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

[KarinsDad]

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?

Really?

Where did I say that it is fine? I said "Mathematically, it is typically not a good choice, but it can be a good choice if the player is happy with it." meaning that it's dumb to take it, but if the player absolutely wants it and is willing to give up other better options just to plug that hole, have at it. It's not mathematically good in this case, it's emotionally good for the player since he thinks he's getting a bang for his buck. He's not, but if he is not really paying attention to the math, he can at least feel good about the feat.

But, it still sucks. A player who wants to take a theme based PC that absolutely refuses to take one elemental spell outside his own theme probably exists and they can play however they want, including taking this feat.

Please read what I actually write and not your own little spin on what I write. My stance has not changed, just your spin on it.

There are several feats (and spells and abilities) that are better in the mind of the player than they actually are in game play, but that's ok. Players do not have to be mathematically minded and drill down into the details, they just have to have fun.


And if you think that you should go to the name of feats to get a good understanding of their intent instead of looking at the details, then you and I really cannot even discuss it. Do you buy a car based on its name, or based on its features?


By the way, except for fire, there are not that many theme based spells as is anyway. After taking every single acid spell, a spell caster would still have quite a few prep slots remaining. Elemental theme based PCs are not yet well supported. So, I'm not going to worry about them and I will suggest to any of my players who want a theme and want to plug that hole with Elemental Adept that they would be better off getting a more versatile feat and using a backup damaging spell of some other type (even force damage like Magic Missile) than trying to shoehorn a PC concept into a narrow box which is not yet well supported by the game system. No concept is 100% supported by the game system, so many players adapt. At least my players do. But, adaptation does not require houserules.

 

[Dausuul]

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

Oh, I'm sure there's some kind of "retraining" equivalent, but in terms of what you've got available to deal with a given foe, your list is immutable. Sorcerors can't swap out spells on a daily basis like wizards can.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Oh, I'm sure there's some kind of "retraining" equivalent, but I doubt it will be anything you can do on the fly.

That's what I expect. I mistook your point.

 

[Dausuul]

There are several feats (and spells and abilities) that are better in the mind of the player than they actually are in game play, but that's ok. Players do not have to be mathematically minded and drill down into the details, they just have to have fun.

But the designers should drill down into the details so that players don't have to. That's part of what we pay them for.

I have no complaint about what Elemental Adept is trying to do. My complaint is that, given what we know so far, it fails to do it! It purports to remove the need for "backup" non-theme attack spells; but it lies. If I take Elemental Adept and build a pyromancer with a full loadout of fire spells, I will discover to my chagrin that fire resistance is very rare; most creatures are either normally affected by fire or immune to it, and EA is doing pretty much nothing for me.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

I am sure that players of such PCs exist. I don't think that the core rules out of the box support those types of PCs without houseruling (like your suggestion).

I also do not think that the core rules support an Acolyte of the Skin or an Alien prestige class either. My players appear to be content with the PC options given in the PHB (and I even restrict a few classes and races). Some players want more.

 

[KarinsDad]

But the designers should drill down into the details so that players don't have to. That's part of what we pay them for.

I have no complaint about what Elemental Adept is trying to do. My complaint is that, given what we know so far, it fails to do it! It purports to remove the need for "backup" non-theme attack spells; but it lies. If I take Elemental Adept and build a pyromancer with a full loadout of fire spells, I will discover to my chagrin that fire resistance is very rare; most creatures are either normally affected by fire or immune to it, and EA is doing pretty much nothing for me.

Is fire resist rare? I assume that it will be between 5% and 10% of all monsters, but that is just a guess based on earlier editions which would probably work out to about 1 encounter in 8 to 12 (assuming that the DM mixes up his monsters). Is that enough? Did the designers do their job for the player who absolutely wants to make sure that he does real damage to all monsters?

 

[Dausuul]

Is fire resist rare? I assume that it will be between 5% and 10% of all monsters, but that is just a guess based on earlier editions which would probably work out to about 1 encounter in 8 to 12 (assuming that the DM mixes up his monsters). Is that enough? Did the designers do their job for the player who absolutely wants to make sure that he does real damage to all monsters?

In the playtest bestiary, there are a slew of creatures immune to fire, but the only ones resistant to it are demons, gray oozes, and koprus. I don't even know what koprus are. Pretty much every fire-themed monster has full immunity, which EA doesn't affect. Maybe they've changed it for the final version.

Oh, and the human witch doctor has an ability which can grant resistance to one type of damage for 1 hour. I guess you could count that.

Edited to add: A quick count of the monsters in the Bestiary comes out to 143 monsters (I might be off by one or two). Koprus plus gray oozes plus nine types of demon is 11/143, which is about 8%. So technically speaking, yes, 5-10% of all monsters. But I don't think it counts when most of the monsters on that list are all variants of a single monster type. EA for pyromancers is basically "Your fire spells deal full damage to demons."

 

[KarinsDad]

In the playtest bestiary, there are a slew of creatures immune to fire, but the only ones resistant to it are demons, gray oozes, and koprus. I don't even know what koprus are. Pretty much every fire-themed monster has full immunity, which EA doesn't affect. Maybe they've changed it for the final version.

Oh, and the human witch doctor has an ability which can grant resistance to one type of damage for 1 hour. I guess you could count that.

I hope so. Immunity is a game mechanic that should be reserved for certain rare unique specific creatures. Course, a player that ignores that and still creates a PC that can only do one type of damage is begging for trouble.


I could create a PC that "is afraid of combat and often runs away", but that too is problematic when playing an FRPG.

In fact, I once had a player who did that. Nearly every time that things got a little tough, he started running away and encouraging his fellow PCs to do the same. Fricking annoying as hell. I would feel the same about a theme based PC whose player whined when creatures were immune to his one damage type.

If you don't want your PC to suck in some circumstances, then don't create a limited PC that sucks (either mentally or physically). Suck it up that your PC is not going to shine in some circumstances if you designed it to do so. No need for houserules, just players who don't handcuff their PCs and then complain that the game system does not support them. People want their cake (elemental theme PC) and eat it too (can blow through creatures immune or resistant to their elemental theme). Whatever.

 

[SkidAce]

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?

I think sometimes the question in this case is "You specialized...where's the downside?"

So no, not punishing per se....but something reflecting their lack of versatility...the trade off for specializing.

 

[Dausuul]

I think sometimes the question in this case is "You specialized...where's the downside?"

The downside is that you had to spend a feat. What's the upside? If you aren't more effective with your specialty than a generalist would be, you haven't specialized, you've just limited your options to no benefit.