Would this homebrew feat be okay?

[Del]

One of my players has asked if their character could have a feat that would let them choose the damage type on any spell.

My first reaction was (1) that seems strong and (2) isn't damage type a huge part of what differentiates spells' fluff?

However, after thinking about it, I would like to allow it if possible. While I'm wary of adjusting things too far away from RAW, I don't want to limit possibilities unnecessarily and it does feel like something their character, a wild-magic sorcerer, would be able to do. The campaign is less combat-oriented and of those combats not many things are going to have resistance or vulnerability (which I will tell the player).

Do you think the feat is okay as written? Okay with adjustments, like costing sorcery points or changing the list of possible damage types from all damage types to something a little more restricted? Or is there something gamebreaking I'm not seeing?

Relevant Information About the Campaign

campaign is sword/sorcery mystery/intrigue based with stronger emphasis on interaction/exploration pillars
low-magic: nature magic rare, arcane magic rare and feared, divine magic unheard of
party consists of sorcerer, assassin, swashbucker, and a monk or ranger? (they haven't decided yet)
as mentioned above, most of the enemies do not have resistance or vulnerability to damage
that being said, I plan to have 4 dragon NPCs and their half-dragon offspring play an important role in the world and it's hard to predict now where that will go
I'm still new to RPGs (since March) and very new to DMing (this will be my 4th session)

[BiPolar]

It has the potential to be game breaking, as some of the biggest damage dealing spells (fireball, for instance) also have an equivalent high number of monsters that have resistance.

I don't think I'd allow them to pick ANY damage type for ANY spell, I'd consider letting them pick a damage type that fits their character, but it is always that damage type moving forward.

What are the details of the PC?

[Arcangel4774]

My biggest concern would be it's combination with elemental adept and dragon ancestry sorc or tempest cleric.

[Coffee_Dragon]

3E's Energy Substitution feat allowed changing damage into one of acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic, without the need for upcasting. These are basically the same damage types used for Elemental Adept, so it should be assumed the caster would choose the same type for both feats and start an elemental spam factory. Basically this puts you in an alternate world where many more spells have been printed, so that a caster can easier pick ones that match their theme. Seems OK for a feat? Just don't allow force or anything.

[JackPhoenix]

From the party composition, it seems the sorcerer would be the one to use it. In a thread few days ago, similar question was raised, though for metamagic. I think allowing sorcerers to change spell's damage type to the damage of their draconic origin (for draconic sorcerer) wouldn't be broken and it would actually help give non-fire based dragon types some options. I also suggested similar ability, but with random damage type (rolled on casting spells, 1d6, 1: acid, 2: cold, 3: fire, 4: lightning, 5: poison, 6: thunder) for wild sorcerers. For people playing wild sorcerer, randomness is part of the draw, though this have the chance to actually weaken them by changing the spell to a damage the target is immune to.

[Lawful Good]

Just don't allow force or anything.

This is what I was thinking when I read this.


Overall, it seems thematic. Just be sure to limit the types of damage, and make sure your player wouldn't take advantage of it in a cheesy way.

[Oramac]

I would not allow Force or Psychic damage, but other than that I think it'd be fine.

Overall, it's a fun thematic idea that doesn't add TOO much power to the character, so I'd probably allow it. Especially in Feat form, since it's costing him an ASI to do it.

You already said most monsters won't have resistance/vulnerability, so that's really a non-issue. There could be a little cheese if your PC decides to take two levels of Tempest Cleric and tries to cast Disintegrate as Lightning damage, but that wouldn't happen until higher levels anyway.

[Ursus the Grim]

I wouldn't allow it in its current form. Monster resistances are a huge reason to vary your spell selection - you said most monsters don't have resistances at this point, but they will as the characters grow, especially if those cool dragon NPCs come into play. "Choosing" elemental damage before every spell is also going to encourage meta-gaming because the player now has the opportunity to consider the optimal damage on every spell. "Hey, my character has never heard of a hydra or troll before, but I might as well cast this lightning bolt as fire damage!"

My suggestion? He's a wild magic sorcerer. Have him roll randomly for the damage type when he chooses to activate this feat. This will let him still use fireball in a situation where it might otherwise be useless, but won't reliably 'break' the game.

Alternatively you could involve a Sorcery Point cost. That wouldn't really make sense as a feat (most feats are not class-specific) but it would provide a trade-off and a meaningful decision to make.

[MrStabby]

I would allow changing of any of acid, thunder, lightning, cold to any other of those.

I would not allow fire to be replaced by another type - fire spells are already the "best" counterbalanced somewhat by the prevalence of fire resistance.

[Coffee_Dragon]

It's true that if you can cast several spells as two damage types, then you'll almost never care about resistance, but if you have Elemental Adept, that was probably going to be the case anyway.