In 5e, that balance is upended because of that prior thought. What should a fighter be, other than a character who is superior at fighting (it's almost a truism)? And yet, it would seem that spellcasters should have:
A. The ability to use cantrips every round that gives them roughly the equivalent of the martial character's attacks;
On a tangent in 5e cantrips are
not the rough equivalent of the martial character's attacks (with the sole exception of adding Agonizing Blast to Eldritch Blast). Instead they are more balanced with a spellcaster shooting a crossbow and are about half the equivalent of a martial character's attack.
I wouldn't go THAT FAR.
4e "Fixed" the problem I'm referencing by making it so everyone used the exact same sort of At will, Encounter, Daily, and Utility powers. It's the -blandest- and most samey method of fixing the problem there is.
Where "the same sort" means that the fighter has a choice between e.g. hitting you with a sword while driving you back and an attack that trades power for accuracy and a wizard may have a choice between a mini-fireball thrown at a distance and a close range and hasty blast of thunder.
If area fireballs are the exact same sort of thing as sword strokes we may as well go pure abstract.
Instead, I'm suggesting giving everyone a similar baseline and then moving from there into the different mechanics that make them unique, and those unique mechanics being the MAJORITY of the class rather than just one or two details.
You're looking for a game that isn't D&D then. Certainly one without D&D's attempt to make different types of caster by giving them different spell lists.
Unless we raise the bar of martials up to the level of superhero or nerf magic to the level of mundane capabilities then magic will always be better than martial. That’s part of what makes it magical.
We could at least start by raising the bar of martials up to real world. A solid hit from a sword should
kill. And this applies to just about any flesh and blood monster. I don't care what you are, a sword through the skull will kill you in a single hit unless you are
very lucky. There's no reason that magic needs to insta-kill. It just needs to do other things - it doesn't need to be better at everything.
Then we can continue by fixing armour - which was thoroughly broken by 3.0 keeping armour values almost the same but escalating strength bonuses to hit.
In D&D we aren't playing with martials having real world capability. We're playing with martials having an action-movie level ability to face tank and exceptionally limited ability to kill.
So, the situation is that all characters have completely different types of fiction they are trying to represent in their classes/subclasses.
Wizards are Harry Potter wizards and level 20 wizards are ancient wizard types like Voldemort.
Fighters are mercenaries that use their combat expertise to proceed through life.
Barbarians are Conan/He-man type characters who specialize in a meatier sense of attack
Paladins are mythic heroes
Clerics are miracle performers
Bards are bards
The fiction of these characters are isolated from the other. And this tension can be detrimental for the Fighter that wants to be treated as a mythic hero like the Paladin.
So you're saying to scrap the fighter because they are from a much grittier genre?
Me, I want to play Hercules, Cu-Chulain, or Lancelot as a fighter. Fighters should be mythic heroes. Paladins are a specific thing.
And the mercenaries who proceed through life using their combat expertise despite being weaker than their companions aren't fighters - they are rogues.
A perfect example of an issue caused by writing the classes rules first instead of themes first. Paladin is holy warrior, that's the theme. Mechanical role is secondary, and mechanics should be flexible enough that you can build characters to fulfil different roles within that theme, or indeed one that is a hybrid. Thematically 'avenger' is a paladin, and in themes first design such a build would be part of the paladin class.
Frank Caste in plate is a perfectly valid paladin concept. Also a fighter by no means need to be a defender, they can be focusing mostly on dealing damage; that is conceptually perfectly valid. In 4e they had to add a completely flavourless slayer class to fulfil that. Pigeonholing classes, that should be evocative thematic archetypes into some rigid MMO roles is simply a terrible idea. That sort of bland gamey nonsense is why 4e got rejected and unfortunately some good innovations with it.
So putting Frank Castle into plate makes him a holy warrior? You're arguing with yourself here.
And the "completely flavourless Slayer" was to appease the people who wanted pre-4e fighters. The ones with no set class features.
It is insanely specific fighter build as its own class. And it really has no flavour beyond 'a guy who hits things hard with big weapons.' I know, I played one for years; changed my barbarian into it when I got tired of most of my powers being useless in most fights as DM didn't include multiple foes.
That's on your DM. If mine had stuck to only one foe in most combats in 4e I wouldn't have been impressed either.
