Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inqui

WotC's Mike Mearls has reported on the latest D&D survey results. "In our last survey, we asked you which areas of D&D you thought needed expansion, and solicited feedback for the latest revision of the mystic character class and new rules for psionics." Additionally, there's a new survey up asking about DMs Guld as well as the last Unearthed Arcana (which featured the Monster Hunter, Inquisitive, and Revenant).

Find the survey results here. The most requested extra content is more feats, followed by classes, spells and races, in that order.

 

[Lucas Yew]

And a third thing to be careful of: Feats that do cool things run the risk of locking out what would normally be a cool improvised thing.

"No, you can't judo throw the goblin, you don't have the "throw people" Feat".

Agreed a thousand times. The horrors...! (shudders)

 

[Patrick McGill]

The other problem with 'extra feats' is that ASI's are just plain better. So until you've maxed your stat at 20, why take a feat? Personally I like the cool things some feats provide so I would go for them (at a pure mechanical disadvantage), but the small number of ASI/feat slots means feats are under utilised at my table. We rarely (read never!) make it beyond the early teen levels and normally variant humans the only feats seen.

Despite being strictly better, every table I've sat down at had people taking feats as soon as they could. ASIs might be better, but feats are more fun.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Despite being strictly better, every table I've sat down at had people taking feats as soon as they could. ASIs might be better, but feats are more fun.

That's great, I wish my kids were more like your table, but they know a good math deal when they see one! And that's the problem with ASI/Feat thing in 5E, you shouldn't have to choose between better maths and more fun.

 

[JohnnyNitro]

I'm still very confused by the argument of Feats vs ASI's. It's so simple: take the easy route to min/maxing or get creative and add a level of depth to your PC design. Why all the hiccups, y'all?!

 

[Darrius_Adler]

Because having two feats at first level is overkill and kinda puts the system balance out of whack. Yes I agree that standerd humans arent guite insync with the other races, but two feats widens that gap not shorten it.

For our table top Eberron game the DM gave a free Ability Score Increase at level one to all characters, allowing people to take what they wanted from it. This was partially done to allow anyone who wanted to start as a member of a Dragonmarked house to begin with their dragonmark. Over all it didn't seem to hurt anything.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Feats were one the best things about 3rd edition, hindered only by the ridiculous feat trees required to get the good ones, and then the overly specialized ones.

Want to make something that functions exactly like a potion, but you eat it like a cookie ? Take the Brew Potion feat, and then at another level, take the Bake Magic Confections Feat. Sure you just wasted a feat on something that's basically a RP effect, and has little to no effect on gameplay, but it was worth it wasn't it ?

No, the answer is no.

Yeah. Feats to add RP effects are the worst ideas ever. No only does it mean you have a bunch of feats that don't actually do anything, you also have the problem that it looks like the game is saying, "Feats are the only way to modify your classes, even in trivial ways or for RP reasons." That's the kind of thinking that lead to hyper-gamism and zero-flavor game mechanics that, in turn, lead to the rise of the OSR.

I'm still not happy with how uneven 5e feats are. Keen Mind, for example, should be a Background. Charger should just be an action everyone can do. Healer should just be what proficiency in the healing kit does. Sentinel should either be a Fighting style, or otherwise allow opportunity attacks to not consume reactions. Skilled should just be handled with downtime. Resilient could be handled with multi-classing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's great, I wish my kids were more like your table, but they know a good math deal when they see one! And that's the problem with ASI/Feat thing in 5E, you shouldn't have to choose between better maths and more fun.

So like the infamous 'Expertise feat tax,' but taxing all your feats instead of 1 out of 16?

Seriously, though, that only holds until you've maxxed your most important stat.

Yeah. Feats to add RP effects are the worst ideas ever. No only does it mean you have a bunch of feats that don't actually do anything, you also have the problem that it looks like the game is saying, "Feats are the only way to modify your classes, even in trivial ways or for RP reasons."

And that sounds like the reciprocal of the old maxim "you shouldn't 'balance' mechanical advantages with RP restrictions."

Charger should just be an action everyone can do. Healer should just be what proficiency in the healing kit does. Sentinel should either be a Fighting style, or otherwise allow opportunity attacks to not consume reactions.

Sentinel could be part of Protection Style and not break anything. Yeah, it seems like /a lot/ but the benefits flow to your allies, including the benefit of you getting attacked more because you're a tad 'sticky.'

Skilled should just be handled with downtime.

That would be interesting. It might make 'Expertise' the only 'real skill' if was used a lot, and everyone in the party started being proficient in everything that saw any regular use. An alternative variant would be to have all attribute checks scale, just not with that starting +2 for proficiency.

Resilient could be handled with multi-classing.

Not well. Just let all saves scale with level is what I'm leaning towards.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Yeah, 5E feats have got to be a pretty difficult design space--in essence, they're compact class abilities that (usually) must be implemented without assuming the character has access to class-specific subsystems. And they can't really be about role playing. Or about letting characters do cool things that DMs might want to allow without requiring the feat.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

That would be interesting. It might make 'Expertise' the only 'real skill' if was used a lot, and everyone in the party started being proficient in everything that saw any regular use.

I run my campaign this way as a houserule. Anticipating a skillsplosion, I put a cap on bonus skills equal to your starting number of class skills plus your Intelligence modifier. But it turns out that 250 days is a lot of downtime for us. The PCs have so far only acquired one new skill each. They definitely still make untrained checks in things.

 

[mach1.9pants]

So like the infamous 'Expertise feat tax,' but taxing all your feats instead of 1 out of 16?

Seriously, though, that only holds until you've maxxed your most important stat.

Yup around level 12 or so unless your a Fighter!