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.

 

[Kite474]

Those are all monster races that are so powerful most Dungeon Masters would never allow them at the table as PCs.

If that's what you are looking for, 3rd Edition had monsters broken down into PC levels and guidelines for how to do it with mosnter races not already covered. Those same guidelines could be applied to 5E versions of the monsters.

I let a few players use those rules in 3E, and it was servicable, but I would never allow a PC to play a race like Medusa or Mindflayer with save or die abilities useable every round.

I think what hes looking for is more along the lines of playable races that are traditionally monsters. Not the system from 3e.

 

[Maxperson]

They can turn into 'feat taxes' for a race or race/class combination when they're used to 'fix' shortcomings of either. Then, if those shortcoming are ever resolved another way...

Mostly they're just racially themed feats, though, and not used to resolve shortcomings. I happen to love racial feats. Sometimes I took them, and often I didn't, but I enjoyed having the option available.

I think it's fair to say that most players play the kind of character they want, that optimization, huge as it was in the 3.x era, is the province of a smaller sub-set.

Optimization occurred in just about every character I ever saw played during the 3e era. What is optimal is based on the goals of the player, and often those goals were not combat. Taking Skill Focus - Diplomacy was an optimal choice for a PC when the player's goal was to have the most persuasive character in the world. Many people just refused to acknowledge that you could optimize for anything other than combat.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Magil]

Getting off the feat issue, I was a little surprised to see cleric rate so highly as used class. I find the cleric to be kind of flavourless, as many of the domains are weak or uninteresting. What do other people think? Are you liking the cleric?

Because, regardless of flavor or whatever fluff concerns you might have, the cleric kicks ass. Spirit Guardians gives it AoE to rival that of the wizard/sorcerer, and if that's not enough, you can go Light domain for Fireball. Arcana domain can get the gish cantrips and smite things with flaming swords. Spiritual Weapon is a level 2 spell that gives you an extra attack every turn, and doesn't require concentration. Life clerics can throw out high-powered Healing Words and Mass Healing Words to keep everyone alive as a bonus action and still smash face. The cleric spell list is, admittedly, somewhat tight and doesn't have a wide variety of powerful spells. The low/mid level spells that are good, however, tend to be really good when used properly. Mechanically, clerics are very potent and I'd suspect that someone who has a mechanical issue with the cleric hasn't played one. Flavor, well, different strokes and all that.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Magil]

It's interesting that fighters are apparently "not interesting" enough and yet they are the most played .

They do say familiarity breeds contempt. It's not that surprising in that light; a lot of people play fighters so there are more opportunities to see its flaws.

 

[SkidAce]

Some folks can't differentiate between the overwhelming glut of published books in prior editions and the trickle we've received for 5E. There is no happy medium with them, anything beyond adventures will mark the downfall of the edition. Others may be DMs who can't pony up and tell their players NO concerning new options. Some may be bitter cheapskates who spent too much money on Pathfinder. Some may have all the options they want, and adding something you might like is surely superfluous. In the end, they'll simply say that what is best about 5E is having nothing to buy. Oh, yes, and the lack of options will pave the way for 5E to last forever, or at least as long as possible. I've never met one of these persons in the flesh, but their presence on the boards shows their existence is true . At least some at WOTC haven't completely lost their minds, and will eventually support the edition, hopefully before folks lose interest in it.

A little too harsh, friend.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think it is about increasing to hit/spell DC.
in my experiance players tend to focus on to hit/spell dc as the main thing they have to keep as slose to maxed as posible at all times.

That's Oldeditionitis talking, though. 5e's got bounded accuracy - you don't need to be twinked out to the maxxxxxx to keep pace with the game's math. A mage with a 10 in STR can still hit a red dragon with a dagger at level 20. Most characters should probably take SOME ASI's, but if your main stat is, say, 17 at level 1 (15 + racial bonus), you've got plenty of breathing room to take a feat or two at level 4 / 8 without "falling behind."

 

[Magil]

That's Oldeditionitis talking, though. 5e's got bounded accuracy - you don't need to be twinked out to the maxxxxxx to keep pace with the game's math. A mage with a 10 in STR can still hit a red dragon with a dagger at level 20. Most characters should probably take SOME ASI's, but if your main stat is, say, 17 at level 1 (15 + racial bonus), you've got plenty of breathing room to take a feat or two at level 4 / 8 without "falling behind."

I don't think it's "oldeditionitis" so much as players hate to miss and/or spend their action doing nothing. It feels bad and many want to minimize that chance. We can throw out phrases like "bounded accuracy" and show that hit probabilities are better than ever, but I don't think that's going to do much to curb players looking for ways to ensure they don't miss and their spells don't fail.

Now, statistically, there are at least a few feats that will probably be more worth it (output more damage, if you prefer it put that way) in the long run than an ASI. Like, I'm aware of the things that GWM/Sharpshooter do to the game's math, and a lot of the people I play with are as well. Despite this, in my experience, even among those people, there's a surprisingly large number of players who don't take those feats when given the option to do so. I suspect it largely has to do with the -5 to attack rolls. Lucky, on the other hand, I'm seeing more and more.

Just a theory, really, based on anecdotal evidence. I do know personally that I hate to miss.

 

[RotGrub]

They do say familiarity breeds contempt. It's not that surprising in that light; a lot of people play fighters so there are more opportunities to see its flaws.

IMO, if the class didn't peek anyone's interest or it was flawed I doubt it would rank #1. People don't like the beast master ranger and they avoid playing it. I know I won't play it unless the DM removes the shared actions requirement.

I think the reason so many people like the fighter is that it's simple and easy to play. The fighter keeps you in the action and affords you more time to focus on role playing without the annoyance of interconnected micro-actions