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

[Tomice]

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.

 

[Maxperson]

I would allow it. It seems like a close enough swap and it helps him meet his character concept.

 

[LordEntrails]

I want to say no. But I probably would. First level is over and done with so quickly, its just not going to matter.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

My gut reaction is no, since it's a feature that normally requires a second level in the splash class.

That being said, your reasoning for allowing it seems solid. Assuming I felt the same and had reason to believe it wouldn't annoy my other players, I might do the same.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

my defualt is to say no... and remind him at 5th level (1/4) he gets a feat he can take the invocation as a feat (Eldritch disciple I think)

edit: and I would tell him to ignore builds like that... take his second level of warlock for gods sake...

 

[lingual]

If a character doesn't want to use a shield, then don't use one. Use the longsword with either/both hands and have a free hand is the benefit. I generally don't think characters should get benefits for style choices. Any hexblade dip build is going to be effective.

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 .

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I'd say no for a multiclass. That one invocation basically puts you at standard fighter DPS and covers your ranged attacks. Bard is an already OP chassis, the only minor deficiency is damage. They want that, they should pay 2 levels for the cheez dip.

If it was a pure Hexblade, I would allow it. Melee warlocks are basically paying extra resources to do the same/less damage at 0 range. I give hexblades the second attack for free already.

 

[humble minion]

I'd say no. Riffing on some optimised online power build is a red flag for me for starters, but to each their own. But as others have said, the player wants to have his cake and eat it too. Wants an 2nd level warlock class feature but doesn't want to disrupt his power build to get it. Pretty much every PC has class features they don't (or rarely) use - it seems a bit rich to ask for one of the most powerful invocations as a trade, especially as there's already a perfectly RAW method of getting access to it via a feat. But it'd depend on table style. Personally I'd take a dim view of this sort of nakedly mechanics-driven class dip (why does the PC suddenly decide to stop focusing on his pact with his patron after his first adventure and start singing, anyway?) but it'd depend on your table. If you're running a very optimised party, then it'd be arguably less of an issue.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

No. I wouldn't allow it. There is nothing that makes those things comparable, the player is just giving up something someone might consider valuable that they don't use in exchange for something that would be very valuable to them. I also wouldn't let them swap their Bard ritual caster feature (which goes unused on any Bard who doesn't learn a ritual spell) for, say, an extra fighting style.

One of the limitations of class and multiclass power is you usually end up with some stuff of middling value to you. Being able to trade that in for whatever you want is gestalt class building, which isn't inherently bad, but is just a different game. Hexblade dips are already arguably overpowered without a special dispensation.

They can already achieve the thing they want with the Eldritch Initiate feat. I would happily negotiate on allowing a player to take that feat before they had the one Warlock level they technically need to take agonizing blast as an option, or on allowing them to take that feat more than once if their aversion is that there is some other invocation they absolutely need.

Bending the rules of technicalities on a case by case basis is one thing. Making class features into an anything goes swap game is another. The later might be interesting, but it is upping the power level of your game, and is likely to have unforeseen consequences.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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?

No, I would not allow it.

When you select your class, you are accepting even parts of it that you might never use. For example, Barbarians get light and medium armor proficiencies--which directly oppose Unarmored Defense. Sure, some barbarians might use armor because of low DEX, but my current barbarian has DEX and CON 16, so is AC 18 with his shield just from unarmored defense... But I still have proficiencies in light and medium armor because they are part of my class. I could eventually go with Half-Plate (AC 15), but my AC would only be 1 point better...

I would, especially because I believe this change would actually weaken the character.

If the player is not intending to use a shield, it isn't weakening the character.

So, if they player goes to Warlock 2, they can get Agonizing Blast anyway. I mean, really what is the difference between Warlock/Bard 2/18 or 1/19 other than getting the extra feat at Bard 19. Tell the player:

Warlock 2 over Warlock 1 gets you a second spell slot for pact magic, another known spell, and two invocations.
Bard 19 over Bard 18 gets you a feat...

I would just go Warlock 2, personally.