[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.

 

[Lanefan]

I sure hope the folks at WotC are better at interpreting data than a lot of the people in this thread, or we're gonna end up with 6E: 10 Levels, All Humans, All Fighters, No Feats.

That 6e idea is starting to look pretty good right now...

 

[Mistwell]

Is it possible that you & your ranged party members just need better teamwork?
Say, you knock them down, stab them & back off a bit.
Your teammates ready action & only shoot the target once its' spent 1/2 its' move standing up, but before it goes anywhere.
Next round you move in, prone it, repeat.

would that work?



You might. That'd be a risk you'd need to consider on a foe by foe/your current HP basis.

That doesn't seem like a smart play. I'd be giving my foes an extra attack, and forcing my allies to use prepared actions every round, just for me to gain advantage (and reduce their speed by half) on a success. That...just doesn't seem as helpful as just a simple ASI to my strength. Which would help with knocking things down if the circumstances call for it...and hitting them, and damaging them, and strength saves, and lifting stuff, and attempting feats of strength like raising portcullis, etc...

 

[Hussar]

Yes. It took character build from a rules-mongering concept ignored by most reasonable players to a core concept without which your character would likely be unplayable.

I'm going to stop you there. You keep saying things like "enlightened" and "reasonable". Sorry, but, no.

Character build was part and parcel of the game right from the get go. Unearthed Arcana introduced specialization. 2e took that concept and ran with it, giving us even more specialization, plus kits. Never minding a billion more options than 1e had.

I mean, even back in the day people realized pretty quickly that an elven MU/Thief was superior to a human thief in pretty much every way. Single classed humans were, for the most part, a single level ahead of their multi classed counterparts. I saw FAR more humans in 3e than I ever saw in 20 years of 1e and 2e simply because of rule changes.

Hrm, give up one level of a given class to gain multiple levels of another class. Yeah, that wasn't exactly a hard choice.

The rather grognard notion that power gaming and "builds" is a 3e or later thing is a bad joke. The only change is, instead of doing all your power gaming at 1st level, in later editions, you started having to delay those choices to higher levels.

IOW, you didn't "build" in the 3e sense in 1e because your character was already "built" at 1st level. You didn't need to think about what happens three levels from now because, well, you had virtually zero choices to make.

But, just because you make all your choices at chargen doesn't change the fact that the choices are being made to increase character power rather than concept.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Regrettably In those editions, no; uinless an enlightened DM saw fit to take them out, which some did.

LOL. 3e doesn't work if you remove feats. Like, at all.

 

[Sunseeker]

LOL. 3e doesn't work if you remove feats. Like, at all.

More accurately, a large number of non-spellcasting classes become completely non-functional. You can still make a fairly effective Cleric, Druid or Wizard without any feats. You'll miss out on some substantial shenanigans, but they'll still be solidly playable.

 

[Krachek]

Classes are good enough by themselves.
You don’t need hours of reading and planning to make them work.
Gimmick and optimization options are very few anyway.
Welcome casual players for the next ten years.!

 

[TwoSix]

And I think you had requested some DDB info. Adam Bradford actually did post some:

https://twitter.com/BadEyeAdam/status/969435420676231169

Which removes free-only and inactive characters and provides by-level information.

That's some interesting data. About a third of characters who have early opportunities to take feats do so. That seems pretty solid to me.

I think this thread is generating some heightened tension because those of us who favor broader character customization options don't want to see this data as a reason to take the game in the opposite direction. The question the data can't answer is how many players would take feats (or a similar customization option) if they were designed differently, or if ASI's weren't the required cost to do so.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

That's some interesting data. About a third of characters who have early opportunities to take feats do so. That seems pretty solid to me.

So according to these data, Jeremy Crawford is, therefore, correct. A majority do indeed not take feats. However, much like Mearls saying that he thought people weren't leveling fast enough, it's a rather self-serving perspective (unsurprisingly). "Not leveling fast enough" = "not moving through our APs fast enough to suit our production schedule." A very sizable minority do take feats.

I think this thread is generating some heightened tension because those of us who favor broader character customization options don't want to see this data as a reason to take the game in the opposite direction. The question the data can't answer is how many players would take feats (or a similar customization option) if they were designed differently, or if ASI's weren't the required cost to do so.

Yep, they made feats cost a lot. I bet way more people take Variant Human than Regular Human, too, if given the chance.

 

[Yunru]

So according to these data, Jeremy Crawford is, therefore, correct. A majority do indeed not take feats. However, much like Mearls saying that he thought people weren't leveling fast enough, it's a rather self-serving perspective (unsurprisingly). "Not leveling fast enough" = "not moving through our APs fast enough to suit our production schedule." A very sizable minority do take feats.




Yep, they made feats cost a lot. I bet way more people take Variant Human than Regular Human, too, if given the chance.

Assuming trends don't vary by data source, 9% of players play variant humans, but according to Crawford 25% of people play humans in general.

 

[Von Ether]

I mean, even back in the day people realized pretty quickly that an elven MU/Thief was superior to a human thief in pretty much every way. Single classed humans were, for the most part, a single level ahead of their multi classed counterparts. I saw FAR more humans in 3e than I ever saw in 20 years of 1e and 2e simply because of rule changes.

I can confirm that in my neck of the woods. Before 3e, it seemed like our D&D parties were superhero teams of Elves, Halfings and Half-Elves who kept saving those poor, poor, humans who had no heroes of their own. I found a mostly human party as one of the most refreshing things when 3.0 hit the shelves.