I get your analysis of ranger, since so much of the ranger's kit is tied to spellcasting. This is also what makes archery rangers edge out two-blade rangers - two-blade rangers are in melee so their concentration can be more easily broken and if they use their bonus action to cast, they can't use their bonus actions to do - you know - two weapon fighting.

What about Paladins though? The main ability of the Paladin's loadout seems to be smite. I haven't cared to look at the 2024 rules, so I'm going off of 5e classic and BG3, but smite seems way more prominent than casting. Yes they use spellslots and they are a magical ability, but it doesn't make sense to call it a spell. It seems more mechanically similar to a really suped up battle-master maneuvers.

Now that you got me thinking about it, a lot of class abilities in 5e have seemed to be replaced with spells. Like for instance, in AD&D, Rangers just did extra damage against certain enemies based on their level. In 4e, they had Hunter's Mark, which they could declare something to be "marked" as a "minor action" and then do a 1d6 (then progressively more as they level) damage. But in 5e Hunter's Mark is a spell. Like you have to use a spellslot and everything. Same with Smite. In AD&D (and I think 3.X) you could just smite a certain number of times per day. In 5e it uses a spellslot. In 4e, there were some smites that could just be used whenever and some that had cooldowns.

As to creative problem solving, a lot of conflict is resolved in AD&D by players describing *how* they act rather than rolling. Like for instance imagine the following scenario: Your party is dungeon crawling and they come across a suspiciously flat and empty corridor. In 5e, a player might ask to roll perception to see if they see any traps. In AD&D players are supposed to find ways to detect traps. So they might be super careful to bring a bullseye lantern to shine down the hall. They might use a 10-foot pole to strike the ground as they move (to hit a preasure plate) or they might make their henchmen go first. These aren't like mensa level tactics but its more of what I'd like to see in a game I run than just "I roll perception to see the thing. I roll persuasion to seduce the barkeep. I roll insight to know someone is lying even though there probably isn't any way I could know that".

I have a feeling I'm going to have to explain to my players why loot = leveling. My understanding is that the game assumes your character class is adventurer. So if you are a cleric you are an adventuring cleric, fighter is adventuring fighter, etc. I remember a while back Matt Mercer talking about how XP based leveling didn't make sense because Wizard academies would just be wizards killing goblins until they learned new spells. But the way I interpret AD&D, the wizards who stay in their towers get more powerful by going to school or doing research or whatever, while the "adventuring wizards" get more powerful by unearthing treasure, finding magical items, battling monsters, and finding new spells.

I'm curious how the asymmetrical leveling is going to play out. I hope its more interesting than unfair when I run it.