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

slightlyprime · Apr 30, 2016

Yay! Very excited that people are pleased with the mystic. Good they are going to fix the consumptive power as that was horrible in my opinion, mystical recovery I'm fine with being changed too.
Looks like we will get to see a level 20 mystic before the end of the year. Feel it will go straight to product now so won't be in another unearthed arcana, very excited as so far what I have seen of the mystic makes it my favourite class.

Paul Johnson · Apr 30, 2016

Mmm. Some feats are great... lots are overpowered. My experience is that 4 times out of 5 a player will take a feat over the +2 ability points, which to me indicates they're too powerful.

pukunui · Apr 30, 2016

I've been DMing two 5e games and playing in a third for a while now, and I'm finding that those who crave simplicity tend to go for the ASIs while those who like a little more complexity in the game go for the feats, which is exactly what the designers were hoping. But then none of the people I play with are diehard powergamers ...

Tony Vargas · Apr 30, 2016

Corpsetaker said:
I would like to see more "magic less" classes.

More than 0? Whatever for?

A few more 'magic-less' sub-classes would be nice... ...maybe not fighter so much, though, we've seen how that goes.

Seriously, though, 5e wouldn't burst into flames and disappear if a class that didn't use magic at all were added to it. At least, probably not outside of YouTube. I know it'd be an unprecedented move, only undertaken by every other edition of D&D since it's inception, but I think, with the success of the last two years, they could take that bold move...

Paul Johnson said:
Mmm. Some feats are great... lots are overpowered. My experience is that 4 times out of 5 a player will take a feat over the +2 ability points, which to me indicates they're too powerful.

Other folks are reporting the opposite. Feats are more detailed and flavorful than a stat bump. ASI's are just plain simpler. There's non-optimization reasons to do either, so you can never tell, just from apparent popularity.

I mean, surveys have consistently shown the Fighter to be the most or among the most popular classes, even when it was Tier 5.

JohnnyNitro · Apr 30, 2016

Paul Johnson said:
Mmm. Some feats are great... lots are overpowered. My experience is that 4 times out of 5 a player will take a feat over the +2 ability points, which to me indicates they're too powerful.

No, I think that actually means your players care more about PC design than simply taking the best min/max option. If you just want to do more Damage, then please, take all you ASI's. If you want to craft a truly unique PC, then indulge in the Feats.

Paul Johnson · Apr 30, 2016

JohnnyNitro said:
No, I think that actually means your players care more about PC design than simply taking the best min/max option. If you just want to do more Damage, then please, take all you ASI's. If you want to craft a truly unique PC, then indulge in the Feats.

I wish that was the case, but no. I fully support the concept of building more interesting characters through feat selection, but that's not what I've been seeing. What I've been seeing is a lot of people, a lot, taking the Lucky feat. And it has nothing to do with whether they envision their character as lucky, it has to do with becoming effectively immune to critical hits and failed saves. PCs hit the maximum 20 in their main stat pretty quickly, and after that min/maxing is achieved through feat selection, not through +2 ASI.

Edwin Suijkerbuijk · Apr 30, 2016

TheCosmicKid said:
I don't get this "ASIs are just better" line.

I think it is about increasing to hit/spell DC.
in my experiance players tend to focus on to hit/spell dc as the main thing they have to keep as slose to maxed as posible at all times.

The Myopic Sniper · Apr 30, 2016

Sqn Cdr Flashheart said:
Well you should be happy

In terms of overall content, feats were far and away the most requested new element. Over 70 percent of you want more feats for your game. Feats also had the least opposition to their expansion. Because we haven’t released any products focused on new feats since the launch of the game, we know there’s definitely some pent-up demand for them. But feats are perhaps the thorniest element to design for D&D, as they tend to span multiple abilities and can trigger weird interactions that the game’s core design can’t always account for. As a result, we’ll be taking things slowly as we explore options and starting points for new feat development.

Personally, I wouldn't mind feats that mimic class abilities to allow for a limited splash of another class without having to resort to multiclassing.

I would like to see 18 or so feats based around each skill.

Prerequisite: Skill X
+1 ability score with skill X
Gain double proficiency in skill (expertise)
2 or 3 exploration and interaction leaning abilities tied to skill

You might need to offer some alternate versions of Athletic and Observant to compete, but something like that seems like it would offer the right focus and wouldn't step on the Rogue's and Bard's toes too much.

Trurl · Apr 30, 2016

I'm disappointed by people demanding more feats. I hope that at most we get 10 well considered feats.

I'm also disappointed by so many people playing half-elfs. It wouldn't be so bad if a person playing a half-elf had an interesting story about their parentage, but in my experience people playing this race put the least work in defining their character.

AaronOfBarbaria · Apr 30, 2016

Trurl said:
I'm disappointed by people demanding more feats. I hope that at most we get 10 well considered feats.

If you aren't saying you are disappointed by yourself in the first sentence, then the second sentence shows that you may be over-stating other people's hopes by calling them demands.

It's not a demand, in my understanding of that word, to say "Yes." when someone asks "Would you like some more feats?" nor to say "Feats." when someone asks "What game element would you like there to be more of?"

Trurl said:
I'm also disappointed by so many people playing half-elfs. It wouldn't be so bad if a person playing a half-elf had an interesting story about their parentage, but in my experience people playing this race put the least work in defining their character.

Do you find yourself similarly disappointed by people playing other race options and not coming up with an interesting story about their parentage? If not, you may have an unfair expectation of players of half-elf characters.

My experience is that race chosen has little to no correlation to the amount of effort a player dedicates to defining their character.

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

slightlyprime

First Post

Paul Johnson

First Post

pukunui

Legend

Tony Vargas

Legend

JohnnyNitro

First Post

Paul Johnson

First Post

Edwin Suijkerbuijk

Explorer

The Myopic Sniper

Hero

Trurl

First Post

AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer

Similar Threads

Related Articles