[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.

 

[Mistwell]

Excellent questions, but the answers are simple.

You argue that feats/MCing are equally as 'optional' as things like the optional rules for facing or rest length. I argue that unlike the optional rules in the DMG, feats/MCing are really part of the core game, only made 'optional' to make the game easier for new players, in the full expectation that they can start to use them if they want, on an individual and PC to PC basis, as soon as they get the hang of the game; that each game expects to use them.

How many published adventures have NPCs which use feats? I think the answer is zero. It's assumed to not be part of the game.

Also, some of the most "experienced" players and DMs I know choose to not have feats in their games. They feel it's much more "sophomore" level of play where people are comfortable enough to try some different things (no longer freshmen) but not comfortable enough to do those things without written rules to cover them (senior). Their players can try anything listed in the feats by making some sort of check under appropriate circumstances without the need for rules text to overly mechanize it and, by implication, disallow others from trying those things without a feat.

Slowly, I am starting to see their point. I am starting to think the more rules you have, the less freedom and creativity the player's are allowed under the illusion they have more "options" which were always options they had if they could think of it in the situation.

But it's not what you think or I think that counts. What does WotC think?

Two bits of evidence supporting my 'core game' stance: first, they are in the PHB as options players can make for their PCs, just like any other option, like class, race, background, spells, weapons, subclasses, etc.

No, it's not. And I JUST quoted you the text from the Player's Handbook where that book goes to quite some lengths to make it very clear they are not just like those other things. It highlights, multiple times, that it's up to your DM to either allow or disallow feats (and multiclassing) unlike those other things.

Second, Adventurers' League. The rules assumption of AL is the way WotC expects the basic game to be played, and doesn't use ANY of the 'optional' rules; y'know, the one's in the DMG. It treats feats/MCing as part of the basic game.

Right, because AL is built for "freshman" and "sophomore" level of play, and each table has to be the same as each other table in terms of rules so WOTC serves as the "DM Decision" for those optional rules out of necessity. That doesn't imply anything about their optional nature for the general game itself. Much like the requirement to use fixed ability scores and fixed hit point gain when gaining a level doesn't imply anything about the game in general for those rules either.

 

[Satyrn]

If playing in a group that uses the Feats option, then a series of things a PC might try is disallowed during the game because those things are covered by feat rules.

This is why I don't like a whole class of feats, the sort that gives a "new way" to use an existing mechanic.

I want more feats like Martial Adept and Magic Initiative. Feats that give your character access to a new mechanic are great.

 

[Azzy]

Paint the picture however you like, with whatever sketchy data you like, but the people that drive the D&D market are the people that explore all their options. I've played with about 8 different distinct groups of players in 5E era (excluding single session delve groups) and:

1.) They all made use of the feat rules.
2.) Humans were only slightly more common than other races - and every single human character was a variant human.

Yep, your personal anecdotes sure hold more weight than the data that the company has gathered.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Paint the picture however you like, with whatever sketchy data you like, but the people that drive the D&D market are the people that explore all their options. I've played with about 8 different distinct groups of players in 5E era (excluding single session delve groups) and:

1.) They all made use of the feat rules.
2.) Humans were only slightly more common than other races - and every single human character was a variant human.

I'd love to look at D&D Beyond data that shows:

1.) Only characters that have been in the system for 4 months, and
2.) Have been updated in level twice since being put into the system.

That would give us an interesting view of characters that are likely in play...

With more new players coming into D&D now than maybe ever before the people who drive the D&D market maybe changing.

 

[Yunru]

How many published adventures have NPCs which use feats? I think the answer is zero. It's assumed to not be part of the game.

Every single Noble. They all have that feat that lets you choose one of the Battlemaster's maneuvers.

 

[Azzy]

Why is it a group decision about whether or not my PC can choose a feat? Does the group decide what spells I'm allowed to choose? What weapons? What background?

What business is it of 'the group' to decide things about my PC?

The group gets to decide what goes into the game that they play. If the group wants to limit races, classes, feats, spells, or whatever else it can, and it will. If you don't like the limitations of a particular group discuss things with them, and if they don't budge, find a different group. This has always been the case with gaming groups, and it likely always will. House rules is house rules.

 

[Stalker0]

You know what stat I would like? What percentage of those responding to Surveys regularly come to dnd message boards?

Aka how much of an outlier are we enworlders compared to all who play dnd?

 

[Yunru]

So all these numbers are being taken from their program.
Where all but one feat are paid content (whether you have the book irl or not).
Hmm... I wonder why most don't use feats (above and beyond the previously mentioned problems with most games, and thus characters, not even reaching the third ASI bump).

 

[Mistwell]

This is why I don't like a whole class of feats, the sort that gives a "new way" to use an existing mechanic.

I want more feats like Martial Adept and Magic Initiative. Feats that give your character access to a new mechanic are great.

I started a new thread on the topic here.

 

[Pauper]

I'm curious about exactly what sources this data that Crawford refers to could be.

- The 5th edition data is almost certainly mainly D&D Beyond data (used by fivethirtyeight to create this fairly content-free story). Note that the data only really covers base race and base class options -- it doesn't break out dwarf by mountain and hill dwarf, for example, nor does it break out wizard by school. It also contains nothing about feats (but I suppose it's possible that some other D&D Beyond data related to campaigns rather than characters might indicate how often feats are used in games), so there's no real way to justify the idea that most people are playing non-variant humans without the bonus feat (and Crawford's comment on the original article recognizes this). They could conceivably supplement this with data from the playtest on how frequently particular race/class pre-gens were selected, but I don't recall any particular drive to survey or record the race/class combinations that people chose when creating their own characters during the playtest, so I'd be surprised if there was much data from that -- rather, they'd have data about specific race/class combinations that people felt obliged to comment on rather than bulk data about preferences as in the D&D Beyond data.

- WotC probably also has some 4th Edition data deriving from their D&D Insider Character Builder -- it would not have been at all challenging for someone knowledgeable about databases to come up with some reporting queries to answer questions like 'how many characters of each race do we have? how many of each class?' And given that feats were a much more integral part of the game in 4E (for example, feats unlocked multiclassing options), it wouldn't surprise me that humans were also a popular option in 4E. However, I also suspect that if you took a closer look at that data, you'd find that, by class, players tended to take races that gave bonuses to the class's prime requisites, which isn't really a trend that suggests people are prioritizing story over mechanics in that edition. (And given that humans in 4E got their stat bump in a stat of the player's choice, again taking human doesn't preclude doing so for mechanical rather than other reasons.)

Given the popularity of Critical Role, Dice, Camera, Action, and similar streamed/recorded D&D games, I wouldn't be surprised to see players wishing to see the kind of game materials that would help them play the kinds of games they're watching online, and in that sense the trend in player preference might be moving more toward story-based or at least non-mechanical based decision-making in character creation -- making characters that give players more ways to be involved in the story rather than more effective in specific play situations like combat or skill checks. (And I'm not at all disappointed in that trend, if it exists.) But it's a far cry to say that we're at that point right now, given the data we have.

--
Pauper