D&D 5E What Makes the Fighter Best at Fighing?

[I'm A Banana]

That'd be even harder, and I can't say I'm see'n it.

Bounded Accuracy lets everyone participate, in a given pillar, where the only bar for participation is being able to make a check, sure. That's far from the same as 'balanced within a pillar,' which'd be a lot less practical to try to implement.

I can't say I see much of a distinction. Given that identifying your character as "good at talking" or "bad at talking" is important to D&D, the job of balance in the Interaction pillar isn't strict equivalence, it's to make sure folks at both ends of the curve can influence a given challenge. This does that job. They both can contribute, and their successes are pretty equal to each other. If you fail at this because you're "bad at talking," that enhances your character experience. If you succeed at this because you're "good at talking," that enhances your character experience. If you're an outlier and you succeed or fail despite your skill or incompetence, that surprise enhances the play experience. And no one's ever in a position where success or failure is inevitable, making it always an interesting engagement.

I don't really know what more you'd want to achieve "balance" here.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can't say I see much of a distinction. Given that identifying your character as "good at talking" or "bad at talking" is important to D&D ...the job of balance in the Interaction pillar isn't strict equivalence, it's to make sure folks at both ends of the curve can influence a given challenge.

I don't really know what more you'd want to achieve "balance" here.

Balance, to me, is best thought of as maximizing meaningful/viable choices. 5e, if you limit yourself to thinking about just the mechanics, doesn't go very far, that way. Once you let the DM step in with rulings and emphasize this about one character and that about another, it starts to come together.

I mean, the ideas that on one hand that you're going to be defined by what you're good and bad at, while, OTOH, no one's ever going to be that bad at any task, don't really dove-tail too well. In theory, a carefully-balanced system can deliver both, but 5e just steps aside and lets the DM do it, neatly side-stepping the whole problem.

Balance in other pillars - and, indeed, even balance in the combat pillar - isn't really the question, though. Whether you think being 'best at fight' balances (or imbalances) the fighter within the combat pillar or/and across pillars, the question is what fighter class features are most significant in making the fighter 'best at fighting?'