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

[FrozenNorth]

Also, it’s not like Dex fighters are penalized compared to Str fighters. They already have a tendency to go first, are better against the most common save, and have access to more useful skills.

 

[Horwath]

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?

same question can be asked;

why the hell would someone spend time to train something that you will not use ever.
better yet, how can you be trained in heavy armor if no one is using it?

and elves are just example, I would say that that is a good option for dwarves also.

And with Tasha's, we are seeing that thing will go in direction of exchanging "useless" features.
It started with racials, we might see it with class features, like 3.5e/PF1.

 

[Horwath]

Also, it’s not like Dex fighters are penalized compared to Str fighters. They already have a tendency to go first, are better against the most common save, and have access to more useful skills.

then that is issue of balance of STR vs DEX weapons.

if devs didn't value finesse the same way as they value next to useless versatile trait, and longsword, battleaxe, warhammer would be given 1d10 damage(d12 versatile) and greataxe, greatsword, maul at 2d8, it would be better balanced with d8 finesse rapier or d6 finesse/light short sword.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes.

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

The rules are 'Ask your DM'.

So yes. Totally allowed.

 

[Burnside]

I guess I would be reluctant only because there are clear ways you can achieve this within the existing rules, such as taking one more warlock level or taking it as a feat (or just being a variant human). So I guess it rubs me the wrong way because it feels like the priority isn't "achieving my concept" (which is totally doable without changing the rules in this case) and more like "artificially micro-optimizing an already optimized build".

That said, it's not like it's gonna be this huge game-breaking deal so it's hardly a crime against humanity to allow it. I just probably wouldn't, personally.

 

[bedir than]

same question can be asked;

why the hell would someone spend time to train something that you will not use ever.
better yet, how can you be trained in heavy armor if no one is using it?

and elves are just example, I would say that that is a good option for dwarves also.

And with Tasha's, we are seeing that thing will go in direction of exchanging "useless" features.
It started with racials, we might see it with class features, like 3.5e/PF1.

Because that's often how training works. At no school, in no martial art, in no military are you only trained on things you do.

 

[Horwath]

Because that's often how training works. At no school, in no martial art, in no military are you only trained on things you do.

somewhat true.

But in d&d you could say, give me ranger basic training(3 skills + 2 armor categories) instead of fighter ones(2 skills + 3 armor categories)

Now that I think about it, all martials should have 5 total of skill+armor categories.

Barbarian has 2(fixed to 3 in Tashas) + 2 armor categories(plus almost useless unarmed defense). 5 in total
Fighter has 2 + 3, 5 in total
Ranger has 3 + 2, 5 in total
rogue has 4 + 1, 5 in total
monk gets shafted as usual.

 

[Maxperson]

It is a clear upgrade, not a sidegrade. Losing proficiency in something he does not use and getting a benefit that he will use is always an upgrade.

Taking away shield proficiency and giving him proficiency in say painters tools would be a sidegrade.

Right, because being able to paint is just like being mechanically harder to hit. That is not a sidegrade. A sidegrade needs a mechanical combat bonus to be comparable or a significant out of combat mechanical boost. Painting tools ain't it.

 

[FrogReaver]

To summarize. Reasons against:

1. Sets precedent that all players can exchange features they don’t want for others just because they aren’t going to use them.

2. There’s multiple paths to achieve the desired effect, none of which require much mechanical investment or undesired flavor.

3. The request isn’t about theme, it’s about power.

 

[Maxperson]

To summarize. Reasons against:

1. Sets precedent that all players can exchange features they don’t want for others just because they aren’t going to use them.

2. There’s multiple paths to achieve the desired effect, none of which require much mechanical investment or undesired flavor.

3. The request isn’t about theme, it’s about power.

Number 1 is questionable, because the reason for the exchange isn't simply about not using the feature. It's about that in part, but not completely.

Number 2 is true, but sometimes character concepts or portions of them need to be realized at level 1 for the character to feel right. Not always, but sometimes.

Number 3 isn't true according to the OP. The reason is the character concept being the Witcher, and the Witcher didn't have to learn his magic later on. He knew it from the start.

It's not even, but it's not terribly imbalanced to allow the swap, either. To lose out on 2 points of AC is in the same neighborhood as Agonizing Blast. Even if his concept was not to use shields, I can't tell you how many times over the years that I've had a no shield using fighter grab a shield during a bad time in a combat just for the extra defense when it was needed. This guy is losing out on that emergency cushion.

I would allow it.