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

[Tony Vargas]

I find it interesting that for years, people said that spell casters were too powerful and versatile in 1E through 3.5.

They were - past certain levels. They're certainly set up too be too versatile, again, in 5e. Too powerful? Too soon to tell, but the bar 'too' power may need to be lower than one might expect (because of all that neo-Vancian versatility).

Now the first thing some people want is for specialized spell casters to be more powerful and versatile in their specialty in 5E.

The point of balance is to avoid these extremes.

I'd say the point of balance is to present the player with many choices, as many of which as possible are both meaningful and balanced. There are quite a few class/sub-class choices slated for the PH. If some of them are clearly superior to the rest or others are clearly inferior, some of them won't be real choices.

Taking a highly-specialized character like a 'pyromancer' (wrong word, btw, it actually means someone who gazes into a fire for purposes of divination - but common usage in context), and giving it, say, huge damage, to compensate for it frequently facing creatures that are immune to that huge damage doesn't make it a very meaningful/viable choice. It's too powerful, much of the time, overshadowing other blasty/DPR types, and helpless other times. OTOH, leaving it with reasonable damage, but able to do /something/ to deal with fire-immune enemies (whether that's punch through their immunity or 'turn' or otherwise mess with them because they're so strongly fire-aspected), doesn't make them more powerful, just more consistent, and a potentially more viable choice.

 

[TwoSix]

Now the first thing some people want is for specialized spell casters to be more powerful and versatile in their specialty in 5E.

There's probably a couple of points here.

1) Ignoring the concept for a second, "Elemental Adept" is mechanically a crappy feat. A tiny (~5%) damage boost to a subset of spells, and ignoring resistance for a small subset of monsters doesn't cut the mustard, mechanically. It should be at least a +1 to casting stat feat for that small of a feature.

2) Specialized or strongly themed casters are a popular enough archetype to be supported, and the current PHB options don't do enough to support it. (Note: That's a knock on the PHB, not every option can be supported out of the gate. It's just an observation.) I would say a subclass, probably of sorcerer, would be necessary to really pull off the X-mancer archetype, whether that be a pyromancer, cryomancer, or some other kind of mancer (Aero, hydro, geo, etc).

 

[KarinsDad]

OTOH, leaving it with reasonable damage, but able to do /something/ to deal with fire-immune enemies (whether that's punch through their immunity or 'turn' or otherwise mess with them because they're so strongly fire-aspected), doesn't make them more powerful, just more consistent, and a potentially more viable choice.

Why should we remove the one weakness the specialized class has?

And it's not that the specialized class has any weaknesses at all. It's that some players want to play that class in one specific narrow way, but they still want to overcome the weakness of that narrow way they themselves chose.

One can create a Fire Dragon Sorcerer that does good fire damage right this second and that PC doesn't have to be handcuffed into only casting fire spells. That's a player preference, not a weakness that has to be addressed by game design.


I could see a player whose PC has the Folk Hero flaw of "I have a weakness for the vices of a city, especially hard drink" go into a city and not actually drink a single drop on a given visit. He may, or he may not. I'm not going to tell the player that he is not roleplaying his PC correctly if he doesn't.

Same with pyromancers. Not having any non-fire elemental spells in their repertoire is a player decision, it's not a hard and fast rule about a given PC design.

The feat does not need changes, it does what it is designed to do. Players can play their PCs anyway they want, but they shouldn't rely on the game design to cater mechanically to their roleplaying / character creation preferences. There have been hundreds of splat books for D&D over the decades with a ton of different mechanical solutions to hundreds of off the wall PC creation preferences. The future splat books will do the same thing. Eventually, there will be an elementalist in them with a boatload of rules on options. Until then, players should just roleplay their preferences. If one wants a fire only caster, then only take fire spells. Done.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why should we remove the one weakness the specialized class has?

So we don't have to 'compensate' it for that one weakness with excessive power the rest of the time.

 

[KarinsDad]

So we don't have to 'compensate' it for that one weakness with excessive power the rest of the time.

You don't have to anyway. There is no weakness and there is no excessive power in the core game. The only weakness is one self imposed by a given player.

 

[Dausuul]

The feat does not need changes, it does what it is designed to do.

What is it designed to do, then? What is the character concept this feat is designed to support?

 

[Tony Vargas]

The only weakness is one self imposed by a given player.

If a character concept is modeled in game only by being inferior, then it's a clear message not to play the concept.

In 3e, for instance, you might want to play a Commoner, but the stats of that class make it very clear it's not suitable for an adventurer.

More to the point, D&D has a long tradition (and 5e has a real weakness for catering to tradition), of over-compensating specialists for real or imagined limitations or weaknesses. A 2e fighter double-specialized in the bow, for instance, really hasn't given up much of anything (he's proficient in two fewer weapons that he will never use), but he gets half-again the RoF, a +3 to hit and damage, and a pre-emptive attack at the start of most combats. All to compensate him for not being very good at throwing an axe or wielding a bohemian ear-spoon.

 

[Bugleyman]

Maybe I'm coming to this discussion late, but wouldn't EA have been fine something like:

Choose an element (fire, cold, sonic, acid, etc.). Your spells ignore elemental resistance of this type, and treat immunity to this type as resistance. This feat can be taken multiple times, blah blah blah.

 

[KarinsDad]

What is it designed to do, then? What is the character concept this feat is designed to support?

No character concept.

Just like other feats, this feat is designed to allow a PC to mechanically accomplish things that s/he could not do so without the feat. In this case, bypass resist x. No more, no less. Feats do not define character concepts. They define character abilities.

For example, the Tough feat. The PC without the feat will typically not last as long in combat.


Any spell caster (arcane trickster, bard, cleric, warlock, eldritch knight) can take this feat. The gain might not be worth it for a given player to chose it, but the feat is one way to blow through resist (another is to cast a different type of damage spell).

 

[doctorhook]

New suggestion: What if Elemental Adept also granted the caster permanent resistance or immunity to an energy type, and allow the resistant/immune type to be different from the type overcame by spells? E.g.: A fire mage with EA can overcome fire resistance and is immune to fire, while his twin brother fire mage can overcome fire resistance but decided to be immune to cold instead.

There's probably a couple of points here.

1) Ignoring the concept for a second, "Elemental Adept" is mechanically a crappy feat. A tiny (~5%) damage boost to a subset of spells, and ignoring resistance for a small subset of monsters doesn't cut the mustard, mechanically. It should be at least a +1 to casting stat feat for that small of a feature.

2) Specialized or strongly themed casters are a popular enough archetype to be supported, and the current PHB options don't do enough to support it. (Note: That's a knock on the PHB, not every option can be supported out of the gate. It's just an observation.) I would say a subclass, probably of sorcerer, would be necessary to really pull off the X-mancer archetype, whether that be a pyromancer, cryomancer, or some other kind of mancer (Aero, hydro, geo, etc).

Hey, didn't we XP each other earlier this thread for essentially the same post?

I'd XP you again, but I don't have the Elemental Adept (XP) feat, and so I cannot for the moment overcome your XP resistance.

What is it designed to do, then? What is the character concept this feat is designed to support?

lol He's just going to continue to repeat that it's only designed to provide a way to circumvent a single type of damage resistance. He has not demonstrated an interest in considering another possibility over the past twelve pages.

If a character concept is modeled in game only by being inferior, then it's a clear message not to play the concept.

You're damn straight. Take note, [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION], and consider Tony's point, if you're able.

Maybe I'm coming to this discussion late, but wouldn't EA have been fine something like:

Choose an element (fire, cold, sonic, acid, etc.). Your spells ignore elemental resistance of this type, and treat immunity to this type as resistance. This feat can be taken multiple times, blah blah blah.

It's a natural suggestion! But someone did already suggest it, and the results have been mixed. There's been a debate about whether a "master of (element)" should be able to damage--or possibly control--creatures composed of that element. There's been no clear resolution thus far.