I've been playing a fighter and even though I am fairly optimized and playing a strong subclass (Echo Knight) it just starts sucking as the levels pile up.  The cleric does way more damage than me most of the time and that's without even considering the really good spells.  

I think the basic problem is that fighters should be really good at fighting but they aren't.  They should have techniques and ways of fighting that others can't even comprehend.  Their skill should be unapproachable.  I don't think the answer is "nerf casters", but rather how can we have fun fighters (and other martials) who FEEL powerful and have more options.

My thinking right now is:

1 - At first level, give fighters/rogues/barbs/monks access to actions and reactions that other classes don't have.  I'd probably disallow these from showing up in multiclass but I'm not sure.  I'd start with the full list of optional combat actions in the DMG (Shove aside, Overrun, disarm, and mark) but would also add some reactions (parry, duck, counter-attack) and maybe even some bonus actions (shield bash, maybe elevate shove to bonus action).   This would give martials access to more options in combat and choices to make.  

2 - A "heroic action" system.  If you've read MCDM's Flee Mortals rules you have seen villian actions which are a lot like legendary actions.  Martials should be the masters of the battlefield and allowing them some extra flexibility and action economy would go a long way.  I'm thinking something that scales like sorcery points and allows the martial to take an action OR bonus action of their choice at the end of another combatant's turn.  Depending on the action taken it might consume more than one point from the pool (e.g., if the martial has multiple attacks it would probably consume 1 point per attack made).  Points recharge at long rests.  

3 - Give every martial the equivalent of GWM/SS at first level.  Don't put arbitrary restrictions on the weapon - they are masters of weapons - they can use this with longswords just as well as greatswords. 

Obviously not fully fleshed out, but this to me would go a long way to making martial more fun.  Would they be more powerful than they currently are?  Undoubtedly, and yet a competent caster would still be far better at many things than they are in any case.  

You might want to check out the playtest content for 5.5 - there is a pretty significant new system being developed for martial classes, which give them some additional flexibility and prowess.

Under the new playtest, weapons will have specific properties only accessible to martial classes with a specific class feat.  A greataxe, for example, has Cleave, allowing you once per turn to make a free attack against someone adjacent to your original target. A Mace has Sap, imposing disadvantage on the next hit by the target.

They are still tweaking this system, but it goes a long way toward giving martial classes both more oomph and more utility (which, frankly, the lack of utility is far worse than the power differential between casters), and also fixes the interchangeability problem of most weapons under current 5e rules.

I have my own solutions, but am uninterested in inflicting them on the larger game as a whole, personally. I am not fond of telling other people they should play their games "this way". That said, my questions...

On your first point, let's say that certain martial classes gain a choice of two or three of the newer weapon properties as some sort of bonus to the use of the weapon. What kind of bonus, and how would you handle it if they have a weapon that has that property and a capability at the same time? Stacking/cumulative bonus? How does this affect play and what are you proposing to give opponents (monsters) to balance this?

So, from a mechanics standpoint, your second point is to "break the action economy" system in part by expanding what an action is (division, specifically). In this sense, you would take the six possible seconds for things to happen and increase the complication rate, extending combat play length through even more rolls, and effectively double, triple, or more the speed of the martial classes in a limited circumstance?

On your third point, are you arguing that weapons shouldn't have properties, the wielder should have the properties, and if so, what will the half casters have to correct for that? Specifically Bard, Ranger, Paladin?

I notice you started with a comparison of a person who doesn't use magic to a person who uses the very power of the Gods.  You also note that one shouldn't nerf casters, but lift up martials.  Is the goal to give a Fighter the ability to lay waste to a small hamlet single-handedly in under 12 seconds at 17th level (which is what a Cleric or Wizard can do )? If so, do you think that the above would enable that?

Or are your goals less grand and you have a different focus in mind? Are you looking to find ways to control the flow of battle through mechanics? Are you seeking some way to effectively erase a 30' a 30' sphere from the battle field (as a mage can do with a fireball) or a way to make ranged attacks using a melee weapon?

is your goal to have special rules just for fighters in the game as a whole, or to create entirely new sets of rules or to modify existing ones in order to achieve your ends?

Generally, I've found that single-target damage output between martial and caster classes is actually pretty even, overall.  Sure, a cleric might be able to bust out an Inflict Wounds or a wizard can Disintegrate someone for big damage, but they're using their limited-use abilities to do that.  A Battle Master Fighter can easily keep up with that and their superiority dice recharge on a short rest so they can use them more often, while a caster (besides a warlock) will use more and more of their spells up with each encounter.

It probably has less utility to argue on the mechanics themselves.  The goal is what matters - if we don't see eye to eye there then the rest is a waste of time.

Two statements that I believe should be true:
- Martials should be just as powerful as casters for a given level of play.  "Just as powerful" doesn't mean "Can do the same things" but I doubt anyone would argue a high-level fighter and a high-level caster are equally powerful in their own rights.

- Martials should be better at doing martial stuff than other classes.  There is literally nothing I can point to and say that a fighter can do X better than a spell caster could in the current game.

I've seen them they are OK and a step in the right direction.  I hope they push it further as I don't think it goes nearly far enough.  At higher levels of play (and my ideas suffer from this too much as well) these don't really do that much to compensate for the gap with casters.

Quote from TraxTheTricky >>

It probably has less utility to argue on the mechanics themselves.  The goal is what matters - if we don't see eye to eye there then the rest is a waste of time.

Two statements that I believe should be true:
- Martials should be just as powerful as casters for a given level of play.  "Just as powerful" doesn't mean "Can do the same things" but I doubt anyone would argue a high-level fighter and a high-level caster are equally powerful in their own rights.

- Martials should be better at doing martial stuff than other classes.  There is literally nothing I can point to and say that a fighter can do X better than a spell caster could in the current game.

That's why I closed with the questions about your goals. For reference, and without commentary:

1. Is the goal to give a Fighter the ability to lay waste to a small hamlet single-handedly in under 12 seconds at 17th level?
2. If so, do you think that the above would enable that?
3. Do you have a different focus in mind than the above?
4. if so, what is that focus -- what represents "just as powerful"?
5. Are you looking to find ways to control the flow of battle through mechanics?
6. Are you seeking some way to erase a 30' a 30' sphere from the battle field?
7. Are you seeking a way to make ranged attacks using a melee weapon?
8. Is the goal to have special rules just for fighters in the game as a whole?
9. Is the goal to create entirely new sets of rules for the game as a whole?
10. Is the goal to modify existing rules in order to achieve your ends?

The reason this matters is that without those answers ...

 "Just as powerful" doesn't mean "Can do the same things" 

... is pretty meaningless, and you don't have a clear idea (and so neither does anyone else) of what "just as powerful" means in terms of how to create a way to enable them to do so. For some, just as powerful could mean clearing a village in under 12 seconds. It wasn't hyperbole.

The second one is better, it has more solid foundation to it, a clearer idea of "doing martial stuff better than non-martials", and adds in the half casters by default (since they are also half-martials). It, too, still needs some clarification, though:

What is "better" in this context or circumstance? It helps to realize that "good, better, best, bad, worse, and worst" are all subjective concepts, all opinions, so what you think of as better might be worst to someone else.

Don't take this as criticism, please. I have been exactly where you are many, many times over the years, and every time one looks at this, you have to answer these questions, you have to sharpen the objective down so that you *can* start to work with the mechanics (because if you don't do that, then you aren't making rules, you are making role play).

ost of the time, the mechanics *come* from answering those kids of questions.

1. Is the goal to give a Fighter the ability to lay waste to a small hamlet single-handedly in under 12 seconds at 17th level?    Not really.
2. If so, do you think that the above would enable that?  Not even by a longshot.
3. Do you have a different focus in mind than the above?  Yes
4. if so, what is that focus -- what represents "just as powerful"?  I'd like to feel like playing a straight martial isn't a suboptimal choice - that there is something, anything, that the martial can do that a caster can't do just as well or better.
5. Are you looking to find ways to control the flow of battle through mechanics? I do think fighters should be able to control the flow of battles.
6. Are you seeking some way to erase a 30' a 30' sphere from the battle field? No but being able to wade thru hordes would be more inline with the feel of a fantasy fighter.  I have to admit old 1st edition had an appeal in this regard (1 attack per level vs. low level opponents)
7. Are you seeking a way to make ranged attacks using a melee weapon?  Not really.
8. Is the goal to have special rules just for fighters in the game as a whole?  Its not the goal, but I do think fighters lack as much rule support as casters which means they end up with fewer and less interesting options.
9. Is the goal to create entirely new sets of rules for the game as a whole?  Not really, if there was a solution with minimal rules changes I'd be happy.  I've seen people make arguments to just boost fighter HP and damage output and call it a day.   It would at least make fighters good at something everyone else can't do.  The idea that a fighter is better at taking hits or single damage output is not supported by the math in the game - something that made this true instead of a fallacy might go a long way.  Separately it would be nice if fighters just had more interesting choices (both in terms of building their character and in terms of tactics).  This is in conflict with my general like of simpler rules (but there are so few martial rules it could stand to be more).
10. Is the goal to modify existing rules in order to achieve your ends?  Probably closer to this than #9.
    
    
    

An option for your consideration:

 In my game I have 4 players; a bard, a warlock, a cleric and a multiclassed "Soldier" (he's actaully a multiclassed Barbarian (Berserker) / Fighter (Champion)  / Ranger (Hunter) but always refers to himself as a soldier). The player behind the "soldier" was adamant he did not want any spell casting as we already had 3 casters in the group and a couple of magic wands, so I allowed him to do the following:

1) Instead of choosing a single Hunter ability for Ranger he could choose one at the start of each turn. This means he can switch between Colossus Slayer, Giant Killer and Horde Breaker as needed.

EDIT: just to be clear he also lost the spell casting feature for the Ranger class.

and

2) He could choose a number of Battlemaster maneuvers equal to Prof bonus but he would have to burn his Hit Dice to activate them.

I find this works rather well, however seeing as my pool of experience is a single play group I am prepared to say this may not be work for everyone and you might need to think about multiclassing and any rammifications that you have from changes to the status quo you make.

Quote from TraxTheTricky >>

1. Is the goal to give a Fighter the ability to lay waste to a small hamlet single-handedly in under 12 seconds at 17th level?    Not really.
2. If so, do you think that the above would enable that?  Not even by a longshot.
3. Do you have a different focus in mind than the above?  Yes
4. if so, what is that focus -- what represents "just as powerful"?  I'd like to feel like playing a straight martial isn't a suboptimal choice - that there is something, anything, that the martial can do that a caster can't do just as well or better.
5. Are you looking to find ways to control the flow of battle through mechanics? I do think fighters should be able to control the flow of battles.
6. Are you seeking some way to erase a 30' a 30' sphere from the battle field? No but being able to wade thru hordes would be more inline with the feel of a fantasy fighter.  I have to admit old 1st edition had an appeal in this regard (1 attack per level vs. low level opponents)
7. Are you seeking a way to make ranged attacks using a melee weapon?  Not really.
8. Is the goal to have special rules just for fighters in the game as a whole?  Its not the goal, but I do think fighters lack as much rule support as casters which means they end up with fewer and less interesting options.
9. Is the goal to create entirely new sets of rules for the game as a whole?  Not really, if there was a solution with minimal rules changes I'd be happy.  I've seen people make arguments to just boost fighter HP and damage output and call it a day.   It would at least make fighters good at something everyone else can't do.  The idea that a fighter is better at taking hits or single damage output is not supported by the math in the game - something that made this true instead of a fallacy might go a long way.  Separately it would be nice if fighters just had more interesting choices (both in terms of building their character and in terms of tactics).  This is in conflict with my general like of simpler rules (but there are so few martial rules it could stand to be more).
10. Is the goal to modify existing rules in order to achieve your ends?  Probably closer to this than #9.
    
    
    

Ok, I bolded the key parts.

On the way I set up #4 above, I want to point out something key. The "feel like" part is entirely based on your experience, however much similar feelings may be shared. That's way too "loose", and far too easy to interpret in a wild variety of ways. That's why I didn't bold that part of it, and instead kept the other part.

THe problem with that other part is that you are dealing with magic. A particularly creative Wizard could create a construct that can do anything a fighter can do. Hell, they can create one that can do the stuff Wizards can do. It's magic. That's why i asked about the fireballs and small villages, lol. In a really poor analogy, a Fighter is a Soldier, a Wizard is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. There is no way to equalize the two -- which you realize, but really don't like, and I don't blame you at all, lol.

so let me ask this: is what you want a very flashy, martial centric, "cool thing" that there is no way one can do with magic? Because if so, then you are out of luck. Ultimately, this is why there are so many kinds of half-caster. Using the Analogy from earlier, a half caster is a Soldier with a tank.

What? I said it was a bad analogy. But it works for this. Because part of the issue is always going to be that magic is simply more. It is magic, That's what it does.

WHich is not to criticize or slow you down, just to make you aware of a certain hard to swallow pill (not truth, not reality, not fact -- this is a game of pretend, lol). 

Now, though, using what you have, we have a better idea of what you are seeking:

1. There should be something, anything, that the martial can do that a caster can't do just as well or better.
2. Fighters should be able to control the flow of battles
3. Fighters should be able to wade thru hordes. 
4. Fighters lack as much rule support as casters.
5. Fighters should be better at taking damage than casters.
6. Fighters should have equal or more single attack damage output.

Now you have to define the size of a horde -- not precisely, just a roundabout. I once rolled for a Paladin fighting a group of 400 Kobolds. Every single one. It took FOREVER. but it also gave us one of the greatest stories in our group, lol.

Have you looked at the Cleave rules in the DMG?

Rule support is tough -- I mean, casters fundamentally have more rules because, wel, magic is a "difficult thing" that way.

The sixth one -- keep in mind, that casters have the ability to do like 30d10 in certain cases. I  don't know what the maximum caster damage output for a single spell is (I bet some minmaxer does, though, lol). But for that last item, that's what you are aiming for as expressed above.

But look at what you have now: some good, solid, basic foundations on which to figure out what you are going to do.

You also know that you want to do it more through modifying the rules than creating new ones, and you aren't interested in beign able to do Area of effect stuff so much as just be able to keep plowing through enemies.

That's what you needed to get to, and now you can look at mechanics. You'll be looking at rules for your own table, as well (don't forget that, because the UA fighters are not moving in this direction at all).

I'm sorry I am so annoying, but I do hope this helped you at least some.

1. There should be something, anything, that the martial can do that a caster can't do just as well or better.

2. Fighters should be able to control the flow of battles

3. Fighters should be able to wade thru hordes. 

4. Fighters lack as much rule support as casters.

5. Fighters should be better at taking damage than casters.

6. Fighters should have equal or more single attack damage output.

First thing Imma point out is that Casters suck at melee combat structurally. They suck less at it than they used to, but they are not near as good as fighters.

Per level, a fighter outclasses them in hit points at every level, simply because of die. Barbs got a d12 (double that of mages), Fighters, Paladins, rangers got a d10, Monks got a d8 if you count them. No spell really puts them on par that I can think of.

Weapon wise, a bonus on weapon use of some form -- perhaps an improved proficiency type thing. Fighters get multiple attacks that a caster doesn't get, as well.

Controlling the flow of battle is going to take an add on. There are some mechanics in a couple of sub-classes, but they are, imo, iffy. Role play is the major default (ok, party, when it comes to combat, listen to the fighter on where to go).

Barbs and Fighters have the fewest rules around them, because the entire combat system was developed around them, lol. THey are also the simplest to play, overall, because they are supposed tobe the front line, kick ass types in role play.

300 points of damage in a single strike is a hard call. Even 150 is. I forget how many attacks a 20th level fighter has per turn, but it ain't small, and I have a minmaxer who did 128 in a single turn during my last campaign. and that was after fighting his way through three dozen lesser demons. personally, I'd say his blow was what enabled the survivors of that last big fight to win the day, but he did get killed by the demon pretty quickly afterwards (in defense, I want to note that he *knew* he was going to die. He did it to buy time.)

At lower levels? A 10th level fighter is usually sriously outclassed by a 10th level Wizard in terms of area of effect, and often adopts a support/defense role, but if you can up damage and apply cleave, you can tear through crowsds of low CRs pretty easily.

... if your DM builds encounters to enable that.  Almost every time I have had players upset about a fighter not being all that cool compared to a mage, it was because I screwed up. I built the encounter wrong or focused too much on countering the mages and forgot about the fighters. I am used to how my folks play, though. Half casters tend to focus on up close and personal magic use, pure spell casters are focused more on ranged attacks, often with clerics providing protection and defense and support while the pure martials and half casters/half martials handle the front line stuff. It wasn't always that way, though -- everyone would jostle to be the "big hero" in the early days, lol. And our early days were decades ago.

I hope others can give you good information you can use, and ideas you can take.

Quote from Rob76 >>

An option for your consideration:

 In my game I have 4 players; a bard, a warlock, a cleric and a multiclassed "Soldier" (he's actaully a multiclassed Barbarian (Berserker) / Fighter (Champion)  / Ranger (Hunter) but always refers to himself as a soldier). The player behind the "soldier" was adamant he did not want any spell casting as we already had 3 casters in the group and a couple of magic wands, so I allowed him to do the following:

1) Instead of choosing a single Hunter ability for Ranger he could choose one at the start of each turn. This means he can switch between Colossus Slayer, Giant Killer and Horde Breaker as needed.

EDIT: just to be clear he also lost the spell casting feature for the Ranger class.

and

2) He could choose a number of Battlemaster maneuvers equal to Prof bonus but he would have to burn his Hit Dice to activate them.

I find this works rather well, however seeing as my pool of experience is a single play group I am prepared to say this may not be work for everyone and you might need to think about multiclassing and any rammifications that you have from changes to the status quo you make.

Yeah this is pretty smart.  I've wondered about similar things with fighting styles - it seems kind of goofy that a well trained warrior would be SO specialized as to be only good at one of the fighting styles.  Is it so hard to believe that someone who dedicated their life to weapons training and combat could be capable of using different techniques in different circumstances?!

And yeah, battlemaster manuevers seem like they should be more available in some way!

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Quote from TraxTheTricky >>

1. Is the goal to give a Fighter the ability to lay waste to a small hamlet single-handedly in under 12 seconds at 17th level?    Not really.
2. If so, do you think that the above would enable that?  Not even by a longshot.
3. Do you have a different focus in mind than the above?  Yes
4. if so, what is that focus -- what represents "just as powerful"?  I'd like to feel like playing a straight martial isn't a suboptimal choice - that there is something, anything, that the martial can do that a caster can't do just as well or better.
5. Are you looking to find ways to control the flow of battle through mechanics? I do think fighters should be able to control the flow of battles.
6. Are you seeking some way to erase a 30' a 30' sphere from the battle field? No but being able to wade thru hordes would be more inline with the feel of a fantasy fighter.  I have to admit old 1st edition had an appeal in this regard (1 attack per level vs. low level opponents)
7. Are you seeking a way to make ranged attacks using a melee weapon?  Not really.
8. Is the goal to have special rules just for fighters in the game as a whole?  Its not the goal, but I do think fighters lack as much rule support as casters which means they end up with fewer and less interesting options.
9. Is the goal to create entirely new sets of rules for the game as a whole?  Not really, if there was a solution with minimal rules changes I'd be happy.  I've seen people make arguments to just boost fighter HP and damage output and call it a day.   It would at least make fighters good at something everyone else can't do.  The idea that a fighter is better at taking hits or single damage output is not supported by the math in the game - something that made this true instead of a fallacy might go a long way.  Separately it would be nice if fighters just had more interesting choices (both in terms of building their character and in terms of tactics).  This is in conflict with my general like of simpler rules (but there are so few martial rules it could stand to be more).
10. Is the goal to modify existing rules in order to achieve your ends?  Probably closer to this than #9.
    
    
    

 

Ok, I bolded the key parts.

On the way I set up #4 above, I want to point out something key. The "feel like" part is entirely based on your experience, however much similar feelings may be shared. That's way too "loose", and far too easy to interpret in a wild variety of ways. That's why I didn't bold that part of it, and instead kept the other part.

THe problem with that other part is that you are dealing with magic. A particularly creative Wizard could create a construct that can do anything a fighter can do. Hell, they can create one that can do the stuff Wizards can do. It's magic. That's why i asked about the fireballs and small villages, lol. In a really poor analogy, a Fighter is a Soldier, a Wizard is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. There is no way to equalize the two -- which you realize, but really don't like, and I don't blame you at all, lol.

so let me ask this: is what you want a very flashy, martial centric, "cool thing" that there is no way one can do with magic? Because if so, then you are out of luck. Ultimately, this is why there are so many kinds of half-caster. Using the Analogy from earlier, a half caster is a Soldier with a tank.

What? I said it was a bad analogy. But it works for this. Because part of the issue is always going to be that magic is simply more. It is magic, That's what it does.

WHich is not to criticize or slow you down, just to make you aware of a certain hard to swallow pill (not truth, not reality, not fact -- this is a game of pretend, lol). 

Now, though, using what you have, we have a better idea of what you are seeking:

1. There should be something, anything, that the martial can do that a caster can't do just as well or better.
2. Fighters should be able to control the flow of battles
3. Fighters should be able to wade thru hordes. 
4. Fighters lack as much rule support as casters.
5. Fighters should be better at taking damage than casters.
6. Fighters should have equal or more single attack damage output.

Now you have to define the size of a horde -- not precisely, just a roundabout. I once rolled for a Paladin fighting a group of 400 Kobolds. Every single one. It took FOREVER. but it also gave us one of the greatest stories in our group, lol.

Have you looked at the Cleave rules in the DMG?

Rule support is tough -- I mean, casters fundamentally have more rules because, wel, magic is a "difficult thing" that way.

The sixth one -- keep in mind, that casters have the ability to do like 30d10 in certain cases. I  don't know what the maximum caster damage output for a single spell is (I bet some minmaxer does, though, lol). But for that last item, that's what you are aiming for as expressed above.

But look at what you have now: some good, solid, basic foundations on which to figure out what you are going to do.

You also know that you want to do it more through modifying the rules than creating new ones, and you aren't interested in beign able to do Area of effect stuff so much as just be able to keep plowing through enemies.

That's what you needed to get to, and now you can look at mechanics. You'll be looking at rules for your own table, as well (don't forget that, because the UA fighters are not moving in this direction at all).

I'm sorry I am so annoying, but I do hope this helped you at least some.

 Thanks - yeah it gives me more to think about.  Truth be told I'd abandon 5e in a heartbeat and play something lower fantasy like Dragonbane or Forbidden Lands but my table of fellow players is really attached to 5e so I stick around.  I just want to have fun without being a caster all the time.

How many encounters are you doing per day? One of the design ideas is a fighter gets to keep going, while a caster will run out of spell slots. Realistically, about no one does the 6-8 encounters per day that will make that happen, so the casters always have enough slots, so it makes the fighter seem weaker. The idea was they are steady, while casters have big peaks, but also big troughs. But if your casters are never down to just cantrips, the fighter never gets the chance to really shine in that way.

But, if you can’t think of ways fighters are better at fighting. They get more attacks, which is huge and better than a caster. They can just choose to double their number of actions in a round. They’ll have more hp than any caster. They’ll have a higher AC, without spending any resources, than any caster (defensive fighting style can keep them a notch above a heavy armor cleric). They have more feats, and they’re SAD, so they’ll more quickly hit 20 in their prime stat, and still have room to use feats to get access to more other tricks (crusher, fey touched, chef, whatever they like). They can choose to re-roll a saving throw. 
And those are just base class features. 

I have to ask, is this your first time playing a fighter? Could it be the class just isn’t to your taste? I play fighters a lot, and I’ve never felt like I wasn’t contributing in combat. Out of combat, sometimes, but I can usually find something to do. I just often find the “fix the fighter” threads, which pop up pretty regularly, are started by people who just kind of don’t like them. And that’s ok, not every class will appeal to everyone. There’s plenty that do t appeal to me.
I like like that fighters are simple while still being effective. I like not having a huge amount of choices. I get that many people prefer lots of buttons and levers, and that’s great for them, and I’m glad they have classes with those options. But for me, I like how they’re straightforward, run up, hit the bad guy a lot, repeat.
Also, I’m not trying to say they are perfect, just they’re good at what they do. 

Quote from AEDorsay>>

1. 300 points of damage in a single strike is a hard call. Even 150 is. I forget how many attacks a 20th level fighter has per turn, but it ain't small, and I have a minmaxer who did 128 in a single turn during my last campaign. and that was after fighting his way through three dozen lesser demons. personally, I'd say his blow was what enabled the survivors of that last big fight to win the day, but he did get killed by the demon pretty quickly afterwards (in defense, I want to note that he *knew* he was going to die. He did it to buy time.)

IIRC, the absolute upper possible number of attacks a 20th level fighter can make in a single round is 10- base of 4 from Extra Attack, another 4 from Action Surge, 1 from an effect that lets you use a Bonus Action to attack (PAM, dual wielding, GWM, or using a double-bladed scimitar), and 1 from Haste or a similar effect.

Quote from TraxTheTricky >>

The cleric does way more damage than me most of the time and that's without even considering the really good spells.

 This line in particular makes me think your game is typically running 1-2 encounters a day. Yes, in a game like that full spellcasters are going to outshine everyone because it's not how the game was intended to be played.

You should be doing at least 4 encounters between long rests and often more. There are multiple ways to tackle this, and fixing rests fixes a lot of other things too. Groups playing this way will not really have an issue with casters vs martials in combat.

Out of combat, however, martials are still left picking their nose while the casters have a deep toolbox of utility spells. If anything it is here that martials need help.

Out of combat, however, martials are still left picking their nose while the casters have a deep toolbox of utility spells. If anything it is here that martials need help.

That's a truth.

I often wonder if that didn't feed into the whole "All these rogue abilities are things anyone can do, so let's get rid of them" thing that irked me when I first opened my 5e PHB. TO give Martials something to do besides pick their noses during non-combat.

To OP, from what I am seeing so far, yeah, it seems like your DM needs to shift your play style a bit to increase encounters. Hard to do for a lot of folks if they are running a published adventure, but a "homebrew" adventure is often a bit easier. 

I would like to second this. In my experience the most crucial disparity between Warriors and Casters is that the former - especially once you get beyond the first couple of levels - have countless abilities they can use to bypass checks while the latter group is just stuck trying to roll high. I haven't really played at ultra high levels, though I have watched campaigns that have gotten there. Anyways, I can't speak to the disparity in combat that many say is present when you near the end of a long campaign.

However, what I will say is that Warriors and Casters have been relatively equally impactful to battles at the levels I've played at. Honestly, the martials tend to get targeted because they often end up flailing around with their flail right next to the big baddies. However, they're only able to survive this because of their boatload of Hit Points and strong AC score. And not only do they still deal a lot of damage in these scenarios, but they protect the casters from getting barraged by a battalion of rampaging orcs.

When I've played monsters semi-intelligently or have run a hard encounter with a ton of enemies, I've had to constantly worry about the backline spell-slingers while the Warriors were just fine. Sure, they may not be as effective against lots of targets. However, if lots of targets swarm them. they're typically able to withstand the attacks better and don't rely as much on ranged weapons (Which have disadvantage when a conscious opponent is within 5 feet of you).

So, I dunno whether or not there's a disparity in combat at the upper and uppermost levels. However, I think the disparity at lower levels is mainly A) Out of combat and B) Because monsters are run poorly. Due to this I have slight worries about some of the buffs Warriors are getting earlier on, and that the focus is primarily just cool combat stuff for them to use. But ultimately, some of those mechanics are fascinating, so ya never know.

Wow. Thanks for listening to my rambling TedTalk on anything semi-related to the Martial Vs. Caster Disparity.

People love extrapolating from particular 5e rules. For example, my groups have all reached the conclusion that you can't cover up the visible and audible components of a spell, because the Subtle Spell metamagic does just that. Using this model, we can "add" things to Fighters that are really just taking things away from everyone else. Here's some ideas.

Determination: You can remain standing (not prone) after taking (PB x 10) or more damage in a single turn.

Battlefield Analyst: You can track the positions of creatures who leave your sight as long as they haven't successfully Hidden from you. You still lose track of a creature when it moves at least 500 feet away from you.

Self-Assured: NPCs will believe that you CAN handle a problem, if you say you will.

Trusted Tactician: In combat, you can direct friendly NPCs who can see or hear you to take any action of which they're capable. (Ex: Cast Magic Missile at 2nd level on that guy!) You can also direct them to move to spaces they can reach. They will follow your directions on their turns if they can.

Weapon Expert: If there are weapon dealers, armor dealers, or blacksmiths in a settlement you're in, you can find them. You know about werewolves and silvered weapons, and you know about resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from non-magical weapons, though you might not know which monsters have it. You even know that one weird rule that Rakshasas have, about piercing damage from a lawful creature or whatever. If you see a lycanthrope and it's not in its human form, you know what it is. If you see a rakshasa and it's in its true form, you know what it is.

Always Ready: You can don or doff a shield as a reaction when you roll initiative, as long as you make a big deal about forgetting whether you had it equipped or not.

Practiced Battlefield Communication: Friendly creatures always know exactly how many hit points you have, unless you choose to hide it.

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

People love extrapolating from particular 5e rules. For example, my groups have all reached the conclusion that you can't cover up the visible and audible components of a spell, because the Subtle Spell metamagic does just that. Using this model, we can "add" things to Fighters that are really just taking things away from everyone else. Here's some ideas.

Determination: You can remain standing (not prone) after taking (PB x 10) or more damage in a single turn.

Battlefield Analyst: You can track the positions of creatures who leave your sight as long as they haven't successfully Hidden from you. You still lose track of a creature when it moves at least 500 feet away from you.

Self-Assured: NPCs will believe that you CAN handle a problem, if you say you will.

Trusted Tactician: In combat, you can direct friendly NPCs who can see or hear you to take any action of which they're capable. (Ex: Cast Magic Missile at 2nd level on that guy!) You can also direct them to move to spaces they can reach. They will follow your directions on their turns if they can.

Weapon Expert: If there are weapon dealers, armor dealers, or blacksmiths in a settlement you're in, you can find them. You know about werewolves and silvered weapons, and you know about resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from non-magical weapons, though you might not know which monsters have it. You even know that one weird rule that Rakshasas have, about piercing damage from a lawful creature or whatever. If you see a lycanthrope and it's not in its human form, you know what it is. If you see a rakshasa and it's in its true form, you know what it is.

Always Ready: You can don or doff a shield as a reaction when you roll initiative, as long as you make a big deal about forgetting whether you had it equipped or not.

Practiced Battlefield Communication: Friendly creatures always know exactly how many hit points you have, unless you choose to hide it.

 This made me think of a pathfinder mechanic. In pf2e, only fighters get Opportunity Attacks by default. There's some classes that can get it through a feat, but fighters get it as a class feature at level 1. I've not played enough of it to tell, but it does seems like a simple, and pretty interesting upgrade. It makes the fighters much more sticky than other classes, and way better at melee tanking -- at least in the video game sense of drawing aggro. Also, in theory, it should make combats more dynamic. Certainly, some enemies will also have the ability, but in general it will really allow and even encourage a lot more movement in fights, instead of the current 5e model, where the martials just run up and then there's a sort of big pack of melee types standing still and swinging away with their weapons.