Roleplaying comes from interactions with the world.
I can also end someones life by stabbing him in the guts.
Doing so in a way that is mecahnically interresting is far more stimulating to be than a diceroll or the lack of one.
D&D never had good martial rules. However, a assassin can dish a lot of damage on his backstab.
That said, I would prefer a WoD approach over a 4e approach to the caster/non caster imbalance. What I mean by WoD approach? Simple. Mages and Werewolves are extremely stronger than Vampires. So, there are campaigns for vampires, campaign for mages(mage the ascension) and campaigns for werewolves. Tremere, the vampires which are the closest to magicians are still extremely weaker mainly when separated from their clan if compared to a mage. Is not a perfect solution, but is far less awful than 4e approach IE - everything is just a reskin of fighter.
Making iconic spells based on Jack Vance's novel very lackluster is sad too. And note that back on 2e, the most popular class was Paladin. Not mage, nor fighter. And Paladins on 2e only start to be able to cast spells at lv 9.
It´s different in videogames, of course. Sandbox-y games would have to rely a lot in level progression and looting because you have little to do besides combat and follow a story to tie the combats. But I do not think that would be the case of BG3
In video games, almost everyone prefer BG2 over BG1. Almost everyone prefer HotU over NWN1's OC. Almost everyone prefer MotB over NWN2 OC.
And note that on OC of nwn1/2, you reach lv 10 in a mater of few hours.
