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

[Hussar]

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]

/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]

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.

 

[Parmandur]

The irony is the point - they don't have representative data. You argue as if they do.

Oh, so you have inside information on how complete their data is...?

 

[Minigiant]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.