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.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Given that Unearthed Arcana has not had any useful material since When Armies Clash in March 2015, I suspect many people have stopped engaging with the surveys.

What you state as "given" is an opinion, not a fact, and that it is your opinion - or even it being the opinion shared by a large number of people - does not have a demonstrable correlation to how many people have or have not stopped engaging with the surveys.

Especially since if people are not liking what is in Unearthed Arcana articles, they can and should be engaging with the survey specifically to say "No, bad, do not do this." because otherwise there is less chance that future material actually matches their preferences.

 

[Azzy]

I'd rather have more warlock invocations, elemental monk disciplines, and the like than more feats. To be honest, I can't really think of many things the list of feats in the PHB doesn't already cover.

Those, and more Battle Master maneuvers.

 

[JeffB]

I honestly have not even read one word of the Feat chapter in the 5E PHB. I refused after so many bad memories of 3.x/PF/4E

The players have enjoyed the classes they have played as written without them and have ignored them too, but they are not really concerned with crunch as long as things work/are fun to play :shrug:

I thought 5e was supposed to keep the proliferation of pc crunch to a bare minimum and the DMs Guild was there to take care of it for those who clamor for that sort of thing.

In addition to the things [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] mentioned he would like to see, I would welcome something akin to The Book of Challenges , Dungeon Delve (plug and play encounter areas ) or the old "Toolbox" books from AEG. But I suppose that is about as likely as short self-contained non AL adventures.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

I would like to see more options to customize characters. Note that I said "customize," not "optimize." One good approach would be to add some new feats, some new subclasses, etc., rather than just beefing up one of them.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I would like to see more options to customize characters. Note that I said "customize," not "optimize." One good approach would be to add some new feats, some new subclasses, etc., rather than just beefing up one of them.

I seem to remember saying the same thing in some other thread (probably about feats/classes, iirc) a couple months ago. The way 5e is "set up", it's perfect for this! AND, the beauty part, you don't need f'ing "Feats" or "Multiclassing" to do it. "But how?", you say, "Everyone knows it's impossible to differentiate one Fighter from the next without using Feats!"...two ways that are built into the system: archtypes and backgrounds.

If more "crunch" simply 'must' be produced, rather than a book of feats (or three), I'd much rather see new archtypes and backgrounds. Best case...put these in a "theme focused book", as I mentioned above a "Dungeoneers Survival Guide" could have one or two archtypes for each class; that right there opens up a poop-ton of differences...add in a few pages of new backgrounds, and add a couple of new skills or uses of standard ones, toss in a few pages of new spells for clerics and wizards...that's multi-pages of 'crunch'.

Alas, "the masses" all screaming for more feats just want more feats. Why? The more feats, the more chances of "finding that special loophole to make an uber character". Now before you get the rope and horses, I'm not saying that all people wanting more feats are munckins...but I am saying that all munckins (in 5e) want more Feats. When one OPTIONAL thing in a game system is pretty much an absolute requirement for munchkins to min/max/power-game the system...then the writers of the game need to look at why and they need to be extremely careful in if, when and how they add new ones. IMHO, or course.

Can Feats be used for "good" character creation? Absolutely! But that isn't the problem that me and my group have. Our problem with them is that they simply add stuff to the character (not change/modify/focus), and that a fighter who wants to be really good with the two handed sword, and another fighter who wants to be good with the two handed sword...well, if one takes GWM, the other one pretty much has to take GWM. Otherwise, he will 'suck' compared to the fighter that took the feat. From then on, any and every fighter (or 'warrior type') who wants to be the front-line damage dealer type brute...will always take GWM! To me, this is the exact opposite of what the feats were trying to do...make each character more 'special' or 'unique'. It was to keep, for example, all fighters with two handed swords from looking exactly the same (mechanics wise, at least). There should have been, like, six "GWM" type feats...each with a slightly different take on using a two handed weapon, each with different 'bonuses'. Maybe one focuses on damage over accuracy, one on accuracy over damage, one on fighting multiple opponents at once, one with a nice averaging of damage and accuracy, etc. That way it's not just "one required feat if you want to do X". This leads me to...

I believe I said this in another thread (I think it was here on EnWorld). WotC dropped the ball...again... with regards to Feats. They keep making the exact same mistake that 3e did: having feats just "add too" a character with nothing "subtracted from". There should be a trade off for ALL feats, IMHO (and no, "but you don't get the ASI" isn't quite the same thing...a good start, but not enough). Taking GWM will make you really good at damage dealing up front. However, there should have been a drawback... "Because the character has trained almost exclusively with two handed weapons, they have -2 to hit and damage with all 1-handed weapons. They also have very little knowledge of missile weapon tactics and use, so suffer Disadvantage on to-hit rolls with missile weapons". Something like that. What you can't do defines your character just as much as what he can do...if not moreso.

Anyway, this is derailing the thread a bit I think. Splat books...don't much care for them if they focus on "primarily crunch for characters" and are just books with 'stuff' in them. That's fine once every three to five years (ala "Unearthed Arcana" for 1e, for example), but it's not something I want to see every six months. Theme-Focused books, IMHO, would be the best way to go to introduce "PC crunch" if they must, but smaller "very narrowly focused" books, like a "book of martial feats", "book of arcane feats" etc. would be fine too...makes them really easy for me and my group to just ignore. But making "book of martial characters" that contains new archtypes, equipment, feats, backgrounds, classes, rules, etc? This is the worst thing they could do for me and my group. We may want to use the archtypes and backgrounds, and maybe some of the equipment, and some of the rules...but all the pages of feats, classes, equipment we don't want, rules we will never use, etc, is all just wasted space and money. Which makes it FAR less for any of us to buy.

*sigh* I guess the old saying is holding up pretty well... You can't please all of the people, all of the time!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Jester David]

The problem with "more options" isn't getting a few more, it's regularly getting more. That's the problem that killed 3e and 4e (and is killing Pathfinder). One book of options isn't going to break the game. But one every month, or quarter, or six months does. Even one book with a lot of options every year is probably too much.
That catch is saying "okay, and we're done with feats" and meaning it. Not "here are more feats, and we'll have some in the next book as well because all books need to have feats". IF they're doing a book and a great idea for an amazing feat presents itself, then that's okay. It's a one-off. But they shouldn't feel mandated to create X number of options to fill Y number of pages because that's the number the pulled out of their bag of holding at the development stage.

 

[CapnZapp]

Note that I said "customize," not "optimize."

Tomayto, tomahto

 

[Jabborwacky]

D&D is in an odd position: On one side, its more flexible than ever. On the other, D&D simply isn't D&D without its named archetypes and spells, which all have their own unique identities to uphold. It's also blessed and cursed with being the most popular tabletop RPG, so a lot of people want to represent their own unique settings, characters, and critters in D&D.

What they need are quality options that cover a wide range of needs. Perhaps what they need are customizable classes that can have templates applied to them to form characters from other games like a pathfinder witch or alchemist. It may be better for WoTC to consider why they are asking for more feats than to simply give them more feats.

 

[happyhermit]

The nature of the survey definitely has an effect on the results. It makes it impossible to interpret the results as anyone "demanding" anything, but it still is useful. It is very much framed as "We are eventually going to release more crunch, do you want more of this, this, or this". I filled it out, (and I don't use Unearthed Arcana stuff) and IIRC feats were one of the things I expressed less opposition to. I am loving the amount of design space left open in 5e, I basically am not looking for any more mechanics at this point, but it is inevitable and I realize that others do want it. I am somewhat less opposed to feats because they are spelled out as optional, I would be more okay if this had been made even more blatant and/or if future feats would be double secret probation optional. Feats could have even been in the DMG IMHO, or in a separate book to be restrained (somewhat) by their core +1 or 2 books intent.

Player focused stuff, as opposed to setting focused, story focused, or game/gm focused stuff has the greatest change of detracting from the game IMO and undermining what has made 5e amazingly successful. Lack of players is not a large problem for 5e, a good GM can find some in most situations and it is easier than ever to bring new players in to the system. The real issue with 5e (and most TTRPGs) is getting people to RUN the games, and that is what they should consider most important IMO.

It would be interesting to see similar feedback from GM's, if it were possible, because I think that is more significant to the success of the game. Perhaps they could require submissions to be accompanied by a vial of player's tears.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Feats are the only hope to expand martial ability, similar to spells for casters.

That didn't exactly work out in 3.x, did it? Fighters crawled from Tier 5 to Tier 4 over 8 years. A new martial class or few would have more potential. Climb out of the DPR box.

I would have preferred 5E implemented maneuvers for martial classes, then you would have specific mechanisms in class (maneuvers/spells) and another mechanism outside of class, e.g. feats.

For a little while, it looked like the playtest might have been going that way. Then they gave MDD to everyone, then gave up on 'em. :shrug:

I disagree. If all classes have manoeuvres in their core, then you run the risk of all classes being complex. I stand by the opinion that 5e needs "simple" options for those who either don't want to track resources or otherwise find resource tracking too much work.

If maneuvers n/rest resources are too complicated, it's really shy of such options, ATM. Technically none (even the Champion has 2 n/rest resources, 3 if you count HD). The simplest options are pretty similar to eachother, too. The Barbarian (n/day resources, so maybe doesn't even make the cut), the Champion, and the Thief/Assassin (can't say 'rogue' because of the AT), all just use weapons to do a lot of damage. And, while the Thief & Assassin may not be encumbered by resources, they're not exactly simple to play, needing to use the murky stealth rules, maneuver for advantage, and make best use of their Expertise choices. There's no simpler option that uses magic or does anything much besides hitting things. So there's a /lot/ of opportunity. Simpler classes with more (but still simple) stuff going on out of combat, and phone-it-in combat contributions. Simpler magic-using classes of all varieties (there are quite a lot of magic-using classes, afterall) that don't have to mess around with spells and slots or Ki points or anything.

I wouldn't mind more feats...only no more "gotta haves", and no more weapon spec feats where one kind of weapon grants a bonus to a situational effect you have no control over (like heavy blade mastery in 4e, granting a bonus to opportunity attacks, which basically never happen)

5e is through with any sort of player entitlement, so it's really the DM who decides what happens and what doesn't. Heck, that was even true in your example, maybe the DM would never have an enemy provoke an OA, maybe they'd do so all the time. It's a matter of the enemies he placed and he chose to run them. In 5e, it's moreso, the DM can make any feat useful or marginal.

The problem with "more options" isn't getting a few more, it's regularly getting more. That's the problem that killed 3e and 4e (and is killing Pathfinder).

You left out later 2e, another prime example (though 4e hardly stuck around long enough to be killed of that particular problem, it was like undetected colon cancer to someone who just had a heart attack, when he realized he'd stepped on a land mine. ;P )

Seriously, though, 'bloat' is a very real, but not inevitable problem. Games like traditional D&D that add options by adding new sub-systems to long lists - lists of spells, classes, sub-classes, spells, races, sub-races, spells, magic items, feats, and, of course, spells - suffer exponentially from bloat. Each new sub-system has potential negative (or synergistic) interactions with each preceding one. It rapidly becomes unmanageable. 3.x DMs dealt with that via 'Core only' games, for instance. Games that are more 'effects based' - Hero System is always the prime example (4e would be more familiar, but to a much lesser extent) - both absorb bloat more easily, and have less impetus to bloat, because you can add new elements without adding new sub-systems. So it's not really a concern if Hero puts out 40 sourcebooks, while it'd be a disaster if WotC did so.

One book of options isn't going to break the game. But one every month, or quarter, or six months does. Even one book with a lot of options every year is probably too much.
That catch is saying "okay, and we're done with feats" and meaning it.

I think drawing the line with 'feats' or 'spells' or 'classes' or whatever is not the best way to go about it. What you're trying to model with those game elements would be a better way of seeing when you have 'enough.' Do we have 'enough' ways of modeling spellcasters? 30+ sub-classes, hundreds of spells, several different casting systems with more in the DMG? Yeah, maybe we do. Do we have enough fighter sub-classes? In print, maybe not. Including UA & such, yeah, probably.