So how many weeks of pre-adventuring career do you think it takes to gain full casting?
RAW it is absolutely zero time, not only it could be 0, but it is factually 0.
I say that because if I multiclass into Wizard, Cleric or Druid and get spells immediately. No downtime required to learn to cast them. Also no downtime required to get proficiency in martial weapons, light armor or medium armor proficiency for the same reason - I can multiclass into Cleric, Fighter, Paladin or Ranger and get those proficiencies without doing anything at all prior.
It doesn't even take time to build your first spellbook. If I level up and take a dip in Wizard I get a spellbook with 6 spells immediately.
Finally unless you are going to develop new hombrew rules for multiclassing, any fighter with enhanced combat powers would get those immediately as well when they multiclassed into fighter and got enough levels to have those powers.
This is a big departure from the early editions where time was required to learn a class and it pretty much means those sorts of abilities are literally acquired overnight.
So like the way that the casting subclasses of Rogues and Fighters should match or only be slightly behind the dedicated spellcasting classes for casting spells?
I would be fine with that and actually think it is a good idea.
An EK or AT should get full spellcaster progression. At level 3 when you take the subclass you get 3 spells known and slots as a 3rd level caster. Get one more spell known and one caster level every time you level up. I also think you would have to change action surge so that you can't use it on a turn you cast a spell.
A fighter has martial exclusives like proficiencies and fighting styles that the martial-focused caster subclasses don't get. Similarly, casters should keep some exclusives, those would be cantrips, Arcane Recovery, Sorcery points, Ritual cating etc but the Fighter and Rogue caster themed subclasses should get access to the basic caster functions in a manner to make them comparable and not far behind, including the most powerful spells at the same level and in the same numbers that a full caster would get.
I think that would make for an ideal Eldritch Knight, a lot better than the current version IMO and a lot more "balanced" for the people who think that sort of thing is important.
No it wasn't.
You initially used it in the context of classes being able to "can't contribute in a meaningful fashion".
You did not specify "martial combat with weapons"
That is what I meant, I appologize for not articulating it more clearly.
They can't contribute in combat with weapons in a meaningful manner.
The issue there is that spellcasting is so powerful and dominant that a class with full spellcasting progression gains the greater part of their classes' capability from it.
To give Fighters full spellcasting would fundamentally change the concept of the "master of tactical martial combat" to be primarily a magic user. I think a lot of people like the fighter concept despite its mechanical implementation and changing that core concept would reduce its appeal.
Then put it into a subclass. The abilities that can make casters into good martial characters are rolled up in a subclass, no reason not to put the abilities that would make fighters good casters there as well.
Also, this "master of tactical combat" is not really in the rules AFAIK. What the PHB says is:
"Questing knights, conquering overlords, royal champions, elite foot soldiers, hardened mercenaries, and bandit kings — as fighters, they all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat."
That is true with the class mechanics as it is right now. I think you are talking about what should be a subclass (arguably the battlemaster subclass) when you talk about master of tactical combat.
Perfect balance being unattainable is not a reason to refuse to try to remove imbalance.
Before we change something we should have some reasonable evidence it will improve the game.
Making the fighter class better at martial combat will not remove the imbalance caused by spells, it will just create another large imbalance.
I will also note that more casters doing melee will actually improve balance in play. A Wizard or Warlock who focuses on melee exclusively is not way ahead of the fighter in play and is pretty balanced in play with the current fighter. They are way ahead of the fighter when they do other things, which is what you essentially want to encourage them to do.
I will repeat my question since it was evidently misunderstood: Can you give some examples in broad strokes?
I even gave examples of broad strokes.
Saying that fighter gets Extra attack greater than 2 is trying to confuse the issue with technicalities: In broad strokes, both Paladins (getting extra damage on hits) and Blademasters (having one of those attacks scale with tier) give the same functional effect as the extra damage from having an extra attack for example.
To start with a battlemaster is a fighter, so he is getting that extra damage in addition to his damage from a 3rd and 4th extra attack.
A Paladins smites are magic, that is not the same thing. Moreover it is not as much as a fighter will get through the combination of extra attack and action surge.
If you have 6 fights a day, 5 rounds a fight and 2 short rests -
A 11th level fighter with a 20 strength and a greatsword is doing 36 damage per attack action and getting 33 attack actions for a total damage potential of 1188 points of damage with his weapon. A Paladin is doing 24 damage per attack action with 30 attack actions for 720 potental damage with his weapon.
A Paladin does get another 270 points in improved smite and has 130 points in smites if he uses all his slots for that (which totals at 1125).
That is a basic subclass-free fighter. It is without using any magic, does not include the damage bonus such a fighter would have due to the extra feat he has, does not consider the ability score distribution which will generally favor the fighter and it assumes they are not using a fighting style that would improve weapon combat. It also does not account for a magic weapon which would boost the fighters numbers more than the Paladin's.
The wizard is perfectly functional and can perform as well as anyone else. You are insistent on getting the same assistance as the less-well-off class because you don't want to use your class abilities, not because you don't have them.
A fighter is perfectly functional and is as fun to play as any other class (more fun than several).
You are absolutely right, I want other players (not me since I am not playing a full caster right now) to get the ability to melee effectively as the rules, game design and specific subclasses are intended to do and on a level that is comparable to my two fighters I am playing now.
The bladesinger and hexblade are intended to be melee subclasses. Not a class that can just dabble in melee (although there is nothing wrong with that), but it is supposed to enable the character can go out and melee effectively holding its own. And you are not ignoring abilities, you need to use both class and subclass abilities to make that work.
I am insistent that those two subclasses not be put way behind fighters. In all honestly I think there should be Sorcerer and Cleric and subclasses that can melee that well too. I would be more for offering those two classes more combat abilities (perhaps in a subclass) than I would for giving more to the fighter class.
Who is insisting there is no place for it please?
Here are your words:
"If everyone who wants to melee can do anything that the fighter can, as well as their own, powerful class abilities, then why have a fighter at all? ..... 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?"
My interpetation of that is that you don't think the fighter has a place in the game unless it is way better at martial combat, using only class abilities, than a Caster can possibly be using all of her abilities.
If I misunderstood you I appologize.
So? Spells are just as much class features as armour proficiencies, extra attack etc. You cannot honestly compare performance between two classes without taking both classes' features into account.
That was a reply and you need to consider what I was replying to. You asked:
" If you could get the same results from a Bladesinger who just chooses not to use their main class ability, why play a fighter?"
I was pointing out, as you acknowledge here, that this Bladesinger is in fact using class abilities to get that level of martial performance.