Jester David
Hero
A key thing to keep in mind is balance and equality are two different things.
There is nothing in balanced that requires two options to have the same effects.
Specifically "same in game impact" and "no mechanical differences" are very very different things. But it is common for them to be mashed together by one side or the other to support a balance position.
The key to game impact is how the overall package applies and is relevant to outcomes.
Thats where things like SS/GMW do more dpr under (assumptions) than Sword and shield or TWF fail to be convincing (to some) when other difference can be highlited - concealability, defense, thrown, etc. They tend to short shrift the opportunity costs.
It also tends to fail for some because higher dpr does not necessarily shift the bar for successful outcomes as much as the math is being portrayed.
In my own experience, its like area under bell curve.
At the lowest levels, it help you towards victory very litte - your mediocre dmg is not going to matter. By midle norm to above average outputs it helps a lot. But that last bit from above average to top, doesnt shift the success bar as much as it serms because the opportunity costs add up plus having some much channeled down one path to victory.
Like tic tac toe, if only one type of challenge is presented, its likely solvable. But rpgs are more complex than that.
There's two things at play.
Yes, there is the desire for mechanical choices to have mechanical effects so your choices alter your character. But also at work is the desire for building and optimisation, which is related but different. The group of fans who want to "win" the game by making the toughest character. The fans who sit around and build characters for fun. Many are already pretty vocal about 5e being low in options for that reason. (Ironically, some of which on this forum like to complain about the lack of complexity but also like to complain about the lack of balance, completely missing that the two are causally related.)