You don't think that the "master of tactical martial combat" concept or the extra years of combat training that the fighter has undergone compared to the wizard or bard should be relevant?
To start with, most players don't spend years of combat training. They start with a background which they typically gave up months before to embark on an adventuring career. I don't think I have ever had players with years of downtime, but on the rare occasion downtime is available most players are persuing dowtime activity.
In any case to answer your question more directly, I think the master of tactical combat should give them a
small edge over another character like a Wizard or Bard who likewise
chooses to spend a comparable amount of time training for martial combat.
To put this another way incorporating the actual rules - compared to an Enchantment Wizard or a Lore Bard that subclass-free fighter should have a huge advantage (and he does). On the other hand there should only be a small edge for a subclassless fighter as compared to a Swords Bard or Bladesinger who also takes combat related feats to bolster herself even more. This latter Wizard or Bard is also spending time training to be good at martial combat and is sacrificing class abilities to do it (specifically subclass and ASIs)
Nope. Not unrelated. Spellcasting is just as inherent a part of the blademaster as extra attack and fighting style is for the fighter.
The phrase you used was "effective in battle". Dealing damage is being effective in battle, so damaging spells, whether one-offs, or summons that deal damage is being effective in battle. More effective than the fighter.
Sure but the context I used it in was as effective in martial combat with weapons.
to turn this around on you - your argument is the Wizard can be more effective in battle overall because of spells, and I won't argue with that. But the fighter would also be more effective in combat with spells if he had them and to me it makes more sense to give him this than to give him more abilities with weapons. It preserves the builds people like to play now, while also making the fighter more versatile and ultimately more effective than he currently is.
Why bother with Wizards or Warlocks as a class? Just have a single class with access to all spells and abilities.
Because people like playing Wizards and Warlocks. Why would you take away classes people enjoy playing.
Regardless of what new rules we put in place mechancis are always going to be such that one class can be optimized more than another, just because one class objectively can be the most poerful, does not mean people should not be allowed to choose other classes.
Can you give some examples in broad strokes?
Action Surge, Extra attack giving more than two attacks a round, second wind which is a bonus action healing and two of the fighting styles are uniwue to fighter. One of the fighting styles actually affords the kinds of maneuvers people talk about (albeit in a limited fashion and only one of them).
In addition to these unique things, the fighter has other things including martial weapon proficiency (common to 3 other classes) and heavy armor proficiency common only to one other class and they have more ASIs which can be used to get even more combat-oriented stuff while staying on the same ability score ladder as the other classes.
That is all part of the class abilities. It is also important to point out that non-martial subclasses that can get extra attack, martial weapon proficiency and heavy armor proficiency do it as a subclass ability and none of them can get all of these.
The only non-martial build you can make that gets martial weapon proficiency, heavy armor proficiency and extra attack is a Warlock and you need to use your subclass, pact, invocation and a feat to get all that .... what a fighter gets at 1st level as part of his class. Even a Ranger or a Barbarian is going to need a feat to get all this!
I think a lot of people like the concept of the fighter class, and are willing to put up with 5e's mechanical implementation of it. I think than many of them would be happy to have the option of more tactical variety to choose.
I think tactical variety is already there based on fighting style, feat and subclass options. I do not think most players would want more built into the base class.
For the same reason that disabled spaces in car parks "take away" spaces close to the entrance of a supermarket from able-bodied people.
Seriously, - Look up "equality vs equity". If you're trying to bring all of the classes up to the same level of performance, you don't need to buff the one that is already in the lead.
I do not think classes need to have the same level of performancen and I am having trouble with the solutions as presented.
The way this discussion is going now is that people are not upset because the fighter can't do a lot. It is not about the lack of options for the fighter, but rather about the large number of comparitive options for other classes.
People now appear to be more focused on limiting what other characters can do relative to the fighter than focusing on what they want to make the fighter more fun.
That is what I have a big problem with - trying to limit options for others to be viable.
I don't like the disabled argument, however to get my point across my Wizard has a disabled tag that lets him park in the disabled space next to the fighter because he chose the bladesinger subclass, then he should be allowed to park in that space. The fact that he drives a Ferrari and can pay for someone to carry him to and from a normal space in the back is not relevant
If you think this, and also think that every other class should be able to do what the fighter can if they build into it, then why do you believe that the fighter still has a place in the game?
Because I like to play fighters and others like to play fighters and they like it with the rules right now that allow other classes to "do what the fighter can"
If people like playing the fighter and continue to play the fighter why do you keep insisting there is no place for it? Why don't you play what you want and let them play what they want?
If you could get the same results from a Bladesinger who just chooses not to use their main class ability, why play a fighter? This isn't Ars Magica.
To start with, assuming equal rolls on ability scores you do need to use defensive spells to maintain equivalence in melee with a bladesinger. Their extra attack, song of defense and song of victory bring a lot to the table, but not enough to really keep up without using defensive spells. Unless you just rolled bonkers a 10+ level bladesinger is going to be behind a 10+ level fighter without using any spells.
To answer your question though - it is because people like to play the current fighter.
The Wizard as written right now is the most powerful class and with the right subclass and feat selections can fill any role in the game. They are limited as healers but they can even take a fair shot at that.
If your premise were true, why would people play any other class at all (or at least any other except a healer)? Yet we don't see every player playing a Wizard do we? We see people playing Rogues, and Rangers and Paladins and Sorcerers and even fighters. To be honest I see more of those than I do Wizards. If people are playing those then it is because they choose to play them, even though a Wizard is more objectively powerful.
You can question their logic and maybe you only play a Wizard because of if, but it is not false and does not make their choice wrong. The rules are there and people can play what they want to play.
I play with two different players who play the same class every single time - one plays a Fighter and one plays an Artificer. There are a bunch of different more powerful options but that does not make their choices "wrong".
I also know another player who gets Witchbolt every time he plays a Sorcerer. That is not a good spell, but he likes it and he gets it and for that reason it should not be banned from the game.
