D&D 5E (2014) Would you allow switching shield proficiency for Agonizing Blast as a DM?

[Maxperson]

If it really MUST happen at level 1, a variant human can do it. And variant human feels very Witcher.

That's true, and probably how I would do it. I personally won't ask for something special if I can accomplish it another way through the rules.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

But it isn't, because if this character does not make the switch, having the proficiency means that shields are usable in an emergency with no penalty, and emergencies happen. So it's not a sidegrade unless the painters tools will add +2 to AC in an emergency.

That's true... not a direct sidegrade. But I think you understand the intent of the original statement now?

 

[FrogReaver]

But it isn't, because if this character does not make the switch, having the proficiency means that shields are usable in an emergency with no penalty, and emergencies happen. So it's not a sidegrade unless the painters tools will add +2 to AC in an emergency.

I mean the painters tools could be the only solution to the painting troll. (Only killable by drawing a good enough painting of fire).

Is +2ac and painters tools now on the same sidegrade level as they both serve an emergency purpose.

 

[Maxperson]

That's true... not a direct sidegrade. But I think you understand the intent of the original statement now?

I understood it, but didn't agree with it for the reasons I stated. I also don't see the addition of Agonizing Blast as unbalancing, so I don't see a reason to say no to the swap on the basis of balance or side/upgrade. That said, if the same thing can be accomplished through the rules at first level, such as by picking Alt Human, then that's the way the player should go. Special swaps should be for when you can't achieve your concept another way.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean the painters tools could be the only solution to the painting troll. (Only killable by drawing a good enough painting of fire).

I still haven't woken up completely, so now my tired mind wants to find a way to make this happen in my game. Thanks buddy!

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

to be fair, the idea of a bard-hexblade combo has been out there for a number of years now - heck I have a character I was going to use on EN world in a PBP game what was just that (I ended up going wit a different design).

The reason why this build exists is because the single class college of sword is a bit... underwhelming.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Hi!
From a DM's perspective:

A player wants to play a Hexblade 1 / Swords Bard 19.
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.

I would not allow it, but I would suggest coming up with a "versatile combat style" that the player could pick up with a feat.
Maybe a straight +1 to AC and all Str and Dex based rolls (attack, damage, ability checks and saves) while using a one-handed weapon in one or two hands and nothing else.

 

[ECMO3]

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 a fighter by definition is a master of armor and weapons. More than any other class, that is their profession and that is why they would train to use it.

Should we let them trade trident proficiency and proficiency in blowguns because they would never use those weapons?

Tashas does allow racial proficiency swapping, but not swapping for class and I don't think you will see a move to allowing swaps of class proficiencies.

 

[Blue]

A barbarian gets Unarmed Defense and Armor Proficiencies - they can't use both together but they don't get to sub one out for something else.

When you include that they do gain some benefit from not using the shield - the free hand for casting - that detracts from the idea even more.

If I was going to do it, I'd most likely do a more like-for-like. Okay, you lose shield proficiency but gain +1 AC when you aren't restrained (to represent the acrobatics).

 

[lingual]

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!

Just tell the players that they're optimized enough. I played a similarly "optimized" character once (glam metal bard) - who also didn't use a shield. A shield might cover up that beautiful face. Vanity was just far more important than that plus 2 to AC. Vince Neil or Paul Stanley would NEVER use a shield.