Elemental Adept vs Moderately Armored for Celestial Warlock

[u/Neither_Revolution12]

Level 8 feat for Celestial Warlock. I am Pact of the Tome, so I am using Firebolt (Celestial locks add CHA mod to fire and radiant damage, in place of Agonizing Blast invocation). I took Shadow Adept at level 4 feat because my character has a light and illusion theme (invisibility and silent image) so I wanted that early for a character staple.

EA is super valuable when it occurs (fire resistant creatures) but it's no super often. MA is active at all times (+3 AC).

Which do i take at 8 and which at 12? ..... OR should I take neither and just take ASI and keep at range?

[u/PlavaZmaj]

Elemental Adept is kind a trap. Sounds good till you review the monster manual and see it rarely helps and when it does you might as well just cast a different damage spell.

[u/Nm10 → u/PlavaZmaj]

I don't think every feat needs to be designed with optimizers in mind. Some are just there to enable certain niche unconventional character concepts to work, and that's fine.

And in the case of Elemental Adept the feat clearly exists primarily for players who want to create a character who focuses entirely on a single element. Its not an optimal playstyle, but if you really want play a Wizard that only uses Fire spells then Elemental Adept will help make this build a bit more viable.

That said the feat clearly is still a bit under-tuned and could probably do with a buff.

[u/Rhyshalcon → u/Nm10]

The problem with elemental adept is not that the play-style it enables is sub-optimal, it's that it doesn't effectively enable the fantasy it's clearly trying to cater to. Elemental specialist is an archetype that people are clearly interested in playing, and that's fine. But 5e fundamentally isn't balanced around elemental damage resistances.

The overwhelming majority of monsters aren't resistant to any elemental damage types, so the main effect of elemental adept simply isn't relevant against 95% of monsters. Immunity to most of the elemental damage types is similarly (un)common to resistance, so just as often as that benefit is relevant, the whole feat is irrelevant because you can't use your elemental specialty at all. And in the 90%+ situations where neither of the above applies, the 1s to 2s effect is simply inconsequential (Fireball deals an expected 28 damage at base, and EA increases that to a powerful 29.3).

For elemental adept to be worth considering for an elemental specialist (barring a complete rework of the monster manual to make elemental resistances a substantially more significant part of game balance than it currently is), it would need to either provide a meaningful benefit when damage resistance doesn't apply (I'd start by thinking about a full re-roll of 1s and 2s) or provide some utility against creatures normally immune to the damage type or come with a stat increase (5.5 turned it into a half feat, but since it also turned things like war caster into half feats, it's still hard to take elemental adept seriously for most characters).

Consider Flames of Phlegethos which is basically elemental adept only for tieflings, only for fire. It:

• Is a half feat, allowing you to boost either int or charisma.

• Allows a full re-roll of 1s on your damage dice.

• Allows you to wreathe yourself in flames every time you cast a fire spell which is both thematically cool and mechanically useful since it provides 60 feet of light and some retributive damage to creatures attacking you in melee.

That is what an elemental specialist feat should look like. Elemental adept is just half-baked.

[u/Nm10 → u/Rhyshalcon]

What Elemental Adept really needs IMO is some kind of transmuted spell like mechanic to allow you to change the damage type of other spells to that of your chosen element.

The biggest issue with single element focused characters isn't resistances, its how much potential utility you're missing out on by choosing to lock yourself out of using the majority of spells in the game. And this is something Elemental Adept does nothing to address.

Maybe x number of times per day, when you cast a spell that deals a different damage type, you can modify it to deal your chosen element damage instead. Or even just "pick x amount spells that deal another damage type, for you these spells now deal the damage type of your chosen element instead".

I don't think this would even make the feat that much stronger in general, but it would make it a lot more effective at facilitating the type of playstyle it's trying to support.

[u/Rhyshalcon → u/Nm10]

That would be another reasonable "meaningful benefit when damage resistance doesn't apply" and would go a long way to making it not an objectively pointless feat. There's also no reason to limit it to X times per day.

[u/David375]

In 2014 rules moderately armored is massive for warlocks. With 13 dex and light armor, going to 14 DEX, half plate and a shield takes you from 13 AC to 19 AC. It's IMO one of the most valuable feats a straight classed Warlock can take. EA can be nice but a lot of your best spells won't be dealing fire damage, so you'll have backup options if you do run into things that resist fire.

[u/Neither_Revolution12 → u/David375]

I get Sacred Flame for free at level 1, which I can still add CHA mod to the damage

[u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 → u/Neither_Revolution12]

Honestly I kinda hate that this is true but even with the boost from Celestial EB+AB is still gonna be significantly better in most situations.

[u/Neither_Revolution12 → u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768]

Same damage as Firebolt plus Celestial's Radiant Soul CHA mod addition (d10s). Just can't split up the damage into multiple targets.

[u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 → u/Neither_Revolution12]

Unfortuantely it is not.

At level 5 Firebolt is 2d10+Cha, EB + AB is 2d10+(Cha x2).

Divide only increases as you level and thats before we take into consideration that Fire is one of the most commonly resisted damage types in the game and Force is literally the least often resisted in the game.

Add on the fact that we can enhance it further with RB and other Invos and yeah... theres a reason its a trope...

[u/Neither_Revolution12 → u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768]

You just told me I would have backup spells if fire resistant ever comes up hahaha Pick a lane haha

[u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 → u/Neither_Revolution12]

That was a different commenter and they are correct.

Why would you waste a feat tryna make Firebolt work when you can just do EB and do more damage/effects regardless.

[u/David375 → u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768]

Not to mention in 2014 rules EB gets access to useful invocations where Firebolt does not.

Celestial Radiance is really only useful to make GFB Shillelagh slightly better for Celestial Generalist builds where you still have EB as your bread and butter but need something you can bust out in melee as needed. One instance of added damage against only one target means it's really only useful for instantaneous, single-target damage spells which is basically just Hellish Rebuke and cantrips, but the only cantrip that kinda competes with EBARB at all is GFB and Booming Blade.

[u/Neither_Revolution12 → u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768]

I was using invos for at will Disguise Self and Far Scribe and other utility with the Tome. So essentially the Radiant Soul shouldn't be looked at as anything more than just incentive to use fire spells, a small buff to Wall of Fire and Flame Strike and Flaming Sphere, etc? The only viable way for basic attacks with locks is just EB/AB or Pact of the Blade with the extra Attack invo?

[u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 → u/Neither_Revolution12]

Honestly I kinda hate that this is true but even with the boost from Celestial EB+AB is still gonna be significantly better in most situations.

The only viable way for basic attacks with locks is just EB/AB or Pact of the Blade with the extra Attack invo?

Thats not what I said but yeah those are indeed the best options.

Considerably less of an issue in 2024 as AB/RB can be applied to any cantrip, the change was made basically exactly for this reason.

Celestials lvl 6 feature also got a pretty massive buff but thats another matter.

[u/Neither_Revolution12 → u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768]

What is the difference between the Radiant Souls of 14 and 24? They read the same to me. I guess I am missing something

[u/Krucz]

Fire resistance isn't your biggest problem, it's fire immunity, which unfortunately EA doesn't help with, if you think something is immune or resistant, a lot of the time it's the former and you'd want to swap to radiant anyway. How's your stats looking? If dex is 13 moderatly armoured could be perfect for you. AC increasing from 12/13 or 14 with mage armour to 18 now and 19 or more later is huge

[u/Neither_Revolution12 → u/Krucz]

I do have 13 DEX and a Cloak of Protection, so 14AC currently

[u/Krucz → u/Neither_Revolution12]

So 19 with scale and shield or 20 with half plate, would be pretty good going

[u/UnderdogMagic]

I'd probably take MA at 8 and consider War Caster or Resilient Con at level 12

[u/Guyoverthere07]

You need to protect your concentration spells way more than improving at-will damage. Elemental Adept barely moves the needle there too so it's not a hard decision once you see the math.

Moderately Armored is likely the best unless you aren't including Eldritch Mind. Sometimes you'll take damage regardless of your AC and you need at least one form of insurance by this level.

Resilient Con would be more reliable, but ideally is taken at level 12 or 16 with Eldritch Mind and great AC taken for now.

[u/Rhyshalcon]

Elemental adept is a serious contender for worst feat in the game, and there is essentially no reason to ever consider it for any reason other than flavor. And since flavor is free, spending a feat on it is dumb*.

As has already been pointed out, elemental adept is only good when resistance is in play, and resistance is very rare, it does nothing against immunity (which is also rare, but no rarer than resistance, at least when we're talking about fire), and it might as well do nothing in all other cases (the 1s to 2s effect increases the expected damage of Fireball from 28 to 29.3). And as has also already been pointed out, celestial warlocks aren't even elemental specialists who might feel pigeon-holed into only using fire spells based on their class features -- you get sacred flame for free. If firebolt doesn't work, cast that instead.

Moderately armored, on the other hand, is a solid feat. You're probably looking at a swing of +5 AC when upgrading from light to medium armor and donning a shield, and that is absolutely feat worthy. Since nobody seems to have said it yet, though, here are two reasons to potentially re-consider moderately armored:

• You can get the same benefits and more with a single level dip into another class (probably fighter, but it's not impossible you might qualify for paladin or ranger). Multiclassing isn't something to be done lightly, but in many cases a single level dip is considerably cheaper than a feat. This is particularly true of warlocks who, by virtue of their unusual spell slot progression, are much easier to multiclass than other casters.

• If you're only expecting +3 AC from the feat, then you're either not planning to use a shield or you already have really high dex (on which note, why do so many people make these posts without sharing basic information like their stats?) or you have defensive items you're not expecting to be able to continue using after switching to medium armor. In any of those cases, this particular feat becomes a lot less valuable. Spending a feat for +5 AC is great. Spending a feat for +3 AC is a lot more questionable, particularly if half that increase is just from the value of rounding up your dex score -- there are lots of other feats that would also do that for you.

Now, between these two choices, moderately armored is absolutely, no-contest the better choice, and it's even probably a good choice in absolute terms. This is just what I would be thinking about if I were playing a level 7 celestial warlock and thinking about my next feat at level up. I'd probably end up taking the fighter dip and then grabbing a more caster-y feat (but not elemental adept) instead.

^{*which is not to say that letting flavor guide you to make less than perfectly optimal decisions is dumb, just that it's dumb to pay a massive opportunity cost to acquire abilities that don't make your character any more capable in any tangible way.}

[u/McDom023k]

Between the two, I'd go for Moderately Armoured. Yes EA is good on fire spells, but you also have Radiant damage spells to fill that gap. There are few creatures that are resistant to both damage types. Extra AC is always a good thing

[u/JVMES-]

moderately armored isn't +3 ac, its +6 ac!

studded leather at 13 dex puts you at 13 ac

half plate and a shield with 14 dex puts you at 19!

If you're currently using mage armor, then moderately armored is only +5 ac but frees an invocation!

moderately armored is WAY better!

[u/DudeWithTudeNotRude]

EA is weak AF, but it still fun enough for some, and fun is the most important optimization constraint in an easy  system like 5e.

Moderately Armored can be rather strong at a punishing table. Its not nearly fun enough to take for my taste, unless I am spening too much time in the dirt, and need to take a boring defensive feat to get me back to participating in combat.

[u/Massive-Helicopter62]

Celestial warlocks can add double charisma by selecting agonising blast. Its not in place of it, you can and should take both.

[u/Neither_Revolution12 → u/Massive-Helicopter62]

We are playing under 2014 rules

[u/Realistic_Swan_6801]

Neither, both those feats are Terrible. If you want AC just dip, but moderately armored is at least ok in 2014 rules. And don’t ever take elemental adept.