brehobit
Explorer
Hiya.
Ok brehobit...once you define what you mean by "powerful", you may get somewhere, but as it stands the most powerful class is 100% dependent upon what is going on at that exact moment as well as a million other things...and also reflect advancing time in a campaign. Seeing as we are talking about an RPG, it's impossible to define "everything at the moment"; imagination knows no bounds. Fighter? Totally useless compared to a bard when you need to blend into an upper-class party to try and gain information. Warlock? Equally weak/pathetic when tossed overboard into the churning sea only to be attacked by a pair of were-sharks.
Powerful, in the context I'm using, is "tends to be more effective in most situations". I think your attempt at arguing "it doesn't matter--situations vary too much" has some validity to it, but on the whole I don't think it can be defended. Would you really argue that if we took the 5e fighter and removed all multiple attacks and stat bonuses (say), the fighter wouldn't be "weaker" than the other classes?
Are the classes in 5e balanced enough that it really does come down to the situation? Maybe, but I don't think so. If you are getting a long rest after every encounter, the wizard is generally going to be more effective than a fighter. The wizard has more combat and non-combat options. I do think that the casters are overpowered for my GMing style--I don't generally run dungeons, I run worlds. And combat is common, but multiple combats in a day isn't. There are ways to adjust this in 5e (I'm planning on going with a short rest being a night's sleep and a long rest being 3-4 days or so in a place that is "safe" and "comfortable"). But to claim that there is no need to do this because class utility is purely a function of the events of the exact moment seems to be taking an overly narrow view of the issue.