Hate to share from the site we definitely don’t think about anymore, but I think this is too interesting to miss. If true, it’s a big insight into the design of the game. All credit to that OP of course.
Summary is that WotC’s balancing decisions seem to make sense if they balance the classes like they balance monsters, using max damage output over a three-round fight. Basically they overvalue that, especially for certain nova classes (the OP suggests those classes are Fighter/Wizard/Sorcerer) and undervalue utility.
TLDR. WoTC seems to value Single Target Guaranteed DPR in a Nova over 3 rounds, and balances the game around that not too dissimilar to how they calculate the power of CR. And that seems to reflect every design decision and choice they have made when viewed this way, and what they gauge class power around. The core resource management of the game is about novaing now or later, and how can classes recover their novas.
Based on the way they’ve reigned in nova damage with 1D&D but have left utility spells basically untouched, I think the theory has merit.
I’m not sure I concur here.
Perfect balance is impossible, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try to make classes feel at least roughly equal with no obvious winners and losers. What’s the benefit of having a class that people agree on is bad? For a long time that was Ranger, and it was clear that they didn’t want Rangers to be bad because they tried to fix the Ranger in UA like four times before Tasha’s finally did a solid job with it. And most of the Ranger fixes aren’t straight combat buffs either, so they definitely do care about out of combat ability to some extent.
It’s not “anime” to give martials more power or more things to do. You say it’s wrong that a caster can do stuff without asking the DM that a martial has to rely on DM fiat for… but how so? That sounds completely accurate to me.