D&D 5E Wizard with 20 CON and the Durable feat

[TwoSix]

The feat isn't supposed to be a massive power increasing feat. It's a safety net feat that guarantees you get a certain amount of hit points back. Averages mean nothing if you roll all 1s on the HD you spend. It's on the same page as the Elemental Adept which let's you treat any 1 you roll as a 2 which only increases the average damage by 1.67 total for 10d6.

Elemental Adept is also a piss-poor feat. Feats are supposed to be good, to make it hard to choose between them and a +2 stat increase.

 

[variant]

Elemental Adept is also a piss-poor feat. Feats are supposed to be good, to make it hard to choose between them and a +2 stat increase.

I disagree, it's a very nice feat if I want to make an elementalist.

Feats aren't suppose to be a halloween bag of goodies for everyone. They are suppose to be ways players can specialize their characters in the direction they want to take them.

 

[TwoSix]

I disagree, it's a very nice feat if I want to make an elementalist.

Feats aren't suppose to be a halloween bag of goodies for everyone. They are suppose to be ways players can specialize their characters in the direction they want to take them.

No, it should be a sack of goodies. You should feel substantially more powerful when you take one. Taking a feat is a BIG decision. You only normally get 5, 6 if you're human.

The fact that it provides flavor does not excuse it from being a crap feat. Flavor feats should be as good as stat increases, or honestly even better. You want to reward people for making their character unique, not penalize them for it.

I mean, if Elemental Adept was exactly the same text, but let you treat every 1 on the damage roll as a max result, it would provide EXACTLY the same flavor ("Look, I'm an Ice Mage! Let it go, let it go!") but would actually make me think hard about not taking +2 Int or +2 Cha to get it. If I had already wanted to play an ice mage, then it becomes a no-brainer. That's what should be the standard.

If I don't care about a particular flavor, than weighing the options should be difficult.

If I do care about flavor, than the feat should become a no-brainer, because it provides flavor and comparable effectiveness.

Any "ice mage" feat or "I'm super durable" feat that isn't the obvious mechanical choice to represent that concept is subpar.

 

[variant]

No, it should be a sack of goodies. You should feel substantially more powerful when you take one. Taking a feat is a BIG decision. You only normally get 5, 6 if you're human.

The fact that it provides flavor does not excuse it from being a crap feat. Flavor feats should be as good as stat increases, or honestly even better. You want to reward people for making their character unique, not penalize them for it.

I mean, if Elemental Adept was exactly the same text, but let you treat every 1 on the damage roll as a max result, it would provide EXACTLY the same flavor ("Look, I'm an Ice Mage! Let it go, let it go!") but would actually make me think hard about not taking +2 Int or +2 Cha to get it. If I had already wanted to play an ice mage, then it becomes a no-brainer. That's what should be the standard.

If I don't care about a particular flavor, than weighing the options should be difficult.

If I do care about flavor, than the feat should become a no-brainer, because it provides flavor and comparable effectiveness.

Any "ice mage" feat or "I'm super durable" feat that isn't the obvious mechanical choice to represent that concept is subpar.

No, it should not be a sack of goodies. Then you run into the same min-maxing crap that was found in 3e and 4e.

The major feature of that feat is ignoring resistance for one element, not the treat 1s as 2s. It is powerful. It just isn't for every spellcaster.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If I don't care about a particular flavor, than weighing the options should be difficult..

So, you're saying that if I'm a wizard who doesn't use weapons, it should be difficult to decide between +2 Int and the Dual Wielder feat? How about a Two-handed weapon Fighter deciding between +2 Str and Dual Wielder?

If you don't care about the flavor, the feat should be useless to you and you should skip it. If you do care about the flavor, then you start considering it and seeing if a stat bump or the feat is more useful.

For an Ice Mage, this feat is definitely worth it. But the +2 Int is also worth it.

Same as a Dual Wielder. It's a good feat if you wield two weapons...but a +2 Dex is likely just as good if not a bit better.

Feats are only good for those people who want the flavor that goes with them.

 

[trentonjoe]

S

Same as a Dual Wielder. It's a good feat if you wield two weapons...but a +2 Dex is likely just as good if not a bit better.

Feats are only good for those people who want the flavor that goes with them.

Dual Wielder should make you a better DUAL WIELDER than just adding +2 to your dex.

Elemental ADEPT should make you better at casting ELEMENTAL SPELLS than just adding +2 INT.

You should be trading general advantage for specific mastery.

 

[Chocolategravy]

I disagree, it's a very nice feat if I want to make an elementalist.

Feats aren't suppose to be a halloween bag of goodies for everyone. They are suppose to be ways players can specialize their characters in the direction they want to take them.

It's not a nice feat for an elementalist. It is numerically worse than just taking +2 INT. There is also nothing about it that is the least bit interesting.

It is a good example of a monster feat. A fire elemental that can cast nothing but fire would get full benefit from it, and the feat is simple and boring which keeps things easy on the DM. For a PC it is a bad feat.

 

[KarinsDad]

I disagree, it's a very nice feat if I want to make an elementalist.

Nice? Very nice? The feat has no significant redeeming value compared to other feats or ability score increases.

Feats aren't suppose to be a halloween bag of goodies for everyone. They are suppose to be ways players can specialize their characters in the direction they want to take them.

Actually, all feats should be almost equally as awesome. When some are heads and shoulders above others, then the game system is not balanced.


As for Elemental Adept, it's a pretty weak feat.

Going from an average damage of 42 to 44 on 12D6 is not exactly strong. And the frequency at which any given foe has resistance against a given elemental type is probably not worth the effort. Maybe 1 foe in 20 has resistance against a given PC's Elemental Adept damage type, but there's even a chance that the spell caster does not throw one of those spells in those encounters. And what happens when the foe is immune to that type of damage?

And for most classes, there are only a few elemental types in their cantrip list (and no class has every single one). I don't think there even is a thunder cantrip at all. So, there are elemental types that will almost never be picked by players.

Meh. It's really pretty lame.

Sure, there might be a campaign specific reason to take the feat (e.g. the reoccurring villain is a dragon that has fire resistance), but even there it feels more like a feat that a player might feel that he needs to take as opposed to one that he wants to take.

Sorry, but this feat just plain sucks in power and versatility compared to most of the other feats.

 

[variant]

It's not a nice feat for an elementalist. It is numerically worse than just taking +2 INT. There is also nothing about it that is the least bit interesting.

It is a good example of a monster feat. A fire elemental that can cast nothing but fire would get full benefit from it, and the feat is simple and boring which keeps things easy on the DM. For a PC it is a bad feat.

A sorcerer with a red dragon bloodline is going to want to cast nothing but fire spells.

 

[TwoSix]

So, you're saying that if I'm a wizard who doesn't use weapons, it should be difficult to decide between +2 Int and the Dual Wielder feat? How about a Two-handed weapon Fighter deciding between +2 Str and Dual Wielder?

No, I'm not saying that because I'm not an idiot, thanks. Obviously, a fighter has no problem not taking Elemental Adept, and a wizard is very unlikely to consider Tavern Brawler. But feats that are in a character's wheelhouse (Durable, Tough, Dual Wielder as a fighter, for example) should be good enough to at least make you think "Hmmmm," even if you weren't planning on taking them.

This is the thing. I WANT to take feats with my character. Stat bumps are effective, but fairly boring. Make feats good enough that I'm not penalized for my 16 Cha warlock.

If you don't care about the flavor, the feat should be useless to you and you should skip it. If you do care about the flavor, then you start considering it and seeing if a stat bump or the feat is more useful.

I disagree.

For an Ice Mage, this feat is definitely worth it. But the +2 Int is also worth it.

An ice mage with 16 Int and Elemental Adept should be better with Ice Spells than a mage with 18 Int.

Same as a Dual Wielder. It's a good feat if you wield two weapons...but a +2 Dex is likely just as good if not a bit better.

Then that sucks. A Dex 16 fighter with Dual Wielding should do more damage than a Dex 18 fighter without it, especially since the 18 Dex fighter has more AC, Saves, and Initiative.

Feats are only good for those people who want the flavor that goes with them.

Feats should be for everyone who find stat increases boring. There's no reason flavor should take a mechanical penalty. You want to reward people for adding flavor, not punish them. To me, that's so obvious I don't know why it even needs to be said.