[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]

It seems most players prefer the ability score increase.

For example, Wizard Intelligence score 15.

Level 4: 17
Level 8: 19
Level 12: 20

How many characters reach level 16?



Even if most campaigns ‘allow’ feats, only a minority of players actually use them.

 

[Reynard]

Without citation the statement has no sustenance. Just empty words.

Citation? Crawford is a primary source.

 

[Tiago Telles]

I mostly play humans BECAUSE of the Variant Rule, and because I find it easier to get into a character that share the same race as me. But in my table, I'm almost always the only human, the other members tend to be elfs or half-elfs (there is this one guy that ALWAYS make a rogue, either Elf or Half-Elf, and he ALWAYS roll for insane stats! I've never seen him in a game where he didn't have at least a 18 and 2 16. And yes, we always change his dices and he still make the insane rolls...)

I think I've never played WITHOUT feats. They add flavor and interesting builds. Also, without feats, I think the fighter would be lackluster and just a big ball of stats, since they got so many ASI. Even with point-buy, they would max their main stat at lvl 6 and their secondary stat at lvl 12. While this is good, I don't see the fun of it (maybe because I'm a feat addict, I will use all my fighter ASI to get feats since I rolled really nicelly)

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

For all the increasing options, I’ll agree that most people still seem to stick to humans, elves, and dwarves. There’s the odd dragonborn, halfling, or tiefling, though I think things may change with Volo’s Guide out in the world – it wasn’t out when my last campaigns kicked off.

From my solely anecdotal experience, in my one group, three of the five players used feats. In my other group, one of the six players used feats. The former group featured more powergamers than the latter, definitely.

For my part, I’ve only taken a feat once for a character. ASIs have been just too compelling. Of the optional PHB rules, I’d be more likely to remove multi-classing than feats, though.

 

[Yunru]

Citation? Crawford is a primary source.

No, Crawford is a secondary source. This data he only alludes to is a primary source.

 

[Yaarel]

One thing surprises me. Humans are the most popular race, so most players are using the non-feat human?

Heh, in my eyes, the non-feat human verges on unplayable. The feat human is decent.

But I guess that is Crawfords overall point. Most players dont care about power.

 

[mikal768]

Citation? Crawford is a primary source.

No he isn't. The data he's using is the primary source. Data which could easily be skewed.
Some examples- Using only DNDBeyond, which can have mainly SRD/free resources (i.e. no feats). Also, the majority of the characters in the data pool may be from 1-3, in which case only Variant Humans can even possess a feat unless house ruled.

 

[Sleepy Walker]

Defiantly not how I, or those around me, play. I'd rather work with a 16 or an 18 in the primary stat than not take a feat to try and realize the character's identity with in-game stats.

*edit: Although I do primarily play human. So far I pick the regular human over the variant, since I find I normally end up with odd stats and I see a lot of benefit for the 6 +1s. Variant human only if I need 2+ feats to realize a character and I am not a fighter. Our table tries to role play the characters a fair amount, so I try and pick things I think I can do or that I think I will have fun being (I know humans, go figure).

 

[Yaarel]

The original post mentions that these are observations across several editions, not just 5e.

Likely, the corporation has inhouse data.

 

[Morrus]

Personally, I'm one of those who prefers the Tolkien-esque races to the more modern Tieflings and Dragonborn and the like. But that's just my preferred aesthetic.