D&D 5E Complete Revision of PHB Feats (wiki thread)

[clearstream]

Magic Initiate for shield ... compare that to a high Dex character taking Agile Duelist. Sure, shield lasts an entire round, but Agile Duelist is at-will. And Agile Duelist is considered a weak feat. Every comparable comparison shows Magic Initiate to be weak past the early levels.

Fair point about Shield. What do you think the strongest use of Magic Initiate would be?

 

[clearstream]

Magic initiate isn't generally taken for raw combat power. While picking up a 1/day combat spell like Absorb Elements can be an extremely effective boost, in general the power of the feat is in the other two pillars. Likewise the two cantrips, which are the main benefit of the feat could be ones that a character's combat strategy is built around, like Shillelagh, or Booming Blade. However cantrips that grant abilities outside of combat such as Minor Illusion, Light, Mold Earth are where the feat really shines.

I agree about that. Magic Initiate is hard to evaluate because it can be used in many ways. Consider the cantrip Guidance. It's strong on the social and explore pillars via buffing ability checks. The options you outline are helpful to think about. My present intuition is that Magic Initiate as revised now (i.e. granting a spell slot and removing the cast at lowest level constraint) is well worth an ASI.

 

[clearstream]

I'm going through bit by bit. I have a concern about Elemental Adept in that it's giving away one of the biggest differentiator of sorcerers. Martial adept is not similar - it gives away the differentiator of a subclass, not the base class. Like if you could take a feat for Extra Attack and if you already had that it would go up to 3 attacks like Fighters get at 11th.

Actually that's a very good point. Metamagic is core to sorcerer whereas combat superiority is only one path for fighter. You're probably right that it should be preserved.

 

[clearstream]

No, I definitely don't think Sage Advice/Errata shifted what was possible. Scenario 1 is what the original rules allowed, and what Sage Advice clarified. You have to have a hand free to load ammunition.

They cut "loaded" from the third benefit. Meaning that the crossbow didn't need to be loaded using a character's free interaction in between their attack action and their bonus action.

I know people complain about the sheathing and drawing swords as "nonsense" but the reality is, the whole fabricated scenario is nonsense. In real battles with real weapons of these types, once you closed for melee, then you just drop the crossbow, draw your sword and fight. Hopefully before your opponent is within reach to use their melee weapon. If you're in melee and decided to try to put your sword back in your sheath, you'd simply be killed. No matter how much you practiced it. Even trying to draw a sword when somebody is within reach with theirs drawn would get you killed. That's why disarming somebody is so effective - it's much faster to stab them or swing at them than it is for them to draw another weapon. So you try to dodge and knock away their weapon with your (hopefully armored) arm, so you can get to your weapon. That, to me, sounds like the Dodge action while you draw a weapon.

In any event, it's obvious that I disagree with this addition: "you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding and you can supply ammunition for that attack even when your other hand isn't free."

Maximum cheese and absurdity.

I hadn't thought about the "cheese" criticism. What I was focused on was simplifying handling it at the table. If it is 5 attacks per 2 turns, then per RAW one must remember which number of attacks on which turns, and also when the sword is available for AoOs and when it isn't. That seemed far too clunky. One could easily write it (as perhaps the original authors intended) so that you get to snap off one shot with your "loaded" hand crossbow and then it is all sword work. That seems rather underwhelming for the price of a feat. How about just writing that into the hand crossbow itself? "Snapshot. When you use the attack action with a weapon in one hand, you can use a bonus action to fire a loaded weapon with snapshot in the other hand." The ammunition rule would then prevent you doing that again until you either had a hand free, or took time out to reload.

As for the thread itself, I completely disagree with combat being the "central pillar" of D&D, although I totally understand that a lot of people play it that way. Having said that, by designing the strength of feats around that concept helps balance them in a way that the optimization/combat-focused crowd will be happy too!

Perhaps a better way to put it would be "Most of the rules are focused on combat, so these rules pay attention to that context".

I would also make a note that the Taxed Feats could also be Half-ASI feats for folks not concerned about "protecting core-class benefits."

I marked them like that so that it would be clear that they're being balanced differently from the Whole and Half-ASI feats. Notionally, the whole and half ASI feats should all end up being worth an ASI. Whereas the taxed feats can be worth less than an ASI because we're facilitating but not advantaging the thing they unlock. That is in order to reserve that thing for the classes it is core to, like skills for Bards and Rogues, and heavy armour for fighters.

Alert: I don't care for abilities that guarantee success. I would prefer advantage on Initiative and Surprise checks, or allowing a Perception check, possibly with advantage, when surprise is a possibility, etc.

That could be better. The idea is to only change things that are badly costed or over/underpowered.

Great Weapon Shooter I thought one of the main complaints was the -5/+10 is overpowered.

Absolutely. Reducing it to once per turn is huge.

Sharpshooter In addition to questioning the -5/+10, I would remove the "eliminates disadvantage for long range" part. Shooting an arrow at long range is vastly different from a rifle with a sight which is what the "sharpshooter" name makes me think of. Personally, I think reducing the value of cover, combined with a greater critical threshold (18 or 19) would be on target for how archery really works. That is, you have better aim, so you are better at hitting something behind cover, or making a deadlier shot.

Those sound like quite good suggestions. Do you think downgrading the cover is right? Or obviating it completely. Crit threshold improvement is in Champion making that path more appealing, so it is risky to put it into a feat and also punishes that archetype for then taking that feat.

Armorer Seems like it should be a full ASI. You're gaining a tool proficiency and improving your AC or gaining resistance. Note that I think it should be a full ASI without the tool proficiency too. Actually, I don't see why everybody who is trained in getting the most out of their armor would also be good at making/repairing it. But I certainly don't think they should increase a +1 to an ability either, so if I had to choose one it would be the tool.

My thinking is that characters can only benefit from half of the feat (as they can't wear heavy and medium armour at the same time). And then Smith's Tools is a very minor benefit - worth less than a third of a feat. The concept is that with your knowledge and tools you customise your armour, which seemed to me to make some sense of sticking HAM and MAM into the same feat. HAM and MAM could be left split up as they are in RAW, but then I would still believe they need +1 stat increase to match the value of a full ASI.

It's good having your input into evaluations so for your reference, in RAW an ASI appears to me to be worth -

Strength +1 to save, attack, damage, manoeuvre DCs and athletics; unlocks chainmail, splint and plate; +2’ long jump, +1’ high jump, +15 lbs carrying; unlocks barbarian, fighter and paladin multiclass
Dexterity +1 to save, AC, initiative, attack, damage, manoeuvre DCs, acrobatics, sleight of hand, stealth and thieves’ tools; unlocks fighter, monk, ranger and rogue multiclass
Constitution +1 to save, HP/level, days without food, roll versus thirst, minutes holding breath
Intelligence +1 to save, spell attacks, spell DCs, prepared spells, arcana, gaming, history, investigation, nature and religion; unlocks Wizard multiclass
Wisdom +1 to save, spell attacks, spell DCs, prepared spells, animal handling, insight, medicine, perception and survival; unlocks cleric and druid multiclass
Charisma +1 to save, spell attacks, spell DCs, prepared spells, deception, intimidation, performance and persuasion; unlocks bard, paladin, sorcerer and warlock multiclass

 

[Ilbranteloth]

They cut "loaded" from the third benefit. Meaning that the crossbow didn't need to be loaded using a character's free interaction in between their attack action and their bonus action.

I hadn't thought about the "cheese" criticism. What I was focused on was simplifying handling it at the table. If it is 5 attacks per 2 turns, then per RAW one must remember which number of attacks on which turns, and also when the sword is available for AoOs and when it isn't. That seemed far too clunky. One could easily write it (as perhaps the original authors intended) so that you get to snap off one shot with your "loaded" hand crossbow and then it is all sword work. That seems rather underwhelming for the price of a feat. How about just writing that into the hand crossbow itself? "Snapshot. When you use the attack action with a weapon in one hand, you can use a bonus action to fire a loaded weapon with snapshot in the other hand." The ammunition rule would then prevent you doing that again until you either had a hand free, or took time out to reload.

Well, I think the main purpose and benefit of Crossbow Expert is so that you can use all of your attacks in a round if you have more than one. For example, if you're a fighter with two or three attacks per round, you can normally still only make one attack with a crossbow. With crossbow expert you can now take your full two or three attacks.

I would agree that you should be able to shoot a loaded hand crossbow as a bonus action with no feat. It's exactly the same as wielding two weapons to me, use a bonus action to shoot the loaded hand crossbow in your off-hand.

As for the opportunity attacks, not to be obvious about it, but you can do it when your sword is in your hand. Again, from my perspective the whole, attack - stow - load - draw thing is something that would be a very bad idea, in real life and my campaign. So I'm not concerned about "fixing" something that I don't think should be happening anyway.

But, in a prior thread we talked about interacting with hands and stuff about just this "problem" and it's not the fault of the feat. It's the "free interaction" with something. My recommendation was simply that if you have already interacted with something in that round, then you can use your bonus action to interact with something else.

Regardless, it's going to involve tracking all of the actions (free, bonus, regular) that you take to pull it off.

Perhaps a better way to put it would be "Most of the rules are focused on combat, so these rules pay attention to that context".

I marked them like that so that it would be clear that they're being balanced differently from the Whole and Half-ASI feats. Notionally, the whole and half ASI feats should all end up being worth an ASI. Whereas the taxed feats can be worth less than an ASI because we're facilitating but not advantaging the thing they unlock. That is in order to reserve that thing for the classes it is core to, like skills for Bards and Rogues, and heavy armour for fighters.

My point was, some of us aren't concerned about "protecting" class abilities. So I don't think they should be taxed. I think they should get the +1 ability score and the feat. So a comment saying something to the effect of:

Some groups prefer that feats don't replicate core class abilities. One option is to not allow these feats at all, but another is to apply a "feat tax" and eliminate the +1 ability increase.

That is, I personally don't want them balanced differently.

That could be better. The idea is to only change things that are badly costed or over/underpowered.

Personally, I think automatic success is overpowered (and kind of against the design/spirit of the rest of the game).

Absolutely. Reducing it to once per turn is huge.

Hadn't caught that it was reduced in usability. Although that doesn't have an impact on anybody that only has one attack/round. Perhaps if it had an additional cost, like consuming your bonus action. It can still be used for an opportunity attack as well.

Those sound like quite good suggestions. Do you think downgrading the cover is right? Or obviating it completely. Crit threshold improvement is in Champion making that path more appealing, so it is risky to put it into a feat and also punishes that archetype for then taking that feat.

Again, I'm not a fan of "automatic" things. Downgrading cover sounds appropriate to me.

As for critical threshold improvement being a Champion thing? For the Champion it applies to every attack they make. For everybody else it would apply to only archery. It does mean that the feat isn't quite as good for the Champion, perhaps, but you still get to reduce cover and use the -5/+10 ability so I'm not sure it's really a big deal. Particularly since adding it is something new.

But, to go a different route you could say that with Sharpshooter, a critical hit does 3x damage instead of 2x. I think that's very appropriate for archery, but it also means that the Champion would be that much better as an archer, especially since they can take the Archery fighting style and have a +2 to hit too. Maybe too good for them.

The original was:
No disadvantage at long range.
Eliminate disadvantages of 3/4 and 1/2 cover
-5/+10 option for every shot.

New version:
Reduce cover by 1 step
-5/+10 once per turn
Increased critical threat range (or damage)

I guess the question is, are the other two benefits worth getting if you're a Champion to start with. And if not that, then what? I'm not sure I like the extra damage thing when it's tied so closely to an ability that only one class has.

I wouldn't mind the reroll 1s and 2s for damage. I think that is reflective of the deadliness of archery, and would benefit everybody.

Or drop the critical threat range and make it a half-ASI feat?

My thinking is that characters can only benefit from half of the feat (as they can't wear heavy and medium armour at the same time). And then Smith's Tools is a very minor benefit - worth less than a third of a feat. The concept is that with your knowledge and tools you customise your armour, which seemed to me to make some sense of sticking HAM and MAM into the same feat. HAM and MAM could be left split up as they are in RAW, but then I would still believe they need +1 stat increase to match the value of a full ASI.

I see what you're saying, although in both cases the 1/2 a feat is used to be a full feat, so you're gaining two feats for the price of one. Both of them are quite good, although it will be campaign dependent as to whether a character changes armor types, it's certainly conceivable they would have medium armor earlier in their career and shift to heavy later on when they can afford it, and not have to worry about having wasted a feat.

Having said that, I don't see any inherent issue in giving the tool proficiency, other than whether it makes sense for every character. I'm not really coming up with a reasonable alternative right now.

It's good having your input into evaluations so for your reference, in RAW an ASI appears to me to be worth -

Strength +1 to save, attack, damage, manoeuvre DCs and athletics; unlocks chainmail, splint and plate; +2’ long jump, +1’ high jump, +15 lbs carrying; unlocks barbarian, fighter and paladin multiclass
Dexterity +1 to save, AC, initiative, attack, damage, manoeuvre DCs, acrobatics, sleight of hand, stealth and thieves’ tools; unlocks fighter, monk, ranger and rogue multiclass
Constitution +1 to save, HP/level, days without food, roll versus thirst, minutes holding breath
Intelligence +1 to save, spell attacks, spell DCs, prepared spells, arcana, gaming, history, investigation, nature and religion; unlocks Wizard multiclass
Wisdom +1 to save, spell attacks, spell DCs, prepared spells, animal handling, insight, medicine, perception and survival; unlocks cleric and druid multiclass
Charisma +1 to save, spell attacks, spell DCs, prepared spells, deception, intimidation, performance and persuasion; unlocks bard, paladin, sorcerer and warlock multiclass

[/QUOTE]

So the Armorer feat we're discussing grants a +1 to AC or an equivalent in damage reduction, so that sounds like it should be a full ASI, especially since it's not limited to just medium or heavy armor at this point. using only half the feat or not, you're still getting gate equivalent of the +1 to AC.

 

[Thurmas]

So since you are proposing to change the -5/+10 mechanic anyway, I'd like to propose an alternative. I think the -5/+10 is the problem, not the multiple times pet turn, especially since it is so easy to get advantage on attacks, which basically negates the negative. Instead I would propose a flat +proficiency bonus to damage for each attack using the specified weapon type, and add that feature to the two weapon fighting feat as well. For most levels that people play, that's a +2 or 3 to damage, maybe a +4 eventually, but not as game breaking as +10. Plus it scales with level instead of just being crazy as soon as you get it.

I'd also like to see great weapon master give a little love to sword and board maybe, if not make a separate feat to address it:

First, require the bonus action attack on crit or kill to be made with a two handed or versatile weapon being wielded with two hands that you are proficient with. (Instead of any weapon.)

Second, if you wield a versatile weapon that you are proficient with in one hand and no other weapons, you may roll weapon damage as if you were wielding it two handed. This does not count as using it 2 handed to gain a bonus attack.

Lastly, you would have the feature mentioned earlier. Melee attacks you make with weapons with the two handed or versatile property that you are proficient with add your proficiency bonus to their damage.

 

[clearstream]

Well, I think the main purpose and benefit of Crossbow Expert is so that you can use all of your attacks in a round if you have more than one. For example, if you're a fighter with two or three attacks per round, you can normally still only make one attack with a crossbow. With crossbow expert you can now take your full two or three attacks.

That puts crossbows on the same footing as bows. Per RAW, you'd have to either use both hands to wield one (e.g. Heavy Crossbow) or keep a hand free to reload while firing. Either way, no weapon or shield in the other hand if you want to make more than one ranged attack.

I would agree that you should be able to shoot a loaded hand crossbow as a bonus action with no feat. It's exactly the same as wielding two weapons to me, use a bonus action to shoot the loaded hand crossbow in your off-hand.

It strikes me that as Hand Crossbow is "light", RAW doesn't but should already support snapping off a shot with one that is loaded, while wielding a weapon or shield in your other hand. No feat should be needed for that. [Edited when I noticed RAW says "melee weapon" in TWF.]

My point was, some of us aren't concerned about "protecting" class abilities. So I don't think they should be taxed. I think they should get the +1 ability score and the feat. So a comment saying something to the effect of:

Some groups prefer that feats don't replicate core class abilities. One option is to not allow these feats at all, but another is to apply a "feat tax" and eliminate the +1 ability increase.

That is, I personally don't want them balanced differently.

I've adjusted the wording to point in that direction. They deal with game basics - weapons, armor, saves and skills - and I believe they should retain their clear purpose of letting characters pick up some of those that are ordinarily inaccessible to them. For that reason I feel they should be kept extremely simple and focused: putting a big constraint on balancing. With that taken into account, some can be considered "trap" feats, so it feels right to sign post them.

Hadn't caught that it was reduced in usability. Although that doesn't have an impact on anybody that only has one attack/round. Perhaps if it had an additional cost, like consuming your bonus action. It can still be used for an opportunity attack as well.

The reduction in use is major in impact because the -5/+10 isn't egregious until it is triggered more than once a turn. The guiding thought is that high-single-strike damage melee should be part of the game. To assess the impact of a cost, like a bonus action, we should think about who that would make the feat most unappealing to, and if they are the problem? In this case, we might guess that a bonus action cost will make the feat unappealing to Rogues and Monks - who are doing reasonable things with their bonus actions and aren't abusing GWM - while having no impact on Barbarian/Champions, who are doing unreasonable things using just their Extra attacks. If that analysis looks right, I would argue that the "Once per turn" text comes close to nailing it. It's not the only option, but it is simple and preserves the original purpose of the feat. The feat might still overshadow at low levels, which for me is a problem with Variant-Human rather than GWM.

But, to go a different route you could say that with Sharpshooter, a critical hit does 3x damage instead of 2x. I think that's very appropriate for archery, but it also means that the Champion would be that much better as an archer, especially since they can take the Archery fighting style and have a +2 to hit too. Maybe too good for them.

The original was:
No disadvantage at long range.
Eliminate disadvantages of 3/4 and 1/2 cover
-5/+10 option for every shot.

New version:
Reduce cover by 1 step
-5/+10 once per turn
Increased critical threat range (or damage)

I guess the question is, are the other two benefits worth getting if you're a Champion to start with. And if not that, then what? I'm not sure I like the extra damage thing when it's tied so closely to an ability that only one class has.

I wouldn't mind the reroll 1s and 2s for damage. I think that is reflective of the deadliness of archery, and would benefit everybody.

Or drop the critical threat range and make it a half-ASI feat?

All interesting ideas that require more thinking on my side! For me, rerolling damage dice is mostly for AoEs or things that roll a lot of dice. Whereas Sharpshooter I believe is bestowing high single-strike damage to ranged. Which seems like a reasonable piece of design space for it to occupy. The logic seems to be that when we load everything onto one attack, we need that attack to hit! Hence the obviation of cover and disadvantage. Does that help tune any of your thoughts?

So the Armorer feat we're discussing grants a +1 to AC or an equivalent in damage reduction, so that sounds like it should be a full ASI, especially since it's not limited to just medium or heavy armor at this point. using only half the feat or not, you're still getting gate equivalent of the +1 to AC.

A character can take +2 Dex and gain AC +1, initiative +1, ranged and finesse attack and damage +1, Dex save +1, and several useful skills +1. With Armorer as written here, a character with an odd physical ability score can do a bit better than that, which I believe is fine because it gives odd scores some value. You know, I agree with you that the feat gives fair value without Smiths' Tools. But isn't it more flavourful with them?

 

[clearstream]

I'm going through bit by bit. I have a concern about Elemental Adept in that it's giving away one of the biggest differentiator of sorcerers. Martial adept is not similar - it gives away the differentiator of a subclass, not the base class. Like if you could take a feat for Extra Attack and if you already had that it would go up to 3 attacks like Fighters get at 11th.

I've edited in a new take on Elemental Adept. Removing metamagic, and fixing it to play nicely with Empowered Spell. What do you think?

Elemental Adept Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell (increases spell reliability and flexibility)
Increase your Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
When you gain this feat, choose one of the following damage types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder. Spells you cast ignore resistance to damage of the chosen type. In addition, when you roll damage for a spell you cast that deals damage of that type, you can turn each damage die that comes up exactly one less than maximum, to its maximum. For example, if rolling 3d6 you can turn each 5 into a 6.

I believe that turning 5s to 6s is identical to turning 1s to 2s, except that you never want to pick up 5s or 6s with Empowered Spell. So they play nicely together.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The reduction in use is major in impact because the -5/+10 isn't egregious until it is triggered more than once a turn. The guiding thought is that high-single-strike damage melee should be part of the game. To assess the impact of a cost, like a bonus action, we should think about who that would make the feat most unappealing to, and if they are the problem? In this case, we might guess that a bonus action cost will make the feat unappealing to Rogues and Monks - who are doing reasonable things with their bonus actions and aren't abusing GWM - while having no impact on Barbarian/Champions, who are doing unreasonable things using just their Extra attacks. If that analysis looks right, I would argue that the "Once per turn" text comes close to nailing it. It's not the only option, but it is simple and preserves the original purpose of the feat. The feat might still overshadow at low levels, which for me is a problem with Variant-Human rather than GWM.

That makes sense with GWM. Essentially Sneak Attack for heavy weapons, although from a fluff standpoint it would be because of a hard hit instead of a precise one.

For sharpshooter, on the other hand, a rogue can use the ability to tie into Sneak Attack. Since it's a flat bonus, it simply adds +10 to their Sneak Attack damage.

On the one hand, it maintains the higher damage output of sneak attack vs. other classes.
On the other hand, if designed well, the right feats could theoretically give other classes an option for similar damage output of a rogue.

Not sure where I stand on that question specifically. But it does make sharpshooter more powerful than GWM despite sharing the same mechanic.

--

Incidentally, when considering how archery works, and particularly sharpshooter in my campaign (and I haven't settled on a final version yet), I look at actual archery, including bow-hunting.

Historically, archery is at its deadliest at short range. But once somebody was within closing range, it was very dangerous. If it was a single opponent, you could get off a point blank range shot, but then you'd have to drop your bow and draw a weapon, and from 30 feet out, a charging opponent was at a significant advantage if you didn't hit them (that is, penetrate their armor to disable them) because they would be able to get to you and attack before you had your weapon drawn. So any sort of archery within 30 feet is a bad idea in my opinion, and would go a long way to bringing the advantages of ranged weapons down.

However, within about 100 yards or so, it's very deadly. Mail and plate armors were impervious to slashing attacks, and you needed extra leverage (pole arm) and narrow, focused piercing attacks to hit somebody. A sword generally wasn't enough, but a spike (like a pick or the back of a hammer) was. Arrows, on the other hand, could pierce them at a short enough range, and a heavy enough bow (war bow). So from about 30-90 feet they should be very deadly.

This coincides with bow-hunting as well. Most archers don't take a shot while hunting beyond about 30 to 40 yards. Because when you're hunting, you're looking for a single-shot kill through the heart. At that range, an arrow will go entirely through a game animal. One of the reasons why something farther out is a very difficult kill, besides just your aim, is that deer, for example, can hear the bowstring and react just fast enough that you miss the heart. Then it's a wounding shot or a miss.

So I like the idea that under certain circumstances - hidden and undetected at short range, maybe point blank range - you have an expanded critical threshold and/or increased critical damage. It's a good model for the deadliness of a very situational shot.

I use resistance (damage reduction) for armor in my campaign. So at short range (with the right arrowheads) you ignore that resistance. Without that, I'm OK with increased damage.

Arrows fly at a speed a bit faster than a fastball in baseball of around 100 to 120 mph. So in baseball, you have enough time to react when it's being thrown from 60 feet. A 90 mph fastball that's hit is about 110 mph off the bat. If you see an archer shooting an arrow at you from 120 feet or farther, it's not that farfetched to just avoid it. It's not that different than trying to catch (or if you wanted to) dodge a baseball. More importantly, consider trying to shoot a baseball out of a pitching machine to hit an erratically moving target in center field. Just not that easy, especially because of the amount of arch you need to put on the arrow.

Long range should not ever be easy in my mind. You can target a location (a fixed target), but that's really effective only if you have a bunch of archers targeting an area. That's why I think removing disadvantage isn't a great idea.

So limiting the -5/+10 to short range would seem reasonable to me.

And yes, I know plenty of people (a few in particular) will tell me this isn't about "reality" or a simulation. Whatever. It's a bow and arrow. It's representing a bow and arrow, and I think that understanding how they really work is a good starting point for developing rules for them. In part because there are some people that consider the weapon to be the same as the one in our world, and it's certainly feasible to write rules that are acceptable for a wide range of play styles.

 

[TwoSix]

I've edited in a new take on Elemental Adept. Removing metamagic, and fixing it to play nicely with Empowered Spell. What do you think?

Elemental Adept Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell (increases spell reliability and flexibility)
Increase your Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
When you gain this feat, choose one of the following damage types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder. Spells you cast ignore resistance to damage of the chosen type. In addition, when you roll damage for a spell you cast that deals damage of that type, you can turn each damage die that comes up exactly one less than maximum, to its maximum. For example, if rolling 3d6 you can turn each 5 into a 6.

I believe that turning 5s to 6s is identical to turning 1s to 2s, except that you never want to pick up 5s or 6s with Empowered Spell. So they play nicely together.

That's not bad; the wording is slightly awkward, but it's an awkward concept, so that may be unavoidable. As a the player of a sorcerer with empowered spell AND elemental adept, I can confirm that turning 1s into 2s is a very rare occurrence.