Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[UPDATED] Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 7735931" data-attributes="member: 6799649"><p>I'm of the opposite opinion.</p><p></p><p>Take a feat (AND an extra skill), where the extra feat is perfect for your PC (because you chose it to be) and may even give you a +1 to your primary, secondary or tertiary stat...</p><p></p><p>OR</p><p></p><p>...at the cost of a feat and a skill, add +1 to each of the 3 or 4 stats that you <em>don't</em> care about?</p><p></p><p>No contest. Variant human wins (almost) every time. In fact, the only time I would consider a non-variant human is if I want a barbarian, and forced to use point-buy, and want three 16s at first level, so my stats are 16/16/16/9/9/9.</p><p></p><p>But even then I would probably choose a feat that added +1 to one of the three physical stats, because 16/16/16/9/9/9 is objectively worse than 16/16/16/8/8/8 with an extra skill and half feat.</p><p></p><p>What I find curious is that the two claims (humans are the most common PC race, most play without feats) seem to be contradictory (for 5e, anyway) because humans are the only race that can start with a feat.</p><p></p><p>Some possible explanations:-</p><p></p><p>* perhaps most D&D players in the world are new to the game and haven't started to read all the game mechanics or realised the possible combinations, so they (foolishly) play non-variant humans</p><p></p><p>* some DMs don't like feats, so their players aren't allowed to <s>like</s> use them either</p><p></p><p>* feats are rarely available because they are once every 4 levels (rarer for most multi-class PCs), and there is evolutionary pressure to make your main stat 20 and most games end at low levels</p><p></p><p>* JC's data includes many/all editions of D&D, so the editions that never had feats dilute the data</p><p></p><p>In my current campaign my PC is the only human; the rest are: wood elf, tiefling, dragonborn.</p><p></p><p>In my last campaign, my PC was an aasimar who looked/disguised himself as a human; the rest were: gnome, shield dwarf, tabaxi, kenku.</p><p></p><p>A friend at work has heard of D&D for a while, and her son just offered to run her first game. She's going to play a tiefling cleric. As you can tell, optimisation is not a factor. Nor are the rest of the game mechanics to be honest. If newer players don't care much about the mechanics then feats won't matter to them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Arial Black, post: 7735931, member: 6799649"] I'm of the opposite opinion. Take a feat (AND an extra skill), where the extra feat is perfect for your PC (because you chose it to be) and may even give you a +1 to your primary, secondary or tertiary stat... OR ...at the cost of a feat and a skill, add +1 to each of the 3 or 4 stats that you [i]don't[/i] care about? No contest. Variant human wins (almost) every time. In fact, the only time I would consider a non-variant human is if I want a barbarian, and forced to use point-buy, and want three 16s at first level, so my stats are 16/16/16/9/9/9. But even then I would probably choose a feat that added +1 to one of the three physical stats, because 16/16/16/9/9/9 is objectively worse than 16/16/16/8/8/8 with an extra skill and half feat. What I find curious is that the two claims (humans are the most common PC race, most play without feats) seem to be contradictory (for 5e, anyway) because humans are the only race that can start with a feat. Some possible explanations:- * perhaps most D&D players in the world are new to the game and haven't started to read all the game mechanics or realised the possible combinations, so they (foolishly) play non-variant humans * some DMs don't like feats, so their players aren't allowed to [s]like[/s] use them either * feats are rarely available because they are once every 4 levels (rarer for most multi-class PCs), and there is evolutionary pressure to make your main stat 20 and most games end at low levels * JC's data includes many/all editions of D&D, so the editions that never had feats dilute the data In my current campaign my PC is the only human; the rest are: wood elf, tiefling, dragonborn. In my last campaign, my PC was an aasimar who looked/disguised himself as a human; the rest were: gnome, shield dwarf, tabaxi, kenku. A friend at work has heard of D&D for a while, and her son just offered to run her first game. She's going to play a tiefling cleric. As you can tell, optimisation is not a factor. Nor are the rest of the game mechanics to be honest. If newer players don't care much about the mechanics then feats won't matter to them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[UPDATED] Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!
Top