One edition fits all is an unrealistic goal, however
Doesn't let it off the hook.
Endorsing dnd4vr's opinion that fighters should have a better attack bonus with weapons contradicts someone else's opinion that these are two low level characters in the infancy of their experience who are both trained in using weapons. …
Seriously, of anyone remotely familiar with the idea that wizards spend their training reading books and practicing spells, and fighter training with weapons, who's really going to think they should have equal skill with weapons?
It certainly doesn't makes sense that wizards cannot attack with spells as well as fighter.
You'd expect a wizard to attack better with spells than a fighter would, with spells. And, at first level, he does, quite unequivocally. So no worries on that point.
Building separate spell and weapon attacks for 4 tiers of ability is more than awkward and goes very much against simple design goals.
You don't need 4 tiers. A class feature for the fighter would be just fine.
Adding modifiers based on class is extra bookkeeping and goes against the design goal of limiting bonuses and penalties on top of going against a simple design goal.
Yet there's plenty of modifiers and features and abilities and such based on class.
It's easier for a fan to accept that proficiency isn't actually an indicator of superior ability between classes in a system that focuses on ability scores as much as 5e does than it is to meet any unrealistic expectation of a system that does everything for everyone.
It'd've been easier for a fan to accept that exploits and spells were different, then roll a new rev, but we went with rolling a new rev, because it had to be D&D for
EVERYONE.
The tentpole concept was more about how the character feels in play than specific mechanics.
A fighter who's no better at hitting his target than the wizard feels different from one who is better.
Ah, so I, as a fan not like dnd4vr, am owed nothing?
Quite possibly! If you're the kind of fan who started with 5e, for instance.
5e was shaped by the community that played D&D - and who very pointedly didn't pay D&D anymore - at the time of the Next playtest.
It was touted as being 'for' all of them, and for everyone else who'd ever loved any past edition of D&D. So saying "it owes you nothing" to such a fan is repudiating the very foundation of 5e.
These are silly statements, Tony. 5e is extremely popular; implying that it's flawed because of a hidden mass of malcontents dusturbed over a minutia of the combat engine is downright ridiculous.
No more ridiculous than asserting that it's flawless because it's "extremely popular." I mean, I'm going to wear the letters in
ad populum right off my keyboard at this rate!
5e altered the combat engine such that highly differentiated attack bonuses between classes
To be fair, we're talking 1st-level fighter, here. And it's a 1 on a d20 difference. That's not highly-differentiated. That's downright nominal. It wouldn't've killed BA if each combat style or a weapon specialization feature or somesuch gave the fighter a +1.
isn't the primary means of differentiation in combat /effectiveness/. Making this argument is soecial pleading that, somehow, this makes wizards as effect in martial combat as fighters.
Well, most classes in 5e are perfectly effective in combat, anyway. So there's nothing special about it. It's just a specific example of how there isn't even a razor-edge, nominal, or marginal advantage given the fighter in that most basic mechanic of the attack roll. In contrast, for instance, Expertise outruns the proficiency treadmill much more dramatically than a mere +1.
The reality is that fighters are even better at the job in 5e than in previous editions.
That can be very hard to judge because of some of the differences among the systems. But there's some quite dramatic things fighters can't do in 5e that they could in past editions. Nothing remotely like Great Cleave or WWA, for instance (let alone C&GI). You'd have to get up the capstone number of extra attacks, and blow an Action Surge to even be comparable to one of those, at a reach 1. They were available as early as 3rd or 6th, depending on edition (and which one).
Then there's the muting effect of BA. A 5e fighter can make a number of attacks without penalty that'd make a 3e fighter without WWA envious, but it can't stand up to a large number of opponents, even much lower level, the way it could in earlier editions. That's touted as a feature, but it does bring the fighter down a number of pegs in conceptual power.