D&D 5E (2014) Is it just me or does it look like we are getting the "must have feats" once again?

[Lanefan]

If feats are such a headache you can always not have them in your game. I know they won't be in mine.

Lanefan

 

[KarinsDad]

Do you have to? Isn't it enough to know that some people do, and that the system should not needlessly mock them?

So by your definition, if people think that the feat pretty much sucks, even for theme PCs, then those people must be mocking those players.

I have no problem with theme PCs.

I just think that gimping your PC with a lousy feat is dumb, for any PC.

I also think that it is a purely mechanical feat. The main thing the feat does is bypass a defensive feature of a few monsters. It doesn't really help the theme of the PC. The fire spells of that PC are not significantly hotter and do significantly more damage. To me, a more thematic feat would increase the damage from those types of spells by 20%. That would be useful all of the time and thematically, his fire spells are just plain hotter.


4E had thousands of feats that were situational like this one. Virtually all of them gimped the PC compared to other PCs with the exact same race/class/theme that took something useful.

You can consider it mocking, but it's not. It's explaining that a sucky feat sucks and even theme PCs shouldn't take it.

 

[KarinsDad]

I agree Elemental Adept is not worth it for a Wizard. A Dragon Sorcerer, on the other hand ...

Please explain how it is worthwhile for a dragon sorcerer.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Please explain how it is worthwhile for a dragon sorcerer.

Their spells known are much more limited, for one, so they can't mix and match different element types the way a Wizard can (at least not without giving up serious utility somewhere).

And for another, one of their major features works with only a single element's damage.

 

[Stalker0]

In terms of Elemental Adept, its not that the feat is useless...it certainly has use for certain archetypes...like the "pyromancer".

However, compared to the +2 INT, CHA, whatever spellcasting stat etc...its not very good. A +2 stat will help your casting in nearly all cases, instead of the small corner cases for this feat.

In fact, many DMs would probably feel obligated to throw more resistant creatures out you just so the feat gets some mileage.


I will also say, that the feat requires a lot of "work" (aka that rerolling) for very little statistical benefit.


Overall, its low on the totem pole for me.

 

[Chocolategravy]

Also there is plenty of inspirational fiction from the Don Callander books to the Avatar tv series where element weilders are absolutely limited to a single element, why mock someone who wants to stay true to the source fiction?

You might want to pick an example where the writers themselves didn't think the idea so boring and bad that they made the main character, the avatar, able to use more than 1 element...

And again, you are intentionally gimping a character. You're not being a precious snowflake by being different than every other caster in the game, you're just gimping the chracter.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't see how people can judge elemental adept until we see the Monster Manual and know just how frequent monsters have elemental resistance. If it's a lot, then it's more likely to be worth while.

 

[Wolfskin]

Honestly, I couldn't say. I don't have the book, and even when I get it I couldn't possibly tell just by looking at them. Feats that look pretty strong in paper might not come into play as often as they'd need to be all that effective, and feats that look weak might come in handy more than it seems.

Time will tell.

 

[Andor]

I have no problem with theme PCs.

Yes, you do, you just said so.

It's just as easy to use cold spells against the fire creatures, and fire spells against the cold creatures, and your chances of hitting into the wheelhouse of their vulnerability is even greater.

Without spending a feat.

I never understood the concept of gimping your PC for a thematic reason.

Again, there are plenty of completely valid role-playing or world building reasons why any given character might be limited mostly or entirely to a particular element, such as the Dark Sun elemental Clerics or Rokugani Shugenja.

Such characters are severly handicapped (I.E. do half damage) against a range of foes. No one likes to suddenly be sucking wind because your pyromancer is useless in a volcano dungeon against Azer, Salamanders, Red Dragons, Fire Elementals, etc etc.

The feat removes a situational penalty, meaning the themed character is now on a level playing field with the generic wizard.

So by your definition, if people think that the feat pretty much sucks, even for theme PCs, then those people must be mocking those players.
I just think that gimping your PC with a lousy feat is dumb, for any PC.

No actually what I said was that the system was mocking players who wanted themed characters by forcing them to either break theme or be gimped in numerous encounters. This feat does not give tremendous cosmic power, it fixes a flaw that naturally accompanies specialization.

I mean, really if you have campagin centered around a Black-Dragon blooded sorcerer trying to defeat his Great-Great-Great Grandfather and his forces doesn't it kind of suck that they resist the bulk of his powers?

Yes, it's not as good overall as +2 to your primary casting stat? So what? Stats boosts come quickly and there is a hard cap at 20. Once the Pryomancer and the Generic Wizard are both at 20 Int then the Pyromancer is strictly (if slightly) superior with fire spells and (more importantly) not crippled against foes who match his theme. How exactly is he gimped?

 

[Kobold Stew]

So the OP's MIA, and made no suggestions about which feats were the "must haves" about which he was suspicious. The discussion has put forward no real candidates either that have met with anything approaching approval.

I think we have our answer: no.