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


log in or register to remove this ad


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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.
Why?
Overall, it should be more difficult though since it supposed to be an extra challenge for the player.
No, it’s not. Not unless that is why the player wants to play a blind character.
Being allowed to cherry-pick which class abilities (and maybe even skills/spells) to "trade" for Feats, other abilites, etc. can result in overpowered characters.
It can. This isn’t such a case. AB just isn’t a big deal.

It’s 1-2 average damage per attack better than just using a longbow. A swords bard is going to want good Dex even if attacking with Cha. Let them use Cha for ranged weapons without the terrible invocation tax (seriously it’s absurd that this costs an invocation) and it becomes 1 average damage per attack. At level 20 that is 5 damage a turn assuming no misses. Who cares!?

The PC would gain more power by using a shield and asking to flavor it as a bracer that projects a shield of force, and asking the DM to be lenient about casting while armed. 🤷‍♂️
 

Immoralkickass

Explorer
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.
Well, to what end? "DM, my elf has blue skin, can i have something special?" "DM, my character's daddy is a god, can i have a super power?"

The rules are there so that players don't bombard the DM with endless questions. I do like the idea of a 'special request within reason' for each player and I have done that as a DM, but I'm quite surprised that most of them don't really make use of it.

Back on topic of the OP, i dont think giving the player Agonizing Blast will help him realise his character concept better. Also, the way it should works is, players pitch the idea, and DM come up with the mechanical solution. If you let players suggest mechanical solutions, its almost always in their favour.
 

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 want my character to be blind, but instead of all the negatives I want to be like Lynxo and Dare devil and have other senses mean I am only limited in corner cases and with reading or telling color"

Edit to add: "As my blind Ninja master once told me, the true eye is that witch looks in word" -jinx

also the ear that sees and the masters of snake eyes and storm shadow in the coics
 





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.
In this case, wouldn’t the GM just say “Ok, you get the Blind-fighting fighting style for free”, then call it a day?
 

In this case, wouldn’t the GM just say “Ok, you get the Blind-fighting fighting style for free”, then call it a day?
I don't even know if you need that... "You don't take combat penalties, you can't read or make out colors or signs, and only magical darkness (it's magic) blinds you" seems fine to me.... it is the equivalent of trading reading and making out details like colors for Darkvision that 90% of character have anyway
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
In this case, wouldn’t the GM just say “Ok, you get the Blind-fighting fighting style for free”, then call it a day?
That's the point. People are concerned stuff like this is going to make characters too powerful because they seem to paint the players as power-grubbing junkies who can't possibly want interesting things to do without doing so with the express intent to be more powerful.
 

That should be allowed too, but that's not what I was quoting when I made my remark.

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?
None of my IRL blind friends are gun enthusiasts, either.

Actually, they also hate Daredevil as a character. Being blind sucks, and any media that downplays that annoys them. But that's a tangent off a tangent, so I'll stop there.
 

lingual

Adventurer
None of my IRL blind friends are gun enthusiasts, either.

Actually, they also hate Daredevil as a character. Being blind sucks, and any media that downplays that annoys them. But that's a tangent off a tangent, so I'll stop there.
Using Daredevil as an example of a "blind" character is sort of insulting to blind people - in my admittedly uneducated opinion. Hell he doesn't even need braille to read.

Having a "blind" character who mechanically functions as a character with 20/20 vision and dark vision is a pretty unimaginable way to represent a "blind" character.

As a player, taking on a weakness or non-optimal fluff/style which actually weakens your character is a lot more challenging and engaging than just having some counteracting mechanical fluff which completely negates the first.
 


jgsugden

Legend
There are different approaches here. If you're going to play a character that is blind, but has abilities that allow them to effectively not be blind, you should remember that you're not playing a blind character.

An example where a PC that was blind played in a way that negated their blindness, but was respectful in that the player did not play up the blindness as true blindness is Shakasta from Critical Role fame. This wizard used their familiar to allow them to see (and hear) via the familiar rather than deal with the impacts of the blindness. I did not have any problems with how Khary Payton played that PC. Well, except for the irreverant reverance towards Estelle Getty.
 

Quartz

Hero
Would you as a DM allow the player to swap shield proficiency for Agonizing Blast on level one?

No, because you're swapping a defensive ability for an offensive one. Plus the player is already swapping it out for the ability to do more damage by using a two-handed weapon or two weapons.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
None of my IRL blind friends are gun enthusiasts, either.

Actually, they also hate Daredevil as a character. Being blind sucks, and any media that downplays that annoys them. But that's a tangent off a tangent, so I'll stop there.
I know a blind person who hates characters like daredevil, but I also know a couple that love them.

It seems very similar to racism in media, as far as I can tell. Some folks are annoyed by media that downplays how much it sucked to be a certain ethnicity in a certain era. Other want to enjoy things without having to relive the BS they deal with IRL.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Yeah, I for one absolutely hate for example the 'it's portraying slavery as bad, so it' okay to have slavery be the single defining trait of a worrying amount of the campaign world so you can fight it!' trope or the 'all these brown people are sad and will remain sad because that's what being brown is'. I'm not (usually) sad and I don't want slavery in my escapism, thank you.

I feel like (but can't confirm) that there's probably blind people who don't appreciate 'being blind sucks, let me enumerate this in exacting detail in game mechanics and paint blind people as especially incapable' either.
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top