I have a player that wants to rewrite the current Elemental Adept Feat for my homebrew game.
They say that the feat is "too niche" and "completely useless" and not nearly powerful as other feats.
They want to expand the feat to include other damage types (Radiant, Force, Psychic, Necrotic), which I'm actually okay with, and change it to where Immunity against your chosen damage type counts as resistance, resistance is ignored, vulnerability adds dice to the damage, and all 1's on a die are rerolled.
I feel like this is overpowered, and told them to think about writing it as a separate feat with Elemental Adept as a Prerequisite.
They say that if they were going to do it with 2 feats that they would make it even more powerful, because no one would want to have to take two feats if it wasn't.
My player's main argument seems to be that a character concept that relies heavily on a single damage type would be screwed over when the DM decides to throw monsters with immunity them.
I would just tell the player that if they aren't willing to work with me as a DM on balancing the feat, that they would not be permitted to homebrew it at all. As the DM it is part of your job to balance the game - both from the encounters you give them, and player to player. If you feel it would be overpowered, it is your prerogative as DM to reign it in.
Often when one of my players wants to bring in something homebrew I say yes, with the caveat that *I* can choose to rebalance it as I see fit, and if it comes in underpowered we can work together to balance it up; and if it comes in overpowered we can work together to balance it down.
My player's main argument seems to be that a character concept that relies heavily on a single damage type would be screwed over when the DM decides to throw monsters with immunity them.
Problem is there is no reason to limit yourself to one damage type, so there shouldn't be any advantage to doing so. Sure, you can decide not to learn any non-fire spells, but why would you? The feat as the player wants it might be reasonable if there were some restriction as to which spells they could learn/use. I wouldn't expect the DM to give my daggers a 1d8 damage die because I decided my Fighter was gonna wield a dagger instead of a longsword.
I agree, every change that your player is suggesting makes the feat more powerful. Combined they make it way overpowered. I agree with you, if they want it to work for Thunder damage, that doesn’t over power it. But adding all of those other things to it makes it too powerful.
Elemental Adept is great. The 5 elements it includes cover the bulk of damaging spells, yet there's monsters that resist all 5 (e.g. incorporeal creatures, slaad, fiends). Elemental Adept lets you use your best spells against monsters that would normally resist your damage without having to fall back on spells that are considerably weaker, like Magic Missile.
Most of their changes are non-starters. Changing immunity to resistance is silly; you can't kill a fire elemental with fire no matter how good you are at magic. Vulnerability is already extremely powerful. Also, the other damage types are already more reliable - almost nothing resists or is immune to Radiant or Force, so there's little point in picking those for the feat. Psychic has a few monsters that are immune, but it's still a really reliable damage type. Necrotic works on almost everything that isn't undead - and even works on some of them.
Keep in mind by raw the feat is 'choose one element' it is not all those elements, so adding more elements doesn't really change it that much (I personally think its a bit wasted if going for force, radiant or psychic as few things resist those types). I do see it a bit on the low power side for elements because of that 'choose one element' (fire may be the exception due to the many fire spells and many fire resistant enemies).
However I have yet to have a player take the feat. Off the top of my head I would likely either go with "choose two elements" or make it so invulnerable enemies still take 1 point of damage per die or none on a successful save if it is a save for half damage spell (though I'm also of the notion that spells aren't always just one specific type of damage, ie a firebolt would still have some impact or magical aspect to it).
I do agree that making invulnerable reduced to resistance seems a bit much all in all (even with few creatures having it). While a vulnerable thing already would get a bonus for increasing that 1 to a 2 (4 damage for the die as opposed to just 2).
I'd allow Element Master with a prerequisite of the Element Adept of the same damage type and this second feat will let you treat immunity as resistance. I think this would be OK since it will take 2 ASIs (or 1 racial bonus feat and 1 ASI if a human variant). I may include a level prerequsite as well, possibly level 12. Plus it's only affectng the damage from just you. Sure it could let you use fire against that big red dragon but it doesn't stop that dragon's breath melting you or them just pickng you up and diving into a pool of lava - it remains immune to all other sources and you don't suddenly get immunity so, doing a small amount of extra damage than what you normally would is not a big deal at all for building encounters - you're still doing less than if you used a different element spell. Additionally, the idea of a red dragon getting harmed by some mage using fire even if only a small amount is going to make that dragon see that mage as a threat and be more aggressive and focused on that mage most of all - just for the sheer surprise of hurting it with its own element. And I would be fine with expanding the list to include the other damage types - they still only choose one element for the feat, it's not a big deal, in my opinion. Plus, as a DM, my important enemies are built the same as a PC is and may also take feats...
I think expanding it to the other damage types is reasonable enough. I also play a character who relies heavilly on one damage type, this is to make my concept come to life. I chose the Elemental Adept feat and are happy with it, if you want a character who relies on one damage type I think the feat is worth it as it is.
IMO immunity -> resistance could be reasonable (without extending to other types as those types are more obviously ridiculous...as in, a chair will ALWAYS be immune to psychic damage) It wouldn't make sense (to me) that a very evil creature which is normally immune to shadow damage wouldn't be susceptible to shadow damage of any kind. But elemental immunity to me translates to this creature can normally withstand a certain temperature of fire or cold, but your attacks are more intense and therefore their "ceramic covering" is only somewhat effective against your attacks. *shrug*
Edit: Also, seems to me the GM would get to override the immunity -> resistance effect if it makes sense, so long as they aren't removing that effect entirely. As it is a GM negotiation anyway, I would see that as reasonable.
Edit 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2q-WBG2CXo is a Dungeon Dudes video on Elemental Adept. One thing they suggested was have the "1's become 2's" rule just be "re-roll 1's once" same as other feats. Personally I think that's a decent bump without being op.
I know this was years ago, but I figure I'd add some thoughts in case it helps. I would say, that your enjoyment of the game should be you focus on. In this case, they really want to be able to choose 1 damage type of any kind, and apply the effects of the feat to it. Let them. It's not a big deal if they can use 1 damage type of any kind and apply the effects, because the DM is always able to adjust to accommodate.
Increase HP a little for monsters to account the the lack of immunity, place them in situations where their giant 1 target damaging spell doesn't really matter because there are many small enemies, or just give them fights that let them rip wild with powerful spells of a damage type that the creature would normally be invulnerable to and let them feel super badass for *burning* a Fire Elemental.
There are literally infinite ways for a DM to adjust for powerful PC abilities, that I'd not sweat the small stuff. In the end, that one player can't take on most enemies by themselves, and this just helps them feel like they aren't relegated away from their preferred offensive tactics.
I don’t like nerfing a feat a character spent an ASI to get. I’d rather not let them take it in the first place than “sneak-nerf” it and leave them wondering why their feat has so little impact.
How could I recreate this feat with the homebrew maker. I’m making the pyromancer in dnd beyond and one of the features is ignoring resistance. How do I implement that.
As a Wizard that took Elemental Adapt, I can tell you it is pretty powerful at low levels. At higher levels you tend to have a lot more options and it is less useful.
Also, damage wise: 1->2 is a a 4.76% boost, 1-> d6 is an 11.9% boost.
Personally, I would use his desired feat as a 2nd feat. It's a bit more than twice as powerful, so it works well as secondary feat.
My player's main argument seems to be that a character concept that relies heavily on a single damage type would be screwed over when the DM decides to throw monsters with immunity them.
Bottom line is that you tell them they can either trust you as DM or not and if they do not trust you, they should find a campaign with a DM they trust. What they do not seem to realize is that a DM has literally infinite power. If a DM wants to 'screw someone over,' that person is screwed. They can be one-shot'd by a sniper they never see. They could wake up to find a terrasque tearing through the wall of their room while they are in bed stark naked. Or they could not wake up at all, with them having been attacked in their sleep.
Of course no DM would do such things (caveat, unless they brought it on themselves by being murderhobos). They would likely no longer still have players afterwards. However if the player figures if he takes that feat that he would *never* come up against anything immune to that element, well.... that is problematic in other ways.
If they think the feat would not be useful enough, they are not obligated to take it. Simple as that.
And if they do not trust you as a DM, they should find a different campaign. Or consider not playing at all. It is not an adversarial game in the way they seem to be thinking it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a player that wants to rewrite the current Elemental Adept Feat for my homebrew game.
They say that the feat is "too niche" and "completely useless" and not nearly powerful as other feats.
They want to expand the feat to include other damage types (Radiant, Force, Psychic, Necrotic), which I'm actually okay with, and change it to where Immunity against your chosen damage type counts as resistance, resistance is ignored, vulnerability adds dice to the damage, and all 1's on a die are rerolled.
I feel like this is overpowered, and told them to think about writing it as a separate feat with Elemental Adept as a Prerequisite.
They say that if they were going to do it with 2 feats that they would make it even more powerful, because no one would want to have to take two feats if it wasn't.
My player's main argument seems to be that a character concept that relies heavily on a single damage type would be screwed over when the DM decides to throw monsters with immunity them.
I would just tell the player that if they aren't willing to work with me as a DM on balancing the feat, that they would not be permitted to homebrew it at all. As the DM it is part of your job to balance the game - both from the encounters you give them, and player to player. If you feel it would be overpowered, it is your prerogative as DM to reign it in.
Often when one of my players wants to bring in something homebrew I say yes, with the caveat that *I* can choose to rebalance it as I see fit, and if it comes in underpowered we can work together to balance it up; and if it comes in overpowered we can work together to balance it down.
Problem is there is no reason to limit yourself to one damage type, so there shouldn't be any advantage to doing so. Sure, you can decide not to learn any non-fire spells, but why would you? The feat as the player wants it might be reasonable if there were some restriction as to which spells they could learn/use. I wouldn't expect the DM to give my daggers a 1d8 damage die because I decided my Fighter was gonna wield a dagger instead of a longsword.
I agree, every change that your player is suggesting makes the feat more powerful. Combined they make it way overpowered. I agree with you, if they want it to work for Thunder damage, that doesn’t over power it. But adding all of those other things to it makes it too powerful.
Professional computer geek
Elemental Adept is great. The 5 elements it includes cover the bulk of damaging spells, yet there's monsters that resist all 5 (e.g. incorporeal creatures, slaad, fiends). Elemental Adept lets you use your best spells against monsters that would normally resist your damage without having to fall back on spells that are considerably weaker, like Magic Missile.
Most of their changes are non-starters. Changing immunity to resistance is silly; you can't kill a fire elemental with fire no matter how good you are at magic. Vulnerability is already extremely powerful. Also, the other damage types are already more reliable - almost nothing resists or is immune to Radiant or Force, so there's little point in picking those for the feat. Psychic has a few monsters that are immune, but it's still a really reliable damage type. Necrotic works on almost everything that isn't undead - and even works on some of them.
Keep in mind by raw the feat is 'choose one element' it is not all those elements, so adding more elements doesn't really change it that much (I personally think its a bit wasted if going for force, radiant or psychic as few things resist those types).
I do see it a bit on the low power side for elements because of that 'choose one element' (fire may be the exception due to the many fire spells and many fire resistant enemies).
However I have yet to have a player take the feat. Off the top of my head I would likely either go with "choose two elements" or make it so invulnerable enemies still take 1 point of damage per die or none on a successful save if it is a save for half damage spell (though I'm also of the notion that spells aren't always just one specific type of damage, ie a firebolt would still have some impact or magical aspect to it).
I do agree that making invulnerable reduced to resistance seems a bit much all in all (even with few creatures having it). While a vulnerable thing already would get a bonus for increasing that 1 to a 2 (4 damage for the die as opposed to just 2).
- Loswaith
I'd allow Element Master with a prerequisite of the Element Adept of the same damage type and this second feat will let you treat immunity as resistance. I think this would be OK since it will take 2 ASIs (or 1 racial bonus feat and 1 ASI if a human variant). I may include a level prerequsite as well, possibly level 12. Plus it's only affectng the damage from just you. Sure it could let you use fire against that big red dragon but it doesn't stop that dragon's breath melting you or them just pickng you up and diving into a pool of lava - it remains immune to all other sources and you don't suddenly get immunity so, doing a small amount of extra damage than what you normally would is not a big deal at all for building encounters - you're still doing less than if you used a different element spell. Additionally, the idea of a red dragon getting harmed by some mage using fire even if only a small amount is going to make that dragon see that mage as a threat and be more aggressive and focused on that mage most of all - just for the sheer surprise of hurting it with its own element. And I would be fine with expanding the list to include the other damage types - they still only choose one element for the feat, it's not a big deal, in my opinion. Plus, as a DM, my important enemies are built the same as a PC is and may also take feats...
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
I think expanding it to the other damage types is reasonable enough. I also play a character who relies heavilly on one damage type, this is to make my concept come to life. I chose the Elemental Adept feat and are happy with it, if you want a character who relies on one damage type I think the feat is worth it as it is.
IMO immunity -> resistance could be reasonable (without extending to other types as those types are more obviously ridiculous...as in, a chair will ALWAYS be immune to psychic damage) It wouldn't make sense (to me) that a very evil creature which is normally immune to shadow damage wouldn't be susceptible to shadow damage of any kind. But elemental immunity to me translates to this creature can normally withstand a certain temperature of fire or cold, but your attacks are more intense and therefore their "ceramic covering" is only somewhat effective against your attacks. *shrug*
Edit: Also, seems to me the GM would get to override the immunity -> resistance effect if it makes sense, so long as they aren't removing that effect entirely. As it is a GM negotiation anyway, I would see that as reasonable.
Edit 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2q-WBG2CXo is a Dungeon Dudes video on Elemental Adept. One thing they suggested was have the "1's become 2's" rule just be "re-roll 1's once" same as other feats. Personally I think that's a decent bump without being op.
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
I know this was years ago, but I figure I'd add some thoughts in case it helps. I would say, that your enjoyment of the game should be you focus on. In this case, they really want to be able to choose 1 damage type of any kind, and apply the effects of the feat to it. Let them. It's not a big deal if they can use 1 damage type of any kind and apply the effects, because the DM is always able to adjust to accommodate.
Increase HP a little for monsters to account the the lack of immunity, place them in situations where their giant 1 target damaging spell doesn't really matter because there are many small enemies, or just give them fights that let them rip wild with powerful spells of a damage type that the creature would normally be invulnerable to and let them feel super badass for *burning* a Fire Elemental.
There are literally infinite ways for a DM to adjust for powerful PC abilities, that I'd not sweat the small stuff. In the end, that one player can't take on most enemies by themselves, and this just helps them feel like they aren't relegated away from their preferred offensive tactics.
I don’t like nerfing a feat a character spent an ASI to get. I’d rather not let them take it in the first place than “sneak-nerf” it and leave them wondering why their feat has so little impact.
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
How could I recreate this feat with the homebrew maker. I’m making the pyromancer in dnd beyond and one of the features is ignoring resistance. How do I implement that.
As a Wizard that took Elemental Adapt, I can tell you it is pretty powerful at low levels. At higher levels you tend to have a lot more options and it is less useful.
Also, damage wise: 1->2 is a a 4.76% boost, 1-> d6 is an 11.9% boost.
Personally, I would use his desired feat as a 2nd feat. It's a bit more than twice as powerful, so it works well as secondary feat.
Bottom line is that you tell them they can either trust you as DM or not and if they do not trust you, they should find a campaign with a DM they trust. What they do not seem to realize is that a DM has literally infinite power. If a DM wants to 'screw someone over,' that person is screwed. They can be one-shot'd by a sniper they never see. They could wake up to find a terrasque tearing through the wall of their room while they are in bed stark naked. Or they could not wake up at all, with them having been attacked in their sleep.
Of course no DM would do such things (caveat, unless they brought it on themselves by being murderhobos). They would likely no longer still have players afterwards. However if the player figures if he takes that feat that he would *never* come up against anything immune to that element, well.... that is problematic in other ways.
If they think the feat would not be useful enough, they are not obligated to take it. Simple as that.
And if they do not trust you as a DM, they should find a different campaign. Or consider not playing at all. It is not an adversarial game in the way they seem to be thinking it is.