It's a trend that I've seen in RPGs over the years, and with my clear magic-user bias, it's not one I'm usually fond of.

Short version is, once upon a time there were spellcasters and non-spellcasters. Spellcasters were largely understood to be more powerful, but harder to play or control. They had very intentional weaknesses that supported this dichotomy: crap armor. Low health. Resource limitations. Difficulty in locating new spells. Weird material components. Feeling useless at low levels. Concentration mechanics. The list goes on.

Things have shifted over time, and now the trend seems to be "make non casters just as powerful and versatile as casters but also don't give them any of those pesky limitations, but casters still keep a bunch of their limitations like mana and mobility issues and interruptible spells". This doesn't necessarily have to be done in a bad way, but again, I'm caster biased. I dislike the idea that I could spend my life in a tower learning to make fire with my hands only to find out I could have just picked up a sword and accomplish basically the same thing, but also have basically none of the drawbacks.

So the end result is, non-casters can just do the same thing as casters except they don't have resource limitations. Because casters being stronger is unfair. So now they're not stronger, they just have these arbitrary limitations that aren't making up for a power difference anymore.

Where it goes from here is up to the game designers. I'm not some ancient grognard waving my fist and saying "mages should be better". What I'm saying is, mages and fighters shouldn't have basically equal output if they're going to have the old restrictions on mages and not add any to fighters.