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

[KarinsDad]

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.

Why does one need to house rule it at all? I think that it works exactly as intended.

If a player wants to play Ice King and wants to take that feat, have at it.

I have never met a player who wants to play Ice King and absolutely refuses to take Magic Missile because it is force damage or Wall of Stone or Chain Lightning or other D&D spell icons, but if you want to restrict yourself that way, have at it.

The feat does what it is designed to do: bypass a specific elemental resist.

I think that this is a very corner case ability, but that does not mean that one has to house rule it.

You seem to be the one that insists that it has to be houseruled. I have never once said that. I said that a theme based PC would be better off having a backup different elemental spell. If the player does not want to do that and does not want the feat because it might not be used frequently, THAT'S OK. The player can focus his spells and feats/ability score increases however he wants.

As I said before, taking this feat is not necessary, even for a theme based PC. Houseruling it is definitely not necessary.

You seem to be the one stating that not only is this feat necessary for such a PC, but that it is too weak and must be house ruled as well. Talk about entitlement.

If a player is really into playing the Ice King and he really really wants to make sure that his ice damage always works at a decent level, then he will love this feat. No need to houserule it. Mathematically, it is typically not a good choice, but it can be a good choice if the player is happy with it.


Personally, I wouldn't play such a restrictive PC, but I do understand that there are people who would. I personally think that a feat that would allow him to cast any elemental spell as an ice spell would be a better feat for such a PC. Elemental Adept reeks of a mechanical solution (bypassing resist) shoe horned into a feat, but if a player wants to take it, go for it.

 

[ppaladin123]

The only one that worries me so far is warcaster. A lot of spells have somatic components so you'd think that clerics, paladins, valor bards, eldritch knight fighters, etc. would have built in ability to handle this despite the fact that a chunk of them are expected to carry shields and weapons or two-weapons. But they don't so warcaster is likely to be the first feat most people playing these classes take. The other parts of the feat are not a problem though.

 

[Minigiant]

There is also different game themes that adjust the usefulness of feats.

For example there is an island in a campaign I once played where the native enemies are resistant to all except bludgeoning and cold. And they were full of HP. Converted to 5e, they would be TPK machines without certain feats if you use characters who are unable to handle them normally.

 

[KarinsDad]

The only one that worries me so far is warcaster. A lot of spells have somatic components so you'd think that clerics, paladins, valor bards, eldritch knight fighters, etc. would have built in ability to handle this despite the fact that a chunk of them are expected to carry shields and weapons or two-weapons. But they don't so warcaster is likely to be the first feat most people playing these classes take. The other parts of the feat are not a problem though.

I thought so too at first.

I have a player who will be taking a Ranger / Wizard and I suspect that he will also be fighting sword and board.

In our game, he will need to drop his sword (actually rapier) in order to cast a Shield spell. But since he can pick it up off the ground as part of his next action or move, it's probably no big deal. The number of times that the NPCs will be able to take advantage of his dropped rapier in 20 levels will probably be counted on one hand. Note: it is not technically in the rules that the PC can use a free action to drop a weapon in order to cast Shield, but I would allow it (i.e. he starts using his hand for the somatic component and the weapon drops because he is starting to use the hand for something else).

So, it's not like Warcaster is going to buy him much more than him stating that he is dropping the weapon on the ground before casting his spell.

For someone with a more strict reading of the rules who would not allow him to drop his weapon, then warcaster does become a bit of a must have feat for these type of PCs.

 

[Dausuul]

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

The system should support them, by making better feats for them. I really want to like Elemental Adept, but as written, I have to admit that it kind of sucks--first, because it doesn't do enough for you against non-resistant monsters, and second, because (in the playtest at least) 5E was far too generous with immunities, which EA doesn't touch. If you're playing a pyromancer with EA, you're still going to have to fall back on non-fire spells against red dragons, fire giants, all devils*, some demons, stone golems, fire elementals, hell hounds... the list is long enough that you'll probably end up arming yourself with non-fire backup spells anyhow, at which point EA is just a waste.

And that goes double for classes like the sorceror, whose spell choices are immutable. As a wizard, you could get away with preparing all fire spells most of the time, and plan to switch things out on days when you expect to face a red dragon or a fire giant. As a sorceror, you don't have that option. If you want to ever have a spell that can damage a red dragon, you must learn a non-fire spell and have it available always.

I thought 4E had it right on this one: Immunity should be granted only to creatures that have a truly compelling reason to be totally immune. Fire elementals are literally made of fire, so it's hard to justify fire damaging them. Pretty much every other creature on that list, however, should have resistance only (perhaps immunity to nonmagical fire, to justify the environments some of them live in). Then EA would be worthwhile.

[SIZE=-2]*Including ice devils. Seriously. Ice devils are immune to fire. And cold. What gives? If this makes it into the Monster Manual, I'll be changing it for my games. My players would be justifiably incensed (pun intended) if they met a bunch of ice devils and couldn't hurt them with fire.[/SIZE]

 

[doctorhook]

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, 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"

I guess I'm not quite at the spot where I'm willing to say that (almost) all feats suck compared to stat-bumps.

At any rate, my point isn't that Elemental Adept is an awesome feat; we've already established that it's total benefit is limited. Rather, my point is that Elemental Adept is trying to support the elemental-specialist play style but failing in its implementation. I want us to talk about what Elemental Adept needs to change to be more worthwhile.

I want the feats in my game to be meaningful, character-defining choices rather than boring stat-boosts, and from what I've seen of 5E, this is generally the case. I don't want to have to let go of an interesting concept like elemental specialization just because the feat that's supposed to support it is subpar.

Why does one need to house rule it at all? I think that it works exactly as intended.

If a player wants to play Ice King and wants to take that feat, have at it.

I have never met a player who wants to play Ice King and absolutely refuses to take Magic Missile because it is force damage or Wall of Stone or Chain Lightning or other D&D spell icons, but if you want to restrict yourself that way, have at it.

The feat does what it is designed to do: bypass a specific elemental resist.

I think that this is a very corner case ability, but that does not mean that one has to house rule it.

You seem to be the one that insists that it has to be houseruled. I have never once said that. I said that a theme based PC would be better off having a backup different elemental spell. If the player does not want to do that and does not want the feat because it might not be used frequently, THAT'S OK. The player can focus his spells and feats/ability score increases however he wants.

As I said before, taking this feat is not necessary, even for a theme based PC. Houseruling it is definitely not necessary.

You seem to be the one stating that not only is this feat necessary for such a PC, but that it is too weak and must be house ruled as well. Talk about entitlement.

If a player is really into playing the Ice King and he really really wants to make sure that his ice damage always works at a decent level, then he will love this feat. No need to houserule it. Mathematically, it is typically not a good choice, but it can be a good choice if the player is happy with it.


Personally, I wouldn't play such a restrictive PC, but I do understand that there are people who would. I personally think that a feat that would allow him to cast any elemental spell as an ice spell would be a better feat for such a PC. Elemental Adept reeks of a mechanical solution (bypassing resist) shoe horned into a feat, but if a player wants to take it, go for it.

Dude, you've literally spent this entire thread arguing that this feat sucks and that there's no good reason to choose it. For you to now say, "I think that it works exactly as intended," only flows from your previous logic if you believe Elemental Adept was intended to be a suck-trap.

"The feat does what it is designed to do: bypass a specific elemental resist." You're looking at the implementation to see its intended purpose. I think this is a mistake. I believe the name "Elemental Adept" gives us a better hint to the feat's intended purpose--making a character "adept" with a particular element--and I believe that overcoming damage resistance is just one possible avenue for accomplishing this.

"I have never met a player who wants to play [an elemental specialist] and absolutely refuses to take [spells from outside their element]," is asinine. Is the fact that you've never met such a player proof that they don't exist, or that they shouldn't exist? I believe we've established that elemental specialists are a relatively common trope in fantasy fiction, so it should be no surprise that players will want to play characters that fit that role. Ice King characters should have some options to their cold-magic more versatile than that of joe-generalist, and Elemental Adept attempts to do that but fails (as you yourself spent a bunch of math-y posts pointing out). I only want to houserule it so that it is a more palatable option for a wider range of characters.

In this thread you've vacillated between, "Elemental Adept sucks and nobody should take it," and "Elemental Adept is fine." Which one is it?

 

[WayneLigon]

I have never met a player who wants to play Ice King and absolutely refuses to take Magic Missile because it is force damage or Wall of Stone or Chain Lightning or other D&D spell icons, but if you want to restrict yourself that way, have at it.

I've met quite a number; I AM one who has done that. The idea is that it shouldn't be a restriction, esp. just to pander to spell icons. I was hoping that, at last, 5.0 might have generic damage and allow us to skin it as a specific energy type using feats or something similar but alas. Thankfully, in general, our GM would just let us have variant spells that did the appropriate elemental damage, so my MM wasn't Force, it was Cold.

 

[jgsugden]

Based upon what I've seen, the feats are pretty darn well done.

There are no obvious 'feat taxes' in 5E, yet. There are some feats specific to certain builds or tactics, and a few feats that will be very solid choices for all PCs, but there is nothing like the 4E 'this has to be one of your first feats because it is so efficienct' feats in 4E.

Further, as many PCs will not get a feat until 4th or 6th level, they'll spend significant time without any feats even if we thought there were 'feat taxes' in 5E ... and that is about 25% of the career of the PC. That is very different than 4E where you were taking Expertise at level 1 most of the time.

I've made ~ 40 PCs using the materials that have been available to us prior to the PHB release. Each one I advanced to 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th levels. There were a few feats that a number of PCs selected as they advanced, but there were no feats that I thought were good choices for more than a third of the PCs. There were a few PCs that didn't get a feat *at all* as the feats were not as useful as ability upgrades IMHO (mostly multiclass PCs, but there was also a monk that seemed better off getting all of his ability scores up). Further, there were very few feats that I did not use at all.

 

[Dausuul]

This 5e feat directly addresses that specific concern.

Not to me, it doesn't.

Here's where I'm coming from: I love the idea of elemental specialists. I'm a big fan of having a strong theme for my character. One of the things that's bugged me for decades about D&D wizards is they all end up looking rather similar, because they all pick from the same spell list and everybody cherry-picks the best spells.

But I also want to be effective in combat. The Elemental Adept feat claims to let me have both: I can have my theme and deal damage too. However, with EA not touching immunity and so many creatures being immune to elemental damage, it doesn't actually do what it advertises. Unless immunities have been scaled way back from the playtest, if I try to be a pyromancer with Elemental Adept, I'm still going to find myself in a lot of situations where I have to turn to non-fire damage spells because my fire spells don't work.

From the playtest bestiary, the list of monsters with fire resistance (i.e., those affected by EA) consists of the following:

• Demons (all)
• Gray oozes
• Koprus (whatever the heck they are)

And that's it. If you're playing a pyromancer, EA amounts to "Your spells work better on demons." Is that really worth a whole feat slot?

Now, maybe they've changed things for the final Monster Manual, in which case EA could be a decent feat. But based on what we know at the moment, it sucks.

 

[Kobold Stew]

And that goes double for classes like the sorceror, whose spell choices are immutable.

I've not seen the PHB, but is this true? I thought there's a mechanism for changing spells.