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.

 

[Coffinthrower]

Feats? Eh, I like the thinking upthread about how some of the current ones should have been folded into classes or things anyone can do. I suppose there is still room for a few more feats, though. Balance is key...

I'd rather have more warlock invocations (more like the 3.5 ones, please) more class builds, and more spells (mine the 2e spell compendiums for ones that aren't just another variant fireball,) and more backgrounds.

 

[Uchawi]

Feats are the only hope to expand martial ability, similar to spells for casters. I would have preferred 5E implemented maneuvers for martial classes, then you would have specific mechanisms in class (maneuvers/spells) and another mechanism outside of class, e.g. feats.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am one of those who wrote in the feedback that I want more feats. It doesn't have to be lots of them, but IMO the design space for feats is huge, since you can have them do pretty much anything. I would like more feats for spellcasters or anyway more non-combat feats. I think the main risk could be new feats that remove an important limitation, because they can too easily become "must-have".

I remember having problems with the poll because it asked about new classes but not new subclasses. I would certainly like more subclasses, but not more classes...

 

[CapnZapp]

The other problem with 'extra feats' is that ASI's are just plain better. So until you've maxed your stat at 20, why take a feat? Personally I like the cool things some feats provide so I would go for them (at a pure mechanical disadvantage), but the small number of ASI/feat slots means feats are under utilised at my table. We rarely (read never!) make it beyond the early teen levels and normally variant humans the only feats seen.

So don't take feats until you've reached 20.

In other words: it's not a problem, it's the rules working as intended.

(That you prefer ASIs over feats is not relevant to this discussion)

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Well you should be happy

In terms of overall content, feats were far and away the most requested new element. Over 70 percent of you want more feats for your game. Feats also had the least opposition to their expansion. Because we haven’t released any products focused on new feats since the launch of the game, we know there’s definitely some pent-up demand for them. But feats are perhaps the thorniest element to design for D&D, as they tend to span multiple abilities and can trigger weird interactions that the game’s core design can’t always account for. As a result, we’ll be taking things slowly as we explore options and starting points for new feat development.

I'm not one of the Feat wanter's. I have absolutely no interest in them...but I realize others do. Apparently 70% of those surveyed do... So, the thing I hope that WotC does when they come out with a 'crunch-book' (whatever they call it), they don't make one...they make multiple, smaller ones. Ones that are focused on some area. So I don't want an "Unearthed Arcana" for 5e, I'd be happy with a "Book of Feats" for 5e. Why? Because I can than just not buy that one. They can come out with five or six different "Handbooks" (ala 2e's Handbook series). That way I can not buy those (or the ones I don't want). They can come out with an "Arcane Spells" and "Divine Spells". That way I can look them over and decide if it's worth it to me. So, as long as they don't say "Here's a 256pg book for you...", of which only 30 pages are going to be useful for me...go for it. I guess. It's going to make having conversations with 70% of the 5e crowd more difficult for those of us who don't use Feats, Errata, MC, etc...but...whatever.

Now, that said...all that they really need to do to "fix" unforeseen uber-combo's they hint at is to keep writing in the tone of how they wrote most of 5e's rules. That being "semi-vague, regular language, with DM caveats sprinkled in liberally". If they can say "This allows the character a better chance of detecting things that are hidden, obscured, or otherwise not normally noticed" over "This allows the character Advantage on all Perception checks regarding opposed Stealth rolls"...that would be a good thing. In the first instance, it leaves the exact details up to the DM and Players to decide. In the second, it's a munchkin-power-gamers wet dream as it gives them something they can point to and say "See! YOU are WRONG...stupid DM! Ha! My combo wins!".

So..when they do write out the HUNDREDS of Feats they will inundate the 5e community with, at least do everyone a favour and err on the side of "less, not more".

As for the rest...classes, races, etc? *shrug* I'd much rather have WotC make crunch books focused on helping a DM run a cool, believable and exciting campaign over giving Players more options that a DM has to deal with. Give me a Wilderness Survival Guide, a Dungeoneers Survival Guide, a Cityscape Survival Guide, a Castles & Fortifications Guide, a Seaborne Adventures Guide, a Guide to the Inner Planes, a Guide to the Lower Planes, a Guide to the Higher Planes, etc...etc...etc... Inside of those books...toss in a couple pages of Feats specific to those 'things'. Add in a few pages of new spells, arch-types, equipment. That's fine...as long as the majority of the book is there to help the DM run cooler games.

My 2¢ anyway.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[flametitan]

Feats are the only hope to expand martial ability, similar to spells for casters. I would have preferred 5E implemented maneuvers for martial classes, then you would have specific mechanisms in class (maneuvers/spells) and another mechanism outside of class, e.g. feats.

I disagree. If all classes have manoeuvres in their core, then you run the risk of all classes being complex. I stand by the opinion that 5e needs "simple" options for those who either don't want to track resources or otherwise find resource tracking too much work.

That said, subclasses that add complex manoeuvres a la the battlemaster would be a welcome addition, as well as more manoeuvres. (particularily cool stuff that aren't just dealing damage or bonus effects on attacks like what the rogue subclasses get)

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Invocations and pact styles. The nice thing about warlocks is they have two major ways to mix and match their class customization.

 

[mellored]

About 1/2 the feats are balanced with ASI, the other 1/2 of the feets are underpowered.

 

[CapnZapp]

Or at least incomparable.

Saying "underpowered" assumes you take feats for power.

With Keen Mind or Actor, that assumption might not hold true.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

That's great, I wish my kids were more like your table, but they know a good math deal when they see one! And that's the problem with ASI/Feat thing in 5E, you shouldn't have to choose between better maths and more fun.

Then its a question of what you play D&D for: Mathematic optimisation or fun.

Or more seriously; what you personally find fun. If you decide to pick up a feat that will be more fun to play with than an extra +1 to rolls then you are optimising for D&D.