Who? I didn't read all 24 pages...did I miss something? I missed something, didn't I. Yeah...I missed something.
The Oberoni fallacy is a commonly-used (informal) fallacious argument, wherein a person asserts that, because the issue can be patched around with house-rules or other forms of DM intervention, there is no issue with the rule in question.
You haven't
quite committed it, as you admitted there IS an issue and you'd like to see it addressed. But you're getting very,
very close to doing so, in that you'ree basically saying, "everyone who runs 5e should be willing to adjust any of the rules at any time, so this shouldn't actually be an issue in practice."
The 'fix' doesn't have to be a complete re-write or anything even noticeable. For example, the one idea of just "Battlemasters get a bonus number of Superiority Dice equal to their Intelligence Modifier". Done. It's the least intrusive and requires zero rules adjustments. It's, effectively, like the PC just taking a Short rest...once a day for 'free'.
Even adjustments as small as this have gotten pushback when I've requested them. Heck, something as incredibly minor as, "Can I get History proficiency as a Dragonborn, because Dragonborn kind of
suck and I like the History skill for flavor reasons?" tends to get either firm "no" or suspicious "what con are you trying to pull" questions a significant majority of the time. It's part of why I've mostly stopped applying for 5e games (alongside the aforementioned "it takes 2-3 sessions
minimum to reach level 2, let alone get into the actually
interesting levels.")
For Players that "disapprove of..." houserules/homebrew, I always ask myself: "Er...just
why are you playing this in stead of a computer game then?". One of the major points of a TTRPG is that it
isn't set in stone and that the Players and DM's use their imaginations to do, well, whatever. Not "approving of" houserules is like someone not "approving of" someone choosing to use a blue pen over a black pen when signing their name. It's just...weird...
Whether it is weird or not, it's a demonstrable thing I've experienced while looking around for 5e games. I don't know anyone I can game with IRL, and I'm more comfortable gaming online, so I have to apply to offered games. I've found that online gaming for 5e isn't meaningfully different from what it was like back in the days of 3e, nor from what Pathfinder games are like today. Most DMs want to run the rules purely as-written, or exclusively with their personal set of modifications and nothing else, not changing these things over the course of a campaign. Players that request third-party or self-made content are almost always denied, even if the DM in question has no actual problem with the design of the content in question.
Doom clocks, rest variants, environmental challenges, or just 'nope'.
If your DMs have no control over the 5MWD, that DM probably shouldn't be running games at all.
Oh, if this is the case then there's no point discussing the aforementioned Wizard vs Fighter. If you don't believe the 5MWD is even
potentially an issue, we literally cannot discuss the balance question in the first place. I appreciate you being forward with this, it saves me rather a lot of time and proverbial ink, as it were. I promise I'm not being flippant when I say that. If we disagree on such fundamental things, trying to play around with far more extended elements is just going to frustrate both of us, and I'd rather not waste your time and mine with pointless frustration.