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

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe it's just me, but when taking a glance at the feats it looks as if we are getting those "must have" feats ....

Feats have to compete with a +2 stat bump, now, so they have to look pretty darn good compared to what they were like when 3.0 introduced them.

 

[Andor]

Good math, I stand corrected.

No, actually you were right. In fact his math says exactly what you said. He then averaged that 10% resistance out across the other 90% of encounters, for whatever reason. Which in no way negated your point that within those 10% of encounters it doubles your damage.

It's a themantic feat, if you are making a strongly fire themed character, it saves you from sucking in some percentage of encounters. In 3e for example fire resistance was very common, and fire based prestige classes like the pyromancer were frequently mocked as useless due to this.

OTOH if you are usually fighting Frost Giants and White Dragons, maybe you spend the feat elsewhere.

 

[Mistwell]

Bonuses to initiative are more important in this version of the game than they were in 3e or 4e, in my opinion. Because combat lasts fewer rounds. In fact it's not uncommon for combat to end after 1-3 rounds, where I recall combats going 10+ rounds in some prior versions of the game.

So, going first is more meaningful in this version of the game, and I think people will want it.

 

[KarinsDad]

No, actually you were right. In fact his math says exactly what you said. He then averaged that 10% resistance out across the other 90% of encounters, for whatever reason. Which in no way negated your point that within those 10% of encounters it doubles your damage.

It's a themantic feat, if you are making a strongly fire themed character, it saves you from sucking in some percentage of encounters. In 3e for example fire resistance was very common, and fire based prestige classes like the pyromancer were frequently mocked as useless due to this.

OTOH if you are usually fighting Frost Giants and White Dragons, maybe you spend the feat elsewhere.

It's just as easy to use cold spells against the fire creatures, and fire spells against the cold creatures, and your chances of hitting into the wheelhouse of their vulnerability is even greater.

Without spending a feat.

I never understood the concept of gimping your PC for a thematic reason.

It only saves you from sucking in some percentage of encounters if you are too stupid to throw a couple cold or acid spells in with your fire mix. It's not like 3E where they took up precious slots. You only need one or two of them out of the dozen or dozens of spells that you have prepared. And except for the variant human, very few players are going to take this feat before 12th level anyway.

Personally, I'd rather use the feat slot for something really useful. Like Tough. Or Alertness.

 

[KarinsDad]

Bonuses to initiative are more important in this version of the game than they were in 3e or 4e, in my opinion. Because combat lasts fewer rounds. In fact it's not uncommon for combat to end after 1-3 rounds, where I recall combats going 10+ rounds in some prior versions of the game.

So, going first is more meaningful in this version of the game, and I think people will want it.

Agreed.

If a wizard with +5 init is throwing a spell before the meat shields can block off the enemy, it's possible that the enemies might target the wizard.

One possible option to avoid this in round one is to have a wizard ready a spell, and then his initiative does not change and he can wait for some of the other PCs to move to where they want to be and attack. Readying also gives the wizard the opportunity to try to kill a seriously damaged foe with a weaker spell (e.g. a cantrip) on round one once it becomes obvious that one of the other PCs seriously damaged that foe. Course, he needs concentration to do this, so it cannot be done if he is concentrating on a different spell pre-encounter.

The same could apply to lightly armored archers.

 

[Chocolategravy]

Which in no way negated your point that within those 10% of encounters it doubles your damage.

It doesn't double your damage even in that 10%, you're still taking it over a +2 INT bump or some other damage boosting feat. And then only if you have literally NOTHING loaded but one element for all your spells.

It's a themantic feat, if you are making a strongly fire themed character, it saves you from sucking in some percentage of encounters.

The overarching theme isn't fire in that case, the theme is mental impairment.

You have to jump through flaming hoops to gimp a character enough to make this feat not suck. Because the feat sucks.

It's also a missed opportunity, they could have made something interesting, instead they just made a very boring feat that is also a trap.

Calling anyone who likes themed characters mentally impaired? Not cool. Please don't throw insults around. Plane Sailing, ENWorld admin

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Meh. I like thefeats, but I don't think any are must-have.

I would define must-have as feats that make me change my character concept to something that fits the feat, just so I could take it. The feats I see here just make the character concepts I have awesome with the feat that goes with it. I think that's a big difference.

 

[Andor]

I never understood the concept of gimping your PC for a thematic reason.

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

It doesn't double your damage even in that 10%, you're still taking it over a +2 INT bump or some other damage boosting feat. And then only if you have literally NOTHING loaded but one element for all your spells.

The overarching theme isn't fire in that case, the theme is mental impairment.

A couple of points guys. This feat is not just for Wizards and Clerics who can repick their spells daily. Some of the other caster classes have far less flexibility in spell selection.

Also some classes naturally lend themselves to theming, like a fire-weilding Red Dragon-blooded Sorcerer or a lighting themed Air-Gensai blooded character.

Also there is plenty of inspirational fiction from the Don Callander books to the Avatar tv series where element weilders are absolutely limited to a single element, why mock someone who wants to stay true to the source fiction? Embracing fictional constraints should not be punished by the system.

Lastly there are even some D&D settings where casters suffer elemental restrictions, with the elemental clerics of Athas taking the spotlight.

Is it really worth nerdraging because a single feat allows someone to use their Zuko-themed Elemental Monk in their GMs 'Against the Fire Giants" campaign, even if it is sub-optimal for a non-themed character?

In the end all character optimizations are situational. Well, except for Pun-Pun.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It doesn't double your damage even in that 10%, you're still taking it over a +2 INT bump or some other damage boosting feat. And then only if you have literally NOTHING loaded but one element for all your spells.

You make it sound as though there is an infinite variety of spells to choose from. This isn't late-game 3.5 where there's a whole compendium of spells. If you want to deal cold damage, or even lightning damage, then you don't have a ton of options.

Even assuming that you've prepared Fireball AND Cone of Cold, and assuming that the situation merits spending your incredibly valuable fifth-level spell slot, there are still other considerations to take into account. Maybe the enemies aren't in formation for the spell you want - a Cone of Cold would do more damage, but a Fireball would hit more targets. Maybe your allies are in the way, and you're not an Evoker. There are plenty of situations where the ability to bypass resistance would be better than +2 Int, regardless of how cleverly you've chosen your spells.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I agree Elemental Adept is not worth it for a Wizard. A Dragon Sorcerer, on the other hand ...