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

[jmartkdr2]

Another vote for no, but because it would make EB his best attack option, matching or beating any melee option that resembles the style described.

 

[overgeeked]

Thoughts? Would you allow it?

No way is shield proficiency is worth that.

 

[Dausuul]

Another vote for no, but because it would make EB his best attack option, matching or beating any melee option that resembles the style described.

That would be my concern as well, though I'm not familiar enough with the build to say if that would in fact be the case (and I'm not watching a half-hour video to figure it out).

What levels will the campaign actually take place at, and what level does the build hit its stride? "Level 20" builds are junk because a) most campaigns never get anywhere near level 20 and b) even if the campaign does go all the way, you still only get to use the build for 5% of the game. An effective build should not make you wait more than a level or two before it starts doing its thing.

I'd be concerned that he will spend much of the game at levels where Agonizing Blast significantly outperforms the longsword fighting that he wants to be good at.

 

[ECMO3]

Hi!
From a DM's perspective:

A player wants to play a Hexblade 1 / Swords Bard 19.
Here are some build videos, it is a very Gishy build:

But he doesn't like using a shield on this character.
First, he imagines the character fighting more like Witcher Geralt of Rivia with all the fast, acrobatic 1.5 handed swordsplay.
Second, using a shield makes the character complicated in terms of hand usage and spell focuses.

Would you as a DM allow the player to swap shield proficiency for Agonizing Blast on level one?
Note: We're not talking about whether such homebrewed swaps should be used at all, just about this specific change.

Agonizing Blast would need a second level of Warlock or a feat usually, so it is something powerful to add.
On the other hand, losing shield proficiency is no small thing in terms of power level.
Also, the character would still be in melee a lot, Eldritch Blast would still remain a backup "weapon".
The change is meant for flavor, not for powercreep.

Thoughts? Would you allow it?
I would, especially because I believe this change would actually weaken the character.

No I would not. I would allow him to get it through the eldritch initiate feat though.

When a player comes to me with ideas like this, the first thing I look at - is there an easy way to get this already? If the answer is yes I usually go with the RAW option, and for this particular character either a level in Warlock or a feat will do it.

This is especially true when the ask is for a purely mechanical upgrade instead of a thematic change. If he wanted to change the EB damage type to necrotic because his patron is form the shadowfell, that is probably something I would consider. It is not really an upgrade, it is thematically appropriate etc.

If it is not worth a feat or another Warlock level .... well then it does not mean enough to the build to bend the rules for I don't think.

A few examples of rules deviations I have made -

a Dampir Undead Chainlock with a Sprite Familiar, wants the familiar to be corrupted by the same Vampire Lord he serves. So the Sprite is creepy, it has black wings and a dark shadowy body and little vampire fangs. As far as melee attacks its fangs do 1 piercing instead of a longsword that does 1 slashing - I went ahead and did this. It is pretty much all flavor, the only mechanical difference is the melee damage type is changed from slashing to piercing.

A second example - a character wanted to use a Kukri. I took a dagger, took away thrown property and made it slashing damage - Again all flavor and actually inferior to a dagger.

A third example - A multiclass bard wanted to use Shillaleagh with his Lute and bash people. I let him do it, this is actually a slight buff because he can use the Lute as a spell focus .... but it is not enough to overcome the cool factor.

 

[Tomice]

A PAM might want to trade in proficiency in all melee weapons that are not spear/staff/etc. for Magic Initiate or a free fighting-style. Or other seemingly "reasonable" benefits .

I unterstand now how much of a "can of worms" situation this is.
The PAM fighter might just ask what he gets for his shields proficiency he doesn't use either...

I thought it was ok, because the build was specifically designed to do more damage with a sword then EB+AB and also designed to be rather tanky, relying on the shield quite a bit. So it would be more of a sidegrade than an upgrade.

Thank you all for the insights!

 

[cbwjm]

I think that, considering agonising blast is an invocation that they can select at 2nd level as a warlock that I would not allow this. They can take a second warlock level to get it if they really want it.

 

[ECMO3]

I unterstand now how much of a "can of worms" situation this is.
The PAM fighter might just ask what he gets for his shields proficiency he doesn't use either...

I thought it was ok, because the build was specifically designed to do more damage with a sword then EB+AB and also designed to be rather tanky, relying on the shield quite a bit. So it would be more of a sidegrade than an upgrade.

Thank you all for the insights!

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.

 

[NaturalZero]

As a player, I like making strong builds but part of the fun is doing it with the default rules. Changing the rules in order to min/max my build would feel a bit like cheating, to me.

As a DM, I'd be wary of doing this swap for a player because +5 damage to 4 eldritch blasts per turn is going to be a lot stronger than a +2 to AC. I'd just tell him to take the feat or the warlock level is he wants to min/max his damage.

 

[Ancalagon]

I wouldn't allow it, and here is why:

First, if they really want AB but don't want to take 2 levels in walrock, just take the feat "eldritch adept". Done.

Second, the rules already tell us that they are not equivalent.

The Feat "moderately armored" gives you 2 things. First a stat boost (so it's a "half feat") and proficiency in medium armor and shields. So a proficiency in shield is "worth" a quarter feat, roughly speaking.

Meanwhile, getting a warlock invocation takes a full feat (eldritch adept); so clearly shield proficiency is not worth as much as getting AB

 

[FrogReaver]

I wouldn't allow it. Opens a can of worms I would never want to deal with. 'What can I exchange this feature for'?

I'm not particularly worried about it from a power level consideration - Assuming the character is really going to be in melee more often than not then it's more of a sidegrade. Better ranged damage that's only sometimes used but less AC that's often used.