“How can the Fighter-Linear-Wizard-Quadratic issue be solved without over-charging the Fighter Class or over-limiting the Wizard Class?”
It’s impossible to alter the balance between two things without altering the balance between two things. Also, it’s possible to alter both classes to get more parity and both classes have a lot of ways to fiddle with them. For fighters, you have number of attacks, damage, and special effects like movement and condition. For wizards, you have number of spells, power of spells, number of targets per spell, and special effects. For example, I could imagine a wizard that gets fewer spells at the same power as 3.5 but fewer spell slots. One or two at the highest level, two to three at the next level and three of every remaining level, plus an at will ranged touch that does 1d8+int elemental damage. That’s not so quadratic, but still quite powerful.

@Brendan – I definitely like your idea about making each weapon (or perhaps weapon group) have specific abilities that only Fighters can unlock. And yes, we both see the inherent problem of weapon specialization – it kills the design goal of Fighter is Versatile, locking him down to one weapon type as a favored tool.

I have gone back and re-read the “D&D Next Design Considerations” L&L article and while many of the topics do present a general “back-to-basics” feel, nowhere does Mike M. ever say they aim to make Next like older editions of D&D, exclusively.

In fact he states:
“More importantly, we must look beyond the mechanics of the game to focus on the archetypes, literary tropes, and cultural elements that built D&D. We must build a fighter that resonates as a warrior, not one simply cobbled together with mechanics pilfered from D&D’s past…”

Which means that the game is going WAY “back-to-basics” cutting past all prior editions and focusing on the fiction that spawned D&D to begin with. He also states:

“The new system must create a mechanical and mathematical framework that the play experience of all editions of D&D can rest within. One player can create a 4th-Edition style character while another can build a 1st-Edition one…”

Which indicates that the design team is not taking the earliest versions of the game as gospel, nor are they focusing on simply updating the most current version of the game. Which is in opposition to the idea you’ve presented here in your post, of the game reverting back to how older editions functioned.

So to answer your questions:

1) As a “back-to-basics” design goal does not mean what you intended, I’d say a ton of innovation is NEEDED to stop the game from stagnation. Also, without a ton of innovation, the game system will not be able to achieve the goals it has set out to achieve, which are to reunite the fan base, create a game we can all recognize as D&D and allow everyone that wants to play the game, to play it in the way they want to.

2) This question is basically “How can a linear fighter and a quadratic wizard be equal to each other.” The whole problem with LFQW is that the design of older editions was not balanced. So when the community asks for a fix, they aren’t asking for WotC to leave the problem there and somehow wave a magic wand to fix it. They’re asking for the design of those classes to be changed to accommodate.

That however, is my opinion. Ideally, the game should allow both options. In some fictions magic users are just plain more powerful then mundane characters. And if your group wants that, they should be able to achieve that. That is if Next can reach it’s goal of allowing all tables to play the way they want.

This could be achieved simply by a module that describes how to allow spells to scale with level, and how to up the amount of spells a caster has access too. Done, you’ve re-implemented the basic scale presented with Vancian casting in 3e.

But, in my opinion, the core should be balanced, ala 4e to allow new players and pick up game players to understand the system quickly and easily. But, it should keep to the spirit of earlier editions (no spell-like powers for the fighter/rogue) and the spirit of the fiction that lead to those editions – where even non-magical heroes can achieve great things, and in some cases, things that their magical counterparts cannot achieve.

As a referee, I hope they make this easier to work at the table though. The grid, marks, so many status effects: these are all a hassle to manage.

I would prefer them to tone down the high-level wizard’s power when trying to balance the classes rather than amp up the fighter.

I believe it is possible to get back-to-basics and balance out the classes. That balance is something I think 5E needs. That doesn’t mean we have to go with a system that gives fighters spell like powers, but it is possible to achieve balance.