log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

Parmandur

Legend
So? And?

The point I'm making is people shouldn't be making false and disingenuous claims.

Unfortunately you decided you needed to add to those, with the bolded bit. That's absolutely not something you can claim based on the DNDBeyond "data". We simply don't know the following:

1) How many people play characters who have at least 1 Feat.

2) How many people play characters who they intend to have at least 1 Feat, as they level.

3) How many groups "allow" Feats.

We just have no idea.

So you claiming "very few players use Feats" is just disingenuous nonsense. It's exactly what you seem to be trying to complain about. We don't know how many DNDBeyond PCs are even actually played. As a bit of anecdata, I can tell you of the 25+ PCs on my account on Beyond, only 5 have ever been played. I know one of my players has far more and only 3 of his have been. As there's no way to tell, we can say whether the ones who actually have Feats are being played or are merely theoretical. Hell, based on DNDBeyond data, we could assume anything from 0% to 100% of groups allowed Feats. But it'd be an assumption, and the bolded text is just an assumption. If you genuinely believe it, you don't understand the data or what it means. If you're using it as a rhetorical talking point, it's disingenuous.

As for "hardly anyone plays Battlemasters", again, we have no idea. We can say what percentage of PCs on DNDBeyond are (or were, at a specific point in history), but are they being played? Not played? It's impossible to say.

You and Parmandur should both stay away from making claims about whether Feats are used or not. The best evidence we have comes from WotC continuing to support them in Tashas and in making the Dark Gifts in Ravenloft swappable for Feats. As Parmandur says, they're significant enough that WotC thinks they're worth space in their books.

Whether the game sells well or not does indeed likely have little to do with the presence or absence of Feats, but I'm not sure if that statement is just boosterism on your part or you think it has some implied meaning.
I am basing my position on Crawford's reportage, not Beyond: O take Beyond as corroboration, not the foundation. WotX does research outside of Beyond. I see no reason to doubt that Geata are not used by a majority, due to the low support level: this demonstrates how WotC is willing to support minority playstyles, and to what extent.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Legend
If no one uses feats, why does WOTC keep making them and pushing them in UAs?
🤔

perhaps people like feats but don't get to use them
Jiminy Cricket, dude, there are 50 million people playing D&D: a 30% minority of 50 million people is 15-16 million. Everybody have ever known could be using Feats, and everyone on D&D Next Reddit and ENWorld to boot, and that would still be congruent with WotC data. The complex weapons supplement you pointed out, on the other hand, has sold 300-500 copies. That's a lotnpf zeros of difference. And for 15-16 million users, we have barely more than a page of material per year.
 

I am basing my position on Crawford's reportage, not Beyond: O take Beyond as corroboration, not the foundation. WotX does research outside of Beyond. I see no reason to doubt that Geata are not used by a majority, due to the low support level: this demonstrates how WotC is willing to support minority playstyles, and to what extent.
I dunno man, 5E Feat support looks like it's exactly where I'd expect it to be given initial Feat design goals and the fact that you don't get many Feats. If you got about 2x as many Feats as you do I'd think it was low. I honestly think it's a hell of a lot higher than it'd be if only 30% of groups used Feats at all and the at all claim is what I'm skeptical about. Where's Crawford's claim? On a casual Google I couldn't find it bit slightly different searches can provide wildly different results.
 

Parmandur

Legend
I dunno man, 5E Feat support looks like it's exactly where I'd expect it to be given initial Feat design goals and the fact that you don't get many Feats. If you got about 2x as many Feats as you do I'd think it was low. I honestly think it's a hell of a lot higher than it'd be if only 30% of groups used Feats at all and the at all claim is what I'm skeptical about. Where's Crawford's claim? On a casual Google I couldn't find it bit slightly different searches can provide wildly different results.
He has stated that most players don't use Feats (yet still many do) in Dragon Talk interviews a couple of times, and on Twitter.

Again, 30% of 50 million people is a lot of people, and 6-8 pages across six years out of ~6000 pages of material for that audience of 15-16 million people...

I'm not really arguing about Feats here, that's the baseline, shoeing the niche support for an option used by millions and millions of players. The example weapons and armor expansion on the DMsGuild that was trotted out earlier in the thread as an example of the money that WotC is leaving on the table sold a few hundred copies. If 15 million people warrant 6 pages of support, how much for a niche of sl hundred people...?
 

I'm not really arguing about Feats here, that's the baseline, shoeing the niche support for an option used by millions and millions of players. The example weapons and armor expansion on the DMsGuild that was trotted out earlier in the thread as an example of the money that WotC is leaving on the table sold a few hundred copies. If 15 million people warrant 6 pages of support, how much for a niche of sl hundred people...?
Whilst I agree those sales aren't impressive, I strongly suspect a similar product put out by WotC would, in fact, sell a very large number of copies, because historically, that kind of supplement sells extremely well when it is "official" and relatively poorly when it is not (c.f. 3E for infinity examples). I mean, I think it's obvious why - if it's official you can go "Ooooooh Mr DM why won't you let me use my Monkey-Gripped Fullblade dual-wielded with a Spiked Chain (hello 3E)! It's official rules!". Whereas if it's some dodgy manual you picked up on DM's Guild is unlikely to pass the sniff test.

But there are other considerations:

1) Such products are an absolute goddamn nightmare to balance, and 5E isn't doing too badly here so probably doesn't want to mess that up.

(Also 5E doesn't have much design space for weapons, because of choices made early on, not without making them simply like existing weapons but better - which has already happened a couple of times.)

2) As well as they might sell, other products might sell even better - like a Harry Potter-esque setting book! Strixhaven seems to me like it might well sell a lot more copies than "Weapons and armour book", even if "Weapons and armour book" would sell a lot of copies.
 

Whilst I agree those sales aren't impressive, I strongly suspect a similar product put out by WotC would, in fact, sell a very large number of copies, because historically, that kind of supplement sells extremely well when it is "official" and relatively poorly when it is not (c.f. 3E for infinity examples). I mean, I think it's obvious why - if it's official you can go "Ooooooh Mr DM why won't you let me use my Monkey-Gripped Fullblade dual-wielded with a Spiked Chain (hello 3E)! It's official rules!". Whereas if it's some dodgy manual you picked up on DM's Guild is unlikely to pass the sniff test.

But there are other considerations:

1) Such products are an absolute goddamn nightmare to balance, and 5E isn't doing too badly here so probably doesn't want to mess that up.

(Also 5E doesn't have much design space for weapons, because of choices made early on, not without making them simply like existing weapons but better - which has already happened a couple of times.)

2) As well as they might sell, other products might sell even better - like a Harry Potter-esque setting book! Strixhaven seems to me like it might well sell a lot more copies than "Weapons and armour book", even if "Weapons and armour book" would sell a lot of copies.
weapon and amour book would be in a Xgte or tasha's style book, I would put more interesting systems for crafting in there as well, and new subclasses.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I expect 6E to be the adjustment to 5E .
I do as well.
Jiminy Cricket, dude, there are 50 million people playing D&D: a 30% minority of 50 million people is 15-16 million. Everybody have ever known could be using Feats, and everyone on D&D Next Reddit and ENWorld to boot, and that would still be congruent with WotC data. The complex weapons supplement you pointed out, on the other hand, has sold 300-500 copies. That's a lotnpf zeros of difference. And for 15-16 million users, we have barely more than a page of material per year.

You do know it's not fair to compare a product printed by a lone independent third party author on a separate third party publishing site with the actual IP holder that is a multimillion corporation with loads of connections.

Thinking the purchases on third party sites is equal to their total potential audience is flawed thinking.

For example, there is a reason why the fighter subclasses have become more and more magical and now combined together reaching or passing popularity of the Champion. Because the constant "I like gritty grounded warriors" claims, a noticeable percentage of D&D fandom like their warriors to be highly fantastic and superheroic. However in 2017 someone could have said these players are a minority, there is no good reason for WOTC to cater to them, and they should go to 3rd parties.

To me, the weakness part of 5e is the simplicity of their weapons combat system. It's good for teaching a beginner. However it's simplicity and few levers encourages the DPR madness we see because there is no official support for warriors to do but "deal moar damagez". One would think they would officially support some kind of advanced combat option.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
weapon and amour book would be in a Xgte or tasha's style book, I would put more interesting systems for crafting in there as well, and new subclasses.

I don't even think anyone really wants a weapons and armor book as much as weapons and armor modules and variants added to a setting book or a rules module book.

I mean a house made of mimics is cool and all. However I would have more use with rules for chakrams and bicycle kicks for creating evil enemy Xena's .
 

ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
in fact, I'd say any intelligent person claiming that based on the DNDBeyond figures is making an intentionally deceptive argument in bad faith. All you can talk about based on Beyond is characters, and whether they, at any given time, have Feats or not.
Yep; though I'd argue for incompetence rather than intentional malfeasance in this case.

The idea that the sample you have is not necessarily representative of the population you are interested in is, sadly, quite worldview shattering for most people.

If feats were such a rarely used feature of the game they would not be spending development time coming up with new ones to playtest and put into books.

Speaking of anecdata,
Jiminy Cricket, dude, there are 50 million people playing D&D:
Where did this one come from, I wonder? An offhand remark in a WotC quarterly call? How could they possibly know with with certainty, or is it more likely an estimate based on sales and some convenience sample survey data?
 

Parmandur

Legend
The idea that the sample you have is not necessarily representative of the population you are interested in is, sadly, quite worldview shattering for most people.
You, of course, realize the ironyhere, si.ce you have been arguing against WotC statements about what their data shows based on the sample that you habe....?
 

Hussar

Legend
So? And?

The point I'm making is people shouldn't be making false and disingenuous claims.

Unfortunately you decided you needed to add to those, with the bolded bit. That's absolutely not something you can claim based on the DNDBeyond "data". We simply don't know the following:

1) How many people play characters who have at least 1 Feat.

2) How many people play characters who they intend to have at least 1 Feat, as they level.

3) How many groups "allow" Feats.

We just have no idea.

So you claiming "very few players use Feats" is just disingenuous nonsense. It's exactly what you seem to be trying to complain about. We don't know how many DNDBeyond PCs are even actually played. As a bit of anecdata, I can tell you of the 25+ PCs on my account on Beyond, only 5 have ever been played. I know one of my players has far more and only 3 of his have been. As there's no way to tell, we can say whether the ones who actually have Feats are being played or are merely theoretical. Hell, based on DNDBeyond data, we could assume anything from 0% to 100% of groups allowed Feats. But it'd be an assumption, and the bolded text is just an assumption. If you genuinely believe it, you don't understand the data or what it means. If you're using it as a rhetorical talking point, it's disingenuous.

As for "hardly anyone plays Battlemasters", again, we have no idea. We can say what percentage of PCs on DNDBeyond are (or were, at a specific point in history), but are they being played? Not played? It's impossible to say.

You and Parmandur should both stay away from making claims about whether Feats are used or not. The best evidence we have comes from WotC continuing to support them in Tashas and in making the Dark Gifts in Ravenloft swappable for Feats. As Parmandur says, they're significant enough that WotC thinks they're worth space in their books.

Whether the game sells well or not does indeed likely have little to do with the presence or absence of Feats, but I'm not sure if that statement is just boosterism on your part or you think it has some implied meaning.
This argument has been brought up and addressed multiple times.

When D&D Beyond looks at this data, they only include characters that have been updated (granted, I can't remember how many times). In other words, characters who have been created, and then at some point, the creator came back and added Xp. A very easy point to watch, I would think. So, arguments about "well, I have made all these characters and only 5 have been played, so, the data is flawed" ignore facts. Or, do you think people who just thought experiment characters than go ahead and add xp to them after the fact and take them through the leveling up process on a regular basis? So, no, it's not "impossible to say" if the characters have been played or not.

You'd almost think that people who are presenting the data might actually be able to think of these things on their own.

Like I said, "allowed feats" is a pointless argument. Who cares. What we DO know is that most of the hundreds of thousands of characters on D&D beyond DON'T HAVE ANY FEATS.

And again, if you idea of support is a single page or two in a book every two years, well, okay? I guess?

But, I'd say that adding a page or two of feats to the game every two years is a slightly different level of game change to a shopping list of play changes that fundamentally impact how the game is played. @Minigiant's list of game changes are on a whole other level from adding a couple of dozen feats, wouldn't you agree?
 

Hussar

Legend
/snip
there is a reason why the fighter subclasses have become more and more magical and now combined together reaching or passing popularity of the Champion. Because the constant "I like gritty grounded warriors" claims, a noticeable percentage of D&D fandom like their warriors to be highly fantastic and superheroic. However in 2017 someone could have said these players are a minority, there is no good reason for WOTC to cater to them, and they should go to 3rd parties.
Citation please? Is there any evidence that newer fighter subclasses are reaching or passing the popularity of the Champion? Or, do you mean if we combine all of them together, they pass the Champion in popularity? Do you have any evidence for this?
 

ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
You, of course, realize the ironyhere, si.ce you have been arguing against WotC statements about what their data shows based on the sample that you habe....?
The irony is the point - they don't have representative data. You argue as if they do.
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Citation please? Is there any evidence that newer fighter subclasses are reaching or passing the popularity of the Champion? Or, do you mean if we combine all of them together, they pass the Champion in popularity? Do you have any evidence for this?
The D&D beyond Fighter Subclass Popularity data put the combined put the combined magical fighters at 23.5% to the Champions's 38.1%. This is before Tasha's added the Psi Knight and finished the Rune Knight. So nearly a quarter of fighter players were running magi-knight last year.

I said "reaching or passing" as I lacked time to look up the data at work. I doubted it was passing sine Champion is in the PHb, free on DnDBeyond, almost never banned. I was making sure my statement was correct.
 

ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
Oh, so you have inside information on how complete their data is...?
I know what they don't have: a sampling frame.

Without that, they don't even know how much bias their data may have, or in what direction. They don't even know how trustworthy their data are.
 

Parmandur

Legend
I know what they don't have: a sampling frame.

Without that, they don't even know how much bias their data may have, or in what direction. They don't even know how trustworthy their data are.
You are assuming that UA passes are their entire research apparatus. We know that they are not.
 

ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
You are assuming that UA passes are their entire research apparatus. We know that they are not.
I don't need to assume that. They haven't conducted a player census, nor are they capable of doing so even if they were inclined to do it. Thus, they do not have access to either a sampling frame of all player from which to draw a probability sample or population-level player data to calculate rates of different styles of play.

They don't know how many players they have or how they all play. They don't have complete user data or a way to get complete user data.

These are substantial roadblocks to the trustworthiness of either their estimates (if using sampling) or their rates (if they foolishly think they have population level data).
 

Parmandur

Legend
I don't need to assume that. They haven't conducted a player census, nor are they capable of doing so even if they were inclined to do it. Thus, they do not have access to either a sampling frame of all player from which to draw a probability sample or population-level player data to calculate rates of different styles of play.

They don't know how many players they have or how they all play. They don't have complete user data or a way to get complete user data.

These are substantial roadblocks to the trustworthiness of either their estimates (if using sampling) or their rates (if they foolishly think they have population level data).
They probably have a margin of error involved, but they have quite extensive market research at their disposal through Hasbro. It's not as hard as you are making it out to be.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
But, I'd say that adding a page or two of feats to the game every two years is a slightly different level of game change to a shopping list of play changes that fundamentally impact how the game is played. @Minigiant's list of game changes are on a whole other level from adding a couple of dozen feats, wouldn't you agree?

But all I wanted was a page or 2 of weapon or armor related stuff. Casters always get tons and tons of new spells. My fighter, Hak McSlash, woulda been fine with a hammer on a stick, a new pokey stick, 2 new chuckable weapons, and some dangerous thing on the end of a rope or chain.

The fact that there are few martial additions to 5e that should been in the 3 core books (like thrown weapon fighting fighting style) is just beyond strange. The barbarian, fighter, and rogue get more and more magical as each time WOTC mentions them.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top