I actually love making Elementalists, but if your GM isn't willing to work with you on it, it's going to be impossible.
Any spell with an elemental effect: Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, Thunder. To a lesser extent Poison, Necrotic, and Radiant.
Any of these spells should be convertible to any other damage type without any real trouble. If your GM isn't willing to "make spells" like in the DMG for his highly restricted classes... then they just aren't going to be fun to play.
What is the difference between a "fireball" and a "thunderball" or "lighting ball". People will argue that spells are balanced based on the damage type they deal and how many monsters are resistant/immune to that damage type, but aside from psychic & force I think that argument is stupid, because it's VERY setting based. Are you in Cthult? Then most everything is immune/resistant to poison. Are you on a demon plane? then it's fire/poison. Are you in the wastes of the north? then it's cold.
I'm also really surprised "fog cloud" doesn't count as "air"... I can see an argument for "sea" also getting it, but "air" should have equal rights to it. Does he want to make all his Wizard "land druids" of their element?
If he wants each elementalist to have a feel what is that feel going to be? Is air tied heavily with Illusion and enchantment magic in the desert? Is fire tied to evocation and divination? Is sea tied to abjuration and conjuration? Is earth tied to transmutation and necromancy? He should have a strong sense of what each school of magic is tied to.
Also, do you get the Elemental Adept feat for free? Because if you can only cast 1 type of spell and lots of things are resistant to that element... you're going to be in the desert without a compass.
I'd tell him the truth that you don't think the class is worth playing otherwise, because you're getting a lot of artificial restrictions (I don't know if other classes are)
Throw in the likes of fog cloud,shatter,invisibility, and assorted illusions and you should be good to go. And lightning damage! How could I forget lightning damage? Mucking about with sound (thunder damage, for instance) is thematic because sound is just vibration, typically air-based. Illusions (and invisibility) are thematic because . . . um . . . Air is the element of trickery? Mirages in conjunction with Fire; mist in conjunction with Water. Clouds are thematic because of weather.
Do ask your DM if he/she has any homebrew he/she was expecting you to use, though.
Any of these spells should be convertible to any other damage type without any real trouble. If your GM isn't willing to "make spells" like in the DMG for his highly restricted classes... then they just aren't going to be fun to play.
What is the difference between a "fireball" and a "thunderball" or "lighting ball". People will argue that spells are balanced based on the damage type they deal and how many monsters are resistant/immune to that damage type, but aside from psychic & force I think that argument is stupid, because it's VERY setting based. Are you in Cthult? Then most everything is immune/resistant to poison. Are you on a demon plane? then it's fire/poison. Are you in the wastes of the north? then it's cold.
Also, in Mike Mearls' last Reddit AMA, he said that spells were not balanced based on damage type.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
First problem: any Electric or Thunder spell would typically be considered "Air"-themed. This is a pretty decent starting point for damage. That said, you should always feel free to "flavour" your spells as more airy - your cloak billows as you cast, and the effects of the spell are described differently. For example, your Mage Armor could be described in terms of a current of air swirling around you that turns away attacks. Sleep is described as a soft, pleasant breeze that lulls foes into peaceful slumber. And so forth.
Regarding the second problem, Wizards can scribe spells they find, but in this edition also get two spells per level (so you're not entirely beholden to DM treasure fiat). See "Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher" at the end of the Wizard spellcasting feature. Also make sure you got your 6 1st-level spells with your original spellbook. In general, read the whole spellcasting section again - it is very, very important and one of the most often-misunderstood sections among class features. Spellcasting is the thing you do.
For the third problem, it sounds like Storm Sorcerer (from Xanathar's) might work better than Wizard. Sorcerers thrive on small, themed spell lists, and Storms are real good at doing what you're thinking. You could also take the War Wizard from Xanathar's if it doesn't make sense to simply pick Evoker. I'm not a big fan of homebrewing "just because" - it's too easy, as you say, to make something over- or underpowered. Most air spells will be evocation, so personally I'd suggest going Evoker and asking your DM for some kind of boon on top for restricting yourself to air-style spells. As you say, Wizards are highly dependent on being versatile - it's their primary strength and pretty terrible to write off half their spell list for theme.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking, simply because I never would have assumed your DM was deliberately gimping your character. It sounds like they are literally just asking you to have less fun than you're supposed to.
If they're not a fan of CHA "intuition" casters, you could always ask to use the Storm Sorc but make it INT-based and say that the spell progression is from study. I don't think this breaks anything, and metamagic used to be as much a Wizard thing anyway.
Finding ways to fit a theme that are not necessarily optimal can be a lot of fun, but your DM has to meet you halfway. Al-Qadim was a three-year, limited setting released in 1992 - sticking to it as rote ignores 25 years of game refinement, not to mention the very spirit of 5e.
Yeah, you're not just playing a theme now, you're flat out being nerfed. Unless the DM somehow compensates for your severely limited spell selection, you're objectively worse off than a "regular" wizard. You're losing a whole lotta spells, many of which are considered "must haves" or "core spells", plus you're missing out on 2 known spells per level.
If your DM thinks wizards are overpowered, and this is her attempt at fixing that, ok, no problem. But if she's just sorta homebrewing an elementalist, then she should offer something in return for what you're losing. The Elemental Adept feat, like FullMetalBunny mentioned, is a good start (although, which damage type? I'd think cold, lightning, or thunder would match best, but the DM seems kinda strict in her interpretation of the elements), but not enough, I'd think.
If your DM thinks wizards are overpowered, and this is her attempt at fixing that, ok, no problem. But if she's just sorta homebrewing an elementalist, then she should offer something in return for what you're losing. The Elemental Adept feat, like FullMetalBunny mentioned, is a good start (although, which damage type? I'd think cold, lightning, or thunder would match best, but the DM seems kinda strict in her interpretation of the elements), but not enough, I'd think.
"Elementalist spells you cast gain the benefits of the Elemental Adept feat," or some such, possibly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
This is a rough situation. I say that because I see what the DM is doing, and see where it is going to cause issues unless the DM takes extra special care to 'fix' what they deliberately 'broke'. Specifically, I can see that the DM is using a setting that hasn't officially been updated to 5th edition rules, and is choosing "stay true to the setting" over "stay true to the modern rules attitude" when the two are at odds with each other - which is why you are getting the 2nd-edition-attitude of your specialty establishing your spell list and your spellbook being limited to what spells you manage to collect, even though the 5th-edition-attitude has clearly changed such that a specialty is no longer a subtractive element (example: a 2nd edition enchanter wizard would not be able to cast any evocation or necromancy spells, but in 5th edition the school of enchantment tradition has no such restrictions), and spells in your spell book are not entirely only at the mercy of your DM (you get 2 every level, plus any that you find).
Your DM will have to home-brew up a decent number of spells, or make particular challenges suited to the spells you do have available, just to give you something worthwhile to contribute to the party, and will have to be specifically generous to you with treasures handed out if you are to have enough spells available to even feel like you are actually the level you manage to rise to. Which sounds like a lot more work, to me at least, than home-brewing an elementalist tradition and actually sticking to the 5th edition attitude of that only adding features rather than also removing some, would be - and with far more risks of an unenjoyed experience without any noteworthy potential gains. So I encourage you to invite the DM to change their approach, if for no other reason than to gauge whether the DM finds it worthwhile to listen to concerns you have about your character not ending up being fun to play and useful to the party.
This is a rough situation. I say that because I see what the DM is doing, and see where it is going to cause issues unless the DM takes extra special care to 'fix' what they deliberately 'broke'. Specifically, I can see that the DM is using a setting that hasn't officially been updated to 5th edition rules, and is choosing "stay true to the setting" over "stay true to the modern rules attitude" when the two are at odds with each other - which is why you are getting the 2nd-edition-attitude of your specialty establishing your spell list and your spellbook being limited to what spells you manage to collect, even though the 5th-edition-attitude has clearly changed such that a specialty is no longer a subtractive element (example: a 2nd edition enchanter wizard would not be able to cast any evocation or necromancy spells, but in 5th edition the school of enchantment tradition has no such restrictions), and spells in your spell book are not entirely only at the mercy of your DM (you get 2 every level, plus any that you find).
Your DM will have to home-brew up a decent number of spells, or make particular challenges suited to the spells you do have available, just to give you something worthwhile to contribute to the party, and will have to be specifically generous to you with treasures handed out if you are to have enough spells available to even feel like you are actually the level you manage to rise to. Which sounds like a lot more work, to me at least, than home-brewing an elementalist tradition and actually sticking to the 5th edition attitude of that only adding features rather than also removing some, would be - and with far more risks of an unenjoyed experience without any noteworthy potential gains. So I encourage you to invite the DM to change their approach, if for no other reason than to gauge whether the DM finds it worthwhile to listen to concerns you have about your character not ending up being fun to play and useful to the party.
Thank you for so eloquently restating what I was trying to say. =)
I couldn't come up with a polite way to state it but Aaron has done a good job.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I actually love making Elementalists, but if your GM isn't willing to work with you on it, it's going to be impossible.
Any spell with an elemental effect: Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, Thunder. To a lesser extent Poison, Necrotic, and Radiant.
Any of these spells should be convertible to any other damage type without any real trouble. If your GM isn't willing to "make spells" like in the DMG for his highly restricted classes... then they just aren't going to be fun to play.
What is the difference between a "fireball" and a "thunderball" or "lighting ball". People will argue that spells are balanced based on the damage type they deal and how many monsters are resistant/immune to that damage type, but aside from psychic & force I think that argument is stupid, because it's VERY setting based. Are you in Cthult? Then most everything is immune/resistant to poison. Are you on a demon plane? then it's fire/poison. Are you in the wastes of the north? then it's cold.
I'm also really surprised "fog cloud" doesn't count as "air"... I can see an argument for "sea" also getting it, but "air" should have equal rights to it. Does he want to make all his Wizard "land druids" of their element?
If he wants each elementalist to have a feel what is that feel going to be? Is air tied heavily with Illusion and enchantment magic in the desert? Is fire tied to evocation and divination? Is sea tied to abjuration and conjuration? Is earth tied to transmutation and necromancy? He should have a strong sense of what each school of magic is tied to.
Also, do you get the Elemental Adept feat for free? Because if you can only cast 1 type of spell and lots of things are resistant to that element... you're going to be in the desert without a compass.
I'd tell him the truth that you don't think the class is worth playing otherwise, because you're getting a lot of artificial restrictions (I don't know if other classes are)
Here's the list I made for an air-themed mage NPC a while back.
gust, mage hand, prestidigitation, thunderclap
feather fall, jump, shield, thunderwave
gust of wind, levitate, skywrite
fly, gaseous form
greater invisibility, storm sphere
control winds
Throw in the likes of fog cloud, shatter, invisibility, and assorted illusions and you should be good to go. And lightning damage! How could I forget lightning damage? Mucking about with sound (thunder damage, for instance) is thematic because sound is just vibration, typically air-based. Illusions (and invisibility) are thematic because . . . um . . . Air is the element of trickery? Mirages in conjunction with Fire; mist in conjunction with Water. Clouds are thematic because of weather.
Do ask your DM if he/she has any homebrew he/she was expecting you to use, though.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
First problem: any Electric or Thunder spell would typically be considered "Air"-themed. This is a pretty decent starting point for damage. That said, you should always feel free to "flavour" your spells as more airy - your cloak billows as you cast, and the effects of the spell are described differently. For example, your Mage Armor could be described in terms of a current of air swirling around you that turns away attacks. Sleep is described as a soft, pleasant breeze that lulls foes into peaceful slumber. And so forth.
Regarding the second problem, Wizards can scribe spells they find, but in this edition also get two spells per level (so you're not entirely beholden to DM treasure fiat). See "Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher" at the end of the Wizard spellcasting feature. Also make sure you got your 6 1st-level spells with your original spellbook. In general, read the whole spellcasting section again - it is very, very important and one of the most often-misunderstood sections among class features. Spellcasting is the thing you do.
For the third problem, it sounds like Storm Sorcerer (from Xanathar's) might work better than Wizard. Sorcerers thrive on small, themed spell lists, and Storms are real good at doing what you're thinking. You could also take the War Wizard from Xanathar's if it doesn't make sense to simply pick Evoker. I'm not a big fan of homebrewing "just because" - it's too easy, as you say, to make something over- or underpowered. Most air spells will be evocation, so personally I'd suggest going Evoker and asking your DM for some kind of boon on top for restricting yourself to air-style spells. As you say, Wizards are highly dependent on being versatile - it's their primary strength and pretty terrible to write off half their spell list for theme.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking, simply because I never would have assumed your DM was deliberately gimping your character. It sounds like they are literally just asking you to have less fun than you're supposed to.
If they're not a fan of CHA "intuition" casters, you could always ask to use the Storm Sorc but make it INT-based and say that the spell progression is from study. I don't think this breaks anything, and metamagic used to be as much a Wizard thing anyway.
Finding ways to fit a theme that are not necessarily optimal can be a lot of fun, but your DM has to meet you halfway. Al-Qadim was a three-year, limited setting released in 1992 - sticking to it as rote ignores 25 years of game refinement, not to mention the very spirit of 5e.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
Yeah, you're not just playing a theme now, you're flat out being nerfed. Unless the DM somehow compensates for your severely limited spell selection, you're objectively worse off than a "regular" wizard. You're losing a whole lotta spells, many of which are considered "must haves" or "core spells", plus you're missing out on 2 known spells per level.
If your DM thinks wizards are overpowered, and this is her attempt at fixing that, ok, no problem. But if she's just sorta homebrewing an elementalist, then she should offer something in return for what you're losing. The Elemental Adept feat, like FullMetalBunny mentioned, is a good start (although, which damage type? I'd think cold, lightning, or thunder would match best, but the DM seems kinda strict in her interpretation of the elements), but not enough, I'd think.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
I would also see about stealing some metamagic as class abilities. If you're stuck with a limited list, make the most of that list as you can.
This is a rough situation. I say that because I see what the DM is doing, and see where it is going to cause issues unless the DM takes extra special care to 'fix' what they deliberately 'broke'. Specifically, I can see that the DM is using a setting that hasn't officially been updated to 5th edition rules, and is choosing "stay true to the setting" over "stay true to the modern rules attitude" when the two are at odds with each other - which is why you are getting the 2nd-edition-attitude of your specialty establishing your spell list and your spellbook being limited to what spells you manage to collect, even though the 5th-edition-attitude has clearly changed such that a specialty is no longer a subtractive element (example: a 2nd edition enchanter wizard would not be able to cast any evocation or necromancy spells, but in 5th edition the school of enchantment tradition has no such restrictions), and spells in your spell book are not entirely only at the mercy of your DM (you get 2 every level, plus any that you find).
Your DM will have to home-brew up a decent number of spells, or make particular challenges suited to the spells you do have available, just to give you something worthwhile to contribute to the party, and will have to be specifically generous to you with treasures handed out if you are to have enough spells available to even feel like you are actually the level you manage to rise to. Which sounds like a lot more work, to me at least, than home-brewing an elementalist tradition and actually sticking to the 5th edition attitude of that only adding features rather than also removing some, would be - and with far more risks of an unenjoyed experience without any noteworthy potential gains. So I encourage you to invite the DM to change their approach, if for no other reason than to gauge whether the DM finds it worthwhile to listen to concerns you have about your character not ending up being fun to play and useful to the party.
I couldn't come up with a polite way to state it but Aaron has done a good job.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."