D&D 5E (2014) New Feats Survey!

[Parmandur]

That is interesting, did he give a value as to most? I am interested because I like feats and would like more of them. I would be happy to see ASI's dropped and replaced entirely by feats.

He did not dive into specifics, but he was countering the narrative that people playing the game make choices based on power optimization:

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Getting 5% better at everything your Class does is pretty attractive at lower Levels. It would take a few ASIs for the calculus to favor Feats, and we just never get thst high in level. And even then, getting 5% at weaknesses is attractive.

For my group, even when we use point buy, we just don’t ever notice that difference as much as things like gaining extra spells or stuff like that.

Some feats aren’t worth it, like the fighting style feat (should be a half feat), but yeah I’d never take a ASI at low level.

 

[bedir than]

Usually more effective though (and it's5%, pretty significant on the aggregate.

It's only 5% when the range of results are 1-20. Since that's not the case for any PC, it's not 5% better.

 

[Parmandur]

That is interesting, did he give a value as to most? I am interested because I like feats and would like more of them. I would be happy to see ASI's dropped and replaced entirely by feats.

We do know from D&D Beyond that most people actively playing Humans are using the base Human, rather than the Variant, and per the D&D Beyond people providing the numbers that was among people who could have chosen to get a Feat at first Level (which also annoyed people on the boards who insisted that of course everyone would choose the Variant for a Feat).

I wouldn't worry that Feats are going away, but they will probably remain an option for ASIs.

 

[Parmandur]

It's only 5% when the range of results are 1-20. Since that's not the case for any PC, it's not 5% better.

The range of normal results is, though: the DMG actively suggests only using three DCs, so getting a leg up adds significantly over time.

 

[Parmandur]

For my group, even when we use point buy, we just don’t ever notice that difference as much as things like gaining extra spells or stuff like that.

Some feats aren’t worth it, like the fighting style feat (should be a half feat), but yeah I’d never take a ASI at low level.

Never seen point buy used, but using that optional rule would kill Feats as an option if they were on the table: improving Spell DCs, AC, or attack modifier is tremendous.

The one time I played a game where the DM allowed Feats, I was planning to get one by choosing a Variant Himan, but then I rolled all odd numbers, and getting better at everything was too attractive. So nobody chose a Feat that game.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Indeed: for example, Crawford dropped on Twitter a while back that most people playing do not use Feats, and a lot of people on here were pretty resistant to the knthat Feats are a variant rule that isn't normally in play when 5E is played.

Note the distinction between a player not choosing to take a feat, and playing in a game where feats are actually banned though.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Indeed: for example, Crawford dropped on Twitter a while back that most people playing do not use Feats, and a lot of people on here were pretty resistant to the knthat Feats are a variant rule that isn't normally in play when 5E is played.

People are "resistant" to that idea because it's an extrapolation that is not the most rational explanation of the data he's present, and he doesn't claim what you're claiming.

We know from other data that the vast majority of people play 5E in the 1-10 level range. I can't remember the exact figures, but I think it actually centered on like 3-8. That alone would explain most games not using Feats, because it doesn't make any sense to take Feats over ASI for like 90% of classes in that level range, and the "casual" option is to simply take an ASI, so ironically, less optimization-prone players are likely to take the optimal option.

Thus the most logical explanation for his data is that due to the low levels 5E is played at, plus people who genuinely, intentionally exclude Feats (even if that latter is only 5, 10, or 30 percent of the total players, I believe we have no credible figures on that), the majority of games would not include any Feats. This is certainly reflected in the campaigns I've played in, in 5E. None of them have banned Feats. But, let's see, yeah in the 6 of them I'm confident about reporting on, 4 don't actually have any PCs with Feats.

There's also the question of how you count Ravenloft. I've excluded it, but we have a small Ravenloft campaign (3 PCs), and none of them have Feats, but all of them have Supernatural Gifts or whatever they're called, which the DM was willing to allow to be swapped for Feats, but no-one made that choice.

It the 4/6 no Feats because it's a "variant rule" that's intentionally "not in play"? No. It's because we don't usually play long enough to reach the levels where they make sense given their direct competition with powerful ASIs. I don't think it's remotely a coincidence that the two games where PCs do have Feats are the two highest-level ones.

He did not dive into specifics, but he was countering the narrative that people playing the game make choices based on power optimization:

He is absolutely saying that but there's a huge problem with his claim - the most common D&D races are some of the most overpowered, and indeed, the PHB has probably the most unbalanced races in all of 5E in it, indeed it definitely does if you take the recent Multiverse update and apply it.

Elves, Half-Elves and Dwarves, for example, are very common, and pretty powerful. So how would we even tell if say, 55% of players were picking races primarily for power? I think the racial line-up would nearly identical to what it looks like today. Yeah, if 100% were, or 80%, it might look a bit different.

Also the most extreme optimizer in any group I play in picked non-variant human in the last two campaigns, and not for aesthetics, he genuinely thought it was the best optimization. That might mean he's an incompetent optimizer, but he's trying lol.

 

[Parmandur]

Note the distinction between a player not choosing to take a feat, and playing in a game where feats are actually banned though.

I mean, the distinction exists logicslly, but may not mean much practically if most people don't care.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Note the distinction between a player not choosing to take a feat, and playing in a game where feats are actually banned though.

Exactly. Reading "ASIs are extremely competitive with Feats and typically seen as superior" as "People don't want Feats" isn't a rational approach.

I mean, the distinction exists logicslly, but may not mean much practically if most people don't care.

People absolutely do care though. The main reason, at least anecdotally, I've seen for people not picking Feats is that they perceive ASIs as "better" mechanically. At least up until they get a 20 in their main stat and find out it can't go any higher. People like the idea of Feats. But 5E carefully crafted a situation where they were put in competition with something both easier to deal with, and often more powerful, so obviously they lose.

I've heard countless players in 5E complain that they'd like to get a Feat, but because PCs don't start with a Feat (except they kind of do in Theros and Ravenloft - and Strixhaven?) by default they can't have one, and typically a lot of players don't feel like can drop the L4 or L8 ASIs into Feats either (because that's usually +2 main stat in both cases, or +2, then +1/+1).

If it's correct that Strixhaven continues the trend of "special power or Feat at L1" which Theros and Ravenloft had, I expect we'll see the same in DND2024's default setup, perhaps either just with Feats, or with some "generic" special powers and Feats to choose from.