I wonder if my language problems turned your life harder while diving deep into this text. Because by reading your comments seems that you couldn’t understand the analysis I’ve done.
1. Yes. I know. Half of this thread is about utility spells and how they lost value compared to dnd5e.
2. Yes, that’s why they are limited by spell slots? Damage dealers are fighters/Barbarians/Paladins. Of course all classes can deal damage but the martialists are superior because of the reliability
4: do you actually have played DnD? No upcast can be compared to fighters multiple attacks per turn. Again, their “thing” is consistency and reliability.
5: now you are using a broken system to justify another. Resting system sucks in BG3. And that’s my main “that’s why people cant see how Casters sucks compared to dnd5e”
Reviewing your bottom line:
No. Actually I do feel boredom. Combat feels cheap because again, it’s unbalanced. Try to read this post again because so far you couldn’t capture the essence of it.
1. I don't see it. On the contrary, if properly used the utility of some spells in BG3 makes encountes much easier to deal with (example provided above btw).
2. That's actually how D&D 5th edition is supposed to be ballanced. A single spell does more damage than a single attack or even 2 attacks later on but spells are consumable resources so you need to use them when they really matter. In BG3 spells do more damage than attacks and they are trivially easy to renew which means on a single encounter casters can just go nova, outdamage martials, rest and then do the same when next encounter pops up. You seem to complain about the fact Larian introduced rules that make martials more likely to hit as long as you can position yourself correctly on the battlefield exploiting those advantages. Therefore removing such "homebrews" would just exacerbate the problem of caster dominance over martials but you seem oblivious to this.
3. I meant spells can reliably be used to hit multiple targets from early on while martials are limited to single/double attacks. With correct positioning you can use a simple spell like buring hands to finish off 3/4 weakened opponents in one go or damaging them enough to make it trivially easy to kill them off afterwards. Martials can't really do this in a reliable way, in BG3 they can focus their attacks on an opponent and take it out in a couple of rounds or more depending on rolls (I had Lae/zel fail 3 attacks in a row with 94% chance of hitting XD...).
4. I both play and DM D&D, I did so in the last 25 years, thank you. As said above in D&D 5th edition damage spells are designed to do more than attacks while attacks are obviously more consistent because they are not limited by spell slots. You either use damage spells to get rid of a single opponent ("save or suck" spells work better in this rergard though) or to weaken/kill monds of weaker enemies. Generally speaking martials don't work that way and can't do those things (paladins can effectively go nova thoiugh... if they spend spell slots!).
5. Yes, BG3 resting system doesn't work (imo) as it is now it just makes casters better than they are in D&D because they don't need to manage resources and can always go nova this fact currently makes your claims about spellcasters getting less from spellcasting null & void imo.
I completed BG3 EA twice and combat felt just fine if a bit easy. You claim you feel boredom at how combat works... but the current system encourages you to position yourself and to move tactically (which requires a bit ot thought on the player's part) while you ask for the nerfing of opponents so that your spells can do more than they already do (read: a lot) and the removal of those modifiers that make martials better at attacking the enemy while positioning themselves in order to gain those advantages (advantages that btw, work for casters as well as martials, try to cast a cantrip from higher ground than your target, your chances to hit will be better than what you'd have doing the same while on the same level as your opponent). Basically you are saying you are bored because your spells can't kill stuff on the spot (and they actually can, btw) without you needing to position yourself tactically in order to gain advantage/defend yourself from reprisal. To you a game where you point your finger at opponents and they die would be less boring than a game where you actually need to plan your moves it seems... To each is own I guess but allow me to disagree with this notion completely.