Using the 2024 rules they should have access to Hexblade. The only reason a table would restrict older content at their table is "Oooh. New and shiny!"
And if that's your only problem... just dip Fighter 1. You get armor, shields, con saves, weapon masteries, fighting style, and second wind.
Some people are just starting and will only have the 2024 PH. Some people want to just go with a core book to avoid bloat. Some people are playing the living campaign setting and are stuck with their rules. None of which matters as shield only being only on lightly armored feat is just dumb whether or not you can hexblade around it.
If your DM is that restrictive, then just multiclass. If your DM doesn't allow that either, then you should find a new DM.
I find the attitude of "Well, if they don't want to own more books, then they deserve to have this arbitrary limitation placed on them!" an odd flex, especially since the development team said all throughout the UA testing phase (and even prior) that providing MORE choices for characters was a driving force.
If you play with only the PHB (2024 or 2014) then you will be lacking a LOT of options (most all optional rules, more than 50% of the sub-classes and loads more) but that's a choice you are making by limiting yourself to only one book. The fact that you think that lacking this specific option is such a big deal doesn't really make it so. And I can see why they made the change tbh, giving the classes that start without any proficiency the possibility to get some armor and a shield for a single feat (instead of two as in the 2014 rules) means that it becomes a realistic option (and thus cuts down the need to MC).
All that said I do agree that giving shield proficiency with all levels of armor proficiency wouldn't be a bad choice and it certainly wouldn't break anything in the game.
Again, the issue is that characters with built-in light armor training have to take the Lightly Armored feat to get shield training. This is not good game design. If the desire is force characters to take a feat to get shield training, then simply have a Shielded feat, one which has the prerequisite of training with light, medium, or heavy armor. That way it doesn't feel like a wasted feat.
Again, the issue is that characters with built-in light armor training have to take the Lightly Armored feat to get shield training. This is not good game design. If the desire is force characters to take a feat to get shield training, then simply have a Shielded feat, one which has the prerequisite of training with light, medium, or heavy armor. That way it doesn't feel like a wasted feat.
No that isn't your issue. Your problem is that you are trying to get shield proficiency with a sub-class that the designers didn't intend should get it automatically. One could debate if that is a good/too restrictive choice from the designers but I'll leave that for someone else. Your solution really is quite simple, homebrew adding shield proficiency into the feat that gives you medium armor and all is sorted.
It is kind interesting that you would be OK with having a "Shielded" feat as that would have the same end result as taking "Lightly Armored" while already having proficiency in light armor.
Presumably, a Shielded feat would come with an ASI and perhaps some kind of feature along with training.
And getting shield training from a feat is the opposite from getting it automatically. So no, my problem isn't that bards, rogues, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards don't get it as part of a core class trait. My problem is that three classes have to take a feat giving them training for armor they can already wear to gain training with shields.
My problem is that three classes have to take a feat giving them training for armor they can already wear to gain training with shields.
And two of those classes have sub-classes that give you proficiency with shields and the rest aren't designed to use shields. You are basically trying to gish a warlock without having access to the gish-styled subclass.
I get that it can feel annoying but the issue is more at your side than at the rules side of things, I would suggest homebrew to bridge the gap.
Presumably, a Shielded feat would come with an ASI and perhaps some kind of feature along with training.
And all the current armor proficiency feats comes with a +1 to a stat. Sure a "Shielded" feat might (probably should) come with something more but I'd still say that a better solution would be to have all three armor proficiency feats give you the armour proficiency plus shield proficiency (plus the +1). Getting a redundant instance of shield proficiency if you take multiple armor feats is less of a problem than not getting shield proficiency at all because you took the "wrong" armor proficiency.
This isn't about a limited amount of subclasses covering everything.
I'm going to keep asking why the Hexblade is off limits until you stop ignoring that question. If someone wanted to build a gish Bard, you'd surely point them towards College of Valor or College of Swords. Why isn't the same true for Warlocks? Hexblade was the second most popular subclass, by the way.
Speaking of popular subclasses, The Fiend arguably has the most wizard-adjacent expanded spell list. What about the 50% of warlocks that would still go full Eldritch Blast and Fireball mode if given medium armor and a shield? Having low AC is usually one of the trade-offs for being a big damage spellcaster.
Bards, rogues, and warlocks all come with light armor training....but if someone is using only the 2024 rules (which a lot of folks will be), then the only way they'll be able to get shield training is wasting their 4th level feat on the lightly armored feat, despite they're already being trained in light armor.
College of Valor is in the 2024 rules. I'm not even sure the designated sneaky class is even up for discussion. Like monks and wizards, they're arguably a class that has no business sporting medium armor.
I've already answered that question: assuming everyone has access to Hexblade - or that they're somehow not a real or serious player if they don't - isn't a good argument. A lot of folks are going to come to D&D with only the 2024 PHB (or the core rules) as the available content.
And I never argued that rogues should wear (or even want to wear) medium armor. If a rogue wanted, for whatever reason, to be able to use a shield, they're forced to take a feat that gives them training in armor they're already trained for. That's not great design.
This isn't about a limited amount of subclasses covering everything.
I'm going to keep asking why the Hexblade is off limits until you stop ignoring that question. If someone wanted to build a gish Bard, you'd surely point them towards College of Valor or College of Swords. Why isn't the same true for Warlocks? Hexblade was the second most popular subclass, by the way.
there are lots of reasons it may be off limit and people have explained them You dismissing those reasons doesn't make them invalid, it just means you are wrong.
1. New players only have the 2024 book.
2. they are playing in the official campaign which may only use 2024.
3. The DM wants to stick to just 2024 as they don't feel comfortable integrating past rules in a new system when they clearly are not balanced together. They are''t game designers, they just want to run a game.
4. Its dumb as 90% of the hexblade subclass is now in pact of the blade so you are taking an obviously dead subclass. see point 3, they can say oh go ahead use the old stuff but its clearly not balanced in a way that it works in many cases and many DMs and players don't want to wade into that.
5. its irrelevant, as bad game design is bad game design. and defending it with but you can work around it doesn't change the bad game design.
I've already answered that question: assuming everyone has access to Hexblade - or that they're somehow not a real or serious player if they don't - isn't a good argument. A lot of folks are going to come to D&D with only the 2024 PHB (or the core rules) as the available content.
And I never argued that rogues should wear (or even want to wear) medium armor. If a rogue wanted, for whatever reason, to be able to use a shield, they're forced to take a feat that gives them training in armor they're already trained for. That's not great design.
I've made strength rogues before and medium armor and a shield would be nice for them. If the skills you are focusing around on strength its not bad and you only need a 14 dex to max your Ac, and with expertise you still are not slacking in core thief style skills. Its not optimized, but i could do it due to a feat.
I've already answered that question: assuming everyone has access to Hexblade - or that they're somehow not a real or serious player if they don't - isn't a good argument. A lot of folks are going to come to D&D with only the 2024 PHB (or the core rules) as the available content.
And I never argued that rogues should wear (or even want to wear) medium armor. If a rogue wanted, for whatever reason, to be able to use a shield, they're forced to take a feat that gives them training in armor they're already trained for. That's not great design.
It's only bad design if shields are supposed to be a legitimate option for classes with light armor training that don't get shield training. If that's not the case, then it's a soft lock that keeps the option available but makes it a less than optimal pick.
there are lots of reasons it may be off limit and people have explained them You dismissing those reasons doesn't make them invalid, it just means you are wrong.
Actually it does. If you intentionally don't allow some sub-classes then you can't complain that you don't get the benefits of those sub-classes.
And I never argued that rogues should wear (or even want to wear) medium armor. If a rogue wanted, for whatever reason, to be able to use a shield, they're forced to take a feat that gives them training in armor they're already trained for. That's not great design.
Yes and no. Rogues, Bards and Warlocks aren't really meant to use both shields and medium armor (except some specific subclasses) so the fact that it isn't easy for them to get those proficiencies isn't surprising. It took just one feat in the 2014 rules but now it takes two. Of course on the other hand the 2014 rules required two feats for someone without armor to get proficiency in both light armor and shields but now that only takes one feat. This is clearly a design choice and the likely reasons where laid out by IC in post #9.
If you want to make a different choice then you are free to homebrew (I likely would).
there are lots of reasons it may be off limit and people have explained them You dismissing those reasons doesn't make them invalid, it just means you are wrong.
Actually it does. If you intentionally don't allow some sub-classes then you can't complain that you don't get the benefits of those sub-classes.
I've already answered that question: assuming everyone has access to Hexblade - or that they're somehow not a real or serious player if they don't - isn't a good argument. A lot of folks are going to come to D&D with only the 2024 PHB (or the core rules) as the available content.
And I never argued that rogues should wear (or even want to wear) medium armor. If a rogue wanted, for whatever reason, to be able to use a shield, they're forced to take a feat that gives them training in armor they're already trained for. That's not great design.
It's only bad design if shields are supposed to be a legitimate option for classes with light armor training that don't get shield training. If that's not the case, then it's a soft lock that keeps the option available but makes it a less than optimal pick.
That would make some sense if light armor proficiency didn't give it. any reason for it not to being a legitimate option for classes not getting shield but light armor is doubly true for classes with no armor or shield options.
I've already answered that question: assuming everyone has access to Hexblade - or that they're somehow not a real or serious player if they don't - isn't a good argument. A lot of folks are going to come to D&D with only the 2024 PHB (or the core rules) as the available content.
And I never argued that rogues should wear (or even want to wear) medium armor. If a rogue wanted, for whatever reason, to be able to use a shield, they're forced to take a feat that gives them training in armor they're already trained for. That's not great design.
It's only bad design if shields are supposed to be a legitimate option for classes with light armor training that don't get shield training. If that's not the case, then it's a soft lock that keeps the option available but makes it a less than optimal pick.
That would make some sense if light armor proficiency didn't give it. any reason for it not to being a legitimate option for classes not getting shield but light armor is doubly true for classes with no armor or shield options.
This is just bad game design.
This is an interesting conversation, on one hand, there are plenty of solutions depending on the GM.
But after having given it a good deal of thought, I think you're wrong about it being bad game design. I think it is working exactly as intended, and while that may not be to your taste ( I hate that they broke fighter with dual wielder feat using a non-light weapon in one hand, and shield bashing with the other using the shield as an improvised 1d4 weapon), it doesn't change the rules as written, or that they are intentionally balanced that way. Probably for a good reason, as it's the reason the class only got the light armor proficiency in the first place.
That said, it is very easy to modify, if that's your preference/jam. You can be sure I would happily allow any fighter who wishes to spend the feat and fighter feature to do so, to, well, do so. Spending your bonus action on a 1d4+str attack isn't going to shatter the game.
Edit: For clarity, I only mean that I would change the specific rules about dual wielder I am not a fan. I actually agree with these classes not getting shield out of the gate. I suspect there is a specific reason for the restriction.
...(I hate that they broke fighter using a medium non-light weapon in one hand, and shield bashing with the other using the shield as an improvised 1d4 weapon)...
That said, it is very easy to modify, if that's your preference/jam...Spending your bonus action on a 1d4+str attack isn't going to shatter the game.
I think you might be confused about what the feat did? The shield proficiency is for wielding a shield without Disadvantage on Strength and Dexterity D20 Tests. The only shield bash built into the 2014 rules was the Shield Mastery feat (which only allows shoving) or taking Tavern Brawler to use the shield as an improvised weapon (but that doesn't get you a Bonus Action attack.)
...(I hate that they broke fighter using a medium non-light weapon in one hand, and shield bashing with the other using the shield as an improvised 1d4 weapon)...
That said, it is very easy to modify, if that's your preference/jam...Spending your bonus action on a 1d4+str attack isn't going to shatter the game.
I think you might be confused about what the feat did? The shield proficiency is for wielding a shield without Disadvantage on Strength and Dexterity D20 Tests. The only shield bash built into the 2014 rules was the Shield Mastery feat (which only allows shoving) or taking Tavern Brawler to use the shield as an improvised weapon (but that doesn't get you a Bonus Action attack.)
Kinda off topic for this thread, dual wielder allowed you to ignore the light requirement for two weapon fighting. The shield is an improvised weapon, the primary weapon is your weapon, so you would attack, and then spend a bonus action to bash with your shield. The shield would be an improvised weapon, making it 1d4. Two weapon fighting feature allowed you to add your ability modifier to your attacks when making dual weapon attacks.
EDIT: I made an aside comment, about another change to the rules, of which I am not a fan of. I know the feat these guys are unhappy about have nothing to do with two weapon fighting.
If your DM is that restrictive, then just multiclass. If your DM doesn't allow that either, then you should find a new DM.
If you play with only the PHB (2024 or 2014) then you will be lacking a LOT of options (most all optional rules, more than 50% of the sub-classes and loads more) but that's a choice you are making by limiting yourself to only one book. The fact that you think that lacking this specific option is such a big deal doesn't really make it so. And I can see why they made the change tbh, giving the classes that start without any proficiency the possibility to get some armor and a shield for a single feat (instead of two as in the 2014 rules) means that it becomes a realistic option (and thus cuts down the need to MC).
All that said I do agree that giving shield proficiency with all levels of armor proficiency wouldn't be a bad choice and it certainly wouldn't break anything in the game.
Again, the issue is that characters with built-in light armor training have to take the Lightly Armored feat to get shield training. This is not good game design. If the desire is force characters to take a feat to get shield training, then simply have a Shielded feat, one which has the prerequisite of training with light, medium, or heavy armor. That way it doesn't feel like a wasted feat.
No that isn't your issue. Your problem is that you are trying to get shield proficiency with a sub-class that the designers didn't intend should get it automatically. One could debate if that is a good/too restrictive choice from the designers but I'll leave that for someone else. Your solution really is quite simple, homebrew adding shield proficiency into the feat that gives you medium armor and all is sorted.
It is kind interesting that you would be OK with having a "Shielded" feat as that would have the same end result as taking "Lightly Armored" while already having proficiency in light armor.
Presumably, a Shielded feat would come with an ASI and perhaps some kind of feature along with training.
And getting shield training from a feat is the opposite from getting it automatically. So no, my problem isn't that bards, rogues, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards don't get it as part of a core class trait. My problem is that three classes have to take a feat giving them training for armor they can already wear to gain training with shields.
And two of those classes have sub-classes that give you proficiency with shields and the rest aren't designed to use shields. You are basically trying to gish a warlock without having access to the gish-styled subclass.
I get that it can feel annoying but the issue is more at your side than at the rules side of things, I would suggest homebrew to bridge the gap.
And all the current armor proficiency feats comes with a +1 to a stat. Sure a "Shielded" feat might (probably should) come with something more but I'd still say that a better solution would be to have all three armor proficiency feats give you the armour proficiency plus shield proficiency (plus the +1). Getting a redundant instance of shield proficiency if you take multiple armor feats is less of a problem than not getting shield proficiency at all because you took the "wrong" armor proficiency.
So just ask your DM and homebrew the adding of shield proficiency to each armor proficiency feat (light, medium, heavy).
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
I'm going to keep asking why the Hexblade is off limits until you stop ignoring that question. If someone wanted to build a gish Bard, you'd surely point them towards College of Valor or College of Swords. Why isn't the same true for Warlocks? Hexblade was the second most popular subclass, by the way.
Speaking of popular subclasses, The Fiend arguably has the most wizard-adjacent expanded spell list. What about the 50% of warlocks that would still go full Eldritch Blast and Fireball mode if given medium armor and a shield? Having low AC is usually one of the trade-offs for being a big damage spellcaster.
College of Valor is in the 2024 rules. I'm not even sure the designated sneaky class is even up for discussion. Like monks and wizards, they're arguably a class that has no business sporting medium armor.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I've already answered that question: assuming everyone has access to Hexblade - or that they're somehow not a real or serious player if they don't - isn't a good argument. A lot of folks are going to come to D&D with only the 2024 PHB (or the core rules) as the available content.
And I never argued that rogues should wear (or even want to wear) medium armor. If a rogue wanted, for whatever reason, to be able to use a shield, they're forced to take a feat that gives them training in armor they're already trained for. That's not great design.
there are lots of reasons it may be off limit and people have explained them You dismissing those reasons doesn't make them invalid, it just means you are wrong.
1. New players only have the 2024 book.
2. they are playing in the official campaign which may only use 2024.
3. The DM wants to stick to just 2024 as they don't feel comfortable integrating past rules in a new system when they clearly are not balanced together. They are''t game designers, they just want to run a game.
4. Its dumb as 90% of the hexblade subclass is now in pact of the blade so you are taking an obviously dead subclass. see point 3, they can say oh go ahead use the old stuff but its clearly not balanced in a way that it works in many cases and many DMs and players don't want to wade into that.
5. its irrelevant, as bad game design is bad game design. and defending it with but you can work around it doesn't change the bad game design.
I've made strength rogues before and medium armor and a shield would be nice for them. If the skills you are focusing around on strength its not bad and you only need a 14 dex to max your Ac, and with expertise you still are not slacking in core thief style skills. Its not optimized, but i could do it due to a feat.
It's only bad design if shields are supposed to be a legitimate option for classes with light armor training that don't get shield training. If that's not the case, then it's a soft lock that keeps the option available but makes it a less than optimal pick.
Actually it does. If you intentionally don't allow some sub-classes then you can't complain that you don't get the benefits of those sub-classes.
Yes and no. Rogues, Bards and Warlocks aren't really meant to use both shields and medium armor (except some specific subclasses) so the fact that it isn't easy for them to get those proficiencies isn't surprising. It took just one feat in the 2014 rules but now it takes two. Of course on the other hand the 2014 rules required two feats for someone without armor to get proficiency in both light armor and shields but now that only takes one feat. This is clearly a design choice and the likely reasons where laid out by IC in post #9.
If you want to make a different choice then you are free to homebrew (I likely would).
Your ability to be that wrong is impressive.
That would make some sense if light armor proficiency didn't give it. any reason for it not to being a legitimate option for classes not getting shield but light armor is doubly true for classes with no armor or shield options.
This is just bad game design.
This is an interesting conversation, on one hand, there are plenty of solutions depending on the GM.
But after having given it a good deal of thought, I think you're wrong about it being bad game design. I think it is working exactly as intended, and while that may not be to your taste ( I hate that they broke fighter with dual wielder feat using a non-light weapon in one hand, and shield bashing with the other using the shield as an improvised 1d4 weapon), it doesn't change the rules as written, or that they are intentionally balanced that way. Probably for a good reason, as it's the reason the class only got the light armor proficiency in the first place.
That said, it is very easy to modify, if that's your preference/jam. You can be sure I would happily allow any fighter who wishes to spend the feat and fighter feature to do so, to, well, do so. Spending your bonus action on a 1d4+str attack isn't going to shatter the game.
Edit: For clarity, I only mean that I would change the specific rules about dual wielder I am not a fan. I actually agree with these classes not getting shield out of the gate. I suspect there is a specific reason for the restriction.
I think you might be confused about what the feat did? The shield proficiency is for wielding a shield without Disadvantage on Strength and Dexterity D20 Tests. The only shield bash built into the 2014 rules was the Shield Mastery feat (which only allows shoving) or taking Tavern Brawler to use the shield as an improvised weapon (but that doesn't get you a Bonus Action attack.)
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Kinda off topic for this thread, dual wielder allowed you to ignore the light requirement for two weapon fighting. The shield is an improvised weapon, the primary weapon is your weapon, so you would attack, and then spend a bonus action to bash with your shield. The shield would be an improvised weapon, making it 1d4. Two weapon fighting feature allowed you to add your ability modifier to your attacks when making dual weapon attacks.
EDIT: I made an aside comment, about another change to the rules, of which I am not a fan of. I know the feat these guys are unhappy about have nothing to do with two weapon fighting.