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

[RSIxidor]

During one of Mike Mearls' sub-class building streams he was asked why he doesn't just include some options as feats. His response was that less than half of all tables use feats.

I bet multiclassing is even less than that.

We have what, over 20 million 5e players now?

I agree with the others saying to take these stats with a high degree of skepticism.

It's easy to not be exposed to all the people who play differently.

Seems like people forget that feats are an optional rule and not assumed to be in every table by default. However, I wonder if the number of tables using D&D Beyond use more feats and multiclassing than those that don't. Of course, that's just speculation without data but it would not surprise me.

 

[Parmandur]

Seems like people forget that feats are an optional rule and not assumed to be in every table by default. However, I wonder if the number of tables using D&D Beyond use more feats and multiclassing than those that don't. Of course, that's just speculation without data but it would not surprise me.

When D&D Beyond shared information in the past, the majority of characters in play at all levels did not have Feats: 9% in Tier 1 used Feats (so more than half of Humans were standard Humans with no Feats), and After Level 12 some 44% used Feats (PCs under Level 10 represent 90% of all PCs).

 

[Hussar]

This brings up a related question I've often wondered about.

Is there such a thing as a bad powergamer? Not in terms of being obnoxious, or a bad person, but someone who has an actual goal of powergaming and optimizing and munchkining, but is just terrible at it?

Sort of like, "Muahahahahahaha! My Strength-build wizard will rule them all! Bow before me and my awesome True Strike!"

I have certainly seen this. Players who have the goal to make some super optimized characters which wind up having massive gaping holes in their specialization rendering them absolutely useless outside of their narrow niche.

 

[Mistwell]

I've really enjoyed the book myself over the years (more for the setting fluff text than the player options), but perhaps that's an accurate diagnosis.

But seriously, yes, this is data on people who felt it was important to pay for Ghostwise Halfling and Arcana Cleric material in case they needed it.

Hey, I love ghostwise halflings. I am playing a ghostwise druid in one of my games. And he's an awesome telepathic cave bear most of the time!

 

[Parmandur]

Hey, I love ghostwise halflings. I am playing a ghostwise druid in one of my games. And he's an awesome telepathic cave bear most of the time!

I dig it: but I would posit that this is still a statistical outlier.

 

[Ashrym]

When D&D Beyond shared information in the past, the majority of characters in play at all levels did not have Feats: 9% in Tier 1 used Feats (so more than half of Humans were standard Humans with no Feats), and After Level 12 some 44% used Feats (PCs under Level 10 represent 90% of all PCs).

I think, and this is pure speculation based on personal experience, that a lot of tables do use feats. The way the game is designed they don't take feats until after they max out important ability scores, which is why games show them being used at higher level.

It's not so much that the games aren't using feats, it's that the characters in games aren't taking them until higher levels. And since many games end before they get that high, it reduces the number of characters showing feats overall when pulling them from raw data like that.

The only 5e games I see with no feats are the few only using the 4 class basic rules or SRD rules.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Our table allows feats, but very few characters actually have them.

Two reasons:

• Most of the players are more into role-playing than the nitty-gritty of character optimisation. Feats are a level of complexity they just aren't interested in.
• It's very rare for characters to be over level 10. Even if they would eventually take feats, they use their first couple of ASIs to increase their prime attribute.

 

[ccs]

Our table allows feats, but very few characters actually have them.

Two reasons:

• Most of the players are more into role-playing than the nitty-gritty of character optimisation. Feats are a level of complexity they just aren't interested in.
• It's very rare for characters to be over level 10. Even if they would eventually take feats, they use their first couple of ASIs to increase their prime attribute.

The RPers in my groups are nearly the exact opposite. They'll (almost) always take feats over an ASI. They're optimizing to the characters they're envisioning/reacting to the story, not chasing the next +1. (I've taught them well. ) And since most of our games top out at 10-12th lv they reason that:
1) Unless they're playing a fighter, they don't have time to gain a few more +s AND whatever cool options feats might present. So max bonus? Or cool character/story related options?
2) They've seen 1st hand that 5e isn't really that reliant upon achieving the maximum + on a dice roll.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes, we have one RPer who took a UA skill feat for expertise in Animal Handling, but I don't think the others have actually studied the rules closely enough to know if there are feats that would support their character concepts.

Apart from me. My character has a feat at level 6, and is likely to multiclass if they survive to level 9.

 

[Zardnaar]

Fighters a great dip class even a single level, con saves are huge for every spellcasters.

Wizards kinda suck low level vs the charisma classes. Warlocks are easy to min max, take agonising blast and Eldritch blast.

Hexblades probably popular as it reduces MAD and warlocks a great MC class.

The outlier is Elf, females seem to love them. The popular races seem power based, Humans, Dwarves, Half Elves mechanically are all good. Most are a bit meh.