Would it be a bad idea to let Elemental Adept stack?

[Thrasher92]

One of the players in my game wants to make a Pyromancer. He is going variant human and we are starting at level 4. He asked me if he can take the Elemental Adept feat (Fire) more than once. What he wants is for the part of the spell that says "In addition, when you roll damage for a spell you cast that deals damage of that type, you can treat any 1 on a damage die as a 2." to be treated like if he rolls a 1 or a 2, now it is a 3.

I'm pretty sure that he is just planning on taking the same feat over and over again to eventually take it 5 times so, when he rolls a damage die for fire, he can treat anything below a 6 as a 6, so for a fireball, he would always get maximum damage.

I'm thinking about saying yes because, he is planning on trying to invest 5 feats into this, with very little gain.

Is this too powerful? I think it isn't worth the investment because it is a huge waste of feats.

[Guy Lombard-O]

I'm thinking about saying yes because, he is planning on trying to invest 5 feats into this, with very little gain.

Is this too powerful? I think it isn't worth the investment because it is a huge waste of feats.

Is it too powerful? I don't think so. Especially until he's taken it at least 3 times. And even then the ultimate effect is pretty meh.

Is it a bad idea? Definitely. Don't allow it if for no other reason than to stop this poor player from needlessly gimping himself with bad/trap feat choices.

[LumenPlacidum]

Build: Vhuman Fighter (eldritch knight) 16 / Sorcerer 4. Take Eldritch Adept 7 times and then cast Chaos Bolt. Now, your d8's always roll the same amount because they always roll 8's. You get to just keep attacking new targets until you manage to miss.

You could potentially wipe out huge numbers of people with this.

It's certainly silly. I recommend you don't let it stack.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah. Not taking any ASIs and just taking Elemental Adept, even if it's allowed to stack, is a recipe for a weak character.

I'd recommend working with your player on an element-focused subclass instead, and limiting Elemental Adept to the RAW.

[OldTrees1]

So a 1d6 starts with an average of 3.5. Each time you take this feat you increase the average damage by N/6 until you reach 6.
1st time: 4.8% increase AND more importantly it ignores resistance
2nd time: 9.1% increase
3rd time: 13% increase
4th time: 15% increase
5th time: 16% increase

1d4 goes: 10.%, 22%, 33%

1d8 goes: 2.8%, 5.4%, 7.7%, 9.5%, 11%, 12%, 12%

If the player is specializing in d6s then I think it is fine but weak. Warn them it is weak but also ask them why they wanted it. They might still be interested and/or their reason might inspire another solution.

[LudicSavant]

Build: Vhuman Fighter (eldritch knight) 16 / Sorcerer 4. Take Eldritch Adept 7 times and then cast Chaos Bolt. Now, your d8's always roll the same amount because they always roll 8's. You get to just keep attacking new targets until you manage to miss.

You could potentially wipe out huge numbers of people with this.

It's certainly silly. I recommend you don't let it stack.


Yeah. Not taking any ASIs and just taking Elemental Adept, even if it's allowed to stack, is a recipe for a weak character.

I'd recommend working with your player on an element-focused subclass instead, and limiting Elemental Adept to the RAW.

Aye, it really seems like the kind of thing that's either going to suck or get cheesed.

If they want to make a pyromancer, maybe consider a variety of feats that supports the theme? Flames of Phlegethos is pretty good.

[Kane0]

Pretty weak use of an ASI but sure.

I’d instead make a second feat with the requirement of Elemental Adept
- Immunity is treated as Resistance for the element you chose (which doesnt then get ignored by Elemental Adept)
- Any damage die rolling lower than 4 is treated as a 4 (so an inprovement on elemental adept by 2)
- Add casting stat modifier to damage roll if you aren’t already

[Chugger]

I wouldn't allow this as a DM. As a player I wouldn't want this, either. Teach the player: show them there are many better options.

[OldTrees1]

Pretty weak use of an ASI but sure.

I’d instead make a second feat with the requirement of Elemental Adept
- Immunity is treated as Resistance for the element you chose (which doesnt then get ignored by Elemental Adept)
- Any damage die rolling lower than 4 is treated as a 4 (so an inprovement on elemental adept by 2)
- Add casting stat modifier to damage roll if you aren’t already

This sounds like a good direction. I wonder if it is balanced.

Do you consider the first instance of Elemental Adept to be on the weak side? I think the gains from each of these 3 perks is strictly better than the gains from the Elemental Adepts perks. Which might still be a balanced pair, it just made me wonder.

[LudicSavant]

I wouldn't allow this as a DM. As a player I wouldn't want this, either. Teach the player: show them there are many better options.

Yeah, I think this is the way to go. Taking the same ability over and over again is unlikely to yield a better experience for anyone involved, IMHO.

[Ghost Nappa]

Aye, it really seems like the kind of thing that's either going to suck or get cheesed.

This. I think you can compromise and let them take it an extra time to specialize (let them ignore immunity or give them resistance) but 5 times is going to either mechanically break something or not accomplish enough.

[Quietus]

I think it'd just be boring. How fun will it be for the player to continually be going, "I cast Fireball, minimum damage 32, maximum 48. Do I have to roll?"

[Kane0]

Do you consider the first instance of Elemental Adept to be on the weak side? I think the gains from each of these 3 perks is strictly better than the gains from the Elemental Adepts perks. Which might still be a balanced pair, it just made me wonder.

Yeah, Ele Adept is a little weak. It doesnt follow the rule of three (that is to say three distinct benefits) nor is it a half feat.
You’re spending an entire ASI on being able to ignore resistance when most casters can already do that by just casting a different spell. The treat roll of 1 as a 2 barely registers and isnt even as fun as a reroll 1s or similar.

[Valmark]

One of the players in my game wants to make a Pyromancer. He is going variant human and we are starting at level 4. He asked me if he can take the Elemental Adept feat (Fire) more than once. What he wants is for the part of the spell that says "In addition, when you roll damage for a spell you cast that deals damage of that type, you can treat any 1 on a damage die as a 2." to be treated like if he rolls a 1 or a 2, now it is a 3.

I'm pretty sure that he is just planning on taking the same feat over and over again to eventually take it 5 times so, when he rolls a damage die for fire, he can treat anything below a 6 as a 6, so for a fireball, he would always get maximum damage.

I'm thinking about saying yes because, he is planning on trying to invest 5 feats into this, with very little gain.

Is this too powerful? I think it isn't worth the investment because it is a huge waste of feats.

Is this a player with experience who's doing it for the fun or a new player who thinks that'll be fun?

If the first then sure, go ahead. If it's the latter I think you should tell them that it's not just suboptimal, it might also turn out... Boring. Especially since that subclass doesn't even sinergize with it since it gives the ability to ignore resistance and immunity to fire with spells already (I assume they're using the subclass Pyromancer, instead of just making a fire-focused spellcaster).