2014 was coming off of 4e's Feat model which, even though I love 4e, was the worst model for feats I've seen in any edition/variant of the game I've seen since 3e introduced the idea. Characters go so many feats and when there were also powers involved it was just too much. Dialing back and building a game that made feats optional was a good move.
To be clear, I've never run a 5e campaign without feats. I've always had them as an option for players, and always take feats when I play. I like feats. I'm just going to be surprised if the design team requires new players to learn them before making a character.
I don’t think they will require them to do so before making a character. If backgrounds grant feats, the only feat you have to learn at character creation is the one your background grants you. You won’t actually have to choose a feat until 4th level (and I’m guessing you’ll still have the option to take an ASI instead.)
But as you say, that goes for everything in character creation. In my experience very few new players bother to understand the mechanical impact of their character building choices and the alternatives. They want to play an elf because they think elves are cool; the various special abilities they get are incidental. They want to play a sorcerer because they think magic is cool and would rather have inborn magic than learn it through study or make deals with magical entities, and they learn the class mechanics as they go. Likewise, if backgrounds gave feats, I have no doubt most players would pick a background for the story element and be happy with whatever feat comes with it. It’s only if you make them choose a feat from a list that it becomes a sticking point, because feats are mostly just mechanical benefits with little to no story element to them.
My players always, always, always think of the mechanical benefits they receive from their choices. It's not all they think about, but it's always there.
I don’t imagine your players are newcomers to the game though, which is what Greg and I were discussing.
Yeah, that's not my experience, and I've introduced a LOT of players to 5e. Some absolutely do just have a basic concept and don't dig much deeper than that (at least at first). Some decide to be an elf rather than a halfling because they want to see in the dark. Some don't want to play a spellcaster so they don't have to learn all the spells. Some try to get a handle on all the feats so they know what to choose for their variant human.
.5 editions aren't really a thing: 3.5 was a new edition with crappy marketing and timing.
I’ll be surprised if they give it an edition number, be that 5.5 or 6e. I think 50th Anniversary Edition sounds nice, but I imagine they might prefer to avoid the term “edition” entirely. Maybe “50th Anniversary rules revision.”
