Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6354064" data-attributes="member: 58197">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&amp;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:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Demons (all)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Gray oozes</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Koprus (whatever the heck they are)</li>
</ul>And that's it. If you're playing a pyromancer, EA amounts to &quot;Your spells work better on demons.&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 6354064, member: 58197"] Not to me, it doesn't. Here's where I'm coming from: I [I]love[/I] 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 [I]resistance[/I] (i.e., those affected by EA) consists of the following: [LIST] [*]Demons (all) [*]Gray oozes [*]Koprus (whatever the heck they are) [/LIST] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification