D&D 5E Would you allow switching shield proficiency for Agonizing Blast as a DM?

[Composer99]

For what it's worth, Bard 19 is also a second 6th-level spell slot. Given how late that is in a game - and indeed given when most campaigns end, it might never come up as "a thing" - giving that up doesn't seem worthwhile compared to getting agonising blast right at the start of the game.

Note also that one can presumably play variant human (or custom lineage) for a feat at 1st level - although I assume that the build videos probably already lock up that feat with something else if either option is on the table.

As a DM I'd rather give all the players a free feat at 1st level to allow early agonising blast than to allow one specific player to trade away shield proficiency for it.

 

[Horwath]

for shield you need to get a half feat with medium armor baked in.

and for extra warlock invocation, you need a full feat.

Even though I think that both feats are weak to pick them, clearly there is a better usage for extra invocation than a shield proficiency.

Best I would do is to improve extra invocation feat to half-feat but with limit that you can only take invocations that are not limited by level(being warlock or not) and that that specific invocation is fixed(no replacing after getting a warlock level)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If someone wants to use a powergaming build from the internet they deserve to be beaten with a RAW rod.

If someone comes up with an imaginative concept, then they get cut some slack.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am almost always in support of flavorful choices chosen for enthusiasm and fun.

As an example, one of my players (in Dungeon World, not 5e) is soft-retiring his character because he wants to finish that character's story, but isn't sure how to yet, and still wants to be active in play. I've been working with him to build a new character. One of the options I'm just letting him have is, he can choose to take the Barbarian move "Unencumbered, Unharmed," which gives +1 armor but only while you aren't wearing any armor nor carrying a shield, and are below your weight limit (which...the players almost always are). Given this (essentially) forbids the character from wearing any armor, including magic armor. Since the player is choosing this purely for flavor--he doesn't envision his character using heavy armor, nothing heavier than leather for sure, which in DW rules...provides +1 armor, imagine that!--I have zero problems just letting him swap out the usual Fighter ability to ignore the Clumsy tag (that is, the ability to wear heavy armor without issues) in exchange for Unencumbered, Unharmed.

So...yeah. Personally, I'd prefer to make the "swap" of shield prof -> agonizing blast more thematic, or at least somehow explained within the context of the story. For example, perhaps the character has sacrificed some of their memory and skill in order to obtain this power. What memories were taken? What skills, besides the use of shields, are now lost to them forever? Those are interesting questions that can potentially lead to fun and engaging story later on.

 

[Immoralkickass]

I would say no. Everyone else in the party created their character within the rules, why should you be different?

Lots of paladins, rangers, clerics and barbarians don't use shields either, but i never heard of them asking to swap the proficiency for something else. If your character doesn't use shields... then don't.

 

[Horwath]

I would say no. Everyone else in the party created their character within the rules, why should you be different?

Lots of paladins, rangers, clerics and barbarians don't use shields either, but i never heard of them asking to swap the proficiency for something else. If your character doesn't use shields... then don't.

I agree mostly, but I do have some beef with some armor proficiency "forced" into a class resource pool.

I.E. I would with not second thought allow fighters/paladins to get rid of heavy armor proficiency for an extra class skill.

Not all races/cultures have access or simply have a style for that.
I.E. elves with racial +2 dex would be a prime example of a race that most probably will not train their archers(fighters) in heavy armor.
extra proficiency in survival/stealth/acrobatic/athletics would be more preferable in those cultures.

And, I don't see shield as 100% armor category, more of a "weapon set".
You have a two-hander, dual-wield, or sword-and-board.

 

[Immoralkickass]

I agree mostly, but I do have some beef with some armor proficiency "forced" into a class resource pool.

I.E. I would with not second thought allow fighters/paladins to get rid of heavy armor proficiency for an extra class skill.

Not all races/cultures have access or simply have a style for that.
I.E. elves with racial +2 dex would be a prime example of a race that most probably will not train their archers(fighters) in heavy armor.
extra proficiency in survival/stealth/acrobatic/athletics would be more preferable in those cultures.

And, I don't see shield as 100% armor category, more of a "weapon set".
You have a two-hander, dual-wield, or sword-and-board.

Everyone has something they don't make use of. Maybe I'm just cynical, but giving up something you don't care about so that you can gain a powerful thing, that's like asking for a buff without trying to sound like you're asking for a buff. You would simply be getting a free Invocation.

 

[Horwath]

Everyone has something they don't make use of. Maybe I'm just cynical, but giving up something you don't care about so that you can gain a powerful thing, that's like asking for a buff without trying to sound like you're asking for a buff. You would simply be getting a free Invocation.

that is why I said that in no way a shield proficiency can be traded for extra invocation. there is no comparison in usefulness or power level.

but a skill for armor category is more than fair.

when you compare that heavy armor proficiency feat vs skill expert feat, you could say that you are at net minus with trading one category of armor for extra skill.

edit: if player wants to "cash in" shield proficiency, I would give it a tool or language proficiency, or maybe one weapon proficiency.

 

[John R Davis]

Are you starting at 20th ( then sure)
At 1st, be very cautious as " being nice and Flexible GM" can lead to all sorts of future issues

 

[FrozenNorth]

Not all races/cultures have access or simply have a style for that.
I.E. elves with racial +2 dex would be a prime example of a race that most probably will not train their archers(fighters) in heavy armor.
extra proficiency in survival/stealth/acrobatic/athletics would be more preferable in those cultures.

I would not allow that either. Elves are already one of the top race picks with

• +1 useful skill;
• +2 to a universally useful stat;
• a floating +1;
• advantage against a common debilitating condition;
• immunity to a less common condition;
• a flavorful special ability that can be cheesed;
• 2 subrace dependent special abilities.

Why the hell should they get a bonus proficiency (in addition to their free Perception skill) in exchange for a class proficiency they would never use anyway?