Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
IDK, 5e seems a lot more "Balanced" than all the other versions of D&D.

As I mentioned somewhere: Fewer Spell Slots per Spell Level, plus breaking up Known Spells between all Spell Levels (or a set value for maximum): plus Concentration on a lot of really useful/powerful spells.

Still want to add a little more OSR?
All spell components are consumed, and the DM determines what spells can be cast with a Focus.
Mostly an Accounting Tax, but not having the correct component for the spell you want when you need it is a great drawback, for 'balencing'.
I find that 5e balanced the casters in the worst of two possible ways, causing them to be less fun, but not exactly balanced still.

Wizard as a class is cancerous to the game. No game with magic should have a type of mage who gets access to 80% of magic in the game while progressing at the same rate as other major spellcasters.

It would be much more fun to have spellcasters actually cast a lot of spells, maybe twice as much, but be limited to very specific areas of expertise. You want to be a fireball mage? Great, you get Evocation and Abjuration, you're a battlemage or a warmage or w/e. Necromancers only get Conjuring and Necromancy. Enchanters only get Illusion and Enchantment, ot Enchantment and Transmutation. Diviners get the rest of whatever isn't taken.

Same with Clerics, Druids - they need significantly lesser spell lists derived from their gods, instead of every cleric having access to all cleric spells (which is still like 50%) and then some other ones depending on gods.

Those three classes still embody the problems of D&D casters, which is "I can do everything", even if 5e nerfed that "everything" to being "not always better than what nonmages can do, but usually better still" instead of 3.5'e "why would I need a Fighter anyway".