The main issue to me is the disparity of options. Unless you are a niche build, there's no reason to not be a dex build for most campaigns.
If I have a 20 dex and standard studded leather + shield wielding a rapier I'm doing exactly as much melee damage as the strength based version, I don't take penalties for stealth, my dex save is far better, as is my initiative. Oh, and my ranged attacks are good as well.
Strength based? Umm ... my AC is better when/if I can afford plate mail (up until then it's probably about even with the dex guy). By 5%. Yippee? Unless I've put significant points into dex, I suck at stealth, my dex save stinks, my initiative is awful. I'd probably be okay with that, but then my ranged attacks have one fifth the effective range and limited to one per round as well*. I guess I can grapple ... except I can't remember the last time that came up in a game over the past four decades or so I've played. I'm better at climbing, but the dex guy will probably just rely on this well oiled team I keep hearing about.
So I should do a barbarian instead. Yep, big tough barbarian. Raar. Except do I really need to be big and tough? What if I just tanked dex and put everything int dex and con? Huh. My AC gets up as high as most fighters in full plate after a while. I don't get to be reckless and my damage is ever so slightly lower, but I could be a stealthy ninja barbarian firing death from the shadows. Strength based? I have to split between strength dex and con. If I want my barbarian to be charismatic or smart I'm SOL.
In any case, reinforced bows bring things more or less in balance and don't hurt anything. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
* unless you spend every other round doing something other than attacking which somehow means I'm getting more attacks or something? Still confused by that one.
I’d argue with the “most campaigns” but accept “most campaigns that are combat focused and more so if the players optimize.”
Your descriptions to me sound much more like 3.5e or even 4e combats to me in complexity and length, because 5e combat for us is lucky if we get past 3 rounds and 10 minutes. Maybe 30 minutes in a really long combat, and in a 4 hour session it’s pretty rare that we have more than 30-60 minutes of combat total. Again, there have been some exceptions. Grappling is one of the most common types of combat, in part because a lot of our campaigns happen in civilization and you can often get in trouble with the law when using deadly force.
The answer, as you’ve already stated, for you is clear. Build DEX based characters or homebrew “solutions.”
A Strength-based bow sounds fine to me, and even goes back to a mention the AD&D DMG. I’ve used them for decades, although their to-hit is DEX based, and damage is by the bow rating as long as you have enough STR to wield it.
Since it seems like you can do so much with DEX-based builds, why does it matter if there aren’t more STR ones? One might argue that along the lines of 3e’s three saving throw system, that the 6 abilities could potentially be collapsed into three. Wouldn’t that be radical? Physical, mental, and leadership/personality.
A more simple solution, but one that ruffles a lot of feathers? Get rid of finesse weapons, or at least the part that lets you use your DEX bonus. They can be rogue weapons that allow sneak attack, but otherwise use STR for bonus to hit and damage. Or DEX modifier to hit, and STR for damage across the board. Crossbows with a larger bonus take longer to load. I prefer when more abilities come into play.
There are a ton of easy tweaks, many simply be reinstating rules from earlier editions, and you’re good to go.
Do I think this is perfectly designed? No. But honestly, a system that requires you to make a choice about being a monster in melee and mediocre to bad in ranged, vs better balanced in both is a good one.
One of the reasons why I don’t think I see these problems as much in our games is we still roll stats, in order. So nobody has optimized characters. Instead they design them around their strengths and weaknesses. Occasionally you get somebody with above average stats, but it’s almost never so optimal across the board that it could be a problem. With the standard array, it makes it easier to get hung up on trying to get a specific build, but there is no “optimal” build, just optimal at a narrow focus.
It’s also why people play so many games with multiclass dips. All trying to make the character that is great at everything.
The fact is, the design is in part looking back to the niches that each race or class played in earlier editions. Through AD&D at least, teamwork was typically more effective than optimization. As more rules were added, optimization (or looking for loopholes) became more and more possible, and eventually a specific style of play.
It wasn’t a problem with A munchkinizer any more. The whole table is on board the superhero wagon. More than any other edition, 4e played to this crowd better than any other.
That’s not 5e’s design intent, and while I might have made different decisions, it’s very, very difficult to satisfy both approaches. In fact I seem to recall something about the design not catering to optimizers, but also not being concerned about preventing it.
The original idea of something modular might have worked, starting with a “basic” version and adding mechanical complexity for those that want it. But this makes supporting the system nearly impossible. How do you write an adventure? For what group? You’re back to the AD&D/BECMI split, and neither of those really catered to both well either.
For your intended play style based on your posts, and what you consider a meaningful contribution, I’m not sure I see any other solution than sticking with the classes that optimize well and/or homebrew.
I also don’t really see any issue with that either.
My homebrew at this point could arguably be a new system. Maybe you’d like it better. Combat is simpler yet provides more options, and I’d argue balances quite differently, encouraging defensive fighting, called shots, and teamwork, while adding more variability too.
