When I came back to RPGs (after 20 years) I discarded pathfinder after reading about the complexities of the systems and the fact that there was a real chance of getting “bad characters” if you made bad choices and didn’t put enough time into reading the rules (different tiers of classes and stuff also) and thinking your character through ahead of time (it seemed to be a consensus at least pathfinder requires more investment).
We’re a bunch of 40 yo players with children and very little time so I moved to D&D 5e with the aim of simplifying. My understanding was it was more streamlined and simpler and we could just move in, chose a desired race and class and that would be just as powerful as any other without having to worry too much about choices, that is, that choices would shape the role playing part of the game and no so much the balance of the party.
Then I came across this question about two weapons fighting being subpar for fighters. It seems to imply that different paths for a fighter may yield very different “power levels” and that somehow there’s a “right” way and a “wrong” way of creating a fighter.
Now, I can’t say I understand the math involved so I’m not sure if that question deals with marginal differences or two fighters, one with a two handed sword and one with two weapons will make the second feel being outperformed and regretful of the choices he made through.
I’m also worried that happens for other classes.
Is this something I have to worry about with my players? I don’t expect them to read the PHB throughout so, should I become an expert and somehow advice them to the right paths or are these kind of differences not likely to get my players to feel frustrated?