Right, now we get to the meat of it. If that's your frame of reference, I mostly agree. I just think that's bad.
Your point I replied to was that the DM should not cater to people doing things discouraged by the rules.
So strength builds are an exception to this then, and the DM should make sure such characters are viable, but people who make other poor decisions should suffer the consequences?
I'd say that STR builds are presented as something that is viable, but through a confluence of non obvious mechanics it turns out to be a subpar choice. The text of the rules says its encouraging you to play a STR build, but the emergent gameplay is that STR is worse than other options.
I think the text encourages non-specialized builds, which steer you away from things like GWM and PAM. In any case the mechanics favor dexterity fighters over strength fighters and that should not surprise anyone.
If you want a Strength build a Paladin or a Ranger are mechanically much better options than a Fighter. A Paladin is actually more effective as a Strength build, and while a Strength Ranger is generally inferior to a Dex Ranger, it is better than a Dex fighter and the difference between the two is less on a Ranger than it is on a Fighter.
Yes I could dump dexterity on my Monk, maximize strength and do more damage than my Dex monk, but that is not a smart decision. The decision calculus for a fighter is not as extreme as in that example, but it is a large difference.
Fighter is presented alongside wizard in a way that the text says they are considered equal, but through gameplay, especially high level gameplay, that turns out to not be true. A game could present these differently: plenty of video games will have a "difficulty" or "power" score on the character rules to let you know that it's not for beginners.
The text actually states that Wizards are "supreme". No kidding, that is actually written in the PHB.
This balance idea is not stated anywhere in the PHB or the starter sets. It comes from forums like this or game designers commentary or Sage Advice or other places but it is not anywhere in the actual rules.
As such I completely reject this hypothesis that Fighter is "presented" in a way the text says they are considered equal.
If people who don't know the rules are under the impression the choices are equal it is only because people who know better lead them to believe they are equal. If that is happening it is deceitful.
I don't think it's easy to tell from the main rules text STR is discouraged.
Sure it is. It is extremely easy. I knew it before my first 5E game.
Strength has 1 skill, only Constitution is less. Dexterity is used for initiative.
The fighter relies on attacks exclusively unless you get something else from a subclass or elsewhere. Playing a Strength build makes ranged attacks less effective and movement restricts the ability to make melee attacks far more than it restricts ranged attacks.
That should be obvious and it IS obvious to everyone on this thread I think. So there is really no excuse for you or anyone you play with to not understand this.
There are 3 books in the core rules, and subtle changes to any one of those books could make a melee str build better than casters.
Why would they do that? There is no evidence at all that most players want that.
If you change the way that short rests occur, or (as discussed ad nauseum) how magic items are distributed, fighter stocks might shoot up.
Fighter stock would get better with different short rest rules, but Dexterityh-based fighters would still be superior to Strength-based fighters.
You could leave all the core rules the same and change only the monster manual and completely upend class balance. It's not a players fault if they're not aware of these things.
Everyone on this thread is aware of these things, so yes it is your fault if you ignore this.
And so I would say again: that's a core flaw in the design of 5e, a better game would not be that way.
The game would be worse IMO with these changes.
Not everyone has terminally online grognards as part of their player group to tell them what pitfalls to avoid - and a lot of terminally online grognards will deny those pitfalls exist.
If you read the rules you should understand the rules. If you don't read the rules you should get someone who has to help you, and if you are that person helping you should be helpful.
While we are on this though, I will point out that more complicated and powerful melee combat rules will hurt players who don't read the rules even more than they are hurt now. A player who does not understand "what to avoid" is going to end up using his Longbow on his new and improved Strength build, whether that build is more or less powerful than it is now.
Some groups just stumble in to them and only realise once they're having problems, and to me that's something that is worth fixing.
The fixes you propose will not fix this. Actually they will make "balance" in general worse and make it more difficult to be a new player.
If you propose fixes that offer more power for specific builds, players "in the know" will take those builds and combos and those not "in the know" at the same table won't, because they won't know abut them.