Xyrilia

Your complaint about the distribution feeling uneven isn't an issue with the new book but with D&D in general. The game has more casters than it has non casters so obviously they're going to release more subclasses for casters than non casters.

They're not melee focused classes btw, we call them martials as they engage in martial combat instead of having a focus on casting. There's also half casters which ranger is one of them so why are we confused that ranger is getting a "magic focused" subclass? Ranger is a magical class, its main gameplay gimmick is a spell.

A martial class, especially rogue, getting a cantrip is not a magical focus and you also cannot lump soul knife in with casters, it doesn't get spell slots.

The idea that anything is disappointing as a replacement for purple dragon Knight is also hilarious as it was easily the worst subclass from 5e as far as many were concerned and the flavor wasn't even well done. A supportive fighter is a niche I know multiple friends have wanted to do but struggled to find something that really fit well in the higher class, banneret could actually fill that niche well potentially.

Magic has always been king in 5e. Strange idea I know, but magic is fun. Magic grants you versatility where you'd normally only have skill checks, giving players additional options is often a good thing. Also the "lack of connection to bg3" is a funny thing since the rogue subclass you bashed is obviously a direct tie in. This whole article is just confusing to me. Complaining about specifically "melee" when rangers and rogues are most often playing with ranged weapon, complaining about magic when the game has always been heavily skewed towards magic, completely glossing over bladesinger which is a specifically martial and melee focused subclass.

The game has 6 full casters, 4 martials, and 3 half casters including artificer. 9/13 classes, 70% of them are magically focused. What are we talking about?