[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.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I find the constant assertions that feats were "poorly implemented" in 5E to be absurd. Not because people aren't allowed to have opinions, but because it's constantly put forth as some sort of undeniable truth.

I like that we have to choose between ASIs and feats. And almost every single character I have played or even seen in 5E has had some combination of both ASIs and feats by the time they reached mid-levels. My favorite race is the alternate human, because I like being able to take an early feat to help shape the character's image and style.

 

[CM]

I wonder what % of this data was drawn from D&D Beyond, where feats are largely inaccessible to free accounts. That would also skew the numbers toward the basic races of human, elf, dwarf.

 

[Yaarel]

ASIs are really a kind of feat. You pick a feat that boosts your ability score by 2.

The reason 5e makes the choice between ASI and (other) feats, is so old school players can easily ignore feats.

The 5e design space actually allowed feats to become more powerful. At least theoretically, the feats in the PH seem a bit underpowered, compared to the ASI.

Feats are optional.

 

[dco]

Coincides with my anecdotal experience, we don't like feats and humans are the most used race in our games.

 

[Von Ether]

I realize that local metas can be very different than the national one, but that's not what I've seen out there when it comes to feats. Most players want feats to give them the feeling of a safety net that they can do whatever shtick they want their PC to do. It's why while lots of people still play Pathfinder in my neck of the woods (and while I still consider Pathfinder to be 5e's "secret sauce." Those who want a more tactical game stick to Pathfinder instead of sitting at a 5e table and complaining how 5e doesn't fit their style.)

As for humans, that seems to be more of a 3.0 and beyond thing. Before that, nary did I see a 2nd AD&D group with a human in it.

 

[TwoSix]

I like that we have to choose between ASIs and feats. And almost every single character I have played or even seen in 5E has had some combination of both ASIs and feats by the time they reached mid-levels. My favorite race is the alternate human, because I like being able to take an early feat to help shape the character's image and style.

Yea, I tend to agree. I like 5e feats, my only real concern with them is I wish I could get a character defining one early AND also not have to play human to do so.

 

[SkidAce]

I've played in games that don't allow multiclassing, but never games that don't allow feats. Go figure.

Same here, EVERYBODY, in all the groups I know of, use them. Weird right?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yea, I tend to agree. I like 5e feats, my only real concern with them is I wish I could get a character defining one early AND also not have to play human to do so.

Now, that's a complaint I can get behind. I can see a couple of different ways to make it possible via house rules, but they all have an impact on balance that would really only fly if you know/trust the people you're gaming with.

 

[Yaarel]

Several posters here at Enworld mention houseruling a bonus feat at level 1 for all characters. So humans have two.

If feats are difficult to get at the lower tiers because of the opportunity cost of ASIs, it might be a good idea to get a free one early on.

 

[houser2112]

The reason 5e makes the choice between ASI and (other) feats, is so old school players can easily ignore feats.

Older editions of D&D had no natural way to increase your ability scores, so if they wanted to appease old school players, ASIs would be optional too.