Why are pf2e stands so atrocious?
Real conversions that I've had with 5 different NPC grade humans:
>Q: Which game is more rules based?
>A: Pf2e has more in depth and complex rules for a fairer game
>Q: Ok, which game is more free form and lacks hard rulings?
>A: Also, pf2e. By definition its rule system allows for more free form play unlike 5e.
>Q: Alright? What game is heavy on crunch and strategy? I want a detailed in depth game.
>A: Pf2e by far. Its 3 action econ and numerous options will give you a bunch of choices on each turn.
>Q: Now what if I want to play a low crunch streamlined game?
>A: Pf2e! Its 3 action econ leads to a quicker and more streamlined game that 5e’s overly complex action system cant compete with.
The thing about being in second place is that they constantly feel the need to try to climb up to first.
I think the lot of them having jumping from 5e gives them some of a spurned loved vibe, where they must suck Paizo's cock no matter what to make D&D-senpai jealous or to prove some kind of nonexistent moral point.
'Spurned love' has been baked into Paizo fan's DNA since the first Pathfinder adventures dropped, before there was even an actual Pathfinder rpg.
Company low key runs on saying 'hey, we'll never make decisions as dumb as WotC', ignoring the fact that both companies have copied each other many, many times over the years.
I can see how that would be a common misconception.
But let me tell you the real reason we see fanboys like
It all goes back to the beginning.
>PF comes out as a means of preserving 3e in response to 4e
I'm just gonna use 3e for all of 3rd Edition DnD because it will trigger the PF2e fanboys and their claims of "PF=3.75e".
>3e people use PF stuff in their 3e games
>no one actually played PF
>5e comes out
>all the "PF people" jump ship to 5e
>3e hardcores stay playing 3e
>the 5 PF-only people see that no one was actually playing PF but them
>they mad
>proceed to continuously troll and build a reputation for a toxic fandom
>PF2e comes out
>these fanboys treat it like the second coming
>more people come to PF2e but the core is the same toxic fandom from before
>PF2e has a fanbase known for their asshole evangelism
That's what had happened. I watched it all play out in real time.
Nta but the real issues is that there are people who don't like [current d&d permutation] so they look around to find a !d&d that doesn't share the same problems. The majority of these concerns are adressed by PF so you have that PF gets a considerable share of the !d&d playerbase. Now every time someone voices a problem with [current permutation of d&d] the most vocal individuals in the PF playerbase automatically assume that's just one the many issues that someone is facing with the game, as they have also experienced, so they (enthusiastically) point to the "solution". It's the same context as for the (non-memey) serious gurpsfags: they have found a rulesystem the perfectly adresses ALL of their needs, how other people can't see the solution right there? Ultimately is just excitement and naivety, "toxicity" is just and extreme case scenario that's contextually agnostic.
You realize most PF2e fans are zoomers in their 20s, right? They weren't even teenagers when 5e first came out.
Why would they care about 3e or PF1e at that point?
PF isn't in second place anymore. CoC is, PF is bronze medal now.
>Chaosium now the #2
This is what happens when a company is the only adult in the room.
(Also when, rather than have a weird passive-aggressive relationship with their old material where they steal from it but somehow make it worse, like WotC, they instead just republish it with a fake leather cover knowing that boomer fans will pay the overcharged price for it.)
>rather than... like WotC, they instead just republish it with a fake leather cover knowing that boomer fans will pay the overcharged price for it
But Anon, WotC literally did that too
They hired literal mmo management, so yeah, that's their plan.
>But Anon, WotC literally did that too
They did? Seriously?
....Yeah, they just suck at everything, I guess.
It's the mental strain from being Paizo fans who are playing a bad 4e-ripoff.
I dont think pf2e is bad. The game is very well done its just the hardcore fans are uhhh
Wait wait! You're telling me that pf2e is a 4e ripoff?
They are. They're obviously wrong about it and haven't read 4e or PF 2e, but that's what they're saying.
It's a combo of the worst aspects of 5e and 4e
Worst aspect of 5e is trying to run it with the pretense that the rules work.
Worst aspect of 4e was no one published for it because of licencing concerns.
And yet here we are with a game that has neither problem but seems to attract wild unfounded criticism anyway.
I play 2e, its a fun system if not very flawed in some areas. Unfortunately a largest chunk of the fanbase are a bunch of terminally online assholes with massive 5e shaped chips on their shoulders.
Pf2e fucks with me. When I read it, it looked great. Like a lot of fun.
When I played it, it was an exercise in frustration and everyone defaulted to doing the same thing over and over again. Some of the least fun I've has with a game's combat.
>the system is bad because the players are min-max autists who refuse to try new things that may also be effective and interesting
>and everyone defaulted to doing the same thing over and over again
I've definitely noticed that over the PF2E games I've played. Certain classes more or less have their turns played out in advance, and in combat you could pretty much replicate them via a very simple flowchart. I had to move away from playing martials specifically because each round with them was basically the same shit over and over.
A lot of PF2e players have only ever played 5e besides it and left either for moral reason or because 5e just isn't a good system. Their only point of comparison is DnD5e and they view everything from a lens of "how is this better than 5e?"
I just like shitting on 5e
I hate 3 things in 2e
Death saves
Bloating every single number
And hero points
kek you heard of what they're doing with death saves in the remaster?
Suddenly curious.
Wounded gets added to your dying level everytime you take damage or fail a death save. If you go down with wounded 1 you start at dying 2, and from there taking damage or failing your save kills you.
This is apparently how it was always supposed to work and the "new" rule is actually just a clarification
....Every time you subtract hit point, you add to Wounded?
Not only does that seem like obnoxious bookkeeping (do you subtract 1 every time someone uses a Heal spell or action?), it's also offering the most ridiculous response possible to the 'what are Hit Points' debate.
No, this has nothing to do with hitpoints. If you take damage while you're in the dying state, your wounded level gets added to your dying level.
sounds like pf2e bullshit. gotta love this neato push to make 5e more like its bootleg competitor
Anon, this is PF2e we're talking about. As far as I'm aware, DnD5e didn't have a "remaster" in the works and doesn't have a "wounded" condition to prevent rubberbanding.
The next D&D edition is claimed, by the company that makes it, to be a Remaster of 5e (everything is backwards compatible!) in all but name.
>The next D&D edition is claimed, by the company that makes it, to be a Remaster of 5e (everything is backwards compatible!) in all but name.
Why not make it 5.5 then?
Because wotc wants to make a perpetual editionless rolling release without physical media. I bet soon enough (some years from now) they will declare even pdf manuals to be legacy, everything will be on a srd site or directly and exclusively inside their vtt.
definitely. they want you not only paying a fixed fee for a new rulebook or adventure, they also want you paying a monthly fee. this is the best way to accomplish that
>monetizing tabletop like a fucking MMO
If you're noticing some convergent design, it's because wotc hired a bunch of paizo designers for this.
this is always how my group has played
the DM usually doesn't have monsters attack downed players so the second part doesn't come up very often though
I'd like to add to this. I also hate:
- Infinite Kobold Problem
- No rollable treasure tables for encounters
- Medicine being a better heal than Healing spells
- Harm being one of the top 3 most damaging spells in the game
- Has actual freakshit ancestry/race choices like Dhampir Conrasu (Look it up it's real)
>No rollable treasure tables for encounters
Only thing on your list that's retarded. While I get your point, if you NEED this to the point of complaining about it you're a shit GM.
>There is no RP to "Scare to Death". You don't have to explain it or describe it
Yeah but if you're not going to RP/explain/describe abilities now and then why the fuck are you playing a tabletop ROLEPLAYING game? Why not vidya instead?
Regarding Lich, it's fucking horseshit in PF2e. The biggest problem with PF2e is how everything is internally balanced. a Lich archetype was NEVER going to be fun in PF2e with that in mind. Lich Archetype is only good if you go beyond RAW and work with your GM To give you some abilities and shit from the Lich's own statblock.
You know what, alright, fair. What's the amazing RP and Backstory you have that you can use "Scare to Death" to scare a Balor to death? Because I don't know what kind of RP'ing you'd need to do to Fus Ro Dah a Balor short of having legendary artifacts and you're using 8 decapitated heads of Demon Lords as your codpiece.
But let's push this point further. Another feat, "Forager" lets you literally bypass any survival rolls needed to find food for a party while in a wilderness setting. Then you can get the Lvl 7 Feat of "Planar Survival" which "For instance, you can forage for food even if the plane lacks food that could normally sustain you. A success on your check to Subsist can also reduce the damage dealt by the plane, at the GM’s discretion.
Now I can be cheeky and say tell me how you'd RP finding food on the Elemental Plane of Fire but that's not what PF2e promotes. It literally promotes Rollplaying over Roleplaying.
Or how about Earning Income? This is the actual scenario, verbatim, pg 235, they give for a lvl 16 bard to earn an income during downtime: "Lem is a 16th-level bard and legendary with his flute He has a Performance modifier of +31 with his enchanted flute. With 30 days of downtime ahead of him, Lem wonders if he can find something that might excite him more than performing in front of a bunch of stuffy nobles. He finds a momentous offer indeed—a performance in a celestial realm, and Lem's patron goddess Shelyn might even be in attendance! This is a 20th-level task, and the GM secretly sets the DC at 40.
Lem rolls an 11 on his Performance check for a result of 42. Success! The engagement lasts for a week, and at the end, the grateful celestials present Lem with a beautiful living diamond rose in constant bloom worth 1,400 gold pieces (200 gp per day for 7 days)."
That should be an adventure idea right there, instead it's described to be something that happens off screen because you rolled a 42.
you probably can't scare to death a balor. scare to death is a 15th level feat with the incapacitation trait. Incapacitation says a level 20 creature like the balor must be hit with the effect at at least 11th spell level (not feat level) in order to a crit success to happen full stop. there is no way for a character to upcast scare to death which is stuck at ~7th/8th spell level if I understand the conversion correctly. the best you can do to a balor with scare to death is frightened 2.
incapacitation effects are pretty stupid, but that's just now how it works
Scare to death isn't a spell, so the balor just compares it's level to the pcs level.
A level 20 pc at the very peak of their career can scare a balor to death.
It wasn't fair for me to say a lvl 15 character could Scare to Death a Balor. However, I thought, "If any other effect has the incapacitation trait, a creature of higher level than the item, creature, or hazard generating the effect gains the same benefits," would allow a lvl 20 PC to utilize it Scare to Death is not a spell, and since the Balor is a Lvl 20 Creature and they are equal levels the conditions are met. And the chance of it successfully killing the Balor is, truthfully, really quite low. I just want to make sure I have the reading right this time.
Yeah, a level 20 character could use Scare to Death on a Balor, However, not only would you need a critical success (a 44 or higher), the Balor doesn't actually die unless it rolls a critical failure in its own Fortitude Save (rolling below your Intimidate modifier).
Which means that as a level 20 character with Expert Intimidate and +3 Charisma, you'd have a modifier of 29. A max-level character being able to frighten a Balor is passable. (rolling a 15 or higher. Rolling a 5 or lower would be a normal failure, and a 10-15 would be a success, but not a Critical one.)
But to properly Scare someone to death, the target needs a critfail on a fortitude save. Not just a normal failure, a critfail. Which, due to a Balor's fortitude save, could literally not critfail even on a 1 due to the specifics of how critical rolls work in PF2e.
Now, if a character focused 100% on intimidation exclusively, (Boosted CHA to +6, Legendary in Intimidate, blowing all your cash on the Bangle of Crowns for another +4), then the Balor would still be able to be scared to death... if he rolled a nat1. And only then.
Minor correction, Scare to Death requires Legendary Intimidate. So the modifier would be a 31 instead of a 29. Changes the math slightly.
+31 would still be incredibly low for a lvl 20 character focusing on intimidation. It's possible for a Thaumaturge to have a +43 at that point which would mean you only needed to roll an 11 for a crit success, and that's before any debuffs.
Which is why I ignored the +1's and -1's for the argument because it wouldn't change the main point of this is something that is technically possible in PF2e and would almost never be a spontaneous ruling in 5e. To your point though, it's not a Hail Mary, it's actually quite a functional skill until you fight CR 21+ enemies. Then you have to consider than any PF2e Intimidation build is not just around this one skill, there are a lot of demoralizing strikes and other stuff you can do to cause mass debuffs to the enemy in conjunction to damage.
Even if I were to add the little +1's and -1's to the Balor to try and optimize the scenario, let's keep to the Nat 20 and Nat 1 argument here because now we are going a bit off topic. But to tie this up, you are technically correct, the best kind of correct.
My point wasn't how hard it is to do this to a Balor, but the fact that it can be done because this is where PF2e's biggest difference from 5e is.
Who here would honestly allow a 5e Fighter to fathom an attempt to walk up to a Balor, claim, "I want to instantly kill the Balor by scaring it to death," roll Intimidate, Nat 20's the roll.
The DM says, "Wait, the Balor will try to circumvent instantaneous death by rolling a Con save, and it can only fail if I roll a Nat 1," rolls a Nat 1 and says, "The Balor looks at you and shits its pants and dies".
I don't think in a Rules Light Combat-based system, a DM would allow this because there are so many logic hoops to jump through. And yet Power Word: Kill exists, with the necessity of the enemy needing <100 HP. No rolls needed it just dies, RAW. Or you can cast Sleep on a 5e Balor, upcast to 9th level to roll 19d8 and put that fucker to sleep with no roll needed if the Balor has between 19 to 152 HP remaining of its 262 HP. It's not optimal nor advisable but it's doable.
And that's kind of what it is in a nutshell: Giving options to Players and DMs where you wouldn't think about them normally. My players like having some structure to their games, it's hard for them to conceive "You can do anything," and they want to know what anything could mean.
I have said this for years about people claiming there's no value to 4E's martial powers. There isn't a DM alive who'd let you get away with anything on over half of the Warlord's power list.
And honestly if it's not written down or implied that is meant to be the tone/intent of the game, the DM shouldn't! Because then why should I play a class or character that can just do what every other class can do?
So to your point, and I agree with your point, 4e's entire Warlord power list (and various other powers) have codified rules for why you'd pick the class. And 4e's answer, unironically, was a good one looking it expressly from a gameplay perspective to try and help differentiate classes and what it means to play a TTRPG. This is a feature that PF2e picked up and it's one of the main reasons for why PF2e feels like DnD 4e.
Please note I am not touching balance or successful execution with a 20 foot pole for any of the games discussed. This legitimately goes back to my original statement of, "I think the idea of having a lot of crunch and hard rules does not contradict the idea of having more "freedom" per se".
You have one extreme where everything is so codified that no interpretation can be had, and on the other end you have what is essentially Calvinball.
Fair about the rollable tables. It's a convenience thing, and it'd be nice to have to refer to something quickly to make up a shopkeeper on the fly rather than take more minutes of time to prep for various things.
In my opinion, I think it's more the case that it's not friendly to new DMs who don't know have a decent yardstick for how to give out items. Then you bring up item levels being a thing and well- yeah shit you're right. I'd just like to save a few minutes of prep time.
PF2e is more crunchy than D&D 5e. That's a fact. It can be more free-form than 5e, but that's because the rules being more specific makes it easier for DMs to make rulings (other crunchy games like GURPS have a similar phenomenon).
Calling PF2e "quicker and more streamlined" is a lie, since I found that turns often take just as long, if not longer, in PF2e than in 5e. Where PF2e combats won out is in the fact that it feels much more active and engaged than 5e.
Finally, note that it's all in comparison to 5e. This is because PF2e is mostly 5e refugees, and 5e is an aggressively mediocre system. What they're really bringing up is the things that PF2e does well that 5e does not:
>More crunch=more depth to play than 5e's plug-and-play character building
>Easier for DMs to make rulings and encounters than 5e
>3 action economy is better than 5e's convoluted system
The PF2e fans just have to play their game and enjoy it for what it is.
>Where PF2e combats won out is in the fact that it feels much more active and engaged than 5e.
This is my biggest gripe about 5e combat. It's complicated enough to drag down, but the in-combat decisions for piloting your PC are rarely all that interesting.
It makes me want to play something more abstract like an OSR system or something with more engaging combat decisionmaking like 4e.
>Calling PF2e "quicker and more streamlined" is a lie, since I found that turns often take just as long, if not longer, in PF2e than in 5e
i think they mean in comparison to 1e. they can be slower than 5e and still be generally streamlined simply because 5e is in itself an outlier
Good morning sir! Was it your first online interaction with fans of anything? Do you take your time to find and list faults in every single thing you love in this world?
Anyway, /tg/ is not a board for discussing people you don't like, you go to /misc/ for this. So I'll answer your questions about the game:
>Q: Which game is more rules based?
Presumably, you're comparing it to 5e. Pathfinder.
>Q: Ok, which game is more free form and lacks hard rulings?
Out of these 5e is more free form and lacking in rules (what the fuck is a hard ruling?).
>Q: Alright? What game is heavy on crunch and strategy? I want a detailed in depth game.
Pathfinder, just because system math makes it a bad choice to act separate from the group.
>Q: Now what if I want to play a low crunch streamlined game?
Then you fucked yourself over with these choices. Neither Pathfinder 2e nor D&D 5e could be called "low crunch streamlined games". A fucking 600+ pages of core rules without monsters (for both games) should never be considered low crunch. Now, if we're talking about what game is easier to start playing, then the answer is 5e. If we're talking about what game is easier to start GMing, then it is Pathfinder 2e, just on the basis of working CR system.
Self Report Detected
But to get more constructive why does the delusion of "pf2e is better than 5e hands down" exist and how do we turn it into something more productive
Multiple anons have said the reason. Alot jumped from 5e to 2e and act like a spurned lover about the whole situation because 5e was there first and only other rpg.
Who said it's a delusion? Their personal opinion is PF2e is better than 5e, yours is opposite. Since you haven't brought up any arguments or explanation unlike PF2e shills that hurt you, start with doing something
>more productive
yourself. Until then please use a toilet for your posts, not a public space.
I think the idea of having a lot of crunch and hard rules does not contradict the idea of having more "freedom" per se. This is because some rules that are, on paper, fucking stupid, but they are RAW.
For example, could you intimidate a foe in 5e so hard with a Natty 20 that you instantly kill them?
In PF2e you can. It's a lvl 15 Skill Feat called "Scare to Death".
This is when you have the issue of 5e being more "Free Form", because at the end of the day, no matter how rules light a game is, I can't imagine any DM being so spineless that they stare at you slackjawed and let you make an enemy shit themselves to death because you said boo. 5e doesn't have this in the rules and no DM would ever rule this.
But it is RAW for PF2e. There is no RP to "Scare to Death". You don't have to explain it or describe it, you roll +28 to your Intimidation Check + other Bonuses and if you roll a fucking 48 you move mountains. Because the number says so and the rules say the numbers yield that.
Then we can go into the sheer amount of classes and archetypes that exist. With PF2e's 23 Base Classes (and counting), with 3 sub-classes and 145+ class archetypes you can choose from, it blows 5e's choices out of the water for what kind of character you want to make.
You want to make a guy who summons Purple Worms and turns into one? Wurm Caller Archetype. You want to be Batman? Ursine Avenger. You want to make a Magical Girl Adventurer? Vigilante Archetype. And PF2e Archetypes can be mixed into any class.
Okay, so how stupid can it b- You can actively choose to become a lich by leveling up. It's an Archetype. Hit level 12, have some pre-requisites, and because it's Rare the DM has more say for how easy it is to access it but it is there and a viable option.
Or actively choose to become a Skeleton Race, Demigod/Exemplar Class with Ghoul Archetype which, RAW, can exist. This is what 5e cannot begin to fathom to match, and truthfully, it shouldn't.
>You can actively choose to become a lich by leveling up
This would mean more if the lich archetype wasn't notoriously awful
>I can't imagine any DM being so spineless that they stare at you slackjawed and let you make an enemy shit themselves to death because you said boo. 5e doesn't have this in the rules and no DM would ever rule this.
What does a Spineless DM have to do with this? If you've got a backstory and RP that works in a SPECIFIC CONTEXT this isn't a fucking spineless or retarded idea. In fact, shit like this is what can make some tabletop experiences memorable for others. Are you fucking retarded?
>No DM would ever rule this
Incorrect as per above reasoning
Wow, cool! So many things PF2e lets me do! WOW! MUCH CHOICE!
It's still a fucking shit-ass system that's more focused on being "MUH BALANCE, MUH ORGANIZATION" than actually fucking fun.
None of my points were praising PF2e. And for your point about muh balance and muh organization
Just Fus Ro Dah the enemy and it's a memorable point. Just do it.
I agree! I did point out the more stupid things that can happen as a result of too many ideas and rules being established, and that 3.PF does it even better, but then sometimes you just get so swamped with rules and possibilities that it's hard to keep track of it all. Legitimately if I didn't have Archives of Nethys I wouldn't be DM'ing PF2e or even PF1e.
I agree with you that crunch in PF2e in a way can give you more freedom by giving you new ideas and rules that support building those ideas, because most players probably wouldn't imagine or accept things like killing someone simply by yelling at them without system supporting the idea. However, I'd say that 3.PF does that even better, as do some more obscure systems, because for example with your GM's permission you could make a ritual to turn yourself into a full lich with all the powers a NPC version of one would have. On the other hand, PF2e seems to unfortunately turn for example that lich and a skeleton race members into just far inferior versions of one, to the point that playing one feels like you're just a shitty human that's in a skeleton suit or something.
All of those are true OP
All stans are “atrocious”, that’s what makes them stans. The term is from a song about an obsessive who ends up committing murder-suicide.
Sorry I dont listen to that kind of music I like to read and write disregard the typo "stands"
Then why are you on Ganker, retard?
Modern D&D and all D&D Adjacent games are cancer. Flee from them.
>stands
What the fuck is a stand?
The only form of PF I liked was savage Pathfinder.
I think the issue is that much of the playerbase know enough about RPGs to move on from 5e but they only know enough to jump to the second most popular system. So you've got a bunch of people who feel super clever throwing around game design terms they heard and assuming all the good words apply to the thing they like because they haven't been exposed to enough to actually understand RPG design and what the things they're saying mean or how they are actually implemented.
I've never met a PF2e fanboy that wasn't a drooling retard who thinks they're a genius.
It also attracts that special brand of "woke" white people who are just as racist as a klansman, but are "woke" so "they're not".
>Why are pf2e stands
What?
Stands?
Congratulations, you have discovered marketing speak can be used to say everything but not mean anything.
I like it, it´s super easy to run on foundry VTT.
I would never run pf2e in person tho
you see, making a wizard who is as good as fighting in melee as a fighter is a ridiculous idea that would immediately be denied by any rational gm, but in 5e you can do just that, something that isn't possible at all in pf2. this is just an example of 5e's boundless flexibility.
>you see, making a wizard who is as good as fighting in melee as a fighter is a ridiculous idea that would immediately be denied by any rational gm
Yes, this is completely right, and a sign of good system design. It should not be possible to replace a physical combat class by a full caster. Designing classes that can be overshadowed and made redundant by other classes is actually extremely bad design. That both 3e and 5e are capable of this is a bad thing, and has been lambasted as bad for well on 2 decades.
Also, go fellate a shotgun, you disingenuous troll.
That was a satirical post.
It was being a contrarian shit stirrer. Please look up what actual satire is, you are seriously bad at it.
Honestly, no. No class should be able to replace another. The entire idea of replaceable classes is utterly shit design. A full caster should not be able to replace a combat class, a combat class should not be able to replace a full caster. And neither should be able to replace a skill monkey, nor should it replace a caster or combat class.
No it wasn't. He's making fun of 5E's shitty balance.
If no class can be covered for by any other, you end up with a game in which certain classes MUST be played. As long as no character eclipses another at the table, there’s merit in being able to build parties from unusual combinations of classes.
>A full caster should not be able to replace a combat class, a combat class should not be able to replace a full caster. And neither should be able to replace a skill monkey, nor should it replace a caster or combat class.
yes they should. ideally you should be able to play the game with any configuration of classes, including only copies of the same one, and not experience too much difference in difficulty. also what is a "combat class" supposed to be? every class in there games is desinged around combat
I fell for it. I am Boo Boo the Fool. However I stand on my hill and my loose shitty metaphor I dropped around here
>It should not be possible to replace a physical combat class by a full caster.
Caveat: Unless it is also possible to replace a full caster with a physical combat class. Which, yes, I recognize is vanishingly rare, but is worth noting.
I know this is a troll post but fuck it.
PF2e has the Magus hybrid class and the Kineticist hybrid class, and even the Psychic which can specialize in Martial Combat + Spellcasting. And you can use Archetypes to multiclass any class into a hybrid spellcaster. The hybrid classes are exactly that: Hybrid, generalists, not as good as a pure Martial nor as good as a pure Spellcaster.
This is just factually false that PF2e doesn't have flexibility. Having so many rules has circled around back to having flexibility because there are so many options. It's like having panes of glass, 1 pane of glass will break if you bend it in half. Have a thousand panes of glass and you can, section by section, make an archway that can form a perfect bridge. There's a metaphor here somewhere but I didn't intend for it.
However for 5e DnD, having a pure Spellcaster be as good, maybe even better than some Martials, is not "flexibility", it's just bad design.
No subclasses needed, any 5e Arcane Spellcaster can cast "Tenser's Transformation" which allows a Wizard to theoretically use a Greatsword and deal more damage than a non-optimized Fighter or a hyper optimized Monk. Be a Lvl 11 Wizard/Lvl 2 Fighter for Action Surge and get 2d6 +2d12 + Str Mods (Potion of Giant Strength ty) damage a round.
It's not optimal but you will do more damage than a lvl 13 Monk, who will be dealing 1d8+ Mods per attack, for 4 attacks. A Monk's four attacks of 4d8+20 (24 to 52 dmg) vs a Tenser'ed Wizard's two attacks of 4d6+4d12+10 (18 to 82 dmg) or flat out double that to 36 to 164 damage with Action Surge.
In 1e and 2e DnD, my personal opinion is that Tenser's was the definition of a Hail Mary spell because you ran out of options, Sensei. I'd rather have a Fighter and a Wizard than a Wizard who is just a better Fighter.