[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.

 

[cbwjm]

It's not too surprising, if there are a lot of new players joining in 5e then I wouldn't be surprised if most of them are going straight to boosting stats. Many people also like to put themselves into the game so they choose something familiar to represent them.

When starting 5e, I think my group was mostly the classic races. human, halfling, 2x elves, 1 half-orc, 1 dwarf. No dragonborn or tieflings to be seen, though I wouldn't have been opposed to them being chosen. As for feats, most wanted to boost their stats for better accuracy. I usually boost my stats first as I'm usually a spellcaster and there aren't too many feats that I look at and think that they would aid my character's playstyle. When making a dual wielding dwarf ranger though, I get the dual wielding feat at 4th and then perhaps boost my strength second.

 

[Gammadoodler]

In a court case or a scientific study. Not in a casual Twitter conversation.He doesn’t need to prove it. And he doesn’t need anybody to believe him. But if anybody finds this tidbit mildly interesting, its there.

On the other hand, WotC doesn’t need me to defend it.

Not saying that he does, only pointing out that he hasn’t. As such where his assertions don’t match others’ experiences, doubt is a rational response.

Edit: In addition, the title and presentation of this post strongly implies that that these statements should be regarded as facts supported by evidence, when that evidence has not been provided. It may be editorial license, but I’m not sure it’s “good journalism” if that is what it is intended to be.

 

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

D&D5 was designed for Feats to be optional, so it kind of makes sense that the game works fine without them.

Stuff about most characters not caring about Feats at all until after level 8 has already been said.

In most editions of D&D, humans had some distinct advantages in terms of power, so it is not quite right to say that other races are more powerful. For example, back in the day, non-humans tended to have severe level restrictions. Then in D&D3, humans started off with a feat, which was very powerful if less flashy than what other species had. Etc. And equipment did not always resize in all editions. And the racial interactions chart...

Personally, I'd rather see a design with lots of Feats and *no* ASIs. Feats are interesting, and ASIs only harm bounded accuracy in a boring way. But ASIs are easy, and it is a good thing for D&D5 to be easy. And everyone likes seeing a stat boost. So my preference is probably wrong for this game.

Anyway,

Ken

 

[Charlaquin]

Interesting, if not surprising. In my experience, I’ve seen players fall into one of two categories regarding race - either they prefer to stick to the Tolkien staples, finding more alien races too outlandish, or they avoid said races, finding them too boring. Those who fall into latter camp are usually the ones who are most deeply involved in fantasy fiction and gaming. So it’s not surprising that the former camp would be the larger one - the more casual fans who want to take part in the kinds of fantasy story they’ve read or seen, as opposed to those who have already seen it all and want to branch out from the more common tropes.

Likewise, it makes sense that it would be more common for players to make choices based on story than mechanical optimization. Such decision making requires enough system mastery to accurately assess the utility of one option over another, and there will always be more fans who don’t delve into the system that deeply than there are who do.

On the other hand, “most characters don’t use feats” seems... Not inaccurate, but misleading. When Feats only come every 4 levels, at the cost of +2 to an ability score (or +1 to two), with 17 being the highest possible starting score, 20 being the maximum, and most games going to around 10th-12th level, it’s not surprising most characters wouldn’t use Feats. But not because they aren’t interested in feats. Rather, because the system puts such a high opportunity cost on Feats that they’re not worth taking unless you have a specific build in mind, and again, most players aren’t going to delve that deeply into character optimization.

 

[JonnyP71]

Some data... over the course of 2 full 5E campaigns reaching level 11+, another reaching level 6, several side campaigns, and numerous one-shots of varying levels, 3 groups, with about 20 players coming and going, using about 30 characters in total...

- the most popular race by far was Variant Human - roughly 50% of all characters
- every character (of applicable level if not variant human) chose at least one Feat before opting for ASIs
- nobody played a 'standard human', not a single one

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanefan]

Add gods to the list of options that go in a separate book.

And, I suppose, put Clerics and other divine-based classes in there with them? Erm...no thanks.

 

[iserith]

I don't use the optional Feats rules in most of my campaigns or one-shots. Like any other optional rule, whether I include feats depends on the campaign's theme and whether I think their inclusion support that theme. In my current campaign, feats become available to players whose characters join factions. Certain factions give access to certain feats that speak to their philosophy or agenda. Since a big part of the setting (Planescape) is belonging to a faction, this becomes an incentive for players to join. So far, it's working.

 

[TwoSix]

And, I suppose, put Clerics and other divine-based classes in there with them? Erm...no thanks.

Meh...you don't really need gods for Clerics. Some sort of quasi-medieval Catholic church like entity is plenty to support the standard cleric and paladin flavor.

 

[Sunseeker]

And, I suppose, put Clerics and other divine-based classes in there with them? Erm...no thanks.

You don't really need gods to have "divine" classes, but you do need to do more legwork to keep them in if you take gods out.

Anyway. @OP, that's nice I guess. I mean I think it's pretty standard. 5E has done a lot of work to make feats unnecessary, and I largely use them for flavor these days, there's only 1 or 2 I ever feel are "necessary" for a specific build. So if I have to option to take 5 feats (human +4 from classes), I'll usually take 1 feat and 4 stat bumps.

But I've never played in a "basics" game either (and have no interest in it).