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.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

And a third thing to be careful of: Feats that do cool things run the risk of locking out what would normally be a cool improvised thing.

"No, you can't judo throw the goblin, you don't have the "throw people" Feat".

My rule of thumb for designing these things is, "Anyone can try it with an action and a skill check, but a feat/class feature/racial ability/magic item lets you do it with advantage or automatically or as a bonus action."

Like, my initial reaction to the assassin rogue's Infiltration Expertise and Impostor abilities was to call foul, because anybody should be able to try those things. But then I noticed that anybody can -- the assassin just doesn't even need to make a skill check. I wish the "anybody can" part was spelled out more explicitly, but still, good job 5E.

 

[EthanSental]

As long as feats don't top the 2K like in PF, a few more (another 10-20) that are play tested and balanced would be nice as options.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Yup around level 12 or so unless your a Fighter!

I don't get this "ASIs are just better" line. Yes, ASIs are good, and if feats were just better we'd have the problem only in reverse. But my bard just hit 4th level and I took Resilient (Constitution) for pure optimization reasons, because the survivability and additional uptime on my concentration spells seemed more important than extra Charisma. And it was a tough call. Which looks like the system working as intended, to me.

(Although, to be fair, I had to take Resilient (Constitution) at 4th because I took Linguist at 1st.)

 

[Raith5]

For what it is worth I think 5e needs more backgrounds than classes or feats. I do not think the game needs more damn spells.

But yeah the tradeoff between ASI and feats seemed like a really good gaming idea, but the reality is that our table is that it a loathed tradeoff. Players want to have some sense of progression with their character but also want to develop their character concept with feats. It also just takes too many levels to develop character concept. A feat at first level is no brainer if I were to play 5e again.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yup around level 12 or so unless your a Fighter!

Or less if you rolled well, or picked a +2 stat race, and if you happened to start with an odd stat, there are +1 feats...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

For what it is worth I think 5e needs more backgrounds than classes or feats.

Backgrounds are so easy to customize, though, and the game explicitly gives you permission to do it.

 

[doctorhook]

All this talk about feats is interesting, but let's talk about what's really important: Mearls says people are reacting very positively to the butchery of psionics that he's trying to sell us. What the hell is that about?

 

[Corpsetaker]

I would like to see more "magic less" classes.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

All this talk about feats is interesting, but let's talk about what's really important: Mearls says people are reacting very positively to the butchery of psionics that he's trying to sell us. What the hell is that about?

Your opinion is not universal?

 

[pukunui]

I'd rather have more warlock invocations, elemental monk disciplines, and the like than more feats. To be honest, I can't really think of many things the list of feats in the PHB doesn't already cover.