Here Are The Most Popular D&D Feats (War Caster Leads The Pack!)

It's time for some more D&D Beyond stats! This time we take a look at the most popular feats! War Caster, Tough, Lucky, and Sharpshooter lead the pack. We recently looked at stats for adventures, classes by tier, subclasses, and multi class combinations.

The last time DDB looked at this, the number of characters using feats was lower than it is now. Once feats come in properly at levels 4-7, over a third of characters choose a feat. By the time they reach 8th level, half of characters are using feats.

These are the most popular feats across all classes. A year ago, the dev says that Great Weapon Master was in the top four.

​

And here we have the top feats broken down by class.

See the full dev video here.

 

[Azzy]

Looking at the graphs, the only thing that really kinda stands out as sort of worrying to me is the ranger with 30% sharpshooter.

The other classes, even the most popular feats are around 20%. High, but, not so high that it becomes almost the default setting for the class. And, as was mentioned earlier, multi classing might have some impact here as well.

But, with SS being at 30% for rangers, that means that the feat is pretty much the default for rangers. That probably means that it should have been a class feature rather than make it a feat tax. That, or there just aren't enough other feats for rangers that would be as valuable.

Either way, it speaks to a balance issue.

I dunno. That's stil 70% of rangers (that take feats) that don't take it. I don't think it should be baked in because not all rangers are going to be primarily ranged combatants (there are melee rangers, too). Also, it would either deny the feat's existence (bad for non-ranger archers) or be redundant (if both the feat and the baked-in ranger ability coexist).

 

[Hussar]

I dunno. That's stil 70% of rangers (that take feats) that don't take it. I don't think it should be baked in because not all rangers are going to be primarily ranged combatants (there are melee rangers, too). Also, it would either deny the feat's existence (bad for non-ranger archers) or be redundant (if both the feat and the baked-in ranger ability coexist).

Oh, yeah, I get that. And you're right, it's not in the "must take" column. Just kinda shading up there.

I mean, if melee rangers were say, 50% of rangers, then it's unlikely that SS would be so popular. That would mean that nearly all ranged rangers take SS and that would be bad, IMO.

Honestly, I think, at a guess, it leans towards the notion that there just aren't that many feats that appeal to rangers. When you look at the other classes, most of the Top 3 feats are spread out pretty close - all in the 10-15% range. Fair enough, that means that nothing is particularly standing out.

That Warcaster strongly outnumbers other feats for a number of classes is kinda worrying to me. Again, it speaks to the idea that the benefit (or perceived benefit anyway) of Warcaster is so great that it overshadows everything else. And the same seems apparently true of Sharpshooter for rangers. Not that it's truly a balance issue, but, rather, it's perceived as being the "obvious" choice if you see what I mean.

I'm not sure if there is an actual problem here. Probably not since, as you say, even for rangers, 70% don't take sharpshooter. It's just that there seems to be a couple of feat/class combinations that seem a bit... dominant. To me, this simply means that the game could probably use a few feats tailored to those classes to sort of level the playing field as it were. Dominant elements tends to lead to cookie cutter characters and I would prefer a bit more variation at the table.

 

[SkidAce]

Looking at the graphs, the only thing that really kinda stands out as sort of worrying to me is the ranger with 30% sharpshooter.

The other classes, even the most popular feats are around 20%. High, but, not so high that it becomes almost the default setting for the class. And, as was mentioned earlier, multi classing might have some impact here as well.

But, with SS being at 30% for rangers, that means that the feat is pretty much the default for rangers. That probably means that it should have been a class feature rather than make it a feat tax. That, or there just aren't enough other feats for rangers that would be as valuable.

Either way, it speaks to a balance issue.

But 30% is only one out of three. Just curious as to your thoughts, as it seems off to me to call something almost default more people dont choose it than do.

 

[SkidAce]

Nevermind....I see its being discussed. No worries.

 

[Hussar]

But 30% is only one out of three. Just curious as to your thoughts, as it seems off to me to call something almost default more people dont choose it than do.

Oh, totally. I'm suggesting it's something to keep an eye, not that it's a real problem at this time.

Like I said, the best solution, in my mind, is a handful of tailored feats that are as appealing to these classes as something like Warcaster or Sharp Shooter, just to bring in some more variety.

From the second graph, we're talking about Warcaster being twice as popular as any other feat. Which means that its benefit (whether real or just perceived) is perhaps a bit better than any other choice. So, probably the best solution is just to offer feats that offer perceived benefits of equal value.

The fact that the next 19 most popular feats are pretty much equally popular (well varying between 2 (ish) and 6 (ish) percent of characters says to me that nothing really stands out as a perceived "better" feat. Which, again IMO, is as it should be.

 

[Staffan]

From the second graph, we're talking about Warcaster being twice as popular as any other feat. Which means that its benefit (whether real or just perceived) is perhaps a bit better than any other choice. So, probably the best solution is just to offer feats that offer perceived benefits of equal value.

It's not necessarily better than other feats, it's just that its benefits are applicable to a whole lot of characters. Pretty much every bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard would find Warcaster useful, as would many arcane tricksters, eldritch knights, paladins, and rangers.

I think a feat like Sharpshooter or Polearm Mastery is probably more powerful than Warcaster, but appeal to a narrower range of characters.

 

[Staffan]

Warcaster isn't a strong flavor options for building a character concept and its not very functional for Paladins. So my question is what are people taking it for? They are not taking Resilient (CON) for the same function so I already figured they are not looking for better concentration saves.

This could be an issue of presentation. Imagine the following:

1. I'm playing a Vengeance Paladin, making liberal use of spells like hunter's mark or shield of faith. But when I get hit, I often lose concentration and have to re-cast the spells.
2. I look for ways to improve my Concentration saves. I find Warcaster with its "You have advantage on Constitution saving throws that you make to maintain your concentration on a spell when you take damage." That's just what I was looking for.
3. I do not find Resilient, because I'm looking at something that makes me better at Concentration, not something that makes me better at saves. Why would I need something that makes me better at saves? I already have Aura of Protection!

(Also, please consider using paragraph breaks. Your posts are a bit hard to read with big walls of text.)

 

[ClaytonCross]

This could be an issue of presentation. Imagine the following:

1. I'm playing a Vengeance Paladin, making liberal use of spells like hunter's mark or shield of faith. But when I get hit, I often lose concentration and have to re-cast the spells.
2. I look for ways to improve my Concentration saves. I find Warcaster with its "You have advantage on Constitution saving throws that you make to maintain your concentration on a spell when you take damage." That's just what I was looking for.
3. I do not find Resilient, because I'm looking at something that makes me better at Concentration, not something that makes me better at saves. Why would I need something that makes me better at saves? I already have Aura of Protection!

(Also, please consider using paragraph breaks. Your posts are a bit hard to read with big walls of text.)

Great answer thank you. I could see how Resilient (con) might not click in the mind of newer players as effecting concentration effects or stacking with the paladin aura making it actually stronger (at higher levels +3 aura, +6 for con proficiency, and minimum roll of 1 means you can't fail concentration saves for damage of 20 or less per hit, where warcaster you could roll low twice)… That makes since. I guess that's just a once you are used to somethings you forget that not all players know all the feats and they might be searching for something the first time not understanding relations not explicitly stated.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I don't think that's what they are offended by. There are some that get offended any time it's said some part of D&D Beyond data doesn't make sense, even when that's done in an attempt to gain greater understanding. There are others that get offended any time optimization is mentioned. I think your question just caught enough of them at the same time. I couldn't begin to tell you why those ideas seems to offend such people though.

You might have a point. I know I have seen it before but I tend to be very literal so I ask "Why?" and get your "you are wrong, take it back" kind of replies... I just get confused, but then you have Jeremy Crawford say RAI = X, when people get stuck on

"you are wrong, take it back" and continue ignoring the question its a little maddening for me. Then I got some really good answers in reply and all sanity returned. Thanks to you and Staffan, I can kind of see that data now.

--tangent end-- sorry, confusion and medication has by brain not on track for the last couple of days.
​