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

[Tony Vargas]

Yup.
The point is that the Elementalist is a totally fine concept to play in 5E without over compensating him.

Would an Elementalist not take Detect Magic because it is not a fire spell?
Would an Elementalist not take Identify because it is not a fire spell?
Would an Elementalist not take Dispel Magic because it is not a fire spell?
Would an Elementalist not take Telekinesis because it is not a fire spell?
Would an Elementalist not take Web because it is not a fire spell?
Would an Elementalist not take Haste because it is not a fire spell?

If a player decides to only cast fire spells and to not cast other spells that his PC took (or to take a lot of spells that have a low utility and are rarely used), that's not an indication that the basic character concept is not fine. It might indicate that the given player is a bit of a loon.

The game design is just fine.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. It sounds like you're saying the concept is perfectly fine as long as you deviate from it whenever it seems like a good idea?

 

[Mistwell]

Tough is not a must have

OK. So we're back to the question: has anyone in this thread, after some 130 responses, actually identified a single must have feat?

 

[Obryn]

OK. So we're back to the question: has anyone in this thread, after some 130 responses, actually identified a single must have feat?

Yes, the feat which gives +1 to a stat, coupled with +prof to that save. It's not necessary at 4th, but will become critical. Fighters will need the Wisdom one (which they're otherwise bad at, and which contains a high number of "sit out" spells, and which another thread decided was worth dumping stat points into.) And casters will pretty much inevitably pick the Constitution one, due to its dual purpose with both Con saves and Concentration checks.

 

[Dausuul]

OK. So we're back to the question: has anyone in this thread, after some 130 responses, actually identified a single must have feat?

I kind of figured we'd all agreed the answer was "No," and moved on to debating whether Elemental Adept sucks, needs to be rewritten, needs to have the Monster Manual rewritten, embodies an archetype which shouldn't exist, is fine the way it is, or represents a problem that has existed throughout the history of D&D. With a side order of the Toughness vs. +2 Con debate.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes, the feat which gives +1 to a stat, coupled with +prof to that save. It's not necessary at 4th, but will become critical. Fighters will need the Wisdom one (which they're otherwise bad at, and which contains a high number of "sit out" spells, and which another thread decided was worth dumping stat points into.) And casters will pretty much inevitably pick the Constitution one, due to its dual purpose with both Con saves and Concentration checks.

I disagree. Remember that by the time you're reaching levels where this is a big deal, fighters get Indomitable, which mitigates the effect of weak saves. As for casters, they have the options to pick up Warcaster or just not rely on Concentration spells.

It's another very good option, but not a must-have. You could easily get by without it.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm not sure I follow your logic. It sounds like you're saying the concept is perfectly fine as long as you deviate from it whenever it seems like a good idea?

No, I'm saying that anything is moderation is fine. Cast 8 spells out of 10 each day with fire. But, don't prep 8 spells that you refuse to cast.

Anyone who goes to real extremes is going to have issues (like casting fire spells and only fire spells).

It really is like anything in life. Go to excessive extremes, find yourself in trouble.

One can easily design a pyromancer in 5E with rules as written that casts mostly fire spells. But, he'd better have other spells as well (like Haste to buff the fighter or Dimension Door to get out of trouble or whatever). There are a lot of ways to combat a foe immune to fire without resorting to fire spells, cold spells, or any other elemental spells. Heck, the caster could move up with his dagger and give the rogue a sneak attack opportunity and cast Shield if the immune to fire creature attacks him.

The concept works fine without the feat. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, but if a player decides to go overboard with his PC concept, then he's going to face a creature immune to his attacks. So what? That's why PCs adventure in parties so that when one PC is ineffective, the others can pick up the slack.

I don't see what the problem is here. Adapt or die. I suspect that many players of fighter PCs who love using swords are quite willing to use a mace if a foe is immune to slashing weapons.

 

[Obryn]

I disagree. Remember that by the time you're reaching levels where this is a big deal, fighters get Indomitable, which mitigates the effect of weak saves. As for casters, they have the options to pick up Warcaster or just not rely on Concentration spells.

It's another very good option, but not a must-have. You could easily get by without it.

I'll disagree with your disagreement.

Indomitable - like advantage - is less useful than static modifiers at the upper end of the RNG. If I need to roll an 18 or 19 on my d20, rolling 2 dice won't cut it.

On the other hand, Indomitable is awesome when paired with proficiency in a save.

 

[KarinsDad]

OK. So we're back to the question: has anyone in this thread, after some 130 responses, actually identified a single must have feat?

DM fiat?

 

[Lalato]

DM fiat?

That sounds like an awesome feat. Do you have the details on it?

 

[KarinsDad]

That sounds like an awesome feat. Do you have the details on it?

Yes. Roll a new PC. Yours just died cause all 5 of the enemies attacked you, even after you were unconscious on the ground. Bwa ha ha ha... , err, well, that was a shame. Next time, you might want to consider cover.