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

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

 

[Thomas Rainsborough]

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.

 

[lingual]

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.

 

[Thomas Rainsborough]

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]

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?

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Immoralkickass]

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?

Sometimes the rule is not dumb, the player is.