IME, the relative balance of casters vs mundanes was very dependent on the DM and the campaign. Just to be clear, I am emphatically
not talking about leaving balance up to the DM, or a broken system that the DM had to "clean up". 3e was a little more caster-favorable in this regard, but it was still campaign-dependent.
Many things
used to play into it:
- Magic items: which ones show up? how common are they?
- 3e's MI mechanics also heavily tilted to caster's favor.
- Magic item creation: how hard is it?
- If you rarely have PC's doing the crafting, that tilts away from casters.
- Enemy spellcasters: Do they leave their spellbooks behind?
- You truly hose Arcane casters, if they don't.
- Monsters: Are they more than stacks of HP for the fighters to mow down?
When I DM'ed a "sandboxey" 2e campaign, I could tailor the magic dominance to suit the game the players wanted, simply by adjusting the above. 3e made it a bit harder, but at least arcane casters could be kept in check fairly easily, IME. (Sorry 3e, but you made the Divine caster just too good, IMO
Not that my clerics ever took advantage of it.
)
Part of the resentment that 4e engendered, I think, was in somewhat removing that flexibility. You know, the whole ‘The right way to play guitar is to play thrash metal’ thing that Mearls was talking about.
Anyway, as someone said above, I don't think that the LFQW thing was a fundamental problem with the rules. Just because someone can drive the car off a cliff doesn't mean that it needed a brake job.