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

If you want a warlock that is only "powerful" in terms of at-will damage, and even then only as good as a fighter with a heavy crossbow and no further class features, sure. You still need to add damage to all those attacks by spending a resource in order to surpass other at-will dpr classes. Doing good weapon damage plus ability modifier is...not especially impressive. You are basically 1 feat (crossbow expert) ahead of a ranged fighter. Cool. Compare DPR with a dex battlemaster with a longbow, and I bet the warlock loses, without requiring the fighter take a feat.

Meanwhile, our bard in the OP has fairly low AC as a non-dex primary light armor character with no shield, and idk even know where to begin addressing the idea that the bard is a strong full caster. Magical Secrets is good, sure, but it's still a known spells caster whose list is really only strong in control, which only "wins the game" in white rooms populated by spreadsheets. (don't get me wrong, I love a spreadsheet, but they don't give you all the necessary data to determine game balance)

It's a fun build, but it ain't breaking the game.
Probably should have phrased it differently, but that's the bulk of what a warlock gets over another 9 level caster. There's a reason its mainly a 2 level dip class.

I've played a version of this character in someone else's game (well, lore, not swords) and felt it's OP compared to most anything else I've seen.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


lingual

Adventurer
Let me try to understand this. A person with a 20th level char, optimized already, is not happy, and wants the DM to give the char MORE stuff. Not a prayer that happens.
You see this sometimes where players want a "style". I suppose Geralt would also be a Strength warrior who doesn't wear armor. A player might even ask for the benefits of Heavy Armor so they can dump Dex...it can get silly. Or "fluff" like a "natural instinct" that is equal to plate and shield.
 

You see this sometimes where players want a "style". I suppose Geralt would also be a Strength warrior who doesn't wear armor. A player might even ask for the benefits of Heavy Armor so they can dump Dex...it can get silly. Or "fluff" like a "natural instinct" that is equal to plate and shield.
It is the equivalent of a player saying "I have this really cool idea of playing a blind monk, but I need you as the DM to handwave away all the mechanical disadvantages to playing a blind char".
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
It is the equivalent of a player saying "I have this really cool idea of playing a blind monk, but I need you as the DM to handwave away all the mechanical disadvantages to playing a blind char".
Something the DM should accommodate because the concept and player enjoyment is more important than a dumb rule you won't have to ask to help you move couch or talk through hard times with in the next year?
 

You see this sometimes where players want a "style". I suppose Geralt would also be a Strength warrior who doesn't wear armor. A player might even ask for the benefits of Heavy Armor so they can dump Dex...it can get silly. Or "fluff" like a "natural instinct" that is equal to plate and shield.
It's not even that wanting a style is a bad thing - it's that players are really bad at coming u with fair trade-offs when thinking about their own characters. I know I am - when I start thinking in this direction, I usually end up needing to stop a little while later and put my dm hat on and realize how silly the idea was.
 

It is the equivalent of a player saying "I have this really cool idea of playing a blind monk, but I need you as the DM to handwave away all the mechanical disadvantages to playing a blind char".

I'd be more likely to allow that TBH, provided it wasn't also an excuse to "see" in total darkness, get blindsense vs invisible characters, or some other advantage vs the traditionally sighted characters. The one time a campaign the party fights something with a gaze attack they get a benefit is probably negated by the one time that the button or wire's color matters.
 

ECMO3

Hero
You see this sometimes where players want a "style". I suppose Geralt would also be a Strength warrior who doesn't wear armor. A player might even ask for the benefits of Heavy Armor so they can dump Dex...it can get silly. Or "fluff" like a "natural instinct" that is equal to plate and shield.
If you roll stats you can easily have a strength warrior who does not wear armor.

A lot of the "problems" people complain about are directly tied to using point buy or standard array for their stats. Rolling certainly has problems of its own, but in terms of developing varied characters it is a lot more effective ESPECIALLY if you do not let players move their stats around.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Probably should have phrased it differently, but that's the bulk of what a warlock gets over another 9 level caster. There's a reason its mainly a 2 level dip class.

I've played a version of this character in someone else's game (well, lore, not swords) and felt it's OP compared to most anything else I've seen.
It isn’t mainly a 2 level dip class. Most people don’t even multiclass.

Edit: also wait, what? The bulk of…no, it’s not. Invocations, pact boons, subclass features, and unique spells, are all quite significant. And again, power in the sense of DPR is not the whole equation of individual character power.
 
Last edited:





lingual

Adventurer
If you roll stats you can easily have a strength warrior who does not wear armor.

A lot of the "problems" people complain about are directly tied to using point buy or standard array for their stats. Rolling certainly has problems of its own, but in terms of developing varied characters it is a lot more effective ESPECIALLY if you do not let players move their stats around.
I can see that. The min maxing and squeezing every last drop out of stuff probably less prevalent.
 

lingual

Adventurer
More powerful as in 'not taking penalties for being blind'.

Remember that's where this line of discussion started. Someone wanted to play a blind monk but not take the blindness penalties, ie. the blindness being flavor text.
I suppose then what would be the point of playing a blind character if you won't accept any of the penalties. It should be harder to be blind rather than exactly the same (or even arguably superior since Darkness doesn't affect you in combat, perception checks, etc.).

If someone was actually serious about playing a blind character, I'd work with them (like maybe blind fighting feat for free) and higher perception (but also essentially operating in Darkness all the time). Overall, it should be more difficult though since it supposed to be an extra challenge for the player.
 

More powerful as in 'not taking penalties for being blind'.

Remember that's where this line of discussion started. Someone wanted to play a blind monk but not take the blindness penalties, ie. the blindness being flavor text.
Actually, that is not true. It started when I used that analogy for a player not happy with the rules and wanting the DM to give them Agonizing Blast because it would make their char more powerful. I have found, through experience, that playing a game by the actual rules when everyone around you is abiding by those rules, no matter what the game, is the mark of a good player.
 

Immoralkickass

Explorer
More powerful as in 'not taking penalties for being blind'.

Remember that's where this line of discussion started. Someone wanted to play a blind monk but not take the blindness penalties, ie. the blindness being flavor text.
What? I thought it started from a hexblade warlock who didn't use shields, so he ask for the proficiency to be swapped with an Invocation.

That's like a blind man asking to swap his his eyeballs for extra guns.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
It should be harder to be blind rather than exactly the same (or even arguably superior since Darkness doesn't affect you in combat, perception checks, etc.).
In what media featuring blind monks of blind fighters is it harder for them?
Overall, it should be more difficult though since it supposed to be an extra challenge for the player.
I don't think it's supposed to be extra challenge. The player clearly wants to play someone like Daredevil or the dude from Rogue One. They're not trying to play an actual blind person, but the trope of the blind fighter.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
What? I thought it started from a hexblade warlock who didn't use shields, so he ask for the proficiency to be swapped with an Invocation.
That should be allowed too, but that's not what I was quoting when I made my remark.
That's like a blind man asking to swap his his eyeballs for extra guns.
Are you telling me that you wouldn't want that if you were blind?

Or to swap out your useless appendix (yes, I know. I don't want any 'well acktually'-ing here) for an extra liver for maximum drunkness?
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Actually, that is not true. It started when I used that analogy for a player not happy with the rules and wanting the DM to give them Agonizing Blast because it would make their char more powerful. I have found, through experience, that playing a game by the actual rules when everyone around you is abiding by those rules, no matter what the game, is the mark of a good player.
The Rules are 'Ask Your DM'. And I think the DM should do it because class features you have but don't use aren't making anything more fun.
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top