D&D 5E New Feats Survey!

[Maxperson]

It seems like they stopped using the 70% threshold sometime around when Mearls secretly stopped being in charge of D&D, which was quite a while ago now. Either way they usually ask stuff like "Do you use Feats?" when they have UAs with Feats in them, and I strongly suspect they exclude the data from people who don't use Feats for judging whether they're good (they may have other uses for that data though).

Yep. And a lot of good "failed" feats happened before that.

 

[Maxperson]

Without the feat, what does an inspiring speech do? What bonuses does it grant on a successful check?

DM's call I imagine.

 

[jmartkdr2]

How do they know this via survey? There are so many variables attached. Is there really a statistical proof that can accommodate for: who is more likely to fill out the survey? Who might lie about their age or gender on the survey? Who the survey's exposed to?

There are way to account for this, yes. I'm not a professional statistician but they aren't just winging it.

If what you say is true, then that implies they would just throw all the other surveyors' responses away.

Only when looking at that part of the data.

 

[jmartkdr2]

DM's call I imagine.

So, possibly nothing.

I wonder why players feel a need to take a feat before assuming they get a bonus to something?

Edit: put another way, a dm looking at the rules will see no rule about giving an inspiring speech except: "if you have this feat, it grants temp hp." Meaning that if you don't have the feat, it does not grant temp hp. Or anything else.

That's the most common way to read the rule. If the speech granted a bonus without the feat, it would either say so or the feat would be useless.

 

[Maxperson]

So, possibly nothing.

And possibly something, for doing nothing but attempting to talk in an inspiring way. There are lots of actions taken in D&D where you might get something or nothing.

I wonder why players feel a need to take a feat before assuming they get a bonus to something?

1) If the feat exists, many will assume that they can only get a bonus if they take it.
2) A lot of people don't want the possibility of failure.
3) Something else.

 

[Parmandur]

Without the feat, what does an inspiring speech do? What bonuses does it grant on a successful check?

That's the problem with Feats,in a nutshell: they undermine creative play.

 

[jmartkdr2]

And possibly something, for doing nothing but attempting to talk in an inspiring way. There are lots of actions taken in D&D where you might get something or nothing.

Possibly. Maybe. If the dm is feeling generous

1) If the feat exists, many will assume that they can only get a bonus if they take it.

This is the most common reading of rules, yes. If you need permission to do something, it's pretty heavily implied that you can't do it without permission.

Especially sincce if the dm grants feat features without the feat, they screw over people who did take the feat.

2) A lot of people don't want the possibility of failure.

That doesn't seem to apply -- in this case it's more like "a lot of people want possibility of success."

3) Something else.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Otstrue thst the numbers aren't make or break, a low star character can still contribute. But they are consistent contributors.

The “but” suggests to me that there is meant to be a negative somewhere in that sentence. If that’s the case, I disagree.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's the problem with Feats,in a nutshell: they undermine creative play.

Not really, or if they do it’s very indirectly.

It’s just as easy to use existing options as templates for the kind of mechanics that work for a given action. Eg, the existence of Disarming Strike doesn’t mean you can only disarm if you have that Battlemaster maneuver. It only means that Battlemasters can disarm as part of an attack, and deal extra damage while doing it.

The only implication there, is that other would need to replace an attack, and give up doing damage, in order to disarm someone.

 

[Maxperson]

This is the most common reading of rules, yes. If you need permission to do something, it's pretty heavily implied that you can't do it without permission.

Not with feats, though. They are expressly an optional rule, so the implication is that by default you don't necessarily need the feat to accomplish something.

Especially sincce if the dm grants feat features without the feat, they screw over people who did take the feat.

Again, feats are optional and may not even be in play. Regardless, though, the DM granting something doesn't mean that he granted what the feat gives.

That doesn't seem to apply -- in this case it's more like "a lot of people want possibility of success."

If the DM is playing fairly and with an open mind, the possibility of success of some kind is already there.