Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inqui

WotC's Mike Mearls has reported on the latest D&D survey results. "In our last survey, we asked you which areas of D&D you thought needed expansion, and solicited feedback for the latest revision of the mystic character class and new rules for psionics." Additionally, there's a new survey up asking about DMs Guld as well as the last Unearthed Arcana (which featured the Monster Hunter, Inquisitive, and Revenant).

Find the survey results here. The most requested extra content is more feats, followed by classes, spells and races, in that order.

 

[Saplatt]

More feats? Ick.

 

[JohnnyNitro]

I'm personally gunna wait and see what they give us before I digitally grumble and moan. "More Feats!" could include Racial Feats, Class-specific Feats, Background-specific Feats, etc., not simply OP'ed splat, as you kids say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Li Shenron]

Looking at this discussion there seems to be quite a bit of negativity towards the idea of more options in general when they're for the player, with some outright stating that this is one of the biggest ways to impact tables in a bad way. Why is that?

Just reasonable fear of "system bloat", but given the publication rate of 5e compared to 3e/4e, this is unlikely to happen for a long time.

In addition, there is specific hate towards feats and prestige classes because a lot of people automatically assume that all mistakes of previous editions will be made again. Personally, I think that 3rd party publishers are very likely to do those mistakes again, but not WotC.

 

[Mercule]

Or not!

The vast majority of my time I spend DMing. So when I play, I focus on character concepts - interesting, quirky, and, most importantly, people that like to hit other people.

Sure, sometimes I come up with a concept involving "Ooh, Magic!" like a confused Warlock that thinks he's a Cleric. But for the most part, I prefer that my impacts are made with a sword upside the skull.

And I know that there's quite a few people like me.

Almost perfectly describes me, as well. I prefer Rogue to Fighter, but both are fun.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

Almost perfectly describes me, as well. I prefer Rogue to Fighter, but both are fun.

Yeah my group has just started up our 3rd campaign (with alternating DM's so I get to play this time... yes!!). In the previous two campaigns there was a fighter in both and now we have two Battlemasters in the same campaign. The only class that has been played as much as the fighter over our 3 campaigns was the paladin and then only because we have a player who only plays paladins and his first paladin was killed in the first campaign bringing his total to 4 paladins so far ( I have to ask him about this obsession one of these days). Otherwise the fighter is pretty popular in our group.

 

[Blue]

I seem to remember during the playtest, a lot of people liked the fact that classes would be limited to the ten or so we get. At least that is the impression I got. Perhaps it's just my own bias, though.

Agreed. I'm actively against new classes unless they are bringing soemthing mechanically new to the table. For example, Mystic is fine, and if there is a psionic equivilent of a half-caster I'll be okay with that.

But please, we have a good selection of mechanical frameworks - use them. Problem if that even if Warlock would make a good alternate ranger with nature-based "evocations" I think they'd rather reinvent the wheel and give us yet another set of mechanics then leverage that.

I am a fan of adding subclasses, but what we've seen so far is a mixed bag. Lots of good ones, and then lots of "it's the same basic fighter but with different options for superiority dice", even though we have a subclass that uses superiority dice and lets you pick so you can customize the character you want to play.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I'n't though? Always been the case, too. People would rather play the hot guy with the sword (whether that's Errol Flynn or Gerard Butler) than the old man in the bathrobe - Tier 5 vs Tier 1 be damned. Concept is a powerful thing for most players (and most players aren't hard-core optimizers). But, once they've played that character for a while, they maybe start to notice that it's really not making the impact on the game that Robin or Leonidas made in their own stories. Part of that's the nature of a cooperative storytelling game (all the PCs have to share the 'Hero'/protagonist lime-light), part of it's the class not being "interesting" enough to stand up to continued play. So you play a different class the next time around. Maybe a Paladin if you still want to be the hot guy with the sword, or maybe you trade up a few Tiers.

Are these 5e tiers? Which classes are in which tier?

 

[Zaran]

I'm hoping that WotC takes more from that survey than "We want a book of feats!" I want more options period and not just feats.

 

[Salamandyr]

Please no racial feats.