[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.

 

[Von Ether]

Putting it another way: Say someone put out a study that proved you could win a majority of the time using their Blackjack system. The company with the system is a Think Tank, even. It doesn't sound right to you, but you have some money to burn. You give it a shot and lose big on 8 trips to Vegas using the system. Is it time to co conclude you should ignore your expectations that the system is not right, and ignore the 8 failed trips as just bad luck....?

The difference is the local meta.

Especially before the Internet, a local area's of playing D&D could be radically different than a few towns over and how it was done nationwide.

Back in the 90s, I knew of 10 D&D groups that finished off AD&D games in under a year. We all gave out thousands of XP at a session to keep our storylines going and avoid the grind. Or as a way to quickly skip over the "Zero" part and get into the "Hero" part of the game. It was a house rule that spread across a college campus for a few years, but it wasn't indicative of a national trend.

Question away if you like, but be aware that like any sort of art, there are regional differences and WotC has been collecting data on D&D since 3.0 was in development. Disbelieve him (roll a Wisdom check) if you like, but he probably has that info at his fingertips.

 

[lkj]

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.

I think that you're right. And I think Jeremy realized that:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/969378882850775040

I think his only point was that it's important for people to remember that there are various reasons people make their character choices. And those reasons are quite frequently not, primarily, mechanics or fine scale customization. That said, based on a few other of his responses, he seems quite aware that there are plenty of people who want that customization, and it would be foolish not to support it.

AD

 

[Satyrn]

the non-variant human is a Circle of the Moon druid, who thought it was a better choice to take Savage Attacker than an ASI since he spends most of his on-screen time in beast form, and doesn't cast all that many offensive spells.

Danggit. Now I wish I'd taken that feat instead of the ASI for my halfling moon druid.

 

[Shasarak]

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.

Ok, so now we can probably come up with a statement that we both can agree:

People have always been making "character builds" in DnD.

The good news is that you dont need a "character build" to make a playable character and never have had to.

 

[Lanefan]

Ok, so now we can probably come up with a statement that we both can agree:

People have always been making "character builds" in DnD.

The good news is that you dont need a "character build" to make a playable character and never have had to.

In 0-1-(early)2e I'd agree here. But for later 2e and in particular 3e I'd say that it's far too possible to end up with an unplayable or only marginally playable character if you don't pay more attention to the build than you should really have to. I usually design my characters around a concept (fluff) rather than mechanics (crunch), and this became a trap in 3e: two of my three main characters were thus mechanically rather gimped, while with the third I by sheer luck stumbled on to the winning formula in 3e which is specialize, specialize, specialize.

 

[Shasarak]

In 0-1-(early)2e I'd agree here. But for later 2e and in particular 3e I'd say that it's far too possible to end up with an unplayable or only marginally playable character if you don't pay more attention to the build than you should really have to. I usually design my characters around a concept (fluff) rather than mechanics (crunch), and this became a trap in 3e: two of my three main characters were thus mechanically rather gimped, while with the third I by sheer luck stumbled on to the winning formula in 3e which is specialize, specialize, specialize.

You always have trap options. In 1e you could choose to play a Human thief for example.

 

[ccs]

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...

Well, part of your complaint was that your ranged companions didn't appreciate you imposing disadvantage on them by knocking their target prone.
My assumption from that was that they were going to shoot it regardless. So them using a readied action to avoid disadvantage hardly seems a great cost.

Like I said, is maybe taking an extra hit to impose disadvantage on the downed foe, slow it down, & avoid hindering your ranged friends worth it? Maybe/maybe not. It's always situational. So I don't think you can simply say it's not smart play.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, part of your complaint was that your ranged companions didn't appreciate you imposing disadvantage on them by knocking their target prone.
My assumption from that was that they were going to shoot it regardless. So them using a readied action to avoid disadvantage hardly seems a great cost.

Like I said, is maybe taking an extra hit to impose disadvantage on the downed foe, slow it down, & avoid hindering your ranged friends worth it? Maybe/maybe not. It's always situational. So I don't think you can simply say it's not smart play.

Those people with using the ready action also lose their reaction (the ready action replaces their reaction). Seems a huge cost for the benefits, much of the time.

 

[Leatherhead]

The reason this thread got as hot as it did is the word "prefer" in the title.

 

[Arial Black]

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. For example, if you want to try and shield bash someone down on the backswing of your hammer blow as a sort of athletics trick, you might be allowed to try that every once in a while under appropriate circumstances in a game without feats. However, in a game with feats that mechanic is covered by the Shield Mastery feat, and if you didn't select that feat then you cannot try it because you'd be stepping on the toes of those who did spend that precious resource to get that feat (or the opportunity cost of the feat at least). And that example can be applied, situationally, to most feats.

I'll illustrate how flawed this logic is by copy/pasting this paragraph and replacing 'feat' with 'class', and the consequences thereof, bolding the bits I changed:-

"If playing in a group that uses classes, then a series of things a PC might try is disallowed during the game because those things are covered by class rules. For example, if you want to stab someone in the back by surprise so that it's much more likely to kill them, you might be allowed to try that every once in a while under appropriate circumstances in a game without class abilities like Sneak Attack, and subclass abilities like Assassinate. However, in a game with classes that mechanic is covered by the rogue class and the Assassin subclass, and if you didn't select that class/subclass then you cannot try it because you'd be stepping on the toes of those who did spend that precious resource to get that class ability (or the opportunity cost of that class level at least). And that example can be applied, situationally, to most classes."

You are saying that rules for things are bad if they only apply to characters who have chosen to have that ability but are not available to those who don't. But D&D is a game about classes, which by definition are all about 'if you take this class/level you get this ability, and if you don't then you can't do it!' In the class-based game which is D&D and always has been, the idea that it's somehow wrong to limit certain actions to certain characters is absurd!

Assuming you disagree, why does your logic not apply to other optional rules in the game? There is an optional rule to have short rests be only 5 minutes instead of 1 hour, and an optional rule for Facing rules as well. Why are you not arguing each PC gets the choice to use those optional rules?

A couple of reasons. First, as I already mentioned, it's really a sop to newbies, not something intended to restrict the choices of experienced players.

Second, feats/MCing have always been, and remain, part of the menu of possibilities of levelling-up, just like every single other aspect of the game! When the party are told by the DM that they all gain a level, each player makes choices for their own PC. The fighters choose which fighting style, the casters choose which spells they know, everyone chooses their own subclass. It is simply not the business of players to tell other players what choices they must make or may not make, because "we had a vote and decided that YOU are not allowed to choose your own fighting style/spell/subclass/etc." It has never been part of the game that the other players get veto powers over other players' PC! And yet, I want to take Resilient: Wisdom, and the other players don't want me to (for some obscure reason!), and they are the ones who decide, not me? Bollocks!

However, the optional rules in the DMG like facing/rest length establish the game reality of that world. If short rests take 5 minutes, then that's how long they take. It would be absurd for each player to decide how long short rests take for them, with different rest lengths for different PCs! It would be like each PC having their own Law of Gravity!