D&D 5E D&D Stats: What The Typical 5E Party *Actually* Looks Like

[Mistwell]

Here is the citation, from Feb 2018, "Another piece of D&D data: a majority of D&D characters don't use feats. Many players love the customization possible with feats, but a larger group of players is happy to make characters without feats. Feats are, therefore, not a driving force behind many players' choices. #DnD"

 

[Zardnaar]

That gets back to why players don't use feats. Anecdotal though it may be, my experience correlates with @Dausuul as per above. The majority of players won't use feats due to the levels the games are at and competition for ASI's early.

Player's not selecting feats doesn't actually mean feats are banned at a table. That would be jumping to conclusions. I do find it's pretty common that no one has taken a feat a low levels but that's because they've taken ASI's instead, not because the feats are banned.

On that same note, the game works for me without feats too. I skip them a lot on MAD classes. I'd happily play a game without them and @Parmandur is not being unreasonable in not liking them. Feats add complexity that isn't necessary at the same time they add options, so to each his own.

I just don't think tables are banning them so much as players are choosing not to take them until levels at which the number of players is more limited.

It's a bit of a tangent though. I think the typical table still 5e party still runs with a fighter, cleric, and rogue. I'm disagreeing with the article in the OP at this point. Wizard vs sorc vs warlock seems almost interchangeable for what's typical, and a fifth melee seems common with barbarians or hexblade warlocks. The article would be better if it was an actual percentage of class break down at each level with a comparison of how many characters there are at each level. IMO.

Point unless you're a human no feats at level 1.

Unless you're Dex based a lot of feats are better IMHO.

 

[Dausuul]

I'd like to see a cite for that claim. If you're talking about Jeremy Crawford tweeting that "the majority of characters don't use feats," you are assuming that the only reason a PC wouldn't have a feat is that they are banned at the table, which is utterly wrong.

Here is the citation, from Feb 2018, "Another piece of D&D data: a majority of D&D characters don't use feats. Many players love the customization possible with feats, but a larger group of players is happy to make characters without feats. Feats are, therefore, not a driving force behind many players' choices. #DnD"

So, yeah.

To be crystal clear: I am not, and never was, disputing the statement that a majority of PCs do not have feats. That is well established. I am disputing the leap of logic that goes from "most PCs do not have feats" to "most tables do not allow feats." That is what I want to see a citation for, because I think it's flatly untrue.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Here is the citation, from Feb 2018, "Another piece of D&D data: a majority of D&D characters don't use feats. Many players love the customization possible with feats, but a larger group of players is happy to make characters without feats. Feats are, therefore, not a driving force behind many players' choices. #DnD"

I remember when this was new and so many people on the various D&D forums I frequent seemed to think Crawford was deceiving us.

I thought it made sense, since I've made it known to my players that they can take Feats, and not a single Feat has been taken.

Before everyone got into D&D Beyond it was a crap shoot just to get them to read their character sheets, much less to open the PHB and pick a Feat.

 

[Ashrym]

Point unless you're a human no feats at level 1.

Unless you're Dex based a lot of feats are better IMHO.

I was thinking about that. It doesn't correlate. Humans are the most common race but variant human is primarily taken for the feat. The information given seems to indicate players are making humans and not taking a feat.

That indicates the feat isn't the driving motivation here. It's more likely concept trumps mechanical advantage than significany numbers of players suck at applying mechanics.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I was thinking about that. It doesn't correlate. Humans are the most common race but variant human is primarily taken for the feat. The information given seems to indicate players are making humans and not taking a feat.

That indicates the feat isn't the driving motivation here. It's more likely concept trumps mechanical advantage than significany numbers of players suck at applying mechanics.

I almost always consider Human for my next character because I love being the "normal guy" in the fantastical world.

I also wonder if new players are likely to stick with what is familiar (or go Tabaxi because cats).

 

[Ashrym]

I almost always consider Human for my next character because I love being the "normal guy" in the fantastical world.

I also wonder if new players are likely to stick with what is familiar (or go Tabaxi because cats).

I usually take humans for the same reason, then go variant for the feat, the look for a feat that's good and matches my concept.

I make characters where I look for mechanical advantages and then still ultimately priortize the concept.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

When your interpretation of the data leads you to conclude that the typical 5E party has every single character taking levels in fighter, it's time to step back and rethink whether you understand statistics well enough to write an article like this. (I'll give you a hint: You don't.)

This pretty much sums the whole thing up.

D&D Beyond is always going to be deeply misleading because characters people create and characters people play are very, very different things. Just looking at my group we have me with a vast array of characters on my account, most of them just mucking around, only one of which I actually play (who is not the highest level one either) and my players vary widely, with one guy having his sole PC and nothing else, another having several variants of his main character to try out different builds (again, only one of which is played), two with several characters their kids made each (which are not played), another who has her actual character and four other "backups" and two guys who don't play characters at all, but are friends and who do DM, but have various characters.

Until D&D Beyond has some flag that shows PCs actually being played, which seems impossible, the basic data will be total junk, and it looks like the statistics applied were too. There is no possibility that the median played PC is MC with levels in Fighter, as you say.

 

[ad_hoc]

Until D&D Beyond has some flag that shows PCs actually being played, which seems impossible, the basic data will be total junk, and it looks like the statistics applied were too. There is no possibility that the median played PC is MC with levels in Fighter, as you say.

It's not even just that either.

It will only show what the population of the people who use D&D Beyond are like not the broader 5e player base (which is huge).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's not even just that either.

It will only show what the population of the people who use D&D Beyond are like not the broader 5e player base (which is huge).

True that. I suspect people using Beyond are far more likely to have all the books and allow them all (or most of them), and to be more optimization-oriented than the majority of 5E groups, further biasing the sample.