[UPDATED] Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!

I've played in games that don't allow multiclassing, but never games that don't allow feats. Go figure.

 

[Yaarel]

Balancewise, during character creation, reducing the highest ability score by two (before race improvements) is a fair trade to acquire an extra feat.

This way, a level 1 elf could pick up Elven Accuracy or Misty Step, and be balanced.

 

[Yunru]

Several posters here at Enworld mention houseruling a bonus feat at level 1 for all characters. So humans have two.

If feats are difficult to get at the lower tiers because of the opportunity cost of ASIs, it might be a good idea to get a free one early on.

Some games I've been part of we've had feats baked into character creation, at 4 points per feat

 

[TwoSix]

Now, that's a complaint I can get behind. I can see a couple of different ways to make it possible via house rules, but they all have an impact on balance that would really only fly if you know/trust the people you're gaming with.

That's actually a house rule when I DM (free feat at 1st level, standard human only, ASIs must be 3 +1s instead of a +2), but unfortunately I don't get to make the house rules when I'm playing.

 

[Yaarel]

Some games I've been part of we've had feats baked into character creation, at 4 points per feat

4 points from a dump ability and upto three other auxiliary abilities is a lot less painful than 2 points from the highest ability.

But the four points method will probably see more players using feats. So it might be the better option. Plus 5e characters are so fragile at level 1, an extra feat probably doesnt overpower the character.

I might try out the 4-points rule to purchase a feat.

 

[Azzy]

"This assertion doesn't match my preconceived notion—therefor, it must be a lie!"

Sounds like US politics.

 

[MoonSong]

Hiya!

Huh. I'm actually a bit surprised...pleasantly surprised, but still surprised... that most don't use Feats. We hated feats in 3.x. We hated feats in PF. We really REALLY tried to like feats in 5e... but failed. However, we don't "hate" feats in 5e, we just don't like them enough, so we don't use them. I know a lot of folks love feats, but I still feel they are a direct path to the 'dark side'.

The more surprising thing is the Human choice thing. O_O Personally, yeah, Humans and Halflings are my favourite races...which is odd because the highest characters I ever played (all in 1e AD&D) were an Elf, a Half-Elf, a Half-Ogre and a Human (levels were 20th, 12/13, 12 and 8 iirc).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Of course few players can have feats when DMs,the gatekeepers, don't want them to have them?

Here's a list of MAD or DAD classes, that thusly discourage taking feats:
Barbarian
Monk
Paladin

On top of that, here's a list of spellcasters, which also benefit ASIs over feats:
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer
Warlock
Wizard

Out of 12 classes, 9 strongly discourage taking a feat before level 12. The other 3 don't exactly dislike an ASI. I wonder if this skews the data at all? [/sarcasm]

Not so sure, Sorcerer really needs Magic initiate/ritual Caster sooner or later, rather sooner than later. It is about the only thing that can patch the holes in utility the class has. Of course unless you only really care about frying stuff in which case... Still not convinced 5% more accuracy really is worth having less ways to contribute to the party.

That's actually a house rule when I DM (free feat at 1st level, standard human only, ASIs must be 3 +1s instead of a +2), but unfortunately I don't get to make the house rules when I'm playing.

I share your pain...

 

[Yaztromo]

The strange feeling of being "mainstream"... just for once...

 

[Mistwell]

I've played a standard human, and liked it.

I am currently playing a PC that chose a feat at 4th level, and I regret it. It's a great feat (Shield Mastery) but it's just not coming up often enough to make it worth it or interesting for me. I thought it would be a common thing that was useful and flavorful, but the reality has been that knocking things down tends to make our ranged attackers pissed that they now get disadvantage to hit that foe, and knocking them back just hasn't been helpful most of the time, and the dex save benefits rarely come up. I wish I had taken the ASI, which would have come up just about every single combat and many non-combat encounters as well.

And the feat I originally was planning to choose (Polearm Master) would have been a disaster despite being considered a "powerful" feat. We've never found a single magical polearm during our adventures, either as treasure or for sale, and the number of creatures resistant to non-magical damage is so high that the feat would have been a real disappointment.

I can see that others may have, over time, come to the conclusion that feats are often just not as good as they look on paper

 

[EthanSental]

Our group (all been playing since 2e) of 5 players, 1 taken feats up through level 9. 3 humans, 1 half elf and 1 dwarf. We line up with his data.

side note, we recently rolled new 4th level characters. No feats picked, 4 humans and the same guy with the half elf is playing a half elf again.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think at the end of the day the reality is that a lot of classes just aren't feat-heavy. There's no more two-weapon-fighting tax. There's no more multiple-attack tax. There's no more iterative-attack shenanigans. There's really no more heavy modification of how your class performs with feats. The fact that X class or Y class works really well with A or B feat really speaks more to a particular hole in that class or a particularly nice synergy. Most of the feats provide some useful flavor, and sometimes some powerful combinations, but the latter is substantially more rare than the former.

I don't think feats being optional is the reason they're seeing less play, I think it's more the fact that they've made the base classes less dependent on feats to do what they ought to be doing. Used to be some classes couldn't even function as intended with their base features.

Now, on the flip-side, there is, IMO a distinct reduction in creativity. Even if in the past not all combinations were the best, there was certainly a greater variance in potential outcomes. Used to be classes could do lots of things, in several different ways, now it seems like classes just...do their thing and thats it.