If you know you aren't going to die, whether it's because the DM is hung up on his story or just doesn't like to kill people then there is no reason for players not to do stupid crazy things, After all DM is going to bail them out anyway.
This is a false dichotomy.
Death is not the only serious consequence players may have to deal with. The problem is not whether there is sufficient risk, or fear, of death. The problem is that you have players
who don't care about anything other than whether their characters are alive.
I don't use random, permanent, irrevocable death in my game. Period. It hasn't been an issue because my players play very, very cautiously (despite the fact that I
told them about my "I won't take your character away" policy during Session 0), but if anyone's character ever DID die, that would only be the end for that character
if the player wished it to be so. If not, there are all sorts of stories I can tell, all sorts of places I can go. There will be
consequences. Some of those consequences may be permanent or irrevocable. The world does not stop just because one of you or one of your friends bit the dust. But
you can still come back. You may have to try to fix a world that is much more broken than the world you remember before your death. You may grieve allies who were lost while you couldn't save them. You may find that your powers or equipment or knowledge have fallen into enemy hands, and something Really Bad happened as a result. But
your character's story doesn't end just because some numbers on a screen put your character out of the action.
If you have players who care about your game's contents enough that survival is NOT the only thing they care about, you don't have to use death as the end of the line. There's a whole world of other things to care about out there.
I won't--ever--"bail them out anyway." The consequences of their actions belong to them. And, importantly, I won't let my good will be exploited; if it's clear the players are
relying on the ability to always come back to life, yeah, I'm not gonna put up with that. That's exploitative. I don't tolerate exploitative behavior. But so long as the players engage in good faith, they can trust that I won't yank their character away from them. That trust
enables them to actually do creative, interesting, dramatic things. Without that trust, half the events of our campaign could never have occurred. Most of the coolest moments would have been impossible, or at least would have been dramatically less interesting. (I say "most" because there were a few very early moments my players were super excited about that can't be attributed to this; but from about the 6-month mark on, it's been extremely significant.)
Death is not the only consequence--and most other consequences are much more interesting. Way too many people forget or deny this fact, much to the hobby's detriment.
Combat is absolutely a (soft) fail-state in certain modes of play. That’s why XP used to be awarded for acquiring treasure rather than killing enemies. If you can get that treasure without having to risk your life in a fight, so much the better.
Saying it’s counter-intuitive to have fighters when fighting is a fail-state is a bit like saying it’s counter-intuitive to have clerics when HP damage and death are fail-states. They’re invaluable failsafes for when those fail-states inevitably occur.
But healing isn't
the only thing Clerics are designed for.
That's my point. Healing is one tool in the Cleric's toolbox. That toolbox is full (IMO, overstuffed) with
other cool and useful things the Cleric can do. Even for Clerics who specifically choose to hyperspecialize in healing or damage, they'll always have the expansive Cleric spell list, and even Life Clerics get spells that aren't strictly about restoring HP (
bless, lesser restoration, guardian of faith, raise dead) as always-prepped spells. Admittedly, some of those are still healing-adjacent (
lesser restoration in particular), but overall there's
stuff you can do that doesn't require the party to specifically fail first.
Fighter, explicitly by design, doesn't do that. Like, the developers were straight-up explicit to us that that's what the Fighter is designed for. It is not designed for doing anything
other than fighting. Subclasses naturally make this more complicated, but even the Eldritch Knight, the Fighter specifically about nicking spells from the Wizard, has dramatically curtailed access to any spells that aren't specifically abjuration or evocation...aka the two spell schools
most specifically about fighting (defense and explosions.) To be specific, you can learn a grand total of 4 non-cantrip spells that aren't abjuration or evocation.
I strongly object that the "easiness" of character survival in 5e has anything to do with Bounded Accuracy. I see Bounded Accuracy as a good thing. The issue, IMO is with the resources available to the PCs and the envisioned encounter model.
I mean, it's still pretty clearly a factor. If you limit other forms of progression (defenses and accuracy) and distance yourself from horizontal progression (multiclassing is optional and there's very minimal resources for horizontal progression), then you only really have survivability as a metric of advancement. That, plus the incredibly uninspired monster design, is what leads to so many big fat bags of HP with no other mechanics, and to player characters who become difficult to kill without throwing very powerful opponents at them.