it's this person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRvPpOAyh4I
(I know it because it's used as the theme for the Neo-Anarchist Podcast, a Shadowrun in-character history podcast)
0
astrobstrdSo full of mercy...Registered Userregular
My experience with the phrase "spells by another name" is that 85% of its use cases is people who don't like 4th Ed D&D explaining that the reason they don't like 4th Ed D&D is because all the classes have "spells" - which, in my experience, typically means "classes other than wizards and clerics have options in combat beyond 'hit them very hard' and 'hit them very hard from a distance'". I absolutely believe that there are people who don't like the flavoring - that some abilities for traditional non-magical classes seem too magicy - but in most cases I see this complaint targeted at mechanics.
The first D&D I was introduced to was 2nd Ed AD&D, I read those books front to back, I played the Infinity Engine games for I don't even know how much time; 2nd Ed formed my first understanding of what RPGs are like and what to expect from the standard classes. 2nd Ed fighters were "here is a sword, now poke it at that dragon until the mage can do the actual work".
I started playing WoW a few months after launch. After I made a Warrior and found myself with an action bar with different abilities on it, I was absolutely flabbergasted. What do you mean I can do things other than auto-attack? That's wild!
I came up under the 2nd ed Revised era, with the Player's Options books, so the idea that fighters could do other things was just starting to show up.
It was nice!
Getting "weapon speed" and "kit" nightmare flashbacks now...
My experience with the phrase "spells by another name" is that 85% of its use cases is people who don't like 4th Ed D&D explaining that the reason they don't like 4th Ed D&D is because all the classes have "spells" - which, in my experience, typically means "classes other than wizards and clerics have options in combat beyond 'hit them very hard' and 'hit them very hard from a distance'". I absolutely believe that there are people who don't like the flavoring - that some abilities for traditional non-magical classes seem too magicy - but in most cases I see this complaint targeted at mechanics.
The first D&D I was introduced to was 2nd Ed AD&D, I read those books front to back, I played the Infinity Engine games for I don't even know how much time; 2nd Ed formed my first understanding of what RPGs are like and what to expect from the standard classes. 2nd Ed fighters were "here is a sword, now poke it at that dragon until the mage can do the actual work".
I started playing WoW a few months after launch. After I made a Warrior and found myself with an action bar with different abilities on it, I was absolutely flabbergasted. What do you mean I can do things other than auto-attack? That's wild!
It's funny, I'm a big 4E fan.
And it still took me forever to realize that 5E was just redoing 4E with a bunch of its abilities but using a more Vancian inspired system. Like, Hunter's Mark, the ranger spell that they get by second level? That's essentially just an encounter power, and yeah, the flavor text says that it's a mystical act of divination, but I've seen so many players ignore that part - it's just choosing a quarry.
I still don't love it, because I prefer the narrative resources of 4E to daily resources, but I've turned from hating how every class is magical in 5E to actually wanting everything to be more magical, so that magic is a unified system that everyone has to deal with and everyone can understand.
My experience with magic in 5th edition was trying to create a non magical rogue because the entire rest of the group had access to spell lists.
And then eventually settling on just being a battlemaster with the criminal background and an extra skill proficiency bummed off a kind GM.
Weird how the fighter archetype that just has spells by another name is the best one for getting to feel like a dramatic and heroic rogue in combat with choices out side "I stab the monster".
The Battlemaster is 100% not "spells by another name"
Like, unless your definition of 'spell' is "anything that does anything other than just a bit of damage" and/or "anything that involves a check to prevent/minimize/stop" in which case grappling is a spell by another name.
Welcome to why 3e fans derided 4e classes for "all being magic" and "having spells" when other players looked at it and said "it has a simple-to-understand action economy and every single class has awesome things it can do"
My experience with magic in 5th edition was trying to create a non magical rogue because the entire rest of the group had access to spell lists.
And then eventually settling on just being a battlemaster with the criminal background and an extra skill proficiency bummed off a kind GM.
Weird how the fighter archetype that just has spells by another name is the best one for getting to feel like a dramatic and heroic rogue in combat with choices out side "I stab the monster".
The Battlemaster is 100% not "spells by another name"
Like, unless your definition of 'spell' is "anything that does anything other than just a bit of damage" and/or "anything that involves a check to prevent/minimize/stop" in which case grappling is a spell by another name.
Welcome to why 3e fans derided 4e classes for "all being magic" and "having spells" when other players looked at it and said "it has a simple-to-understand action economy and every single class has awesome things it can do"[/quote]
Honestly for me 4e sounds like the edition is okay if I could pick. Because it’s the one most honest about how DnD is a game centered around using its magic system for complexity and interesting stuff occurring in combat.
Albino Bunny on
0
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
My reason for preferring 4E is that if I am going to play D&D, a game that is essentially an adaptation of tactical wargaming to focus more on individual characters and their storylines as opposed to large scale conflict, I might as well play the version of it that is the most blatant about its tactical focus and designed around how those skirmishes work and their place in the story. It's the pulpy, action-packed arcade game of tabletop RPGs, and it makes combat equally fun for everyone (your own experience of how fun that is may vary, but it's not so much based on the class you chose).
At the end of the day, I'm also going to try to avoid playing D&D, because I don't think it is designed to tell the sort of stories I am interested in telling. But 4E gives me something fun to do with that, at least.
As I get older and play more games and such, I've come to largely think that the most important thing about any RPG is: does it feel right?
The system can be ostensibly pretty archaic and poor but if it feels right, it doesn't really matter that much. It can also be really good, but if it feels wrong etc (see: why I'm not using CofD for my scifi game even though mechanically it's well capable of doing it very well)
My experience with magic in 5th edition was trying to create a non magical rogue because the entire rest of the group had access to spell lists.
And then eventually settling on just being a battlemaster with the criminal background and an extra skill proficiency bummed off a kind GM.
Weird how the fighter archetype that just has spells by another name is the best one for getting to feel like a dramatic and heroic rogue in combat with choices out side "I stab the monster".
The Battlemaster is 100% not "spells by another name"
Like, unless your definition of 'spell' is "anything that does anything other than just a bit of damage" and/or "anything that involves a check to prevent/minimize/stop" in which case grappling is a spell by another name.
Welcome to why 3e fans derided 4e classes for "all being magic" and "having spells" when other players looked at it and said "it has a simple-to-understand action economy and every single class has awesome things it can do"
Honestly for me 4e sounds like the edition is okay if I could pick. Because it’s the one most honest about how DnD is a game centered around using its magic system for complexity and interesting stuff occurring in combat.[/quote]
It's kinda funny to me because one of the only critiques of 4e that really resonates with me is that magic is much more defined and restricted. Most of the weird niche utilitarian spells went away and that cut off a bit of creativity because of it. I think that's ultimately a good thing for the game through it still pings my nostalgia a bit.
I like 5th because it feels like 2nd but is not a janky pile of nightmarish if fun 80s/90s mechanics, which is good because I was raised on a healthy diet of Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, BG2 and playing AD&D at a scout camp
(think I mentioned that campaign once here, it was sweet)
Just to give credit to the original source, it's this person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRvPpOAyh4I
(I know it because it's used as the theme for the Neo-Anarchist Podcast, a Shadowrun in-character history podcast)
Ok so first game in about a month tonight. Last time the party allied with a group of earth elementals to kill off some air elementals and got introduced to their leader, a dragon made of diamonds, who said he would help them find what they seek but first, he wants a favor. There is a Djinn nearby in a great flying castle, it is a staging area for troops from the plane of air to invade the plane of earth, he would like it to not be flying anymore, which they can do by destroying the magic artifact that keeps it afloat.
So this time
They see a group of Air Elementals who are being let up 2 at a time to the castle via a magic elevator. Yes they don't NEED to use it, but if any of them speak Primodial and can do a bluff check, theres a grand masquerade ball happening in the castle tonight, and you get let up 2 by 2 and introduced in the courtyard before heading in. So they can bluff and disguise themselves to get in, or they can grapple (maybe) up the back end to get in a waste disposal chute jutting out of the earth on the back end of the castle. From there they have to sneak/talk their way through the party and get to the top of the tallest, middle spire. Thats where the artifact is. Guarded by traps, wards, and a big mean air monster (its using stats from a giant).
This way I figure it might be more fun then a "Kill all mans" mission
Ok so first game in about a month tonight. Last time the party allied with a group of earth elementals to kill off some air elementals and got introduced to their leader, a dragon made of diamonds, who said he would help them find what they seek but first, he wants a favor. There is a Djinn nearby in a great flying castle, it is a staging area for troops from the plane of air to invade the plane of earth, he would like it to not be flying anymore, which they can do by destroying the magic artifact that keeps it afloat.
So this time
They see a group of Air Elementals who are being let up 2 at a time to the castle via a magic elevator. Yes they don't NEED to use it, but if any of them speak Primodial and can do a bluff check, theres a grand masquerade ball happening in the castle tonight, and you get let up 2 by 2 and introduced in the courtyard before heading in. So they can bluff and disguise themselves to get in, or they can grapple (maybe) up the back end to get in a waste disposal chute jutting out of the earth on the back end of the castle. From there they have to sneak/talk their way through the party and get to the top of the tallest, middle spire. Thats where the artifact is. Guarded by traps, wards, and a big mean air monster (its using stats from a giant).
This way I figure it might be more fun then a "Kill all mans" mission
DepressperadoI just wanted to see you laughingin the pizza rainRegistered Userregular
so I've discovered, after running into a teleporting airship full of felonious fey, that my Monk is Lawful Good in the same way like, Robocop is Lawful Good
he obeys the Law, but if you're a criminal, he will shoot you in the dick.
so I've discovered, after running into a teleporting airship full of felonious fey, that my Monk is Lawful Good in the same way like, Robocop is Lawful Good
he obeys the Law, but if you're a criminal, he will shoot you in the dick.
"There ain't no law saying 'Don't shoot the criminal in the dick'."
"Yes there is, Monk Cop. It's literally on the first page."
One of the downsides of 4e was that every class had decisions to make in combat and resources to manage.
But wait how is that bad? Well, I mean, not everyone wants to think about games in a mechanical way. Some folks are new to games or some folks like me just don’t find the combat in DnD to be very interesting and want to get that over ASAP to get to the more interesting things.
I think it’s great that 5e has the battle master but I am also much happier to take the champion and just attack every turn with no decisions.
0
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
One of the downsides of 4e was that every class had decisions to make in combat and resources to manage.
But wait how is that bad? Well, I mean, not everyone wants to think about games in a mechanical way. Some folks are new to games or some folks like me just don’t find the combat in DnD to be very interesting and want to get that over ASAP to get to the more interesting things.
I think it’s great that 5e has the battle master but I am also much happier to take the champion and just attack every turn with no decisions.
This is basically why Fighter is the best designed class in 5e, because it allows you to fine tune the number of options and resources you have to consider in combat
My favorite fighter build is an Archer archetype from Pathfinder 1e. None of that Mage Archer stuff, strictly a martial archer who was just really good at bows.
When that campaign ended, he threatened a 15 foot area around him and had combat reflexes for 5 or 6 AOO/round, and Snapshot. If I parked him in the right spot on the battlefield, I could wreck faces even before I made a full attack and really ruined a day.
One of the downsides of 4e was that every class had decisions to make in combat and resources to manage.
But wait how is that bad? Well, I mean, not everyone wants to think about games in a mechanical way. Some folks are new to games or some folks like me just don’t find the combat in DnD to be very interesting and want to get that over ASAP to get to the more interesting things.
I think it’s great that 5e has the battle master but I am also much happier to take the champion and just attack every turn with no decisions.
I was thinking about this as I was writing my post about the auto-attacking fighter. I think this makes a lot of sense, and 13th Age is often brought up as a system that has variety in class difficulty specifically for this reason. Some classes are designed to have fewer choices (and so are either for newer players, or for those looking for more laid-back experiences), and some have more choices for more advanced players. As I recall, the feats/talents/whatever-it-was-called system also lets you turn the crank a little on whether you want your character to just get better at the thing they already do, or to gain new options during combat.
I think that's a fantastic approach, but I'd rather the system was built in such a way that all classes have a "just push the button to go" version and a "you need a flowchart to line up the bonuses from all your various abilities" version, so if you were a starting player who still wanted to play a mage, you could - but I suspect this kind of system is probably impossible to actually design and balance and make fun.
One of the downsides of 4e was that every class had decisions to make in combat and resources to manage.
But wait how is that bad? Well, I mean, not everyone wants to think about games in a mechanical way. Some folks are new to games or some folks like me just don’t find the combat in DnD to be very interesting and want to get that over ASAP to get to the more interesting things.
I think it’s great that 5e has the battle master but I am also much happier to take the champion and just attack every turn with no decisions.
I know I ramble on about DCC a lot but they really did fighters right in that game. They don't have any special abilities, but roll a feat dice on every attack and some skill checks, allowing them to try and do a badass fighter thing for each action and succeeding on a 3 or more (dice size starts at d3 at level one and goes up each level). That can be a blinding attack, grabbing a chandelier and using it to swing across the room, making a shield wall, shooting an arrow to sever a hangman's noose, or if you're feeling uncreative, a precision strike that deals extra damage. And it can be anything! The rules explicitly say that the DM has the final say on if you can do something, but you're encouraged to improvise. If Robin Hood or Conan the Barbarian or The Bride could do it, you can probably do it.
Fighters are martial badasses even at level one and they should be able to do surprising and impressive stuff on the battlefield
One of the downsides of 4e was that every class had decisions to make in combat and resources to manage.
But wait how is that bad? Well, I mean, not everyone wants to think about games in a mechanical way. Some folks are new to games or some folks like me just don’t find the combat in DnD to be very interesting and want to get that over ASAP to get to the more interesting things.
I think it’s great that 5e has the battle master but I am also much happier to take the champion and just attack every turn with no decisions.
A lot of the Essentials classes in 4e swing back to that kind of play. I think the fighter version just got x per encounter add 1 weapon die, and I think a similar daily.
One of the downsides of 4e was that every class had decisions to make in combat and resources to manage.
But wait how is that bad? Well, I mean, not everyone wants to think about games in a mechanical way. Some folks are new to games or some folks like me just don’t find the combat in DnD to be very interesting and want to get that over ASAP to get to the more interesting things.
I think it’s great that 5e has the battle master but I am also much happier to take the champion and just attack every turn with no decisions.
I was thinking about this as I was writing my post about the auto-attacking fighter. I think this makes a lot of sense, and 13th Age is often brought up as a system that has variety in class difficulty specifically for this reason. Some classes are designed to have fewer choices (and so are either for newer players, or for those looking for more laid-back experiences), and some have more choices for more advanced players. As I recall, the feats/talents/whatever-it-was-called system also lets you turn the crank a little on whether you want your character to just get better at the thing they already do, or to gain new options during combat.
I think that's a fantastic approach, but I'd rather the system was built in such a way that all classes have a "just push the button to go" version and a "you need a flowchart to line up the bonuses from all your various abilities" version, so if you were a starting player who still wanted to play a mage, you could - but I suspect this kind of system is probably impossible to actually design and balance and make fun.
The Ranger is kind of the best example of this because on its face is a very simple and straightforward set of mechanics, but there's some wiggle room for them to get access to some Druid talents that can add a LOT of new options (especially if you don't have a druid in the party)
Yeah but the better answer to not wanting a game focused on combat and tactical magic is to like, not play the game focused on combat as it's core pillar.
The fighter exists in an absurd space where they are masters of all weapons! (Except not really because you're picking strength or dex and only taking certain weapon feats if you don't want to be behind curve) and Experts at combat! (But only able to try to trip or disarm an enemy four times in a given battle and also only if you picked trip or disarm from the list of allowed Cool Things To Do).
Like their class fantasy is predicated less on any mechanical basis and more on the fact that everyone just knows what a DnD fighter is supposed to do.
I think "little brother class" design is bad and the answer to catering to players who aren't interested in engaging with the systems of the game is to play a different game with them or not play with them, not make your game worse
Posts
The Battlemaster is 100% not "spells by another name"
Like, unless your definition of 'spell' is "anything that does anything other than just a bit of damage" and/or "anything that involves a check to prevent/minimize/stop" in which case grappling is a spell by another name.
Satans..... hints.....
Which is a good thing because as discussed 5th edition is a game about magic and it’s spell list so a fighter class just being a ‘spell list’ about how cool you can fight is a step in the right direction.
There is a problem with that build, which we found out in a Pathfinder game I was playing in a couple of years ago. We all thought we were hot shit cause my friend played a necromancer and had lots of tough zombies and skeletons around us. And then an enemy got a lucky hit in and dropped him.
And then all hell broke loose as the skeletons and zombies were no longer under his control. Between the enemies and the new enemies over half the party died.
If it's cyberpunk, I got you.
The first D&D I was introduced to was 2nd Ed AD&D, I read those books front to back, I played the Infinity Engine games for I don't even know how much time; 2nd Ed formed my first understanding of what RPGs are like and what to expect from the standard classes. 2nd Ed fighters were "here is a sword, now poke it at that dragon until the mage can do the actual work".
I started playing WoW a few months after launch. After I made a Warrior and found myself with an action bar with different abilities on it, I was absolutely flabbergasted. What do you mean I can do things other than auto-attack? That's wild!
It’s a medievalish setting fighting against the evil masked empire
I came up under the 2nd ed Revised era, with the Player's Options books, so the idea that fighters could do other things was just starting to show up.
It was nice!
(I know it because it's used as the theme for the Neo-Anarchist Podcast, a Shadowrun in-character history podcast)
Getting "weapon speed" and "kit" nightmare flashbacks now...
It's funny, I'm a big 4E fan.
And it still took me forever to realize that 5E was just redoing 4E with a bunch of its abilities but using a more Vancian inspired system. Like, Hunter's Mark, the ranger spell that they get by second level? That's essentially just an encounter power, and yeah, the flavor text says that it's a mystical act of divination, but I've seen so many players ignore that part - it's just choosing a quarry.
I still don't love it, because I prefer the narrative resources of 4E to daily resources, but I've turned from hating how every class is magical in 5E to actually wanting everything to be more magical, so that magic is a unified system that everyone has to deal with and everyone can understand.
Welcome to why 3e fans derided 4e classes for "all being magic" and "having spells" when other players looked at it and said "it has a simple-to-understand action economy and every single class has awesome things it can do"
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Something from the Lord of the Rings soundtrack, maybe? Like a track associated with Helm's Deep or the Battle of Pellennor Field?
Welcome to why 3e fans derided 4e classes for "all being magic" and "having spells" when other players looked at it and said "it has a simple-to-understand action economy and every single class has awesome things it can do"[/quote]
Honestly for me 4e sounds like the edition is okay if I could pick. Because it’s the one most honest about how DnD is a game centered around using its magic system for complexity and interesting stuff occurring in combat.
At the end of the day, I'm also going to try to avoid playing D&D, because I don't think it is designed to tell the sort of stories I am interested in telling. But 4E gives me something fun to do with that, at least.
The system can be ostensibly pretty archaic and poor but if it feels right, it doesn't really matter that much. It can also be really good, but if it feels wrong etc (see: why I'm not using CofD for my scifi game even though mechanically it's well capable of doing it very well)
Honestly for me 4e sounds like the edition is okay if I could pick. Because it’s the one most honest about how DnD is a game centered around using its magic system for complexity and interesting stuff occurring in combat.[/quote]
It's kinda funny to me because one of the only critiques of 4e that really resonates with me is that magic is much more defined and restricted. Most of the weird niche utilitarian spells went away and that cut off a bit of creativity because of it. I think that's ultimately a good thing for the game through it still pings my nostalgia a bit.
and you better fucking make sure the warlord is in there
(think I mentioned that campaign once here, it was sweet)
Its a playlist full of stuff, mostly SR games.
So this time
This way I figure it might be more fun then a "Kill all mans" mission
It's still stealthy if I leave no witnesses...
Close enough, just give them cyberware and call it SaederKrypp.
Nah its only a 50 foot drop and the air elementals can all fly. They'll be fine, no reason for me to figure out the XP for all of them
he obeys the Law, but if you're a criminal, he will shoot you in the dick.
"There ain't no law saying 'Don't shoot the criminal in the dick'."
"Yes there is, Monk Cop. It's literally on the first page."
But wait how is that bad? Well, I mean, not everyone wants to think about games in a mechanical way. Some folks are new to games or some folks like me just don’t find the combat in DnD to be very interesting and want to get that over ASAP to get to the more interesting things.
I think it’s great that 5e has the battle master but I am also much happier to take the champion and just attack every turn with no decisions.
This is basically why Fighter is the best designed class in 5e, because it allows you to fine tune the number of options and resources you have to consider in combat
When that campaign ended, he threatened a 15 foot area around him and had combat reflexes for 5 or 6 AOO/round, and Snapshot. If I parked him in the right spot on the battlefield, I could wreck faces even before I made a full attack and really ruined a day.
I think that's a fantastic approach, but I'd rather the system was built in such a way that all classes have a "just push the button to go" version and a "you need a flowchart to line up the bonuses from all your various abilities" version, so if you were a starting player who still wanted to play a mage, you could - but I suspect this kind of system is probably impossible to actually design and balance and make fun.
https://open.spotify.com/user/121306549/playlist/0mqPgMs5ll4ksVFaGhOMgR?si=8fZKL9BVR4aIsp58IaGLCw
I know I ramble on about DCC a lot but they really did fighters right in that game. They don't have any special abilities, but roll a feat dice on every attack and some skill checks, allowing them to try and do a badass fighter thing for each action and succeeding on a 3 or more (dice size starts at d3 at level one and goes up each level). That can be a blinding attack, grabbing a chandelier and using it to swing across the room, making a shield wall, shooting an arrow to sever a hangman's noose, or if you're feeling uncreative, a precision strike that deals extra damage. And it can be anything! The rules explicitly say that the DM has the final say on if you can do something, but you're encouraged to improvise. If Robin Hood or Conan the Barbarian or The Bride could do it, you can probably do it.
Fighters are martial badasses even at level one and they should be able to do surprising and impressive stuff on the battlefield
A lot of the Essentials classes in 4e swing back to that kind of play. I think the fighter version just got x per encounter add 1 weapon die, and I think a similar daily.
The Ranger is kind of the best example of this because on its face is a very simple and straightforward set of mechanics, but there's some wiggle room for them to get access to some Druid talents that can add a LOT of new options (especially if you don't have a druid in the party)
The fighter exists in an absurd space where they are masters of all weapons! (Except not really because you're picking strength or dex and only taking certain weapon feats if you don't want to be behind curve) and Experts at combat! (But only able to try to trip or disarm an enemy four times in a given battle and also only if you picked trip or disarm from the list of allowed Cool Things To Do).
Like their class fantasy is predicated less on any mechanical basis and more on the fact that everyone just knows what a DnD fighter is supposed to do.