[UPDATED] Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!

I've played in games that don't allow multiclassing, but never games that don't allow feats. Go figure.

 

[pming]

(EDIT: Never mind. Read a bit more of the thread and this post didn't really add anything. Dang it! I REALLY have to no post until I've FINISHED my coffee... ).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Arial Black]

Anyway, odd nomenclature aside, in our group it was a group decision. I didn't outright decide "No Feats". As I said, we tried them. Probably for close to a year or so. I've written about this in other threads so I'll not rehash it all here. The bottom line of it all was simply that we felt Feats took away from creating unique characters, which was the opposite effect that the designers were going for I think. After all the trials, WE decided we didn't want Feats in our games.

Why is it a group decision about whether or not my PC can choose a feat? Does the group decide what spells I'm allowed to choose? What weapons? What background?

What business is it of 'the group' to decide things about my PC?

Each player gets to decide these things for their own PC.

"Sorry mate. We know you wanted to play a fighter using a short sword, but we all voted and we decided that we don't want short swords in our games."

"Sorry mate. We know that you want the Actor feat, but we all voted and decided that feats take away from creating unique characters, so you'll just have to take +2 Cha like every other bard!"

WTF?

In short, it's not "just DM's" that don't want Feats in their games. Some players don't like them either.

Yet it is you, as DM, that allows/encourages players to veto feats, but not spells or classes or weapons. You are responsible for this!

If a player came to your table and wanted a feat, you would tell him that he can't because the rest of the group think that whatever feat that may be that the very act of choosing it will make his PC less unique? You are giving the group veto power over feats, but not other game elements?

No, it's you. If it were not you, then you would rule that each player gets to choose whether or not to take a feat, just like they choose everything else about their own PC. The players that want feats can choose them, the players that don't want them don't have to choose them. That's democracy!

 

[Arial Black]

I ADORE players like you. Three 9's? Hope you like failing skill checks and saving throws regularly. Because, guaranteed, I'm going to beat you like a pinata for that choice. Makes challenging the character ridiculously easy. Oh, you dumped statted Wis? Fantastic, every exploration pillar segment sees you riding the pines and you're guaranteed to see hold person spells coming your way. Makes DMing so easy when you gift wrap characters like that.

Personally, I think I'll go with JC's explanation. Most players play to concept, rather than mechanics, and choose to make their characters without trying to min/max their way into some sort of one trick pony. Or, perhaps, their DM's aren't softballing the campaigns and making every encounter perfectly tailored to the PC's strengths and those other stats that you "don't care about" come up regularly.

Interesting, but what has this got to do with standard humans verses variant humans?

The idea that it's "foolish" to play standard humans is hillarious. Hrm, players are making characters with giant holes in their competency? FAN-FREAKING-TASTIC.

How is a PC with 16/16/16/8/8/8, an extra skill and a half feat any more vulnerable than its standard human equivalent of 16/16/16/9/9/9?

Where is the 'giant hole in the competency' of the variant human that is not also present in the standard human?

 

[ad_hoc]

Why is it a group decision about whether or not my PC can choose a feat? Does the group decide what spells I'm allowed to choose? What weapons? What background?

What business is it of 'the group' to decide things about my PC?

Each player gets to decide these things for their own PC.

"Sorry mate. We know you wanted to play a fighter using a short sword, but we all voted and we decided that we don't want short swords in our games."

"Sorry mate. We know that you want the Actor feat, but we all voted and decided that feats take away from creating unique characters, so you'll just have to take +2 Cha like every other bard!"

WTF?



Yet it is you, as DM, that allows/encourages players to veto feats, but not spells or classes or weapons. You are responsible for this!

If a player came to your table and wanted a feat, you would tell him that he can't because the rest of the group think that whatever feat that may be that the very act of choosing it will make his PC less unique? You are giving the group veto power over feats, but not other game elements?

No, it's you. If it were not you, then you would rule that each player gets to choose whether or not to take a feat, just like they choose everything else about their own PC. The players that want feats can choose them, the players that don't want them don't have to choose them. That's democracy!

Or...

"Sorry, we know you wanted to play a Jedi, but we're playing D&D."

Feats are an optional module. They should not be assumed to be in the game.

My table doesn't use multiclassing and doesn't use all of the feats. A player can't just decide that they're going to do that.

 

[jgsugden]

Paint the picture however you like, with whatever sketchy data you like, but the people that drive the D&D market are the people that explore all their options. I've played with about 8 different distinct groups of players in 5E era (excluding single session delve groups) and:

1.) They all made use of the feat rules.
2.) Humans were only slightly more common than other races - and every single human character was a variant human.

I'd love to look at D&D Beyond data that shows:

1.) Only characters that have been in the system for 4 months, and
2.) Have been updated in level twice since being put into the system.

That would give us an interesting view of characters that are likely in play...

 

[Arial Black]

Or...

"Sorry, we know you wanted to play a Jedi, but we're playing D&D."

Feats are part of D&D. Using one doesn't mean you are playing a Sci-Fi themed game instead of a fantasy themed game. Nothing about feats alters the genre or flavour of the game.

Feats are an optional module. They should not be assumed to be in the game.

Multiclassing has been part of the game since 1e, feats since 3e. Neither rule was any more optional than any other rule.

In 5e they took the decision to make it easier for new players to get into the game, so they made these more complex bits 'optional'. But, for me, they are really part of the core game and making them optional is just a set of training wheels for the newbies that they'll take off as soon as they are ready.

My table doesn't use multiclassing and doesn't use all of the feats. A player can't just decide that they're going to do that.

If you as a group decide that some feats are not okay for whatever reason, it's because you've analysed those feats and found them wanting.

That is a different thing than the DM offering players the chance to veto other people choosing ANY feat (sight unseen) on the spurious basis that choosing feats makes PCs less unique!

Further, why is multi-classing 'not allowed'? Do you think it's too complicated? If so, that shouldn't stop players who don't think it's too complicated from choosing to play a MC PC. Why would your campaign be destroyed if my PC took a fighter level?

 

[Mistwell]

Why is it a group decision about whether or not my PC can choose a feat?

Because it's an optional rule established prior to a campaign beginning, which has meaningful impacts on the entire group.

If playing in a group that uses the Feats option, then a series of things a PC might try is disallowed during the game because those things are covered by feat rules. For example, if you want to try and shield bash someone down on the backswing of your hammer blow as a sort of athletics trick, you might be allowed to try that every once in a while under appropriate circumstances in a game without feats. However, in a game with feats that mechanic is covered by the Shield Mastery feat, and if you didn't select that feat then you cannot try it because you'd be stepping on the toes of those who did spend that precious resource to get that feat (or the opportunity cost of the feat at least). And that example can be applied, situationally, to most feats.

This is not really the sort of logic which applies very well however to most of the other things you mentioned, like spells. Nobody tries to cast a spell they don't know as a skill check for example, and the choice of spells doesn't have an impact of the existence of spells in the game or not - they will exist, even if nobody in the party has access to them, unlike feats. The game runs without feats and does not assume you're using feats due to it's optional nature, but it doesn't make this same assumption about spells.

Assuming you disagree, why does your logic not apply to other optional rules in the game? There is an optional rule to have short rests be only 5 minutes instead of 1 hour, and an optional rule for Facing rules as well. Why are you not arguing each PC gets the choice to use those optional rules?

And to make it clear feats are optional it says right in the Player's Handbook, "But this chapter is for players who - with the DM’s permission — want to go a step further. This chapter defines two optional sets of rules...Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign."

 

[Mistwell]

Paint the picture however you like, with whatever sketchy data you like, but the people that drive the D&D market are the people that explore all their options. I've played with about 8 different distinct groups of players in 5E era (excluding single session delve groups) and:

1.) They all made use of the feat rules.
2.) Humans were only slightly more common than other races - and every single human character was a variant human.

I'd love to look at D&D Beyond data that shows:

1.) Only characters that have been in the system for 4 months, and
2.) Have been updated in level twice since being put into the system.

That would give us an interesting view of characters that are likely in play...

You realize, by calling a massively large set of data "sketchy" and refuting it with a massively smaller set of data (8 groups total), you've made a complete farce of what is and isn't considered "sketchy" right? I mean, you have to seen some irony in that, I hope? I know some groups who have only played with Basic rules. Since their personal experience is only with Basic rules, does that mean they should conclude your data is "sketchy" because their personal experience differs?

Also, why do you assume you have a bead on "people who drive the market", and why would you think your personal knowledge (from 8 groups) about market drivers in this industry is superior to the guy who RUNS THE COMPANY THAT DOMINATES THAT INDUSTRY?

Man, the sheer chutzpah of D&D fans sometimes...I certainly understand questioning these sorts of things. But using language which assumes you know more than industry experts just because you're a fan, I just don't get it.

It's surely not unique to this fandom though. This sort of thing is much worse on sports message boards where everyone is a smarter coach, general manager, scout and owner than sports coaches, general managers, scouts and owners

 

[Arial Black]

Assuming you disagree, why does your logic not apply to other optional rules in the game? There is an optional rule to have short rests be only 5 minutes instead of 1 hour, and an optional rule for Facing rules as well. Why are you not arguing each PC gets the choice to use those optional rules?

And to make it clear feats are optional it says right in the Player's Handbook, "But this chapter is for players who - with the DM’s permission — want to go a step further. This chapter defines two optional sets of rules...Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign."

Excellent questions, but the answers are simple.

You argue that feats/MCing are equally as 'optional' as things like the optional rules for facing or rest length. I argue that unlike the optional rules in the DMG, feats/MCing are really part of the core game, only made 'optional' to make the game easier for new players, in the full expectation that they can start to use them if they want, on an individual and PC to PC basis, as soon as they get the hang of the game; that each game expects to use them.

But it's not what you think or I think that counts. What does WotC think?

Two bits of evidence supporting my 'core game' stance: first, they are in the PHB as options players can make for their PCs, just like any other option, like class, race, background, spells, weapons, subclasses, etc.

Second, Adventurers' League. The rules assumption of AL is the way WotC expects the basic game to be played, and doesn't use ANY of the 'optional' rules; y'know, the one's in the DMG. It treats feats/MCing as part of the basic game.

And so do I.

 

[Shawn Carman]

EDIT: Sorry, never mind. My bad, guys.