Talk:Elemental Specialist (5e Feat)

"Metamagic feats"? Metamagic is a sorcerer class feature, not a group of feats, which is a 3.Xism. Is there any actual benefit to taking this feat? Because right now its basically a "you can only cast spells of one damage type" feat, which could be achieved by only choosing spells that deal a certain damage type. SirSprinkles (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2016 (MST)

Edit

Metamagic clause removed. This feat was based on the 3.5e feat "Elemental Affinity" and apparently an unnecessary clause snuck it's way in.

On the subject of benefits, this homebrew feat is designed for flavor purposes, allowing it's user to take spells (such as magic missle) that are out of flavor for their pyromancy only build for example. In fact, it converts all spell damage you deal to the chosen type. This allows a pure elemental flavor build without as many restrictions as the base game may allow. This is not an incredibly powerful feat, as it actually narrows the capabilities of the player more than it expands them.

--Ahcshadow (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2016 (MST)

It reads like the damage type change is mandatory. There's no real net benefit. It needs something else. Marasmusine (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2016 (MST)

The damage change is meant to be mandatory. This is designed to be taken by "purist" mages who focus on a single elemental damage type. If I understand you correctly, you believe that it isn't powerful enough as is (which I agree with). I'll try to think of something. In the meantime, I'm open to suggestions.

--Ahcshadow (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2016 (MST)

Edit 2

Added the following:

1: Requires Elemental Adept

2: Additional clause to increase power level of feat above zero: "Immunity to this damage type is treated as resistance instead. This resistance is not negated by Elemental Adept."

3: Cannot be taken with multiple Elemental Adept feats.

4: Damage type chosen must be the same as the prerequisite Elemental Adept feat.

--Ahcshadow (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2016 (MST)

Hate to tell you this after all the changes, but feat chains aren't supposed to exist in 5e. Remove references to Elemental Adept. But you're getting closer! I wish I had some suggestions, but I can't think of anything right now...I'll let you know if anything comes to mind though. --Carcabob (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2016 (MST)

Hmm... Does this simply make this feat entirely incompatible with the rules, or does this still technically work as written? If this feat still works within the rules, while technically being inconsistent with other feat formating, then I'm okay with that, and so is the playgroup I'm using this feat with.

--Ahcshadow (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2016 (MST)

Well, yeah, it works mechanically, it just doesn't follow how feats should be designed to be as inclusive as possible. So if you want to use it, go for it! But it might not have a place on the wiki as a fully completed feat unless it can be changed. I'll go ahead and make an attempt at changing it. --Carcabob (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2016 (MST)

Edit 3

First off, I'd like to thank Carcabob for pointing out some problems with the last version, and making some changes to better bring this feat in line with 5th edition standards.

I removed the optional damage changing clause and replaced it with a mandatory damage change, as this was the original intent of the feat. I added a clause preventing this feat from being taken multiple times.

Since this feat does restrict the user to one type of damage, does anyone feel as though a damage boost may be in order? If so, how much would be reasonable? I hoped that turning immunity into resistance would be enough, but if this needs more to be usable then I'm open to recommendations.

--Ahcshadow (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2016 (MST)

The general rule for feats according to the PHB is that a feat can only be taken once, unless it says otherwise, so it doesn't need to be there. You only need to say if it can be taken multiple times, otherwise it's assumed you can only take it once. --Carcabob (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2016 (MST)

Thanks. Was not aware of this. --Ahcshadow (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2016 (MST)