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

[KarinsDad]

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

Well, it counts as part of a suggestion.

Don't take a crappy feat, take +2 to stat or a better feat instead, and dedicate one spell to a different type of damage. Problem solved.

The point is, I should not have to houserule the feat to make it worthwhile enough to take. There is no burning need to bypass a given elemental resist in the game system. That's metagaming thinking.

Such a feat is needed just as much as a feat that bypasses slash, piercing, and bludgeoning damage (in other words, it's not needed at all). Sometimes, the melee PCs are facing resist. Sometimes, the spell casters are facing resist. There should be no way for either of them to auto-avoid that.

 

[hbarsquared]

Bringing it back to the original post... Yes, it is just you.

There's a difference between "mandatory" feats to simply be effective, and/or requiring multiple feats to be effective - and not requiring feats to be at least effective or having one feat realize a character concept.

A baseline effective archer in 3e required the investment of at least two feats. To be the best archer ever mandated every single feat choice.

A baseline effective archer in 5e requires...nothing, maybe at least the fighter class. To be the best archer ever requires one, maybe two feats.

That's what I see, anyway.

 

[Evenglare]

Must have implies that there is a fundamental basis of the game that requires these feats to be effective. This is clearly not the case. Just because you aren't as good at someone at initiative doesn't mean you fall behind, it simply means those people are really good at initiative, but the feat they take leaves them lacking in whatever choice YOU make. Now if you are looking at combat and ONLY at combat then you are neglecting the other 2 pillars of the game, which honestly makes the original question null because you don't understand the design concept of the game as a whole. I suspect this is the case, but if it's not please explain to me how alertness comes into play with roleplaying or exploration in a clearly obviously better way than any other choices. I tend to think this would be a futile effort as it is a subjective argument at best.

 

[Uller]

So far the only examples of feats we've seen are in the playtest packet, correct?

My campaign is up to 9th level (we've played Murder in Baldur's Gate and now just finishing up Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle). No one has even opted for a feat yet...everyone seems to recognize that unless you are going for some very specific feel to your PC, a +2 to an ability score is far better than a feat.

The only time I see using a feat for low level characters is with the human variant...Assuming the standard matrix build, a feat and a skill seems to be a better deal than +1 in every stat since only two (the 15 and the 13) start out as odd...gain a feat and a skill or put +1 in four stats that you are likely never to want to increase anyway (or at least not for a very long time)?

So far...I really like the feats....they are actual features that make a character distinct

 

[doctorhook]

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.

...

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.

Well, it counts as part of a suggestion.

Don't take a crappy feat, take +2 to stat or a better feat instead, and dedicate one spell to a different type of damage. Problem solved.

The point is, I should not have to houserule the feat to make it worthwhile enough to take. There is no burning need to bypass a given elemental resist in the game system. That's metagaming thinking.

Such a feat is needed just as much as a feat that bypasses slash, piercing, and bludgeoning damage (in other words, it's not needed at all). Sometimes, the melee PCs are facing resist. Sometimes, the spell casters are facing resist. There should be no way for either of them to auto-avoid that.

You are obtusely refusing the fact that specializing in a particular element is a common fantasy archetype that many D&D players are likely to want to replicate for their PCs. The Elemental Adept feat is clearly intended to facilitate elemental-themed spellcasters staying on theme, but your solution continues to be, "Just break from your theme." Should Ice King cast fire spells? Should a Waterbender have fire-powers? Does Melissandra the Red Priestess keep a cone of cold spell in her back pocket for when fire magic just ain't working? How many more examples of elemental specialists would you like before you agree that this is a common character theme?

Elemental Adept might not work as intended, but your solution--"Don't play an elemental-themed character,"--is entirely unhelpful. Arguing that you shouldn't need to houserule it is the real non-sequitur here.

 

[KarinsDad]

The only time I see using a feat for low level characters is with the human variant...Assuming the standard matrix build, a feat and a skill seems to be a better deal than +1 in every stat since only two (the 15 and the 13) start out as odd...gain a feat and a skill or put +1 in four stats that you are likely never to want to increase anyway (or at least not for a very long time)?

I think that this is a minor flaw with the standard set of scores. It encourages players to ask for the variant human option if the variant ability score option is not available.

15 14 13 12 10 8 for a normal human (+1 to each) results in +3 +2 +2 +1 0 -1 for a total of +7.
15 14 13 12 10 8 for a variant human (+1 to 15 and 13) results in +3 +2 +2 +1 0 -1 for a total of +7.

The variant is, for all intents and purposes, the same as the normal human using the standard scores, at least until much higher level.


With the variant ability score option:

15 13 13 13 10 9 for a normal (+1 to each) human results in +3 +2 +2 +2 0 0 for a total of +9.
15 14 13 10 10 10 for a variant (+1 to 15 and 13) human results in +3 +2 +2 0 0 0 for a total of +7.

The human variant drops one ability score by +2 in this example. That's a substantial drop which does not necessarily encourage the player to go with the variant human over the normal human.

 

[Lalato]

And another conversation goes off the rails...

 

[keterys]

Should Ice King cast fire spells? Should a Waterbender have fire-powers? Does Melissandra the Red Priestess keep a cone of cold spell in her back pocket for when fire magic just ain't working? How many more examples of elemental specialists would you like before you agree that this is a common character theme?

Just so we're clear, those examples don't have a choice in the matter.

Well, one does. Melisandre _does_ in fact use shadow creatures and entropy curses against her enemies. In fact, she doesn't do a whole lot of fireball-y stuff at all.

Most genres are about specialization. D&D is strangely not. Instead of playing an enchanter who enchants and little else, or an illusionist who illusions and little else, you play an illusionist... who can also do _everything_ else.

So, the realistic answer is that if you want to play an elemental specialized character, you should do so only once the game supports that play style. Maybe someday it will. In the meantime, saying that a subpar feat isn't subpar because it makes a subpar concept work marginally better than it was before. Well, yes, that's true. And it's also true that people can call it out.

Elemental Adept might not work as intended, but your solution--"Don't play an elemental-themed character,"--is entirely unhelpful. Arguing that you shouldn't need to houserule it is the real non-sequitur here.

Elemental Adept, like almost every feat, doesn't currently compare well to 'Increase your attack stat until it hits 20'. Maybe someday the other feats will. In the meantime, I'm tempted to give out extra feats. I don't really like the idea of people not taking a feat until 12th level, personally. "Feats are flavorful and awesome, and you'll even get to see them in the very final days of your campaign. A little"

 

[am181d]

When I play D&D, the PCs win 99.9% of all combats, whether they're optimized or not. Optimizing just means you win by more.

I've never felt that "I would like combats to be 1 round shorter" is a compelling reason to take a feat. If a feat reinforces your character concept, that's awesome. But I've never felt the need to take a feat because math.

 

[TwoSix]

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!

Smartest point of the discussion so far. Kudos.

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?

I like either A) the +1 stat upgrade, or B) treat immunity as resistance, AND treat all rolled 1s as a max result. Slightly less than +1 per die, but a solid upgrade with less math. (From +0.75 on a d4 to a 0.92 on a d12).