Do caster out of combat options matter?

[Mastikator]

I'm arguing against the reply that a DM has to cater/work more/share DMing responsibilities with players that can't cast spells. So if we bullet point your reply there, point 3 will always lead back to point 1, whether they can cast spells or not. No difference.

I was trying to stay on topic. "Casters can do a lot out of combat. They can teleport past obstacles, plane shift, open locked doors, fly etc.

But do these options actually matter? If you need to get to the plane of fire as part of the campaign there will be a way to get to the plane of fire that didn't rely on class abilities or make assumptions."
- clash

Whether they have the capacity to do out of combat stuff was to my understanding the subject of this thread. Whether they choose to use those options is off topic.

When you design an adventure that takes place in the City of Brass, do you look at the player character sheets to see if they have plane shift, and do you add a portal/NPC/item to plane shift them if they can't. Or do you just add the portal/NPC/item anyway, regardless of their ability. If you add it anyway, is the option to cast the spell actually matter. Or do you look at their ability to do out of combat options, and make an adventure based on those.

These are all decisions that happen before the adventure starts.

I think option 3 is too fragile, players can miss a session and leave the other players unable to go.
I think option 1 is too arbitrary and too much work.
So I always go for option 2. Make an adventure that any party can finish (and add multiple paths and outcomes that depend on out of combat options. But don't go crazy, just add enough details that the players can get creative, and they'll always surprise you, but again, off topic)