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

[KarinsDad]

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.

So, where is the feat that fixes the flaw of Resist Slashing damage?

Is the fighter who loves his greatsword gimped? I can imagine a fighter who hates other types of weapons, just as easily as I can imagine a fire dragon sorcerer who loves fire.

 

[Gradine]

It's time for some basic facts!

• Elemental specialists are a not-uncommon fantasy trope.
• Such specialists were lambasted for the entire decade-and-a-half run of 3rd and 4th editions for being useless against a not-inconsequential amount of foes.
• This 5e feat directly addresses that specific concern.
• Elemental specialists and the feat designed to cater to them are still lambasted by people who believe DPS is more important than Narrative or Expression and don't understand why there are people who believe the opposite.
• Both types of players exist, both play styles are equally valid, and not every feature in a game's system is required to appeal to both.

For what it's worth, I would consider houseruling out the reroll feature if it both contributed too little to damage and ended up being too fiddly and time consuming at the table. Replace it with a bonus damage die when using the appropriate element.

From what I've seen of feats, I see a bunch I'd probably never take (but could see others taking) and nothing that really jumps out at me as a must-have. What I do see are a bunch of feats that make me say "that sounds really cool, I want my character to be able to do that!"


PS: If it's not too much too ask can we call a moratorium on the word "gimped"? It's a really horrible way to describe a suboptimal character. I don't really want to be the PC police and this is more a personal request than any sort of demand. I try not to be a stickler about crap like this and ignore it when I can, but it's gotten to be a bit much in this thread. If nothing else if we can tone it down a bit.

 

[doctorhook]

Okay, with regards to Elemental Adept, there seems to be two broad consensuses (consensi?) here:

1. Elemental Adept represents a common and desirable theme in fantasy (i.e.: elemental specialization);
2. Elemental Adept is considered underwhelming for most characters compared to a simple stat-boost;

Fortunately, these two conclusions are not mutually exclusive!

If Elemental Adept is broken, let's fix it. Any suggestions? Here are a few:

• My idea: Include another line in the feat that adds +1 to Int, Wis, or Cha, up to a max of 20.
• Gradine's idea: Replace the reroll mechanic with bonus damage dice when casting spells of the chosen damage type.
• Samurai's idea: Replace the reroll mechanic with +1 damage per die when casting spells of the chosen damage type, and allow spells of that damage type to treat immunity as resistance.

How are these? Got anything better?

 

[Andor]

So, where is the feat that fixes the flaw of Resist Slashing damage?

Is the fighter who loves his greatsword gimped? I can imagine a fighter who hates other types of weapons, just as easily as I can imagine a fire dragon sorcerer who loves fire.

You might have a point, except that a greatsword wielding fighter is not mechanically locked into only weilding a greatsword. If he's fighting the avatar of the God of Swords whom no blade will touch, he can always grab an axe. His feats might not work, but the axe will still do damage.

Whereas a sorcerer cannot reshuffle his spells short of gaining a level, and even then, he breaks theme. So not really comparable.

Just to be clear, are you actually trying to argue that the feat is bad because you want the system to punish a character for sticking to a theme? Or are you displeased that it doesn't serve you, as it's primary benefit applies to a type of character you don't enjoy? Or do you just really hate Dark Sun elemental priests?

 

[Samurai]

Okay, with regards to Elemental Adept, there seems to be two broad consensuses (consensi?) here:

1. Elemental Adept represents a common and desirable theme in fantasy (i.e.: elemental specialization);
2. Elemental Adept is considered underwhelming for most characters compared to a simple stat-boost;

Fortunately, these two conclusions are not mutually exclusive!

If Elemental Adept is broken, let's fix it. Any suggestions? Here are a few:

• My idea: Include another line in the feat that adds +1 to Int, Wis, or Cha, up to a max of 20.
• Gradine's idea: Replace the reroll mechanic with bonus damage dice when casting spells of the chosen element.

How are these? Got anything better?

Replace reroll/bump up with a flat +1 damage per die rolled, and also say that it reduces Immunity to that energy type to Resistance (1/2 damage). This way, it's always got some usefulness with +1/die, it removes resistance, and it also reduces Immunity to mere resistance, meaning you can even burn a fire elemental! That expands the number of creatures for which you get a big benefit from this feat.

 

[doctorhook]

Replace reroll/bump up with a flat +1 damage per die rolled, and also say that it reduces Immunity to that energy type to Resistance (1/2 damage). This way, it's always got some usefulness with +1/die, it removes resistance, and it also reduces Immunity to mere resistance, meaning you can even burn a fire elemental! That expands the number of creatures for which you get a big benefit from this feat.

I like your suggestions! I'll add them above. Side note: being able to overcome immunities (burning a fire elemental, freezing the Archfey of Winter, etc.) may be too "4E"/suspension-of-disbelief-breaking for some folks. Any response to that?

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

So again, how does it make it worthwhile for a sorcerer?

Even a fire sorcerer can afford one cold spell.


12D6 fire spell.

Without feat: (47 * .6 + 23.5 * .4) *.9 + (23.5 * .6 + 11.75 * .4) *.1 = 35.72
With feat: 49 * .6 + 24.5 * .4 = 39.2

3.5 more points


If the spell caster can figure out a way to tell when to use it, then without the feat a 12D6 cold spell combined with a 12D6 fire spell yields:

With same power cold spell: (47 * .6 + 23.5 * .4) *.9 + (42 * .6 + 21 * .4) *.1 = 40.96

5 more points


The point is that the fire sorcerer gains very little for the cost of an expensive feat.

 

[doctorhook]

So again, how does it make it worthwhile for a sorcerer?

Even a fire sorcerer can afford one cold spell.

...

The point is that the fire sorcerer gains very little for the cost of an expensive feat.

So make a suggestion as per my post above. ("Don't take the feat," doesn't count as a suggestion.)

 

[Samurai]

I like your suggestions! I'll add them above. Side note: being able to overcome immunities (burning a fire elemental, freezing the Archfey of Winter, etc.) may be too "4E"/suspension-of-disbelief-breaking for some folks. Any response to that?

"No matter how hot you think you are, there's always someone out there who's hotter."

Personally, if you can completely overcome resistance and turn half damage into full damage in some means that doesn't also increase the damage to someone who has no resistance, or worse, has a vulnerability, then turning no damage into 1/2 damage should be justifiable. My question back would be "if his fire is so hot that a resistant creature has no resistance, why isn't that vulnerable ice para-elemental also taking more damage from the extra-hot flames?"

Here's 1 possible alternate version of the feat, though it changes the nature of it. "You can alter the type of elemental damage your spells do. By spending your bonus action to employ this feat while casting a spell, you can cause any spell that uses fire, cold, lightning, thunder, or acid to instead use a different energy type of your choice."

 

[KarinsDad]

You might have a point, except that a greatsword wielding fighter is not mechanically locked into only weilding a greatsword. If he's fighting the avatar of the God of Swords whom no blade will touch, he can always grab an axe. His feats might not work, but the axe will still do damage.

Whereas a sorcerer cannot reshuffle his spells short of gaining a level, and even then, he breaks theme. So not really comparable.

First off, we are talking theme here. The fighter would not bring an axe with him no more than the sorcerer would bring a non-fire elemental spell.

Also, a player could play a fire PC that does nothing but fire spells, but then again, I could easily see a player taking spells like Shocking Grasp (only cantrip that does touch damage).

I would give an example of Lightning Bolt as a different area spell, but it is only 5 feet wide which is next to useless except in the most narrow of straight corridors.

In fact, there are so few elemental spells of most types that a theme PC is hard to manage anyway. I suspect that theme magic PCs will mostly be out of the question until a future splat book.

But, I do not know of a single player so obsessed with a theme that he would not use other tools. Regardless, Elemental Adept is not a good solution.

Just to be clear, are you actually trying to argue that the feat is bad because you want the system to punish a character for sticking to a theme? Or are you displeased that it doesn't serve you, as it's primary benefit applies to a type of character you don't enjoy? Or do you just really hate Dark Sun elemental priests?

Err, what?

Are you serious with these questions?

You are deflecting. You're ignoring the fact that the feat has extremely limited utility, and trying to deflect the conversation to my personal preferences for or against themed PCs. That's non sequitur.