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.

 

[Magil]

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

Fighter is widely played for a reason that's described in the introduction to the class given in the PHB: it covers a wide variety of archetypes. It's not a narrow niche, there's nothing really that pins it down to a specific build or character. Fighters include archers, sword-and-board tanks, combat maneuver specialists, hard-hitting brutes, archetypal warlords (for lack of better term, no intention to open that particular can of worms), mixes of those, and most of the above but with some spells too. Likewise, it both attracts people who want a simple experience where they don't have to worry about resource management or other game-related minutiae as well as those who want a bit more out of their tough guy with a weapon.

My guess is that there are those who play one style of fighter who are satisfied, and others who play another kind that are not.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

That's a playstyle choice, though - the system isn't forcing you to do a thing, you're making a choice as a player to prioritize one thing over another. Other players may make different choices and not be any less effective. You could just not sweat the occasional whiff (the "suck it up, buttercup" approach).

Oldeditionitis only really applies to those folks who feel like it's not really a choice - like they need that +1 or else the game will break or something. 3e or 4e, that might've been (kind of) true. 5e, not so much.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

There's fewer options that add bonuses, sure. That doesn't mean you don't have to keep pace, just that there's less to it. There aren't 20+ named bonuses available like in 3e. Just stat (+5 cap), proficiency(+6 or 12), magic items (+3), and the odd spell granting a +1d4. Unless expertise applies most bonuses don't overwhelm the d20. But, unless proficiency applies, you're unlikely to 'keep pace.' Saving throws being a prime example.

A mage with a 10 in STR can still hit a red dragon with a dagger at level 20.

On a 16 vs an 11 with an attack cantrip or a 6 from the archer with the magic bow - or, more importantly, vs forcing a DC 19 save vs the Dragon's +7 DEX or +4 INT.

 

[RotGrub]

Fighter is widely played for a reason that's described in the introduction to the class given in the PHB: it covers a wide variety of archetypes. It's not a narrow niche, there's nothing really that pins it down to a specific build or character. Fighters include archers, sword-and-board tanks, combat maneuver specialists, hard-hitting brutes, archetypal warlords (for lack of better term, no intention to open that particular can of worms), mixes of those, and most of the above but with some spells too. Likewise, it both attracts people who want a simple experience where they don't have to worry about resource management or other game-related minutiae as well as those who want a bit more out of their tough guy with a weapon.

My guess is that there are those who play one style of fighter who are satisfied, and others who play another kind that are not.

I think that dissatisfaction is more related to how much the game differs over the preceding edition.

 

[RotGrub]

That's a playstyle choice, though - the system isn't forcing you to do a thing, you're making a choice as a player to prioritize one thing over another. Other players may make different choices and not be any less effective. You could just not sweat the occasional whiff (the "suck it up, buttercup" approach).

Oldeditionitis only really applies to those folks who feel like it's not really a choice - like they need that +1 or else the game will break or something. 3e or 4e, that might've been (kind of) true. 5e, not so much.

Maybe I just prefer older editions, but I like games that have more "whiffs" coupled with fewer but more deadly hits.

IMO, rolling damage and doing very little because of high hit point totals can also feel disappointing. It's far more exciting to stand up at the table and roll that deadly die than it is to participate in a grind-fest.

I also can't stand games that grant you the same percentage to hit regardless of level. Increasing both sides of the equation is just modifier porn. A sense of progression has be realized in practice and not remain mathematical.

 

[Magil]

I think that dissatisfaction is more related to how much the game differs over the preceding edition.

Ah, yes, a casual dismissal of a point as "edition wars". I tip my hat to you, sir.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Fighter is widely played for a reason that's described in the introduction to the class given in the PHB: it covers a wide variety of archetypes. It both attracts people who want a simple experience where they don't have to worry about resource management or other game-related minutiae as well as those who want a bit more out of their tough guy with a weapon. My guess is that there are those who play one style of fighter who are satisfied, and others who play another kind that are not.

I think that dissatisfaction is more related to how much the game differs over the preceding edition.

Six of one, ln(403.4287935) of the other.

In Essentials+, you could play a DPR-focused (ie 'striker') Fighter(Slayer), a slightly more tactically involved, less-DPR-focused (ie 'Defender') Fighter(Knight) or a much more tactically deep choice/resource-rich Fighter(Weapon Master) with 6 or 8 builds of, in turn, varying in-play complexity, and over 300 maneuvers.
The Knight was about as complex as the 5e BM (and had an EK option in a Dragon issue), the Slayer comparable to the Champion and the 5e Fighter is every bit as DPR-focused as the Slayer.

Maybe I just prefer older editions, but I like games that have more "whiffs" coupled with fewer but more deadly hits. IMO, rolling damage and doing very little because of high hit point totals can also feel disappointing.

Fair 'nuff.

I also can't stand games that grant you the same percentage to hit regardless of level. Increasing both sides of the equation is just modifier porn. A sense of progression has be realized in practice and not remain mathematical.

Well, at least Bounded Accuracy is soft-core numbers porn, then. ;P

To get that sense of progression, just drop challenges in front of the party that were tough in the past, and let them see how much they've grown. Just because you can tailor a challenge to the party's current abilities doesn't mean you always have to.

 

[RotGrub]

Ah, yes, a casual dismissal of a point as "edition wars". I tip my hat to you, sir.

No, I'm serious. The 5e fighter is not the only game element that doesn't support that playstyle. You can't just insert that playstyle back into the game without changing other areas of the system.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

No, I'm serious. The 5e fighter is not the only game element that doesn't support that playstyle. You can't just insert that playstyle back into the game without changing other areas of the system.

To what "playstyle" are you referring, exactly?

 

[I'm A Banana]

There's fewer options that add bonuses, sure. That doesn't mean you don't have to keep pace, just that there's less to it.

5e's design is such that "keeping pace" isn't really a going concern - the edges of the game are softer, so that even at the extremes, you don't HAVE to be min/maxed.

Don't have the saving throw bonus to beat that DC 24 saving throw vs. a gold dragon's frightful presence? Well, it's a good thing being frightened is just an annoyance you can solve with the Help action! Take full damage from its breath weapon because you can't make the Dex save? Well, you've got a butt-ton of HP's, so get aggressive before it can do that again! Can't hit its massive AC? It hits you with every attack? None of these are the end of the fight. 5e is very forgiving.

Most players should probably pursue some ASI's over the course of their adventuring career, but any perception that it's "essential" is mostly coming from an unnecessary expectation of bog-standard 5e, IMXP.

There aren't 20+ named bonuses available like in 3e. Just stat (+5 cap), proficiency(+6 or 12), magic items (+3), and the odd spell granting a +1d4. Unless expertise applies most bonuses don't overwhelm the d20. But, unless proficiency applies, you're unlikely to 'keep pace.' Saving throws being a prime example.

It's fine to fail saving throws, just like it's fine to miss attacks. Not WANTING to is fine, but it's a playstyle thing, not a systemic thing. Bob can't dodge dragon breath quickly in his heavy armor, Sylvia can, they're both gonna be fine. Next fight Bob resists the poison and Sylvia doesn't, and they'll both be fine, still. They both finish out the adventuring day having failed some saves and made some saves and in roughly the same place.

On a 16 vs an 11 with an attack cantrip or a 6 from the archer with the magic bow - or, more importantly, vs forcing a DC 19 save vs the Dragon's +7 DEX or +4 INT.

It's nice, sure, but it's not like you're going to TPK if you're at DC 17 instead of DC 19.