Does it really narrow the gap enough? There are some seriously good racial abilities that for some classes are incredibly powerful. There is a reason why giving Shield Dwarves medium armor proficiency that wizards, sorcerers salivate for is not game breaking. It's their racial stat bonus.
How often does your wizard need armor? Are you always in melee with it? This example reeks of gameplay errors justifying a weird min-max choice. I've never even needed Mage armor on my wizards, let alone other forms of armor. You're so hung up on dwarves as if mage armor doesn't already exist and isn't already enough, it's just a level 1 spell slot. Just have a good frontliner and people won't get the chance to do much to the wizard so picking a dwarf for an armored wizard is actually not even that great of an option.
Argument would work for any race, Dwarf or not. Why is being punished for being a High Elf Barbarian bad, but ok in case of Halflings? The inability to use heavy weapons is far more punishing for Barbarian than +1 to Strength. You can always find a roleplay reason to do something in the game or round the table that punishes you. Racial Stats are one of the least punishing aspects.
Because dual wielding handaxes has never been a good Barbarian strategy... Who cares if you don't have heavy weapons with dual wielding? less damage than a heavy weapon, but more AC with dual wielding feat. More accuracy without the GWM penalty and able to apply that rage bonus one additional time without needing to pick Berserker. Yeah, not carrying heavy weapons really isn't that big of a deal. It's just a different playstyle that is not "the best one" so your min-max attitude is showing again.
You are literally missing the entire point of what I'm saying.
Yes you can build Halfling to be a fun and efficient barbarian even with a handicap of not being able to use heavy weapons. Same as you can build a dwarf to be a fun and efficient wizard with a handicap of one less in mental stat. You don't need to change the entire race mechanics to make both of those things possible and fun. An
And why is going into melee with a wizard suddenly a gameplay error. It's not like wizards don't get spells that are effective in melee range, right? And if I can survive, why would it be an error? Are you trying to shame my way of having fun?
And it's not like frontline wizard builds weren't a ever a thing in cRPGs. It never made sense... right?
And last point:
The argument that feature being opt-in a an always good and allows a fun to grow is a terrible argument. Always.
Games should force you to do something the way developers want you to do. Finding ways around or through is a thing that for a lot of people makes games fun.
Elden Ring has no opt-in features like lower difficulty, different itemization options. I don't think it hurts its popularity, I would say that on the contrary, lack of difficulty setting f.e. is what makes Souls games in the eyes of many special.
