FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Analysis can be objective, and can be verified. Actual play necessarily brings DM judgement into it, and can obscure the root contributing factors to any problems - done well, by compensating for those problems, so they're less likely to be noticed by the players.
IMHO, for any single table with a good enough DM, that's the best solution. Trying to 'fix' any specific issue, mechanically, is a different kind of challenge - those of us who like tinkering with systems may find it worthwhile...
True, it's just the single factor that's easiest to analyze - it comes already quantified, after all.; )
DPR is also the fighters strongest suit, by far, as its Action. Surge and Extra Attack features synergize powerfully with any per-attack damage bonus. And, it's bonus ASIs can deliver those bonuses.
But in the more varied realm of actual play versatility counts for a great deal more, versatility let's you address each of those 'other factors,' as they come up. The fighters versatility is at the low end of the spectrum. It's least-versatile archetype, the Champion has none to speak of, the EK less than any other caster (being initially restricted to 2 schools), and the BM, the 'complex fighter' option, as is evident, above, with its very few, all-low-level, locked-in, exclusively-combat maneuvers, has little more versatility, maybe less.
Yep. Fighter's lack versatility. Then again it's not like barbarians or rangers or paladins have much of it either. It's just compared to the fighter's 0 versatility even a little feels like an infinite step forward.
The only melee character I can think of that has actual versatility is the shadow monk. You can melee or ranged. You have great out of combat abilities. You have control abilities. You have great mobility. You have a nice damage upping ability (flurry of blows). You don't require a weapon. Etc.
Anyways, :thumbsup I agree with basically everything you said here.