[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.

 

[TwoSix]

How does that skew the data? The data is the data (if we are to believe JC, which we have no reason not to). Most people don't use feats. I get the impression you have a story you'd like to tell, and this data is not supporting your story.

I assume it's somewhere along the lines of "Just because most players in 5e don't take feats doesn't mean most players don't want a broader palette of character customization options. Rather, most players in 5e don't take feats because the system disincentivizes them from doing so."

At least, that was my take away from [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION]'s post.

 

[neobolts]

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]

1) I agree. Feats are great for variant humans and higher levels, at low levels ASIs are usually the better choice. I don't see any of that as a design problem. If anything, having feats is a great way to fill the void at high levels after key ASIs cap out.
2) SAD. Check. MAD. Check. But what is a DAD? Dual?

 

[Yunru]

Yeah, DAD is dual attribute dependency. The only one I can think of is the Monk. Both Dexterity and Wisdom are primary stats.

How does that skew the data? The data is the data (if we are to believe JC, which we have no reason not to). Most people don't use feats. I get the impression you have a story you'd like to tell, and this data is not supporting your story.

We don't know enough about the data (read: anything) to know.

For all we know the data only covers levels 1-10 (the most commonly played levels), in which case it's heavily skewed. As the majority of classes will want to take feats at level 12+.

"The data is the data" means diddly swuat if we don't get to observe it. Likewise statements based on said data are meaningless without the assumptions that went into drawing the conclusions.

 

[Morrus]

"The data is the data" means diddly swuat if we don't get to observe it. Likewise statements based on said data are meaningless without the assumptions that went into drawing the conclusions.

So move on to a less meaningless thread. You’re just threadcrapping at this point.

 

[Yunru]

So move on to a less meaningless thread. You’re just threadcrapping at this point.

It's a valid counterpoint!

We don't know the sample size, how sampling was done, what assumptions were made, anything.

 

[Schmoe]

I assume it's somewhere along the lines of "Just because most players in 5e don't take feats doesn't mean most players don't want a broader palette of character customization options. Rather, most players in 5e don't take feats because the system disincentivizes them from doing so."

At least, that was my take away from [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION]'s post.

Ok, and sure, that seems like a fair and probably interesting discussion. If people want to discuss that, then I say go for it! It just seems disingenuous to draw some implied conclusion from JC's statements and then try to argue in a vacuum against the validity of what he said based on those implied conclusions which, to be fair, were never even stated.

And I guess to further explain my position, if people would start by saying "What JC says may be true, but that doesn't mean that people don't want more character customization options," I think it would be a much more productive discussion!

 

[TwoSix]

Ok, and sure, that seems like a fair and probably interesting discussion. If people want to discuss that, then I say go for it! It just seems disingenuous to draw some implied conclusion from JC's statements and then try to argue in a vacuum against the validity of what he said based on those implied conclusions which, to be fair, were never even stated.

And I guess to further explain my position, if people would start by saying "What JC says may be true, but that doesn't mean that people don't want more character customization options," I think it would be a much more productive discussion!

All very fair. I'm not questioning JC's data, and I'm not questioning he believes the conclusions he's stated. My only point of contention is that those conclusions don't match my observations, and I'd love to know why my point of reference is skewed compared to the baseline. It doesn't MATTER, of course, but if it's interesting enough to highlight those tweets, it's interesting enough to have a discussion about why those observations may not match our own perception.

I'd also point that, for humans, there's never really been a point in the game's history where human hasn't been at or close to the optimal choice, mechanically. They were inferior mechanically in 1E-2E, but they were also the only option for unlimited class advancement and the only option for several classes, like Paladin. I also saw less humans in 2E than in any other edition. (Thanks, Complete Book of Elves!)

Feats are integral to 3E-PF builds, so human has always been the default choice in those systems. (Only time I can think of that's been challenged is Strongheart halflings in 3E, who also got a feat, and Paragon Surge half-elves in PF.)

Humans got a bonus feat in 4e, and flexible stat bonuses, which made them the defacto power choice for most 4e builds, which were usually feat-intensive. (Only challenger in that system was Half-elves who could get a 3rd at-will at Paragon levels.)

Likewise, considering how powerful feats are in 5e, and the fact that only humans can get a feat at all before 4th level, it's no surprise they're the choice for players focused on builds.

 

[BrockBallingdark]

That's me, always play humans and hate feats!

 

[houser2112]

I assume it's somewhere along the lines of "Just because most players in 5e don't take feats doesn't mean most players don't want a broader palette of character customization options. Rather, most players in 5e don't take feats because the system disincentivizes them from doing so."

I'm one of those players that want a broader palette of character customization options. The lack of options, along with feats and ASIs competing for the same character resource, really turned me off of 5E.

What isn't clear to me is whether the data actually supports his assertion that "players prefer not taking feats", or merely the fact that they don't take feats. Feats being an optional rule in 5E requires this distinction to be made for the data to be meaningful enough to say "prefer".

 

[Lanefan]

One of the best features of 0e-1e-2e is that, with a very few exceptions, there are no feats.

3e introduced feats, which along with almost unrestricted multiclassing brought about the horrible concept of the "character build", where mechanics (crunch) took over from characterization (fluff). 4e changed up the mechanics but it didn't help much.

If WotC's data shows 5e character creation at the average table to be moving away from mechanics and toward characterization then all I can do is applaud and support the collective wisdom of the player base.

As for the data on races played, I'm (pleasantly) not really surprised.