I have read with interest a recent threads about balance and race choices. During the discussion I began wondering if there has been some culture shift in the community that I have been ignoring.
What I found in that thread was worry that characters would not be viable unless the race and the class fit an archetype. As an example, unless you take a halfling for a rogue thief, you are nuts! A half-orc wizard? Madness!
In the dark ages, we relished taking things that were off center. A particularly strong cleric? Cool. A half-orc paladin? Novel. A strong halfling fighter? Off the beaten path. And so forth. Unconventional ability placement? Sometimes fun. (Here I must note that this might really just mean a different high score without totally gimping the main stat). I have never played in a group that totally ignored effectiveness.
However, I have taken a mace in place of a d8 longsword because it looks cool for some characters. I even (gasp) like shortswords better than rapiers for personal aesthetic reasons...
In 5e I have enjoyed taking backgrounds that are not "optimal" for dungeon environments but are fun for character development.
Lest you get the idea that I am into some sort of high drama roleplay without combat, let me assure you I prefer most play to be devoted to fighting and conflict. Exploring is cool, but swinging swords is the best! Roleplaying is fun in almost all situations (though I don't like to barter over coppers ad nauseum...get the adventure going!).
But in the discussion about the need to match half-orc with champion fighter, it seemed that many people were afraid their character would simply die young if they did not make the "best" choice.
This is where I am really confused.
First, the variability in rolling for stats seems to suggest that there can be different levels of ability. Additionally, party size can vary. Lastly, there are feats in most games. As a result:
This does not seem to suggest that the game is perfectly balanced and that life hinges on perfect efficiency. If it did, wouldn't certain class and race combinations be restricted? Wouldn't party size be mandated? Would stat rolling be allowed at all?
In many cases, we are talking about 2 points in a stat difference for "optimal" pairings. How often is that going to be the difference between life and death over the course of a campaign? It could be I guess, but if I only play cookie cutter characters, how much does it matter? I already have a template so I can start over and recreate the "perfect" array.
If we are talking about a +1 bonus say in AC, we are saying we are worried about one number on the die difference. I am wringing my hands about being hit on an 11 or higher instead of a twelve or higher in a particular case. One number on the die...is that one number THAT pivotal often?