The “Wizards should buff other martials to be more versatile” argument has been raised multiple times on this thread, with an undertone of blaming Wizards for the current design of martials. The reality? Wizards has tried to make martials more complex multiple times - it was a core design goal of 4e and a consistent element of the 5.24e playtesting. Wizards consistently has to walk back the complexity not because they want to, but because the player base pushes back.
Players want to have a range of options, so they can play a more simple class if they want. Fighters and Barbarians, for example, are designed for simplicity, and when Wizards has floated ideas like “what if we made Battlemaster features part of the default class?” they are told by survey feedback not to do that. You then get into your next tier, 5.24e rogue, Monk, and half-casters, then full casters.
Wizards is right on this - there should be options for everyone, and players who want more complex Fighters or Barbarians can get that complexity though the Subclass (ex. Battlemaster or World Tree). This gives the best of both worlds - it keeps simple options for those who want them, while also allowing complexity.
Furthermore, let’s assume arguendo that Wizards should ignore decades of player feedback and make martials more akin to the Pugilist. That does not change the fact the Pugilist is poorly designed and a bad baseline for comparison. The goal for basic game design with different classes is not “complexity for the sake of complexity” but “make sure each class has its own unique feel, so you can live the fantasy of that class without having others step on your toes.” Pugilist gains its complexity by taking core features of other classes, rather than truly doing something new. That is the wrong way to go about artificially creating complexity.
1. Ngl im so use to calling them WOTC that when you called them wizards i thought you meant the class and was very confused lol.
2. Martials need a buff everyone knows it their power level late game is pathetic and if they cant buff them in a way that is helpful and works then they need to neef spells and add more features to caster classes (mainly sorc and wiz)
3. As for the argument that the pugilist is a copy of features from other classes the only features it has are attacking as a bonus action and a short rest resource? I dont think them being unarmed is a factor bc almost any martial can get that through a feat
The same thing could be said about sorcerer and wizard they both have a super similar spell list to the point its legit just the wizard spell list with just less spells.
Another thing id like to point out is that each and every spell in this game is doing enough to be considered a class features on its own but no one bats an eye and they can get 13 or more at once.
I think the real reason people complain is bc they are use to it and 5e players hate change with a passion. They want change but they hate any direction it goes. I never played 4e all my experience in dnd is 5e so there is that.
"D4 Deep Dive" who creates D&D builds, usually to push the damage output, recently did a video on the Pugilist.
Compared to his tier list of other damage builds, the Pugilist came way out on top, though the difference was most egregious at lower levels. The only "mitigating" factors was that it lacked defense compared to other classes, didn't provide any support abilities and the damage was mostly burst damage that used up lots of resources.
Even Colby (of D4 Deep Dive) thought the damage needed scaling back a bit at lower levels (something I never thought I would hear Colby say!). Though he did think that the damage at higher levels was ok considering the martial/caster divide.
Personally I'm not really sure these mitigating factors make up for the damage-dealing power of the class. In the recent edition it seems that WoTC did tend to move away from burst damage (presumably to make things easier for the DM to balance things if they only expected one or two encounters per day), but this class brings back burst damage in a big way.
And though I haven't played the Pugilist myself, after watching reviewers go through it, it just seems a bit....much. There are soooooooo many class features! Even at levels where other classes tend not to have features such as levels where they get a subclass feature or feat, this class has them. Sometimes more than one.
And they tend to all interact with each other in a myriad of ways. Normally features that build on each other is a good thing, but this class: you have a feature usable X times per day; unless you use this second feature which can only be used 1/day but refreshes the first feature, except you can use the second feature again if something else happens etc etc.
It all seems way too complex, but maybe that's just me
"D4 Deep Dive" who creates D&D builds, usually to push the damage output, recently did a video on the Pugilist.
Compared to his tier list of other damage builds, the Pugilist came way out on top, though the difference was most egregious at lower levels. The only "mitigating" factors was that it lacked defense compared to other classes, didn't provide any support abilities and the damage was mostly burst damage that used up lots of resources.
Even Colby (of D4 Deep Dive) thought the damage needed scaling back a bit at lower levels (something I never thought I would hear Colby say!). Though he did think that the damage at higher levels was ok considering the martial/caster divide.
Personally I'm not really sure these mitigating factors make up for the damage-dealing power of the class. In the recent edition it seems that WoTC did tend to move away from burst damage (presumably to make things easier for the DM to balance things if they only expected one or two encounters per day), but this class brings back burst damage in a big way.
And though I haven't played the Pugilist myself, after watching reviewers go through it, it just seems a bit....much. There are soooooooo many class features! Even at levels where other classes tend not to have features such as levels where they get a subclass feature or feat, this class has them. Sometimes more than one.
And they tend to all interact with each other in a myriad of ways. Normally features that build on each other is a good thing, but this class: you have a feature usable X times per day; unless you use this second feature which can only be used 1/day but refreshes the first feature, except you can use the second feature again if something else happens etc etc.
It all seems way too complex, but maybe that's just me
You might not want to bring content creators into this debate.
I'm not sure any content creator or external website's authors' opinions are inherently valuable, because negativity breeds engagement, & it's hard to tell w/them when good faith criticism is given vs bait for views/SEO. (That's one thing the forums have on that scene.)
So I generally go in not letting that kind of content color my bias.
"D4 Deep Dive" who creates D&D builds, usually to push the damage output, recently did a video on the Pugilist.
Compared to his tier list of other damage builds, the Pugilist came way out on top, though the difference was most egregious at lower levels. The only "mitigating" factors was that it lacked defense compared to other classes, didn't provide any support abilities and the damage was mostly burst damage that used up lots of resources.
Even Colby (of D4 Deep Dive) thought the damage needed scaling back a bit at lower levels (something I never thought I would hear Colby say!). Though he did think that the damage at higher levels was ok considering the martial/caster divide.
Personally I'm not really sure these mitigating factors make up for the damage-dealing power of the class. In the recent edition it seems that WoTC did tend to move away from burst damage (presumably to make things easier for the DM to balance things if they only expected one or two encounters per day), but this class brings back burst damage in a big way.
And though I haven't played the Pugilist myself, after watching reviewers go through it, it just seems a bit....much. There are soooooooo many class features! Even at levels where other classes tend not to have features such as levels where they get a subclass feature or feat, this class has them. Sometimes more than one.
And they tend to all interact with each other in a myriad of ways. Normally features that build on each other is a good thing, but this class: you have a feature usable X times per day; unless you use this second feature which can only be used 1/day but refreshes the first feature, except you can use the second feature again if something else happens etc etc.
It all seems way too complex, but maybe that's just me
You might not want to bring content creators into this debate.
I'm not sure any content creator or external website's authors' opinions are inherently valuable, because negativity breeds engagement, & it's hard to tell w/them when good faith criticism is given vs bait for views/SEO. (That's one thing the forums have on that scene.)
So I generally go in not letting that kind of content color my bias.
I’ll agree that a lot of YouTubers go for the negativity click bait but a lot of them (including Colby) go out of their way to avoid exactly that and he’s usually very objective about classes, features and spells. He’s also very open about the criteria he uses to compare builds
Compared to his tier list of other damage builds, the Pugilist came way out on top, though the difference was most egregious at lower levels. The only "mitigating" factors was that it lacked defense compared to other classes, didn't provide any support abilities and the damage was mostly burst damage that used up lots of resources.
It's defense is stolen from the Barbarian... resistances. No resource needed, just a bonus action. The burst damage does require some resource, but actually refunds you the resource if it works, lol. IE, you spend it when you attack, but if you hit then you get the effect and the resource back. And support depends on your definition. The Squared Circle subclass dishes out condition rings like you wouldn't believe. Can easily spit out 4 a turn... for free. No resource needed.
I still want to play the class at a table more. I was denied last Saturday on a one-shot. I was sure I'd get to play it this time but the DM said "nope" when I got to the table. So far the only DM I've gotten to say yes is my AI. Entertaining games even with the occasional rules mistakes (I had to tell it 3 times to stop using 2014 rules for Grapple).
Compared to his tier list of other damage builds, the Pugilist came way out on top, though the difference was most egregious at lower levels. The only "mitigating" factors was that it lacked defense compared to other classes, didn't provide any support abilities and the damage was mostly burst damage that used up lots of resources.
It's defense is stolen from the Barbarian... resistances. No resource needed, just a bonus action. The burst damage does require some resource, but actually refunds you the resource if it works, lol. IE, you spend it when you attack, but if you hit then you get the effect and the resource back. And support depends on your definition. The Squared Circle subclass dishes out condition rings like you wouldn't believe. Can easily spit out 4 a turn... for free. No resource needed.
I still want to play the class at a table more. I was denied last Saturday on a one-shot. I was sure I'd get to play it this time but the DM said "nope" when I got to the table. So far the only DM I've gotten to say yes is my AI. Entertaining games even with the occasional rules mistakes (I had to tell it 3 times to stop using 2014 rules for Grapple).
Compared to his tier list of other damage builds, the Pugilist came way out on top, though the difference was most egregious at lower levels. The only "mitigating" factors was that it lacked defense compared to other classes, didn't provide any support abilities and the damage was mostly burst damage that used up lots of resources.
It's defense is stolen from the Barbarian... resistances. No resource needed, just a bonus action. The burst damage does require some resource, but actually refunds you the resource if it works, lol. IE, you spend it when you attack, but if you hit then you get the effect and the resource back. And support depends on your definition. The Squared Circle subclass dishes out condition rings like you wouldn't believe. Can easily spit out 4 a turn... for free. No resource needed.
I still want to play the class at a table more. I was denied last Saturday on a one-shot. I was sure I'd get to play it this time but the DM said "nope" when I got to the table. So far the only DM I've gotten to say yes is my AI. Entertaining games even with the occasional rules mistakes (I had to tell it 3 times to stop using 2014 rules for Grapple).
it does have a resource? its once per long rest or get way worse outside combat
"D4 Deep Dive" who creates D&D builds, usually to push the damage output, recently did a video on the Pugilist.
Compared to his tier list of other damage builds, the Pugilist came way out on top, though the difference was most egregious at lower levels. The only "mitigating" factors was that it lacked defense compared to other classes, didn't provide any support abilities and the damage was mostly burst damage that used up lots of resources.
Even Colby (of D4 Deep Dive) thought the damage needed scaling back a bit at lower levels (something I never thought I would hear Colby say!). Though he did think that the damage at higher levels was ok considering the martial/caster divide.
Personally I'm not really sure these mitigating factors make up for the damage-dealing power of the class. In the recent edition it seems that WoTC did tend to move away from burst damage (presumably to make things easier for the DM to balance things if they only expected one or two encounters per day), but this class brings back burst damage in a big way.
And though I haven't played the Pugilist myself, after watching reviewers go through it, it just seems a bit....much. There are soooooooo many class features! Even at levels where other classes tend not to have features such as levels where they get a subclass feature or feat, this class has them. Sometimes more than one.
And they tend to all interact with each other in a myriad of ways. Normally features that build on each other is a good thing, but this class: you have a feature usable X times per day; unless you use this second feature which can only be used 1/day but refreshes the first feature, except you can use the second feature again if something else happens etc etc.
It all seems way too complex, but maybe that's just me
You might not want to bring content creators into this debate.
I'm not sure any content creator or external website's authors' opinions are inherently valuable, because negativity breeds engagement, & it's hard to tell w/them when good faith criticism is given vs bait for views/SEO. (That's one thing the forums have on that scene.)
So I generally go in not letting that kind of content color my bias.
To be honest, similar dynamics happen on forums as well. Slightly different motivations but largely the same results, so I'm reluctant to dismiss the arguments of one person out of hand while taking someone else's seriously because while they do similar things, the format of presentation is different.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
one thing that annoys me is people see B/P/S resistance and cry that's barbs stuff. Its not they just have it as well there's alot of caster subclasses that get it as well and paladin ones too. then people cry its a monk because it can use its fist for more then decoration and it has a short rest resource it can use on things. but its not otherwise Battlemaster with unarmed fighting style is a monk.
the more people shove one or two features as "this class only or that class only" you instantly start cutting down on creativity. there is only so much one person can reflavor when class features dont match and no one wants to play till 3rd level to start feeling like their character (subclasses should be first level but thats another discussion)
as for people saying the class can do to much damage and should be nerfed bc of that need to remember after about 10th ish level martials fall off so hard in terms of everything (rogues do handle a lil bit better tho then the others) martials fall off so hard and still need to be brought up in the late game even this class falls off there too.
either way for the people saying this needs a nerf are just wrong other martials need to be brought up bring up all their damage survivability and versatility in and out of combat.
I’m not entirely sure which subclasses you think give Rage equivalents, but there’s a more significant point in your example- that they’re subclass features. A subclass dipping a little into another identity is one of the points of the format, and the relatively small number of slots means both that those features should have some clout and that there’s a much higher design opportunity cost in terms of everything else the subclass could have gained instead. Class features are much more widely accessible and numerous, thus stacking something like weapon resistance on top of several other features early on is much more significant, especially if little has actually been foregone in favor of adding it to the kit.
The pugilist does only gets B/S/P resistance once for 10 mins per long rest unless you take a massive debuff to get that use back. Martials need to get more features and better ones then what they have now. also B/S/P resistance isnt just a barb thing is what im trying to say other things even spells and magic items can get it B/S/P resistance is just one aspect of barbs and thats just from their rage. Rage itself does other things like rage damage and making strength saves and checks much better.
The pugilist does only gets B/S/P resistance once for 10 mins per long rest unless you take a massive debuff to get that use back. Martials need to get more features and better ones then what they have now. also B/S/P resistance isnt just a barb thing is what im trying to say other things even spells and magic items can get it B/S/P resistance is just one aspect of barbs and thats just from their rage. Rage itself does other things like rage damage and making strength saves and checks much better.
They don't need more features in combat. They do fine there imo. They need stuff for the other parts of play, stuff better than expertise. Which while cool is not as cool as spell that solves problem.
The pugilist does only gets B/S/P resistance once for 10 mins per long rest unless you take a massive debuff to get that use back. Martials need to get more features and better ones then what they have now. also B/S/P resistance isnt just a barb thing is what im trying to say other things even spells and magic items can get it B/S/P resistance is just one aspect of barbs and thats just from their rage. Rage itself does other things like rage damage and making strength saves and checks much better.
They don't need more features in combat. They do fine there imo. They need stuff for the other parts of play, stuff better than expertise. Which while cool is not as cool as spell that solves problem.
i do feel like barbs need maybe one or two bigger features or maybe subclasses should have more big damage features. but yes outside of combat is were martials fall off so hard. Rogue is kinda ok but nothing beats the versatility of spells or the damage of spells.
“Spell that solves problem” is an overrated white room talking point. Half the full casters in the game work off fixed selections of spells that can only be modified at level up, sharply limiting their utility spread. Clerics and Druids freely rearrange on LR but have pretty narrow utility, and even Wizards need to have both learned a spell and prepped it ahead of time, or have an hour to spare with 2024 to swap it in. That’s one whole caster with something vaguely like an in the moment ability to reliably pull a specialized magic solution out of their hat.
“Spell that solves problem” is an overrated white room talking point. Half the full casters in the game work off fixed selections of spells that can only be modified at level up, sharply limiting their utility spread. Clerics and Druids freely rearrange on LR but have pretty narrow utility, and even Wizards need to have both learned a spell and prepped it ahead of time, or have an hour to spare with 2024 to swap it in. That’s one whole caster with something vaguely like an in the moment ability to reliably pull a specialized magic solution out of their hat.
each spell in this system could be an entire class feature so yes some casters have limited spells they cant change out that often just like martials but martials cant change their spells/features at all.
i said classes base classes i didnt say subclasses couldnt help martials also casters can and will always be able to do more then martials because spells offer the most versatility in the game. im not sure why you are acting ignorant to the martial caster divide and insinuating there isnt one. most players will agree in any real game martials struggle greatly. At lower levels they are fine but around 10th level they all begin to fall off were as casters only get stronger the longer a game goes on.
Speaking as someone with a Barbarian and Wizard in their level 12 party, I can assure you the Wizard rarely pulls a perfect magical solution out of his hat and the Barbarian isn’t lagging in DPR. Martial/caster divide is very much a product of narrow white room comparisons.
Speaking as someone with a Barbarian and Wizard in their level 12 party, I can assure you the Wizard rarely pulls a perfect magical solution out of his hat and the Barbarian isn’t lagging in DPR. Martial/caster divide is very much a product of narrow white room comparisons.
Different tables i guess we have martials and casters as well and the casters have a solution to the problem via magic pretty often. Far more often than the martials have a solution via their abilities. I generally agree the martial caster divide is a bit over stated with white room comparisons or optimizer tables. But it does exist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The “Wizards should buff other martials to be more versatile” argument has been raised multiple times on this thread, with an undertone of blaming Wizards for the current design of martials. The reality? Wizards has tried to make martials more complex multiple times - it was a core design goal of 4e and a consistent element of the 5.24e playtesting. Wizards consistently has to walk back the complexity not because they want to, but because the player base pushes back.
Players want to have a range of options, so they can play a more simple class if they want. Fighters and Barbarians, for example, are designed for simplicity, and when Wizards has floated ideas like “what if we made Battlemaster features part of the default class?” they are told by survey feedback not to do that. You then get into your next tier, 5.24e rogue, Monk, and half-casters, then full casters.
Wizards is right on this - there should be options for everyone, and players who want more complex Fighters or Barbarians can get that complexity though the Subclass (ex. Battlemaster or World Tree). This gives the best of both worlds - it keeps simple options for those who want them, while also allowing complexity.
Furthermore, let’s assume arguendo that Wizards should ignore decades of player feedback and make martials more akin to the Pugilist. That does not change the fact the Pugilist is poorly designed and a bad baseline for comparison. The goal for basic game design with different classes is not “complexity for the sake of complexity” but “make sure each class has its own unique feel, so you can live the fantasy of that class without having others step on your toes.” Pugilist gains its complexity by taking core features of other classes, rather than truly doing something new. That is the wrong way to go about artificially creating complexity.
1. Ngl im so use to calling them WOTC that when you called them wizards i thought you meant the class and was very confused lol.
2. Martials need a buff everyone knows it their power level late game is pathetic and if they cant buff them in a way that is helpful and works then they need to neef spells and add more features to caster classes (mainly sorc and wiz)
3. As for the argument that the pugilist is a copy of features from other classes the only features it has are attacking as a bonus action and a short rest resource? I dont think them being unarmed is a factor bc almost any martial can get that through a feat
The same thing could be said about sorcerer and wizard they both have a super similar spell list to the point its legit just the wizard spell list with just less spells.
Another thing id like to point out is that each and every spell in this game is doing enough to be considered a class features on its own but no one bats an eye and they can get 13 or more at once.
I think the real reason people complain is bc they are use to it and 5e players hate change with a passion. They want change but they hate any direction it goes. I never played 4e all my experience in dnd is 5e so there is that.
"D4 Deep Dive" who creates D&D builds, usually to push the damage output, recently did a video on the Pugilist.
Compared to his tier list of other damage builds, the Pugilist came way out on top, though the difference was most egregious at lower levels. The only "mitigating" factors was that it lacked defense compared to other classes, didn't provide any support abilities and the damage was mostly burst damage that used up lots of resources.
Even Colby (of D4 Deep Dive) thought the damage needed scaling back a bit at lower levels (something I never thought I would hear Colby say!). Though he did think that the damage at higher levels was ok considering the martial/caster divide.
Personally I'm not really sure these mitigating factors make up for the damage-dealing power of the class. In the recent edition it seems that WoTC did tend to move away from burst damage (presumably to make things easier for the DM to balance things if they only expected one or two encounters per day), but this class brings back burst damage in a big way.
And though I haven't played the Pugilist myself, after watching reviewers go through it, it just seems a bit....much. There are soooooooo many class features! Even at levels where other classes tend not to have features such as levels where they get a subclass feature or feat, this class has them. Sometimes more than one.
And they tend to all interact with each other in a myriad of ways. Normally features that build on each other is a good thing, but this class: you have a feature usable X times per day; unless you use this second feature which can only be used 1/day but refreshes the first feature, except you can use the second feature again if something else happens etc etc.
It all seems way too complex, but maybe that's just me
You might not want to bring content creators into this debate.
I'm not sure any content creator or external website's authors' opinions are inherently valuable, because negativity breeds engagement, & it's hard to tell w/them when good faith criticism is given vs bait for views/SEO. (That's one thing the forums have on that scene.)
So I generally go in not letting that kind of content color my bias.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
I’ll agree that a lot of YouTubers go for the negativity click bait but a lot of them (including Colby) go out of their way to avoid exactly that and he’s usually very objective about classes, features and spells. He’s also very open about the criteria he uses to compare builds
It's defense is stolen from the Barbarian... resistances. No resource needed, just a bonus action. The burst damage does require some resource, but actually refunds you the resource if it works, lol. IE, you spend it when you attack, but if you hit then you get the effect and the resource back. And support depends on your definition. The Squared Circle subclass dishes out condition rings like you wouldn't believe. Can easily spit out 4 a turn... for free. No resource needed.
I still want to play the class at a table more. I was denied last Saturday on a one-shot. I was sure I'd get to play it this time but the DM said "nope" when I got to the table. So far the only DM I've gotten to say yes is my AI. Entertaining games even with the occasional rules mistakes (I had to tell it 3 times to stop using 2014 rules for Grapple).
It's defense is stolen from the Barbarian... resistances. No resource needed, just a bonus action. The burst damage does require some resource, but actually refunds you the resource if it works, lol. IE, you spend it when you attack, but if you hit then you get the effect and the resource back. And support depends on your definition. The Squared Circle subclass dishes out condition rings like you wouldn't believe. Can easily spit out 4 a turn... for free. No resource needed.
I still want to play the class at a table more. I was denied last Saturday on a one-shot. I was sure I'd get to play it this time but the DM said "nope" when I got to the table. So far the only DM I've gotten to say yes is my AI. Entertaining games even with the occasional rules mistakes (I had to tell it 3 times to stop using 2014 rules for Grapple).
it does have a resource? its once per long rest or get way worse outside combat
To be honest, similar dynamics happen on forums as well. Slightly different motivations but largely the same results, so I'm reluctant to dismiss the arguments of one person out of hand while taking someone else's seriously because while they do similar things, the format of presentation is different.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
one thing that annoys me is people see B/P/S resistance and cry that's barbs stuff. Its not they just have it as well there's alot of caster subclasses that get it as well and paladin ones too. then people cry its a monk because it can use its fist for more then decoration and it has a short rest resource it can use on things. but its not otherwise Battlemaster with unarmed fighting style is a monk.
the more people shove one or two features as "this class only or that class only" you instantly start cutting down on creativity. there is only so much one person can reflavor when class features dont match and no one wants to play till 3rd level to start feeling like their character (subclasses should be first level but thats another discussion)
as for people saying the class can do to much damage and should be nerfed bc of that need to remember after about 10th ish level martials fall off so hard in terms of everything (rogues do handle a lil bit better tho then the others) martials fall off so hard and still need to be brought up in the late game even this class falls off there too.
either way for the people saying this needs a nerf are just wrong other martials need to be brought up bring up all their damage survivability and versatility in and out of combat.
I’m not entirely sure which subclasses you think give Rage equivalents, but there’s a more significant point in your example- that they’re subclass features. A subclass dipping a little into another identity is one of the points of the format, and the relatively small number of slots means both that those features should have some clout and that there’s a much higher design opportunity cost in terms of everything else the subclass could have gained instead. Class features are much more widely accessible and numerous, thus stacking something like weapon resistance on top of several other features early on is much more significant, especially if little has actually been foregone in favor of adding it to the kit.
The pugilist does only gets B/S/P resistance once for 10 mins per long rest unless you take a massive debuff to get that use back. Martials need to get more features and better ones then what they have now. also B/S/P resistance isnt just a barb thing is what im trying to say other things even spells and magic items can get it B/S/P resistance is just one aspect of barbs and thats just from their rage. Rage itself does other things like rage damage and making strength saves and checks much better.
They don't need more features in combat. They do fine there imo. They need stuff for the other parts of play, stuff better than expertise. Which while cool is not as cool as spell that solves problem.
i do feel like barbs need maybe one or two bigger features or maybe subclasses should have more big damage features. but yes outside of combat is were martials fall off so hard. Rogue is kinda ok but nothing beats the versatility of spells or the damage of spells.
“Spell that solves problem” is an overrated white room talking point. Half the full casters in the game work off fixed selections of spells that can only be modified at level up, sharply limiting their utility spread. Clerics and Druids freely rearrange on LR but have pretty narrow utility, and even Wizards need to have both learned a spell and prepped it ahead of time, or have an hour to spare with 2024 to swap it in. That’s one whole caster with something vaguely like an in the moment ability to reliably pull a specialized magic solution out of their hat.
each spell in this system could be an entire class feature so yes some casters have limited spells they cant change out that often just like martials but martials cant change their spells/features at all.
There’s actually quite a few instances where you’re factually incorrect there, with Battlemaster being a prominent example.
Speaking as someone with a Barbarian and Wizard in their level 12 party, I can assure you the Wizard rarely pulls a perfect magical solution out of his hat and the Barbarian isn’t lagging in DPR. Martial/caster divide is very much a product of narrow white room comparisons.
Different tables i guess we have martials and casters as well and the casters have a solution to the problem via magic pretty often. Far more often than the martials have a solution via their abilities. I generally agree the martial caster divide is a bit over stated with white room comparisons or optimizer tables. But it does exist.