That's a lovely speech. 100% opinion, 0% argumentation, filled with ad hominems and appeals to emotion.
Heh. At least you can see how it feels when people make paranoid vague assertions without a shred of mechanical evidence.
I've argued mechanics every time, so I'm not sure you know how that feels.
For example, to say that Intelligence and Dexterity are different abilities, is less than a useful assessment of their respective mechanical values.
To assert that Intelligence is more powerful than Dexterity is wrong, and is a vague assertion at best.
Int is more valuable than Dex for an Int caster. Is that wrong? Too vague?
Edit for brevity's sake: it doesn't even matter if Int is stronger than Dex or not on the whole. That's a pointless discussion when the balance of a new mechanic is the issue. What matters is whether in an optimal choice scenario, Int (or whatever parameter we're looking at) becomes unduly strong.
That's a lovely speech. 100% opinion, 0% argumentation, filled with ad hominems and appeals to emotion.
Heh. At least you can see how it feels when people make paranoid vague assertions without a shred of mechanical evidence.
I've argued mechanics every time, so I'm not sure you know how that feels.
For example, to say that Intelligence and Dexterity are different abilities, is less than a useful assessment of their respective mechanical values.
To assert that Intelligence is more powerful than Dexterity is wrong, and is a vague assertion at best.
Int is more valuable than Dex for an Int caster. Is that wrong? Too vague?
For example, that fails to mention that an Eldritch Knight can dump Intelligence entirely and still be optimal.
That doesn't need mentioning, because balance doesn't care whether there's no issue in some cases. Balances cares whether there is no issue in any case. Regardless, I think you can't assert with any certainty that an Eldritch Knight who chooses not to use any save-or-suck spells at all is optimal, rather than merely viable.
As an aside, to point out a little analogy here: a Fighter can never use any heavy armour and still be optimal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As an aside, to point out a little analogy here: a Fighter can never use any heavy armour and still be optimal.
Correct. Regardless of how the Fighter achieves AC, equivalent AC is equivalent. If a Fighter has AC from armor and Strength, great. If a Fighter has AC from agility and Dexterity, great. If a Fighter has AC from Mage Armor and Intelligence, great.
The choice of AC flavor is roughly identical in value and is a wash.
As an aside, to point out a little analogy here: a Fighter can never use any heavy armour and still be optimal.
Correct. Regardless of how the Fighter achieves AC, equivalent AC is equivalent. If a Fighter has AC from armor and Strength, great. If a Fighter has AC from agility and Dexterity, great. If a Fighter has AC from Mage Armor and Intelligence, great.
The choice of AC flavor is a wash.
Ok, then why is giving up heavy armour proficiency worth 4 points / half a feat according to some of your earlier posts?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Going by the Players Handbook. The heavy armor by itself is worth roughly a halffeat (or possibly slightly less). The medium armor is worth about a quarter of a feat. A total of about 5 or 6 points.
The Mage armor is worth a solid halffeat, about 4 points.
(To be fair, where Mage Armor and plate armor can achieve the same AC, the heavy armor might have less worth, maybe even 2 points. Except, the Mage Armor requires two feats to boost Dexterity or Intelligence to achieve the equivalent of plate. So there are opportunity costs, whereas the plate is a straightforward AC 18.)
To swap the Mage Armor for both medium and heavy is a "safe" swap.
Going by the Players Handbook. The heavy armor by itself is worth roughly a halffeat (or possibly slightly less). The medium armor is worth about a quarter of a feat. A total of about 5 or 6 points.
The Mage armor is worth a solid halffeat, about 4 points.
(To be fair, where Mage Armor and plate armor can achieve the same AC, the heavy armor might have less worth, maybe even 2 points. Except, the Mage Armor requires two feats to boost Dexterity or Intelligence to achieve the equivalent of plate. So there are opportunity costs, whereas the plate is a straightforward AC 18.)
To swap the Mage Armor for both medium and heavy is a "safe" swap.
No. Again, simply and absolutely not correct. According to the PHB getting heavy armour might be worth giving up half a feat, give or take. That does not, in any way, state or imply giving up heavy armour might be worth getting half a feat, give or take.
A fighter who is optimal without ever using heavy armour doesn't lose anything of value if he loses proficiency and doesn't gain anything if, after somehow losing proficiency, he were to regain it. He'd be, for all practical intents and purposes, exactly the same off either way. So why, if he doesn't lose anything of value by giving up heavy armour proficiency, should he get something that does have value instead?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So why, if he doesn't lose anything of value by giving up heavy armour proficiency, should he get something that does have value instead?
Because the Fighter is a versatile class. There are many different kinds of Fighter builds. Under consideration is a Strength build, a Dexterity build, and here an Intelligence build. Each choice comes with mutually exclusive opportunity costs, that can benefit from some features but lose the ability to benefit from other features.
A Dexterity build cannot benefit from heavy armor, but will benefit from other features, including high Reflex, great range sniping and kiting, comparable melee damage, great Stealth (via a background that grants Stealth), and to a Fighter initiative is valuable too.
In these cases, it is the holistic total of what an entire Fighter build can do that determines the balance of an option.
So why, if he doesn't lose anything of value by giving up heavy armour proficiency, should he get something that does have value instead?
Because the Fighter is a versatile class. There are many different kinds of Fighter builds. Under consideration here is a Strength build, a Dexterity build, and an Intelligence build. Each choice comes with mutually exclusive opportunity costs, that can benefit from some features but lose the ability to benefit from other features.
Yup, like the opportunity costs that come with the choice to play a fighter in the first place, and thus among other things getting armour proficiencies but not getting Mage Armor (either based on Dex or any other ability). Or to play an Eldritch Knight, with all the options that offers but not the ones from any of the other Fighter subclasses. As soon as you make a choice, part if this holistic total becomes immaterial. If you choose to play a ranged fighter, most of your weapon proficiencies become irrelevant and thus worthless. The "holistic total of what an entire Fighter build can do" doesn't make it balanced to give up all martial weapon proficiencies and heavy armour proficiency in order to get the Sharpshooter feat, yet that's exactly what some of your posts above would indicate - I could still make an elven archer that would be exactly the same as an optimal one that hadn't given up those proficiencies, except this one would have an extra feat (and the best possible one for this type of character to boot). Heck, according to your logic all save proficiencies are worth the same - half a (Resilience) feat. I could give up heavy armour and become proficient in Wis saves, if I wanted to. Or a +1 to any ability, limited to a max of 20 for that ability, is also worth half a feat: I could drop heavy armour and pump another +1 into Dex instead, if I wanted to. Or I could drop heavy armour and a bunch of weapon proficiencies and get both Will save proficiency and a +1 to Dex. And maybe I could just give up my fighting style on top of that as well, and get Sharpshooter instead. It's all equivalent after all, right?
Wrong. All of that is nonsense. The holistic total of a class offers a bunch of options that can lead to a bunch of builds, several of which can be close to optimal within the constraints imposed by the class. Changing one or more of those options can change those constraints, thereby changing what can be created using optimal choices. Thus, balance is affected.
I don't think you have anything to support your argument that giving up heavy armour proficiency is worth anything, let alone half a feat, based on what the PHB says because the PHB doesn't say that. I don't think you can offer a valid answer as to why a character who gives up something that has no value to it should get something that does have value to it in return, or why doing so wouldn't obviously change its balance, because the most basic logic refutes that. Whenever you seemingly address any of this, what you really do is disregard flaws in logic and/or present some eloquently put phrases that don't actually mean anything. If you want to convince me, all it takes is showing me something pertinent. Show me something that indicates the devs meant swapping out class abilities you don't want for just anything you do want, based on some vague, unofficial calcution is a thing. Show me that a character who gives up heavy armour and gets Mage Armour instead can't be meaningfully better off. But show me that, exactly. None of your posts so far have. They all leave out context or disregard significant points.
Using the arguments you present I could create my ideal, fully optimized character, look at everything it gets I don't really want and calculate some kind of trade-in value for it, and then give it a bunch of other things I do want that correspond with this trade-in value instead - and this would supposedly be balanced. It should be obvious that the only possible way that would be true is if the trade-in value is zero.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It routinely used one ability to substitute for an other ability. Also, "riders" (where two different abilities can both add to damage) are normal features.
People complained about flavor.
But with regard to mechanics, generally, the fluidity of ability substitutions make a gaming system more balanced, and more reliable.
5e is a different system. But we know there is nothing to fear except fear itself, when it comes to substituting one ability for an other.
Compare how the Sorcerer can use Charisma for Cleric healing spells, or how Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard can use Charisma for spells that are also on the Wizard spell list. These substitutions are comparable. Indeed, Intelligence is always the worse choice.
The Dexterity Fighter is defacto swapping out heavy armor in exchange for finesse and other benefits.
While, in practice, not swapping out anything. He still has his heavy armour proficiency and the weapons he uses already had the Finesse property. What you're saying is he maximizes his Dex ability in order to get a bunch of benefits based on Dex, and dumps his other abilities to some extent or other and thus either gets lesser benefits from them or loses out on some altogether. Regardless, he's not giving up any of his class-based qualities, and not getting any qualities he wouldn't normally get instead. The holistic total of the Fighter class is unchanged. So, what's your point?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The Dexterity Fighter is defacto swapping out heavy armor in exchange for finesse and other benefits.
While, in practice, not swapping out anything. He still has his heavy armour proficiency and the weapons he uses already had the Finesse property. What you're saying is he maximizes his Dex ability in order to get a bunch of benefits based on Dex, and dumps his other abilities to some extent or other and thus either gets lesser benefits from them or loses out on some altogether. Regardless, he's not giving up any of his class-based qualities, and not getting any qualities he wouldn't normally get instead. The holistic total of the Fighter class is unchanged. So, what's your point?
The holism of the build. Not the class. The build.
The Dexterity Fighter is defacto swapping out heavy armor in exchange for finesse and other benefits.
While, in practice, not swapping out anything. He still has his heavy armour proficiency and the weapons he uses already had the Finesse property. What you're saying is he maximizes his Dex ability in order to get a bunch of benefits based on Dex, and dumps his other abilities to some extent or other and thus either gets lesser benefits from them or loses out on some altogether. Regardless, he's not giving up any of his class-based qualities, and not getting any qualities he wouldn't normally get instead. The holistic total of the Fighter class is unchanged. So, what's your point?
The holism of the build. Not the class. The build.
That's... also unchanged. So now I'm wondering not only what your point was before, but also what the point is from this argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It routinely used one ability to substitute for an other ability. Also, "riders" (where two different abilities can both add to damage) are normal features.
People complained about flavor.
But with regard to mechanics, generally, the fluidity of ability substitutions make a gaming system more balanced, and more reliable.
5e is a different system. But we know there is nothing to fear except fear itself, when it comes to substituting one ability for an other.
Compare how the Sorcerer can use Charisma for Cleric healing spells, or how Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard can use Charisma for spells that are also on the Wizard spell list. These substitutions are comparable. Indeed, Intelligence is always the worse choice.
You appear to be monologueing rhetorically again. Is there supposed to be an argument hidden in there?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It routinely used one ability to substitute for an other ability. Also, "riders" (where two different abilities can both add to damage) are normal features.
People complained about flavor.
But with regard to mechanics, generally, the fluidity of ability substitutions make a gaming system more balanced, and more reliable.
5e is a different system. But we know there is nothing to fear except fear itself, when it comes to substituting one ability for an other.
Compare how the Sorcerer can use Charisma for Cleric healing spells, or how Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard can use Charisma for spells that are also on the Wizard spell list. These substitutions are comparable. Indeed, Intelligence is always the worse choice.
You appear to be monologueing rhetorically again. Is there supposed to be an argument hidden in there?
That is approaching ad hominem. Especially if adding "you" there.
Any way, the point is.
Those who vaguely assume ability substitutions are overpowered, are wrong.
4e normally substitutes one ability for an other, and the result is even better balance.
It routinely used one ability to substitute for an other ability. Also, "riders" (where two different abilities can both add to damage) are normal features.
People complained about flavor.
But with regard to mechanics, generally, the fluidity of ability substitutions make a gaming system more balanced, and more reliable.
5e is a different system. But we know there is nothing to fear except fear itself, when it comes to substituting one ability for an other.
Compare how the Sorcerer can use Charisma for Cleric healing spells, or how Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard can use Charisma for spells that are also on the Wizard spell list. These substitutions are comparable. Indeed, Intelligence is always the worse choice.
You appear to be monologueing rhetorically again. Is there supposed to be an argument hidden in there?
That is approaching ad hominem. Especially if adding "you" there.
Any way, the point is.
Those who vaguely assume ability substitutions are overpowered, are wrong.
4e normally substitutes one ability for an other, and the result is even better balance.
Counterpoints: we're not discussing 4E; and we weren't even discussing ability substitutions at that point either. So are we letting go of the whole trading out stuff we don't want for stuff we do want bit, and turning to ability substitutions?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It routinely used one ability to substitute for an other ability. Also, "riders" (where two different abilities can both add to damage) are normal features.
People complained about flavor.
But with regard to mechanics, generally, the fluidity of ability substitutions make a gaming system more balanced, and more reliable.
5e is a different system. But we know there is nothing to fear except fear itself, when it comes to substituting one ability for an other.
Compare how the Sorcerer can use Charisma for Cleric healing spells, or how Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard can use Charisma for spells that are also on the Wizard spell list. These substitutions are comparable. Indeed, Intelligence is always the worse choice.
You appear to be monologueing rhetorically again. Is there supposed to be an argument hidden in there?
That is approaching ad hominem. Especially if adding "you" there.
Any way, the point is.
Those who vaguely assume ability substitutions are overpowered, are wrong.
4e normally substitutes one ability for an other, and the result is even better balance.
Counterpoints: we're not discussing 4E; and we weren't even discussing ability substitutions at that point either. So are we letting go of the whole trading out stuff we don't want for stuff we do want bit, and turning to ability substitutions?
That is why the post also mentioned examples of where 5e substitutes one ability for an other. All of it proves to be balanced.
Choosing between mutually exclusive options is defacto a kind of swap, in the sense of opportunity cost.
Feature swaps are a useful design space, and Tashas classes include examples of it.
Where the Tashas races can swap any ability for any other ability, the designers emphasize these ability substitutions are balanced, and are only for the sake of flavor.
It routinely used one ability to substitute for an other ability. Also, "riders" (where two different abilities can both add to damage) are normal features.
People complained about flavor.
But with regard to mechanics, generally, the fluidity of ability substitutions make a gaming system more balanced, and more reliable.
5e is a different system. But we know there is nothing to fear except fear itself, when it comes to substituting one ability for an other.
Compare how the Sorcerer can use Charisma for Cleric healing spells, or how Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard can use Charisma for spells that are also on the Wizard spell list. These substitutions are comparable. Indeed, Intelligence is always the worse choice.
You appear to be monologueing rhetorically again. Is there supposed to be an argument hidden in there?
That is approaching ad hominem. Especially if adding "you" there.
Any way, the point is.
Those who vaguely assume ability substitutions are overpowered, are wrong.
4e normally substitutes one ability for an other, and the result is even better balance.
Counterpoints: we're not discussing 4E; and we weren't even discussing ability substitutions at that point either. So are we letting go of the whole trading out stuff we don't want for stuff we do want bit, and turning to ability substitutions?
That is why the post also mentioned examples of where 5e substitutes one ability for an other. All of it proves to be balanced.
Choosing between mutually exclusive options is defacto a kind of swap, in the sense of opportunity cost.
Feature swaps are a useful design space, and Tashas classes include examples of it.
Where the Tashas races can swap any ability for any other ability, the designers emphasize these ability substitutions are balanced, and are only for the sake of flavor.
Tasha's races can swap ability bonuses, languages and proficiencies (or you can create a custom lineage). Balance-wise, I'd say it's more that it's probably not meaningfully more unbalanced than what we had before, but even that I'd take with a grain of salt. If you turn to the optimizers you've referred to several times, I think you'll find they think the difference is quite a bit more than just flavour. Regardless, all these options still come with limitations. Ability bonuses for other but similar ability bonuses. Languages for other languages. Proficiencies for other proficiencies, with added restrictions. Feature swaps in Tasha's are limited as well, and the terms of the specific swaps have been checked for balance. They are meaningful swaps for starters - as in, there are actual downsides to balance the upsides - and they are specific. There's none of this "option A is worth 7 points, option B is worth 3 and option C is worth 4 so anyone with A can just take B and C instead, repeat for all abilities D through Z" going on.
None of this proves it's balanced to take just anything from a class and replace it with something completely different instead. If anything, it shows that replacing one thing with something completely different is not something the designers want.
Choosing between mutually exclusive options is not a swap, de facto or otherwise. You don't have anything, you choose, now you have something. You're not losing anything you had. You lose out on the possibility of taking something you did not already have, but that's not the same thing. The distinction is important because in D&D 5E, some things can be acquired in different ways. Proficiencies for instance can come from classes, background, race or feats. Trading them out can be meaningless given that you might just get them back some other way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Regarding the 5e designers, they have said that they prioritize "story" over mechanics. At the same time, they aggressively removed things that were historically broken. In general, the designers prioritize flavor more than optimizers do, but are still mechanically cautious. The designers publish many subpar options, which optimizers must sift thru to find the gold. But the gold itself tends to balance.
Because 4e received complaints about flavor, 5e designers made an effort to recontinue 1e and 2e flavor. Thus there is no Warlord, despite its mechanical balance. In light of 4e fluid ability substitutions, the result for 5e was to give away the 3e finesse feat for free (as a weapon property), thus allow Dex to substitute for Str, which the old school flavor seems find tolerable. But they stopped short of giving other ability substitutions for free because of considerations about flavor. Now, the 5e designers seem to relax the earlier old school feel, experiment more, and cautiously give more access to ability substitutions.
5e has a design philosophy of "close enough" when it comes to balance. If the story is fun, then as long as options are in the same ballpark as each other, it is all good.
Int is more valuable than Dex for an Int caster. Is that wrong? Too vague?
Edit for brevity's sake: it doesn't even matter if Int is stronger than Dex or not on the whole. That's a pointless discussion when the balance of a new mechanic is the issue. What matters is whether in an optimal choice scenario, Int (or whatever parameter we're looking at) becomes unduly strong.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
For example, that fails to mention that an Eldritch Knight can dump Intelligence entirely and still be optimal.
he / him
That doesn't need mentioning, because balance doesn't care whether there's no issue in some cases. Balances cares whether there is no issue in any case. Regardless, I think you can't assert with any certainty that an Eldritch Knight who chooses not to use any save-or-suck spells at all is optimal, rather than merely viable.
As an aside, to point out a little analogy here: a Fighter can never use any heavy armour and still be optimal.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Correct. Regardless of how the Fighter achieves AC, equivalent AC is equivalent. If a Fighter has AC from armor and Strength, great. If a Fighter has AC from agility and Dexterity, great. If a Fighter has AC from Mage Armor and Intelligence, great.
The choice of AC flavor is roughly identical in value and is a wash.
he / him
Ok, then why is giving up heavy armour proficiency worth 4 points / half a feat according to some of your earlier posts?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Regarding heavy armor proficiency.
Going by the Players Handbook. The heavy armor by itself is worth roughly a halffeat (or possibly slightly less). The medium armor is worth about a quarter of a feat. A total of about 5 or 6 points.
The Mage armor is worth a solid halffeat, about 4 points.
(To be fair, where Mage Armor and plate armor can achieve the same AC, the heavy armor might have less worth, maybe even 2 points. Except, the Mage Armor requires two feats to boost Dexterity or Intelligence to achieve the equivalent of plate. So there are opportunity costs, whereas the plate is a straightforward AC 18.)
To swap the Mage Armor for both medium and heavy is a "safe" swap.
he / him
No. Again, simply and absolutely not correct. According to the PHB getting heavy armour might be worth giving up half a feat, give or take. That does not, in any way, state or imply giving up heavy armour might be worth getting half a feat, give or take.
A fighter who is optimal without ever using heavy armour doesn't lose anything of value if he loses proficiency and doesn't gain anything if, after somehow losing proficiency, he were to regain it. He'd be, for all practical intents and purposes, exactly the same off either way. So why, if he doesn't lose anything of value by giving up heavy armour proficiency, should he get something that does have value instead?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Because the Fighter is a versatile class. There are many different kinds of Fighter builds. Under consideration is a Strength build, a Dexterity build, and here an Intelligence build. Each choice comes with mutually exclusive opportunity costs, that can benefit from some features but lose the ability to benefit from other features.
A Dexterity build cannot benefit from heavy armor, but will benefit from other features, including high Reflex, great range sniping and kiting, comparable melee damage, great Stealth (via a background that grants Stealth), and to a Fighter initiative is valuable too.
In these cases, it is the holistic total of what an entire Fighter build can do that determines the balance of an option.
he / him
Yup, like the opportunity costs that come with the choice to play a fighter in the first place, and thus among other things getting armour proficiencies but not getting Mage Armor (either based on Dex or any other ability). Or to play an Eldritch Knight, with all the options that offers but not the ones from any of the other Fighter subclasses. As soon as you make a choice, part if this holistic total becomes immaterial. If you choose to play a ranged fighter, most of your weapon proficiencies become irrelevant and thus worthless. The "holistic total of what an entire Fighter build can do" doesn't make it balanced to give up all martial weapon proficiencies and heavy armour proficiency in order to get the Sharpshooter feat, yet that's exactly what some of your posts above would indicate - I could still make an elven archer that would be exactly the same as an optimal one that hadn't given up those proficiencies, except this one would have an extra feat (and the best possible one for this type of character to boot). Heck, according to your logic all save proficiencies are worth the same - half a (Resilience) feat. I could give up heavy armour and become proficient in Wis saves, if I wanted to. Or a +1 to any ability, limited to a max of 20 for that ability, is also worth half a feat: I could drop heavy armour and pump another +1 into Dex instead, if I wanted to. Or I could drop heavy armour and a bunch of weapon proficiencies and get both Will save proficiency and a +1 to Dex. And maybe I could just give up my fighting style on top of that as well, and get Sharpshooter instead. It's all equivalent after all, right?
Wrong. All of that is nonsense. The holistic total of a class offers a bunch of options that can lead to a bunch of builds, several of which can be close to optimal within the constraints imposed by the class. Changing one or more of those options can change those constraints, thereby changing what can be created using optimal choices. Thus, balance is affected.
I don't think you have anything to support your argument that giving up heavy armour proficiency is worth anything, let alone half a feat, based on what the PHB says because the PHB doesn't say that. I don't think you can offer a valid answer as to why a character who gives up something that has no value to it should get something that does have value to it in return, or why doing so wouldn't obviously change its balance, because the most basic logic refutes that. Whenever you seemingly address any of this, what you really do is disregard flaws in logic and/or present some eloquently put phrases that don't actually mean anything. If you want to convince me, all it takes is showing me something pertinent. Show me something that indicates the devs meant swapping out class abilities you don't want for just anything you do want, based on some vague, unofficial calcution is a thing. Show me that a character who gives up heavy armour and gets Mage Armour instead can't be meaningfully better off. But show me that, exactly. None of your posts so far have. They all leave out context or disregard significant points.
Using the arguments you present I could create my ideal, fully optimized character, look at everything it gets I don't really want and calculate some kind of trade-in value for it, and then give it a bunch of other things I do want that correspond with this trade-in value instead - and this would supposedly be balanced. It should be obvious that the only possible way that would be true is if the trade-in value is zero.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The Dexterity Fighter is defacto swapping out heavy armor in exchange for finesse and other benefits.
he / him
Consider the 4e gaming system.
It routinely used one ability to substitute for an other ability. Also, "riders" (where two different abilities can both add to damage) are normal features.
People complained about flavor.
But with regard to mechanics, generally, the fluidity of ability substitutions make a gaming system more balanced, and more reliable.
5e is a different system. But we know there is nothing to fear except fear itself, when it comes to substituting one ability for an other.
Compare how the Sorcerer can use Charisma for Cleric healing spells, or how Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard can use Charisma for spells that are also on the Wizard spell list. These substitutions are comparable. Indeed, Intelligence is always the worse choice.
he / him
While, in practice, not swapping out anything. He still has his heavy armour proficiency and the weapons he uses already had the Finesse property. What you're saying is he maximizes his Dex ability in order to get a bunch of benefits based on Dex, and dumps his other abilities to some extent or other and thus either gets lesser benefits from them or loses out on some altogether. Regardless, he's not giving up any of his class-based qualities, and not getting any qualities he wouldn't normally get instead. The holistic total of the Fighter class is unchanged. So, what's your point?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The holism of the build. Not the class. The build.
he / him
That's... also unchanged. So now I'm wondering not only what your point was before, but also what the point is from this argument.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You appear to be monologueing rhetorically again. Is there supposed to be an argument hidden in there?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That is approaching ad hominem. Especially if adding "you" there.
Any way, the point is.
Those who vaguely assume ability substitutions are overpowered, are wrong.
4e normally substitutes one ability for an other, and the result is even better balance.
he / him
Counterpoints: we're not discussing 4E; and we weren't even discussing ability substitutions at that point either. So are we letting go of the whole trading out stuff we don't want for stuff we do want bit, and turning to ability substitutions?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That is why the post also mentioned examples of where 5e substitutes one ability for an other. All of it proves to be balanced.
Choosing between mutually exclusive options is defacto a kind of swap, in the sense of opportunity cost.
Feature swaps are a useful design space, and Tashas classes include examples of it.
Where the Tashas races can swap any ability for any other ability, the designers emphasize these ability substitutions are balanced, and are only for the sake of flavor.
he / him
Tasha's races can swap ability bonuses, languages and proficiencies (or you can create a custom lineage). Balance-wise, I'd say it's more that it's probably not meaningfully more unbalanced than what we had before, but even that I'd take with a grain of salt. If you turn to the optimizers you've referred to several times, I think you'll find they think the difference is quite a bit more than just flavour. Regardless, all these options still come with limitations. Ability bonuses for other but similar ability bonuses. Languages for other languages. Proficiencies for other proficiencies, with added restrictions. Feature swaps in Tasha's are limited as well, and the terms of the specific swaps have been checked for balance. They are meaningful swaps for starters - as in, there are actual downsides to balance the upsides - and they are specific. There's none of this "option A is worth 7 points, option B is worth 3 and option C is worth 4 so anyone with A can just take B and C instead, repeat for all abilities D through Z" going on.
None of this proves it's balanced to take just anything from a class and replace it with something completely different instead. If anything, it shows that replacing one thing with something completely different is not something the designers want.
Choosing between mutually exclusive options is not a swap, de facto or otherwise. You don't have anything, you choose, now you have something. You're not losing anything you had. You lose out on the possibility of taking something you did not already have, but that's not the same thing. The distinction is important because in D&D 5E, some things can be acquired in different ways. Proficiencies for instance can come from classes, background, race or feats. Trading them out can be meaningless given that you might just get them back some other way.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Regarding the 5e designers, they have said that they prioritize "story" over mechanics. At the same time, they aggressively removed things that were historically broken. In general, the designers prioritize flavor more than optimizers do, but are still mechanically cautious. The designers publish many subpar options, which optimizers must sift thru to find the gold. But the gold itself tends to balance.
Because 4e received complaints about flavor, 5e designers made an effort to recontinue 1e and 2e flavor. Thus there is no Warlord, despite its mechanical balance. In light of 4e fluid ability substitutions, the result for 5e was to give away the 3e finesse feat for free (as a weapon property), thus allow Dex to substitute for Str, which the old school flavor seems find tolerable. But they stopped short of giving other ability substitutions for free because of considerations about flavor. Now, the 5e designers seem to relax the earlier old school feel, experiment more, and cautiously give more access to ability substitutions.
5e has a design philosophy of "close enough" when it comes to balance. If the story is fun, then as long as options are in the same ballpark as each other, it is all good.
he / him