Crawford: "...a majority of D&D characters don't use feats"

[No brains]

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/969020122177331200

I have my grain of salt ready because I'm aware that this community does not encompass all of the fandom, but I'm curious if our data matches his.

I think he may be making that claim because feats are technically a variant rule, albeit one with more pages devoted to it than weapons in this edition.

[Tetrasodium]

He's not entirely wrong. not every class gets the same value out of feats or has enough juicy feats like pole arm master, mobile, warcaster that are relevant enough to make them worth taking over the ASI until important stats are at 20 after the first feat or two if at all.

[Aett_Thorn]

I also have to wonder where he is getting his data from. I mean, if he's just basing it off of characters made on their app or whatever, that may not be a representative sample.

[Scripten]

In my experience, this is true. I tend not to play with high-optimization players, which I think is likely the norm. While I allow feats, I don't often see players taking them. There's a bit more multi-classing, but that has more to do with flavor rather than optimization.

[Armored Walrus]

Every player I have that is a forum-goer uses feats, it seems. But in my live game, with friends who spend zero time on D&D outside of our sessions, none of them have taken a feat. So the disclaimer of OP that "this community does not encompass all of the fandom" is probably an enormous understatement. But there's my anecdotal evidence to toss on the pile. ;)

[Callin]

If going by Adventurers League Characters because thats basically all they care about. "NO DUH" Max stat at lvl 1 is 17, of course you are going to spend all of your ASIs on Stats instead of feats.

[Mikal]

Every single game I've been a part of has used feats, so yeah. I'd like to see where he actually got this data from and just how comprehensive it is.

[Tubben]

I like feats.

One way to get more people to use feats would be to get away with ASI complete and give every feat an +1 to an selected (Or choose one of 3 stats and increase it by 1 or something similar). That way people get to use feats and also get their stat increases. Sure you would have to balance and rework the feats.

p.s.. i hate it that my browser? Computer? just makes some words uppercase while i type them lowercase. Just because in german (which i am), nouns are written uppercase.

[Tetrasodium]

I also have to wonder where he is getting his data from. I mean, if he's just basing it off of characters made on their app or whatever, that may not be a representative sample.

I would imagine that Wotc can mine he data (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/) just as well as 538 can. I too see more ASIs+multiclassing than feats & feats are usually pretty minimal in numbers for any given character. Back in 3.5 you got a feat and an asi meaning that taking good feats was a no brainer, 5e got rid of the obnoxious feat chain bingo stuff but now you need to choose between a feat or an asi

[2D8HP]

Most of my PC's haven't had them.

[JellyPooga]

He's not entirely wrong. not every class gets the same value out of feats or has enough juicy feats like pole arm master, mobile, warcaster that are relevant enough to make them worth taking over the ASI until important stats are at 20 after the first feat or two if at all.

Frankly, getting 20 in your primary stat(s) is not nearly the priority that this attitude promotes. A 16 in your prime stat is sufficient and competitive all the way up to around level 12 and even after that, any further boon is merely a "nice thing", rather than an essential, because proficiency bonus begins outweighing ability score bonuses anyway.

Name a class that doesn't get great value out of at least one of PAM, Mobile or War Caster. If you don't want one, you'll want another and that's just singling out three of the juicier Feats, let alone the niche ones that promote certain playstyles or concepts far more than a generic bonus to an Ability Score or two.

I would hazard a guess that almost every player coming from either 3.X (inc. Pathfinder) or 4ed uses Feats in 5ed, simply because they used them in those older editions. I would also hazard to guess that a solid proportion of players new to D&D/Roleplaying use them too, because they're "fun" and, if nothing else, an intriguing section of the PHB, "optional" rule or not. I question the truth of the position that most characters don't use Feats; it seems...unlikely.

[Monster Manuel]

Looked at the Twitter feed and noticed that he never goes back and explains how he got that data.

My guess? Characters created in the D&DBeyond tool.

And if that's the case, I see where the disconnect is coming from. The majority of characters created in D&DBeyond are probably made without the paid content. Which means just the basic rules/SRD. Which means, feats are not an option.

I think they need to clean up their data set...run that same report, but filter out People Who Paid For the PHB vs People Who Didn't. If you check on people who have ACCESS to feats in the tool, and there is still a majority of characters who don't use them, then you've got some interesting data. But I'll bet the opposite is true.

[Lombra]

Most games don't go past 10th level, and most players want to max out their stats as early as possible, which takes at least 2 ASIs going by the point buy rules, this means that the only characters that are more likely to have a feat are variant humans, fighters, or rogues, a small portion of all the playable character concepts, despite being very popular.

So I'd say that the statement doesn't look absurd.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I'm going to have to agree with the idea that the GitP community is not representative of the general player base.

Anecdote: I am in two PbP games at the moment and, across both games, 5 out of 9 PCs possess feats (one of them has two). Neither game is above level 4 at this time.

[Vorpalchicken]

If he's analyzing data from somewhere, it would be easy to come to this conclusion. Many characters made for the game don't actually get the opportunity to select a feat before the campaign fizzles.

Now if he's analyzing intended build plans or only looking at higher level characters, he will find that feats are much more common.

Characters level 1-3 Only variant humans have a feat (obviously) but this could possibly be the bulk of the characters in his pile of data.

Characters level 4-7 Many players will prefer an ASI at this level especially if they made their characters with point build

Characters level 8-11 Here is where many will pick their first feat. But if I made a caster who started with a 16, there's a good chance I'll try to get that 20 instead of a feat


edit... Forgot to account for multi classing which will push these numbers even higher

Characters 12+ This is when feats become pretty common, but how many campaigns reach this level?

[the_brazenburn]

Personally, I only use feats if I already have capped all my important stats or get one for free (like with Variant Human). I'd never swap out a potentially useful ASI for a feat, even if it's optimized.

Just my 2 cp.

[UrielAwakened]

Lmao.

Apparently "Lmao" isn't long enough to be a valid message so here I am explaining it but really I would have just gone with "Lmao" and then forgotten about Crawford forever again happily.

I would go a step further and say I'd wager more players who have any semblance of experience with 5e take Resilient than don't take any feats.

[Elbeyon]

That's sad. A stat upgrade is basically a +1 to a some things. It's a boring "weapon/spell focus" upgrade of other editions.

[Tanarii]

If he's analyzing data from somewhere, it would be easy to come to this conclusion. Many characters made for the game don't actually get the opportunity to select a feat before the campaign fizzles.

Now if he's analyzing intended build plans or only looking at higher level characters, he will find that feats are much more common.The former would be the valid conclusion, assuming a valid data set, the one they should care about. Characters as they are actually played, not character building pr0n.

Of course, who knows if he has a valid data set? WoTC seems to do okay when it comes to market research, but JC and Mearls have never impressed me as mathematically nor scientifically inclined. Of course, they're RPG geeks/nerds/whatever you want to call it, so they probably think they're better at that stuff than they really are.

[DanyBallon]

I can't say for everyone else, but our table consist of 9 players, and only three of us use feats, and when we do it's mostly for enforcing the character fluff over pure mechanical advantage, hence why we have HAM, Alert, or Linguist feats being picked up.

So maybe outside of the player base that comment on D&D forums as this one, there is effectively a large base of players that don't use feats at all.

[Talamare]

It makes sense, but it doesn't mean it's good.

I don't know what percentage of people it is...

but people WANT FEATS! They just realize that they CAN'T AFFORD FEATS because of the currently poorly designed game.
Being forced to choose between a stat increase which has massive implication on your Accuracy and Damage or a Feat which May or May Not be really good, but super flavorful...

If we were to create a new option in which players can have BOTH stats and a feat, then I bet a lot of people would start using the 2nd option.


I bet tho...
They are going to use that data to erase Feats even further from the game...

[strangebloke]

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that that he is right about this.

I wonder if the usage of point buy encourages stat increases over feats? 4d6 drop lowest has something like a 56% chance of generating an 18 or better after racial modifiers, so there's not nearly as much incentive to pump up your stats.

But I think folks are absolutely right to say that the fact that most campaigns characters never get past 7 is a weighting factor.

Free feat at first level!

[white lancer]

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that that he is right about this.

I wonder if the usage of point buy encourages stat increases over feats? 4d6 drop lowest has something like a 56% chance of generating an 18 or better after racial modifiers, so there's not nearly as much incentive to pump up your stats.

But I think folks are absolutely right to say that the fact that most campaigns characters never get past 7 is a weighting factor.

Free feat at first level!

Agreed with all of this! I tend to theorycraft my characters with point buy, and I have a hard time finding room for feats (even ones I'd really like to have). Half-feats are the exception--very few of my characters don't have exactly one. It leads to me feeling forced to start as a Variant Human in a lot of those builds just so I can grab something sweet and customize my character, so I'd really prefer it if the games I played in either rolled for stats (so I felt freer about using my ASIs for feats) or gave everyone a free feat at level 1, even if that free feat removed the "overpowered" options.

Since I don't tend to theorycraft much farther than level 8, I don't tend to have a slot for a non-half-feat available. I'll usually have a list of feats that would be good/thematic/fun for the character, but I don't expect to get to a level where I'd actually get them.

[LankyOgre]

I know its only anecdotal, but the group I play with is pretty casual and I'm the only person who has looked at feats. The GM is fine with us taking them, but nobody is really interested in looking beyond "+2 main stat". I imagine that a lot of newer players fall into the casual, barely read the book, category and therefore feats are less common. But those same players aren't really buying much of anything, so should they be the target? I'm not sure what point Crawford is trying to make.

[Beelzebubba]

Yeah, I've watched his talks before, and they do good research. As in, they gather information from a good breadth of sources, with plenty of data. Also, larger companies employ professional researchers and budget for good external research houses - the value has just been proven far too often, and the amount of risk you mitigate is worth every penny.

The people assuming 'he just got it from X' are saying more about themselves than they are Crawford.

I don't doubt feats are low priority, especially with the growth of new players in the game.

[Sol]

Looked at the Twitter feed and noticed that he never goes back and explains how he got that data.

My guess? Characters created in the D&DBeyond tool.

And if that's the case, I see where the disconnect is coming from. The majority of characters created in D&DBeyond are probably made without the paid content. Which means just the basic rules/SRD. Which means, feats are not an option.

I think they need to clean up their data set...run that same report, but filter out People Who Paid For the PHB vs People Who Didn't. If you check on people who have ACCESS to feats in the tool, and there is still a majority of characters who don't use them, then you've got some interesting data. But I'll bet the opposite is true.

People with unpaid dndbeyond accounts can totally access feats! They just only have access to Grappler, which is....not a good feat, even for grappling builds.

But also, yeah, ASI often wins mathematically, even if it's boring / mimics a boring Focus feat from editions prior. 5e's flat math makes that +1 to attacks/dmg or to AC more relevant than it's ever been before.

And also, yeah, most campaigns end by 7th level, and most characters don't/can't take feats until 8.

My 4e group recently jumped into 5e at 11th level, and 4/5 players have at least one feat. 3/5 have more than one.

[strangebloke]

People with unpaid dndbeyond accounts can totally access feats! They just only have access to Grappler, which is....not a good feat, even for grappling builds.

But also, yeah, ASI often wins mathematically, even if it's boring / mimics a boring Focus feat from editions prior. 5e's flat math makes that +1 to attacks/dmg or to AC more relevant than it's ever been before.

And also, yeah, most campaigns end by 7th level, and most characters don't/can't take feats until 8.

My 4e group recently jumped into 5e at 11th level, and 4/5 players have at least one feat. 3/5 have more than one.

ASIs win against some feats.

They do not win against SS, GWM, PAM, etc.

[OldTrees1]

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that that he is right about this.

I wonder if the usage of point buy encourages stat increases over feats? 4d6 drop lowest has something like a 56% chance of generating an 18 or better after racial modifiers, so there's not nearly as much incentive to pump up your stats.

But I think folks are absolutely right to say that the fact that most campaigns characters never get past 7 is a weighting factor.

Free feat at first level!


If going by Adventurers League Characters because thats basically all they care about. "NO DUH" Max stat at lvl 1 is 17, of course you are going to spend all of your ASIs on Stats instead of feats.

Adventure League uses Point Buy. From my small sampling of Adventures League (~20 characters) and my own time playing around under those rules:
1) You don't need to get an 18 ASAP. A 14-15 in Tier 2 would be noticeable but still viable if offset with feats.
2) A feat is better than an ASI unless there is no feat for that yet.

However it boils down to is there a feat that you want to take. Most full casters took an ASI (or a +1 feat) first. A frontline wizard took Warcaster because they would use all 3 effects frequently. In contrast most other characters took a feat first. A aura paladin took a +1 Feat (Inspiring Leader) to prepare for Aura of Protection.

Looking past the first Feat/ASI is harder since AL seems to fall heavily into Tier 1 > Tier 2 > Everything else so most characters have only had 0-3 opportunities to choose. However based upon that and talking with players about their expectations for their characters I noticed that they run out of feats they want to take more than an ASI. Some are feat heavy (Observant/Skulker/Resilient Rogue OR Spell Sniper/Polearm Mastery/Sentinel Eldritch Knight) while others only take 1 feat (Sharpshooter, Shield Master, Magical Secrets) before deciding to take ASIs instead of feats tangential to their concept.

[kivzirrum]

I think this is probably true. I like feats,
but I imagine many more casual gamers aren't going to be interested in them, especially since they're presented as a variant rule. My table is entirely composed of casual players,
except for me, and while it's fairly early in the campaign,
I don't think a single one of them is going to want to go through all the feats to decide which ones would be most powerful or flavorful. They'll probably just keep taking ASIs to boost those numbers. Easier to understand the thing that's already on their character sheet than have to learn a whole new part of the game. I suspect this is true for a large number of gamers.


It makes sense, but it doesn't mean it's good.

I don't know what percentage of people it is...

but people WANT FEATS! They just realize that they CAN'T AFFORD FEATS because of the currently poorly designed game.
Being forced to choose between a stat increase which has massive implication on your Accuracy and Damage or a Feat which May or May Not be really good, but super flavorful...


You know, I actually don't agree! I think that one can definitely afford feats. I kind of like the system how it is--being forced to choose between feats and ASIs, having to weigh the benefits of each, adds an enjoyable element for me. I realize this is not universal, but it's been my experience :smallsmile:

[Waazraath]

Of course he is right. Even disregarding featless games (which do exist), in games that do use feats lots of characters won't use them (for reasons already mentioned in this thread).

As for my own experience:
- 3 campagnes
- 2 of them featless
- 1 of them not, with 1 out of 3 players has one (and she took more something for flavor than truely optimized).

[SirGraystone]

Most the official campaign stop around level 10, many groups don't even that high. So lots peoples at level 4 increase their main stat and doesn't get a chance to choose more at higher level because they don't get high level enough.

[GlenSmash!]

Look at it from a perspective of a new player or DM, who are coming to D&D in huge numbers these days.

After reading through the rules and trying to wrap you head around them do you decide to use an optional rule like feats, or do you choose the easier path?

I like feats. I'm glad they are in the game, but I can easily see why the majority of players (which as far as I can tell includes more newbies than ever) decides to skip them.

[Lombra]

On top of everything that's been said, D&D 5th has seen many newcomers come to the hobby, so beginners rarely go for optional rules or added complexity.

[DanyBallon]

I know its only anecdotal, but the group I play with is pretty casual and I'm the only person who has looked at feats. The GM is fine with us taking them, but nobody is really interested in looking beyond "+2 main stat". I imagine that a lot of newer players fall into the casual, barely read the book, category and therefore feats are less common. But those same players aren't really buying much of anything, so should they be the target? I'm not sure what point Crawford is trying to make.

As a matter of fact, since most of the releases are adventures, they are not geared toward casual gamers that just want to play, and for the few books with options in it, they are a good mix of fluff and crush as well as following a really slow release that still make them appealing for casual players.



It makes sense, but it doesn't mean it's good.

I don't know what percentage of people it is...

but people WANT FEATS! They just realize that they CAN'T AFFORD FEATS because of the currently poorly designed game.
Being forced to choose between a stat increase which has massive implication on your Accuracy and Damage or a Feat which May or May Not be really good, but super flavorful...

If we were to create a new option in which players can have BOTH stats and a feat, then I bet a lot of people would start using the 2nd option.


I bet tho...
They are going to use that data to erase Feats even further from the game...

It's a feature not a bug! :smallbiggrin:
Having you to choose how you want your character evolve, is what create the difference between two characters with the same race/class/subclass/base stats. One ma decide that they boost their main stat, an other whant his character to be an actor (and choose the actor feat), another may want his character to be the most efficient and decide to use polearms and picks up PAM and GWM.
Letting you choose both an ASI and a feat will lead to a bit less diversity, but worse, would be exactly the same as needing a specific bonus at a given level.

[Sol]

ASIs win against some feats.

They do not win against SS, GWM, PAM, etc.

If you think you are disagreeing with me, you are mistaken. If you are merely highlighting that some feats are mathematically superior to ASI, you are correct.

[Pex]

Even assuming it's true, how many don't use feats because they don't use feats and how many don't use feats because they need the ability score bumps. If feats didn't cost you an ability score bump they would be valued more. If you're going to take a feat the latest you'll take it is level 8. After that if you didn't need it or want it before it's not worth the bother now. Maybe Toughness is worth taking after level 8 as monster damage output continues to increase. If you want two feats you're a Variant Human. To get a third feat is too costly in not increasing ability scores. With so few feats players will go for the most efficient for their character. Great Weapon Master/Pole Arm Master/Sharp Shooter for the warriors. Lucky for anyone. Mobility for Monks and maybe Moon Druids. Anything else is a ribbon, taken at level 1 as a Variant Human or level 4 for niche roleplaying or tactics. Fighter gets the benefit of level 6 for a feat then or ability score increase for a feat elsewhere.

I am bothered 5E made it a choice between ability score increase or a feat. It's not a "bad 5E bad stop that" thing for me, just irksome. I don't think it was a necessary thing to do. Given the feats as they are, I'd have no problem as a separate resource given to PCs it would be significantly less in number than 3E. One at 1st level, 6th level, 12th level, 18th level as an example would work for me.

[Trippic]

so he is basically admitting feats(with some exceptions) are a subpar option

[Whit]

If going by Adventurers League Characters because thats basically all they care about. "NO DUH" Max stat at lvl 1 is 17, of course you are going to spend all of your ASIs on Stats instead of feats.

Agreed.
In any game where people have good beginjingbstats from a signed rolled etc like 18 stat and a 16-18 secondary stat they will get feats.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

Personally, I've played with maybe 30 people in various year-or-longer campaigns since 5e, more in one-shots, and I've almost never seen people who want to use feats.
I can't speak for others, but for me it's the choice *between* ASI and feats. 5e did a lot of things right, but I think it also greatly discouraged mechanical originality. Feats can only be taken in exchange for ASI's, instead of with, so you are much more penalized for taking feats. At the same time, because of the rarity of ASI's and the exchange, feats are also much bigger, bulkier things to make up for the sacrifice which makes them much harder for developers to properly assess balance with. Top it off with how multiclassing royally bums you on ASI's (unless you only dip one or two levels, you're not getting your ASI's until practically the end of most campaigns) and what your left with is a *heavily* optional, poorly balanced, multiclass unfriendly.
Of course, I know some people love feats, but that's my take on it.

[Laserlight]

If I started with a 14 in my primary, I'd use my first ASI to bump the stat. But if I rolled an 18 to start, I wouldn't bump it to 20 until L8; I'd rather buy a feat, although I recognize the for some characters, the ASI is mechanically better.

I wonder to what extent "most people don't use feats" is the same as "most people start with a primary 15-16, use L4 and L8 for stats, and then the campaign folds"?

[DanyBallon]

I see many complaining about having to choose between ASI and Feats. On how much not taking an ASI is a big lost and most feats are not on par with an ASI.
Sorry but I have to disagree. ASI are important if you really want to max out you stats, but this reasonning is a throw back from 3.P and 4e, as 5e design do not need you to max out your stats to still be effective. Your character can go on for most of his adventuring career with only a 14-16 in his main ability. Sure a character with a 14 won't be as good as character with a 18 or 20 in the same ability, but he will still be effective enough for him not dying at every occasion.
You suffer most from not having a 18 or 20 in your main ability, when there is another character in the party that does have such a score, as you always compare to this character. If both have 14 or 20, they will be as effective.
Now if both start with 14, and one decide to take ASI to reach 20 and the other select feats, you'll effectively see a disparency between both character, but remember that the one that took feats, now can do way more outside is traditionnal role that the one that took only ASI.

Like I said in an other post, the way ASI and feats competes is a feature of the game, not a bug, but it need a change of paradigm for players that are used to 3.P and 4e :smallwink:

[Bobbyjackcorn]

If I started with a 14 in my primary, I'd use my first ASI to bump the stat. But if I rolled an 18 to start, I wouldn't bump it to 20 until L8; I'd rather buy a feat, although I recognize the for some characters, the ASI is mechanically better.

I wonder to what extent "most people don't use feats" is the same as "most people start with a primary 15-16, use L4 and L8 for stats, and then the campaign folds"?

I dunno, I've seen people take an ASI in more than one stat. Just because your "combat" stat is up to snuff doesn't mean you won't want more hitpoints, a higher dex, better mentals, etc.

[GlenSmash!]

so he is basically admitting feats(with some exceptions) are a subpar option

Are you talking about Crawford? It seems to me that he's admitting that most players don't use feats. Any inference beyond that is our own.

For my take I think more people just don't want the added complexity to the game.

[imanidiot]

I have never played a 5e character that didn't have a feat. Even at level 1 I will play Variant Human and start with one.

[hymer]

I have my grain of salt ready because I'm aware that this community does not encompass all of the fandom, but I'm curious if our data matches his.
It sounds about right from my perspective. In my current campaign, feats are allowed, and I think it's about half the PCs who have one. Levels are in the 6-7 range, so they have access.

[strangebloke]

I dunno, I've seen people take an ASI in more than one stat. Just because your "combat" stat is up to snuff doesn't mean you won't want more hitpoints, a higher dex, better mentals, etc.

There are good reasons to do this. Roleplay, simplicity, etc.

wanting your character to be stronger is not one of them.

[Theodoxus]

It makes sense, but it doesn't mean it's good.

I don't know what percentage of people it is...

but people WANT FEATS! They just realize that they CAN'T AFFORD FEATS because of the currently poorly designed game.
Being forced to choose between a stat increase which has massive implication on your Accuracy and Damage or a Feat which May or May Not be really good, but super flavorful...

If we were to create a new option in which players can have BOTH stats and a feat, then I bet a lot of people would start using the 2nd option.


I bet tho...
They are going to use that data to erase Feats even further from the game...

Here... http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HJ7iI67hNM

It's still a work in progress and in playtest, but my players love it. Maybe you will too.

[Willie the Duck]

First and foremost, note that he stated that most don't choose feats, not that most games don't offer feats, nor that most games will not have someone with feats. If most people like to play such that most people in the party usually will take the attributes bump with their ASI, but that one person playing a Str-based melee will take PAM or Sentinel, and that one front-line spellcaster always takes resilient:con and/or Warcaster or whatnot, then he could be completely correct AND there be absolutely nothing wrong with the system as it stands.


I'm going to have to agree with the idea that the GitP community is not representative of the general player base.

Very much so, and we self select away from the casual gamer, so he has access to what to out data sources would be missing demographics.


That's sad. A stat upgrade is basically a +1 to a some things. It's a boring "weapon/spell focus" upgrade of other editions.

Or, conversely, it is a character defining value ('my character is strong and wise') that gets out of the way and lets the player ignore the gears turning under their imagined character.


Yeah, I've watched his talks before, and they do good research. As in, they gather information from a good breadth of sources, with plenty of data. Also, larger companies employ professional researchers and budget for good external research houses - the value has just been proven far too often, and the amount of risk you mitigate is worth every penny.

The people assuming 'he just got it from X' are saying more about themselves than they are Crawford.

I think a lot of people are going to read a lot into his statement based on their own biases, but this still seems a little harsh.


so he is basically admitting feats(with some exceptions) are a subpar option

Not really. You can interpret his data results that way if you like. It is one singular reasonable conclusion that would need additional validation. But he certainly isn't admitting that or anything else (other than exactly what he said, here's what our data suggest about peoples' ASI-use selections).

[Elbeyon]

There are good reasons to do this. Roleplay, simplicity, etc.

wanting your character to be stronger is not one of them.What point are you making? That people shouldn't take ASI for the number increase?

[Bobbyjackcorn]

Like I said in an other post, the way ASI and feats competes is a feature of the game, not a bug, but it need a change of paradigm for players that are used to 3.P and 4e :smallwink:

Yeah but what if it's not about 3.p and it's just people who aren't as interested in the system as you are for reasons of pure personal preference? Isn't that kinda dismissive?

"It's a feature, not a bug." Is the kind of thing people say to try to assure people that buggy looking things aren't buggy without explaining why :/ Not trying to attack you or anything man, just seems like you came into this with some heavy preconceptions about the discussion.

[strangebloke]

What point are you making? That people shouldn't take ASI for the number increase?

BobbyJack was saying that even if you have a good main stat, you might want to boost your non-primary stats.

IMO, this is mechanically not a worthwhile thing to do. You will never run out of feats that are worth more than +2 to a mental stat you don't really use. So if you want to do it, fine. But those reasons aren't mechanical.

[Elbeyon]

BobbyJack was saying that even if you have a good main stat, you might want to boost your non-primary stats.

IMO, this is mechanically not a worthwhile thing to do. You will never run out of feats that are worth more than +2 to a mental stat you don't really use. So if you want to do it, fine. But those reasons aren't mechanical.Ah, alright. I get what you were saying now. I thought you were saying something else.

[Tetrasodium]

Frankly, getting 20 in your primary stat(s) is not nearly the priority that this attitude promotes. A 16 in your prime stat is sufficient and competitive all the way up to around level 12 and even after that, any further boon is merely a "nice thing", rather than an essential, because proficiency bonus begins outweighing ability score bonuses anyway.

Name a class that doesn't get great value out of at least one of PAM, Mobile or War Caster. If you don't want one, you'll want another and that's just singling out three of the juicier Feats, let alone the niche ones that promote certain playstyles or concepts far more than a generic bonus to an Ability Score or two.

I would hazard a guess that almost every player coming from either 3.X (inc. Pathfinder) or 4ed uses Feats in 5ed, simply because they used them in those older editions. I would also hazard to guess that a solid proportion of players new to D&D/Roleplaying use them too, because they're "fun" and, if nothing else, an intriguing section of the PHB, "optional" rule or not. I question the truth of the position that most characters don't use Feats; it seems...unlikely.


Taking a stat from 15 to 20 is a jump from +2 up to +5, that's a big jump. That's not to to say that there are not various concept defining feats where taking one is akin to finishing one of the 3.5 feat chains & completely changes the way you can play. It simply acknowledges not every concept needs many of those.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

BobbyJack was saying that even if you have a good main stat, you might want to boost your non-primary stats.

IMO, this is mechanically not a worthwhile thing to do. You will never run out of feats that are worth more than +2 to a mental stat you don't really use. So if you want to do it, fine. But those reasons aren't mechanical.

The key there is "that you don't really use." The problem with these arguments over objective value in a subjective game are that in one game, having a higher wisdom might mean better wisdom saving throws, better perception, better sense motive, better random wisdom based check, etc, all of which the dm might be using- then in another game, the dm might never touch any of those and you would be dumb to choose it. Your argument makes the supposition that flat objective value in a void trumps actual situational value in-game.

[strangebloke]

The key there is "that you don't really use." The problem with these arguments over objective value in a subjective game are that in one game, having a higher wisdom might mean better wisdom saving throws, better perception, better sense motive, better random wisdom based check, etc, all of which the dm might be using- then in another game, the dm might never touch any of those and you would be dumb to choose it. Your argument makes the supposition that flat objective value in a void trumps actual situational value in-game.

With all due respect, while we aren't playing 3.5 -- optimization is not synonymous with effectiveness -- it still isn't a great idea to try to shoehorn your 10 WIS sorcerer into the role of 'perceptive guy.'

Nobody is going to be good at everything. If you want to be good at something outside of your normal purview (like WIS saves) you should take a feat for that! You'll get a lot better mileage out of your money.

But yeah it somewhat varies from table to table. Still, I kinda think making one stat so good that players boost it preferentially to their own combat ability is sorta bad DMing.

[Silberluchs]

I tend to play in groups where people are tested against their weaknesses, not their strengths. For instance, we all tend to care about Perception (even the lower wisdom characters) and knowledges, since it quickly means you feel more involved. RP happens to all of us, so social skills (Insight, Persuasion, others) matter to everyone. No, you cannot have your friend shunted off to the Charisma dude to be talked to!

As a result of the above, people tend to care for a wider distribution of attributes, which means that people start with a 16 or so as their best, and may well care to increase a second or even tertiary stat high before even considering pumping the primary beyond 18.

I suspect that the bias of this forum is based upon measuring "character efficiency" by combat. RP-focused groups likely have very different priorities.

[DanyBallon]

Yeah but what if it's not about 3.p and it's just people who aren't as interested in the system as you are for reasons of pure personal preference? Isn't that kinda dismissive?

"It's a feature, not a bug." Is the kind of thing people say to try to assure people that buggy looking things aren't buggy without explaining why :/ Not trying to attack you or anything man, just seems like you came into this with some heavy preconceptions about the discussion.

You're right that I came to the discussion with heavy preconception, as when I started playing 5e coming from 3.X and Pathfinder, I had the same impression that it was absurd that ASI and feats competes for the same spot. I was still in a mindset that my character need to be the best in order to survive, until I played with players new to the game that played unoptimized characters and yet were perfoming great. I then took a step back and looked more deeply into the design of 5e and came to the conclusion that while playing an optimized character is a good way to be effective and survive through level 20, it wasn't a necessity at all. And from that moment I stop considering the choice between ASI and feats as a bug, but more as somthing that allow players to create totally different characters while using the same base frame. I now mostly pick my feats (because I'm part of the 30% that use them) in order to reflect the background and evolution of my character and will more than often pick a "lesser" feat over something more useful, just becase it help me define my character the way I have in mind.
I.e. For my current Goliath Fighter (Brute), I took the mobile feat combined with the Mariner fighting style, because I wanted to have a scout-like chacracter that was at ease travelling and climbing mountains (so the climbing speed from Mariner combined with the speed bonus from mobile and the fact that he can ignore difficult terrain when you dash, was perfectly in line what I had in mind for my character concept)

[Foxydono]

I DM two groups and I am a player in one, and all the players use feats.

[KorvinStarmast]

Our first campaign our DM said "no vHuman" and "we'll wait to level 4 to see if we want to do feats.

Nobody took one at level 4. All of the people playing a caster: My cleric, my brother's wizard, the bard, boosted a casting stat.
The rogue boosted dex. the Barbarian boosted Strength. The paladin boosted strength.

My brother and I were discussing the decisions on war caster or resilent Con for level 8, but our campaign stalled with him at level 7 ... RL had a major impact on our DM, and we have not been back to that campaign since.

It could start up again, though, if RL settles down. Three of us are captured, and the other three are working on the jail break. :smallcool:

My nephew's campaign no feats.
My AL (aborted due to a wife veto) was a warlock half elf, so no feat at level 1.
Hmmm, Current Cleric in my brother's campaign: feat magic initiate.
Current Wood Elf Monk in another campaign, shared world: no feat.

I have less feats than yes feats, and I do examine their utility with each character.
Whoops: the VHuman Ranger I made for ToA AL has a feat. Medium Armor Mastery.

[Kane0]

Not in my experience, and that's before my 'everyone gets a racial or half-feat at level 1' houserule.

But I roll stats and don't play AL.

[Willie the Duck]

Not in my experience, and that's before my 'everyone gets a racial or half-feat at level 1' houserule.

But I roll stats and don't play AL.

Boy, if I had any idea of what the AL/non-AL ratio was, that would do a lot to inform my opinion on things like this.

[trctelles]

I think rolling for stats give a lot more space to get feats than going point-buy. People treat point-buy and standard array as the "official" ways to play it, but the PHB say to roll for stats before letting us know that there are other options (So you can pick which one you like best).
With just a bit of luck, you can roll for an 18 in your primary stat (with or without the racial stats) and a decent score for your secondary stat.

My table ALWAYS roll for stats, and I've NEVER seen anyone that doesn't have at least ONE 17 or 18 (with racials) in their main stat.

I'm the "feat addict" of my table, so I alway make builds that revolve around them.

I don't see most people going for the vanilla human in D&D 5e, they are just awfull IMO, and I think most people will agree. I would never go human if my DM didn't allow the Variant Human for the feat, because all the other races offer so much more, like better stats, darkvision, fey ancestry, skills, cantrips, LR spells, resistances and etc.

I don't know where Crawford took his data from, but I'm sure it's not 100% reliable.

[Theodoxus]

My first AL game, I rolled a dwarf cleric and after the first session, retrained him to vhuman. Every character since has been a vhuman. That starting feat is pretty sweet (and build defining) when the rest of your ASI are going to stat improvements due to Point Buy.

ALs just recently started taking off here - the first 3 years of 5E were all home games with all kinds of houserules and options. I still prefer that to AL - but AL has the draw. I like the trawl the tables looking for players who want a little more from their experience than just another cookie cutter AL build.

[GlenSmash!]

I don't see most people going for the vanilla human in D&D 5e, they are just awfull IMO, and I think most people will agree. I would never go human if my DM didn't allow the Variant Human for the feat, because all the other races offer so much more, like better stats, darkvision, fey ancestry, skills, cantrips, LR spells, resistances and etc.

There is a large population of players that absolutely don't care about what a Race "Gets" only that it fits the idea in their head. In particular new players.

How would a player that has never player before know that Darkvision is a good thing to have? They are going to say something like "Can I play a character like John Snow?" Cantrips, skills, resistances and such will never even come up.

[History_buff]

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/969020122177331200

I have my grain of salt ready because I'm aware that this community does not encompass all of the fandom, but I'm curious if our data matches his.

I think he may be making that claim because feats are technically a variant rule, albeit one with more pages devoted to it than weapons in this edition.

Give me feats or give me death.

P.S.- feats have saved a character more than once. I had alert on my first ever character, and that one saved his bacon on at least three occasions.

[Boci]

In my experience, this is true. I tend not to play with high-optimization players, which I think is likely the norm. While I allow feats, I don't often see players taking them. There's a bit more multi-classing, but that has more to do with flavor rather than optimization.

That's seems really wierd to me, because feats tend to be way fluffier than +2 to a state. In my expirience, feats are liked by optimizers (GWF, Elven Accuracy) and non-optimizors (Taven bralwer for example is a popular choice here).


How would a player that has never player before know that Darkvision is a good thing to have? They are going to say something like "Can I play a character like John Snow?" Cantrips, skills, resistances and such will never even come up.


Because you don't need to be a D&D veterran to know that seeing is good and night happens?

[JakOfAllTirades]

I have yet to meet a single player at any table in the real D&D playing world who doesn't use feats. I'm calling BS.

[Kane0]

My Theory:

Optional rules in the PHB: majority use.
Optional rules in the DMG: majority do not use.

[MxKit]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this were true. I've played in games, ran a game, am about to run another game, and have observed a few other games/talked to quite a few people playing in games I'm not in. I've been one of the only people who's really into the idea of taking feats, and even I don't take many of them, or take them on all my characters. Most people around here, including people who came into 5e from earlier versions of D&D, just don't seem to care much about feats one way or the other, and several games have just flat-out disallowed them to no one's disappointment.

The next game I run is going to be for beginning players, including some kids, and I'm not going to allow feats or multiclassing. If we make it all the way through Lost Mines of Phandelver and they want to keep going, I might consider slowly adding in the optional rules after that if they seem interested, but I won't be at all surprised if they're not, or if only one or two of them are.

[Boci]

Looked at the Twitter feed and noticed that he never goes back and explains how he got that data.

My guess? Characters created in the D&DBeyond tool.

And if that's the case, I see where the disconnect is coming from. The majority of characters created in D&DBeyond are probably made without the paid content. Which means just the basic rules/SRD. Which means, feats are not an option.

I think they need to clean up their data set...run that same report, but filter out People Who Paid For the PHB vs People Who Didn't. If you check on people who have ACCESS to feats in the tool, and there is still a majority of characters who don't use them, then you've got some interesting data. But I'll bet the opposite is true.

Yeah, and then I;d love to know his sources for the claim:

"Most D&D players make their primary character-building choices based on a character's fantasy archetype, backstory, personality, appearance, and place in the world. To flesh out those things, players are usually satisfied with choosing race, class/subclass, and background."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/969023037516361728

[Coffee_Dragon]

Where is Politifact when you need them?

[MeeposFire]

Where is Politifact when you need them?

It would not help. Even if it 100% validated what JC said many people will refuse to believe it because it does not fit their preconceived notions.

I have seen many groups at several different local stores and not one group has a majority of players using feats. Many allow them (but not all) but none of them I believe have a majority choosing to take one.

In contrast in my game I give out a free feat at 1st level so obviously I would be an exception. My game is not at those stores.

[Tanarii]

I have yet to meet a single player at any table in the real D&D playing world who doesn't use feats. I'm calling BS.
Are you saying you don't believe there are tables that don't use feats at all, or that if they're available, they are heavily used?

My personal experience in AL, was Feats in general, and Variant Humans specifically, were common. That was shortly-ish after release though, so the player base in AL was fairly largely made up of experienced D&D players from 3rd and 4th edition in my area.

[rbstr]

It would not help. Even if it 100% validated what JC said many people will refuse to believe it because it does not fit their preconceived notions.

Plus people around here are a little over-invested invested in JC being wrong...

[MeeposFire]

Plus people around here are a little over-invested invested in JC being wrong...

Some. Others are just as invested in him being right though here I would put disagreeing with him by principle the bigger of the two.

I think this is actually more about people thinking that their experience here is representative of all groups out there. That is an easy thing to do and something that has happened in many of the forums (if not all) I have seen. In general people on boards like this tend to use more optional rules, home brew more, and have more knowledge about the meta game. Of course people who do not use boards like this can do this too but the concentration tneds to be higher on an internet board like this.

[strangebloke]

Some. Others are just as invested in him being right though here I would put disagreeing with him by principle the bigger of the two.

I think this is actually more about people thinking that their experience here is representative of all groups out there. That is an easy thing to do and something that has happened in many of the forums (if not all) I have seen. In general people on boards like this tend to use more optional rules, home brew more, and have more knowledge about the meta game. Of course people who do not use boards like this can do this too but the concentration tneds to be higher on an internet board like this.

DnD 5e is played by like 10 million people right? Saying that "JC is just wrong about this" is the equivalent of someone saying that they can predict a US state election based off of how their friends and family are voting. (many of the more populous US states have around 10 million people)

[MeeposFire]

DnD 5e is played by like 10 million people right? Saying that "JC is just wrong about this" is the equivalent of someone saying that they can predict a US state election based off of how their friends and family are voting. (many of the more populous US states have around 10 million people)

Yes we are all in our own bubbles and it can be hard to see outside of it myself included.

[Boci]

DnD 5e is played by like 10 million people right? Saying that "JC is just wrong about this" is the equivalent of someone saying that they can predict a US state election based off of how their friends and family are voting. (many of the more populous US states have around 10 million people)

Eh, when you go to his twitter and find him saying things like ""Most D&D players make their primary character-building choices based on..." with no explanation to how he would know this, some sceptisism is in order. He may be right, but I doubt he knowns it for a fact, which is what he is asserting.

[ad_hoc]

There are over 10 million active 5e players.

The sample size here is so small that it isn't worth looking at.

Not saying that people here don't count, just that they don't count towards these sorts of broad statements.

[Drascin]

I've only been in two games of this, and honestly neither of them has used feats or multiclassing at all beyond the one guy that started with one because he was Variant Human.

An important thing I feel forumers forget is that is a game marks something as "optional", the majority of games will not use it. Not just in D&D, this is a fairly well oberved trend in other games. The idea that "the optional rule in the book, therefore I can expect to be able to use it unless explicitly told no" is just not how most tables work in my experience.

[Logosloki]

reading through the limited replies JC gives, it seems the data shows that many people love feats (and they are here to stay) just that the majority of people don't use feats. I'd say their data comes from a mixture of sources such as surveys, AL, D&D beyond, etc.

[DeadMech]

I'd love to take a feat. All the characters I've made could have well done with warcaster or resilient constitution to help with spell casting.

The Sorcadin I'm playing it's damn near mandatory if I want to cast spells and use my sword and board. As soon as I can I will take warcaster for him... but I can't until level 6 because some genius decided to tie ASI's to class level instead of character level. Im'ma be honest I don't expect that game is actually gonna last that long. Rookie DM, same group of friends as the other campaign so it cuts into the other game's time. Even if this game did go to tier four. Warcaster, +2 cha to get to 18 +2 dex to get to 18. That eats 3 of my 4 possible ASI/feat slots. And I'm probably gonna want to use the last on either more Dex or more Cha.

My wizard I've love to have resilient constitution and maybe even warcaster later. But I just had a battle where an enemy met my spell save DC on the nose... and she's not succeeded on casting a save or suck spell on a single enemy throughout the entire campaign. Because luck is too large a factor in this game system. I'm going to take my next ASI to boost her int to 20 because RNG can do itself.

There has never been a shortage of feats I'd like to take. Linguist sounds fun. Skilled would help make a character well rounded and logically able to function as an individual in the world. Or spell sniper or observant or keen mind or anything really. Elemental adept would never go wrong for her. But I don't get to take these things because other stuff is mandatory.

[Kurald Galain]

"A majority of D&D characters don't use feats" could mean "49% of characters do use feats" just as easily as "only a tiny minority uses feats ever". It would help if he would clarify that part.

[Willie the Duck]

I also have to wonder where he is getting his data from. I mean, if he's just basing it off of characters made on their app or whatever, that may not be a representative sample.

It just occurred to me that, if the research does come mostly from characters produced or stored on some form of WotC-owned application, then many, of not the majority, of them are going to be 1st level characters (many, many of which will never get updates that WotC will ever see). Given that there's exactly one (albeit a popular one) race which allows a feat at first level, we might be making a mountain out of a molehill here.

[KorvinStarmast]

It just occurred to me that, if the research does come mostly from characters produced or stored on some form of WotC-owned application, then many, of not the majority, of them are going to be 1st level characters (many, many of which will never get updates that WotC will ever see). Given that there's exactly one (albeit a popular one) race which allows a feat at first level, we might be making a mountain out of a molehill here. On GiTP? Perish the thought. Speaking of optional rules, my nephew threw in one of the flanking rules from the DMG which quite frankly changed combat quite a bit. It also made it nearly mandatory to have a grid. Flanking rules and ToTM do not mix.

[Galactkaktus]

There are some feats that are just great like GWM SS and PAM. But i think that most feats don't measure up to an ordinary ASI +1 to hit +1dmg or +1 DC +1 to a saving throw and +1 to some skill checks you might also get other bonuses like initiative or Hp so it's alot to contend with.

[white lancer]

I've only been in two games of this, and honestly neither of them has used feats or multiclassing at all beyond the one guy that started with one because he was Variant Human.

An important thing I feel forumers forget is that is a game marks something as "optional", the majority of games will not use it. Not just in D&D, this is a fairly well oberved trend in other games. The idea that "the optional rule in the book, therefore I can expect to be able to use it unless explicitly told no" is just not how most tables work in my experience.

This is certainly a fair observation. Our group never really saw feats as optional rules because we all came over from 3.5, so I imagine that players who played with older editions are more likely to use feats as well. However, there are a ton of new 5e players who may not be interested in the extra complexity.

Personally, I'll always love having the option to take feats. I just wish there were more that were decent enough/fun enough to consider taking over an ASI.

[GlenSmash!]

Because you don't need to be a D&D veterran to know that seeing is good and night happens?

Good yes, but better than playing a character similar to a fictional character you like? That's just something that's not quantifiable.

[GlenSmash!]

I have yet to meet a single player at any table in the real D&D playing world who doesn't use feats. I'm calling BS.

I've been playing since the Starter Set came out, and none of my players choose feats until my last session.

However. I know that I as an individual am not statistically significant, and it would be foolish to call "BS" on anything based on my own limited experience.

[Twigwit]

I like how in the twitter reply chain JC refuses to explain how he came to that conclusion, then gets pissy when people try to guess how he came to that conclusion. Does he just expect us DnD nerds to take a statistics factoid at face value?

[Scots Dragon]

The Sorcadin I'm playing it's damn near mandatory if I want to cast spells and use my sword and board. As soon as I can I will take warcaster for him... but I can't until level 6 because some genius decided to tie ASI's to class level instead of character level.

That's because ASIs are tied to class level instead of character level in D&D 5E, which is why they're listed in the class table rather than alongside stuff like proficiency and experience progression; this is an explicit part of the rules. And not all classes share the same progression on Ability Score Improvements.

Most do admittedly follow the same progression; 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 19th. This applies to the barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, monk, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, warlock, and wizard.

But the fighter and rogue progress slightly differently. The fighter gains extra ability score improvements at 6th and 14th level, and the rogue gets an extra ability score improvement at 10th level, on top of the ones that the others possess.

[GlenSmash!]

I like how in the twitter reply chain JC refuses to explain how he came to that conclusion, then gets pissy when people try to guess how he came to that conclusion. Does he just expect us DnD nerds to take a statistics factoid at face value?

I think he expects that people shouldn't get valuable marketing information that WotC likely paid quite a bit of money for for free.

[Vorpalchicken]

This just in:
The data confirms that the majority of D&D characters don't use ninth level spells!

[GlenSmash!]

This just in:
The data confirms that the majority of D&D characters don't use ninth level spells!

^^^ Truth.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I think he expects that people shouldn't get valuable marketing information that WotC likely paid quite a bit of money for for free.

I'm sad I don't get to monetize WotC's marketing information on how many D&D players use feats. :smallfrown: If only JC would slip up I would, I'd monetize it so hard

[DanyBallon]

I'm sad I don't get to monetize WotC's marketing information on how many D&D players use feats. :smallfrown: If only JC would slip up I would, I'd monetize it so hard

It's not about you would use that information or not, but more about the matter that if he slips private marketing infos to customers and other companies use those informations for their own uses or to compete with WotC.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

It's not about you would use that information or not, but more about the matter that if he slips private marketing infos to customers and other companies use those informations for their own uses or to compete with WotC.

I don't think it's that far of a stretch for him to be able to provide a *vague* explanation of where that data comes from though. I mean really.

[DanyBallon]

I don't think it's that far of a stretch for him to be able to provide a *vague* explanation of where that data comes from though. I mean really.

True!
But I haven't seen the non-disclosure contract he had to sign. Until then I'll assume that he isn't purposely hiding his sources just to piss us off :smallwink:

[Bobbyjackcorn]

True!
But I haven't seen the non-disclosure contract he had to sign. Until then I'll assume that he isn't purposely hiding his sources just to piss us off :smallwink:

You know, that's fair. I'll settle for not judging. Kind of a better policy in general anyhow.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm sad I don't get to monetize WotC's marketing information on how many D&D players use feats. :smallfrown: If only JC would slip up I would, I'd monetize it so hard

The data itself may be less useful to competitors than knowing the mechanism used to get it.

[Boci]

Good yes, but better than playing a character similar to a fictional character you like? That's just something that's not quantifiable.

I think you're misunderstanding how players try to recreate their favorite characters, at least based on what I've seen. If their favorite character is non-human, they wil want to match races yes. But if the character they want to emulate is a human in a world of only humans, they are far less likely to feel the need to match races. Being a human is not an important part of John Snow's character, since there's little alternative.


I think he expects that people shouldn't get valuable marketing information that WotC likely paid quite a bit of money for for free.

Then he shouldn't share the information to begin with/WotC shouldn't have told him to share it.

"Here's a potentially surprising fact. No I can't reveal my sources, so you have no way of assessing its reliability"

Not exactly reasonable.

[strangebloke]

Then he shouldn't share the information to begin with/WotC shouldn't have told him to share it.

"Here's a potentially surprising fact. No I can't reveal my sources, so you have no way of assessing its reliability"

Not exactly reasonable.

Questions:

1. Do you have any reason to doubt him?
2. What possible motive do you think he has to lie to you?
3. Why do you care?

[Scripten]

Then he shouldn't share the information to begin with/WotC shouldn't have told him to share it.

"Here's a potentially surprising fact. No I can't reveal my sources, so you have no way of assessing its reliability"

Not exactly reasonable.

How is the world is the concept of retaining information on internally-known sources from the greater public unreasonable? Nobody is entitled to the sources WotC is using. If you don't trust what they are saying, then that's your prerogative, but the statements that keep popping up in this thread are hysterical and ridiculous.

[GlenSmash!]

I think you're misunderstanding how players try to recreate their favorite characters, at least based on what I've seen. If their favorite character is non-human, they wil want to match races yes. But if the character they want to emulate is a human in a world of only humans, they are far less likely to feel the need to match races. Being a human is not an important part of John Snow's character, since there's little alternative.

Misunderstanding? Maybe, but I think it's more likely that I'm stating what I am based on what I've seen at my table, and the tables I've played at just like you probably are. Neither of our experiences may actually be statistically significant however.

I've seen enough of "I want to play a John Snow/Aragorn/Harry Potter/Conan/Kvothe character in this magical world." And even if I explain that Would Elf makes a Great Ranger, Gnome mages a great Wizard, Half-Orc makes a Barbarian, or Half-Elf makes a great Bard I've seen lots of new players choose plain old vanilla human. And that's even after I explain that +1 to all stats really isn't very helpful at all.

[Boci]

How is the world is the concept of retaining information on internally-known sources from the greater public unreasonable?

It not. I said "if you can't share the source don't share the information either", not "all secrets are evil and all information must be shared with everyone".


Questions:

1. Do you have any reason to doubt him?
2. What possible motive do you think he has to lie to you?

You're assuming I could only imagine him lying, when its also possible he's just mistaken/badly interpreting the data.

[LankyOgre]

I think some people wonder what WotC plans to do with the information. If WotC is planning on discontinuing all future development of feats because "nobody uses them," then a lot of people might wonder if that fact is valid. Especially if they like feats and don't want to see them removed from 5e.

[Scripten]

It not. I said "if you can't share the source don't share the information either", not "all secrets are evil and all information must be shared with everyone".

Some people find the information useful or interesting. Sharing it is a service to those people. For everyone else, there's no harm being done. for instance, I find it interesting that the quote seems to line up with my RL experiences. Even if it didn't, though, the fact that he made the statement is utterly a non-issue.

EDIT:


I think some people wonder what WotC plans to do with the information. If WotC is planning on discontinuing all future development of feats because "nobody uses them," then a lot of people might wonder if that fact is valid. Especially if they like feats and don't want to see them removed from 5e.

Highly doubtful. Feats were an option from the start and there's no indication that WotC has any intention of removing them. Even if they did, what would that entail? They're not going to reissue PHBs with the feats sections removed, after all.

[Boci]

Even if it didn't, though, the fact that he made the statement is utterly a non-issue.

And the fact that I have a different opinion about tit is also a non-issue. And yet, here we are.


Highly doubtful. Feats were an option from the start and there's no indication that WotC has any intention of removing them. Even if they did, what would that entail? They're not going to reissue PHBs with the feats sections removed, after all.

No racial feats for future races is the only one I can think of. But yeah, I doubt that will be the case. Feats don't take up much room in a book, so they're not really competing hard for space, and, well I can't comment with any certainty on the man hours required toi produce them, but I doubt its too much.

[strangebloke]

It not. I said "if you can't share the source don't share the information either", not "all secrets are evil and all information must be shared with everyone".



You're assuming I could only imagine him lying, when its also possible he's just mistaken/badly interpreting the data.

I just think you're being incredibly pretentious here.

WotC is not great at everything, but its marketing and marketing research teams are good at what they do. If their best data says that this is true, it is. What it means is probably more nuanced, but it isn't like JC is saying that they're getting rid of feats or anything.

[GlenSmash!]

I think some people wonder what WotC plans to do with the information. If WotC is planning on discontinuing all future development of feats because "nobody uses them," then a lot of people might wonder if that fact is valid. Especially if they like feats and don't want to see them removed from 5e.

No one ever said "Nobody uses them" as was pointed out it could be a 51% vs 49% scenario.

[Boci]

I just think you're being incredibly pretentious here.

Okay...? I don't know what I'm meant to do with that. I can't help being skeptical.

[Luccan]

I could believe this is the case, but I am curious how they got that information (not that I expect them to tell us, others have given fair reasons as to why). I'm more curious if this info means anything for the game's future. Regardless if it is completely accurate or not, it is what WotC believes, so the question for me is one of impact, not fact. It could mean nothing, could influence future decisions for feats (maybe they'll make feats that are more enticing, maybe they'll include fewer in future books), and it could even mean nothing for 5e, but cause them to rethink feats for future editions. Who knows.

[LankyOgre]

No one ever said "Nobody uses them" as was pointed out it could be a 51% vs 49% scenario.


Hyperbole.

[Pex]

Highly doubtful. Feats were an option from the start and there's no indication that WotC has any intention of removing them. Even if they did, what would that entail? They're not going to reissue PHBs with the feats sections removed, after all.

It's the hypothetical 6E and whether feats will be in it that's the ultimate concern.

[War_lord]

I'd have no problem with them getting rid of feats in the hypothetical 6th edition. Feats in 5e feel like an unfinished element, highlighted by the power disparity between PAM and something like Keen Mind. The PHB feats feel like they just brainstormed ideas without really agreeing on what feats were supposed to be.

[Cynthaer]

I could believe this is the case, but I am curious how they got that information (not that I expect them to tell us, others have given fair reasons as to why). I'm more curious if this info means anything for the game's future. Regardless if it is completely accurate or not, it is what WotC believes, so the question for me is one of impact, not fact. It could mean nothing, could influence future decisions for feats (maybe they'll make feats that are more enticing, maybe they'll include fewer in future books), and it could even mean nothing for 5e, but cause them to rethink feats for future editions. Who knows.

I can't link Twitter on my work internet, but in followup tweets he has said:


The data is from surveys spanning many years, D&D Insider, and D&D Beyond.


I pointed out that a majority of characters don't use feats, yet many players love feats. I'll repeat: many players love feats. They're a fun part of the game, and they're here to stay.


D&D is a large tent, with room for players & play styles of many sorts. Yesterday I shared the data that characters who use feats are in the minority. A key takeaway: different players like different things. And feats will continue to be a fun option for those who like them. #DnD


My conclusion is that there's room for characters with feats and there's room for characters without them, and we'll continue to make room for both types of characters.


My interpretation is this: different players like different things, and we'll continue to support play styles of various sorts.

So I feel like there's a lot of unnecessary speculation in this thread. The data, as many guessed, is based on various sources (not just D&D Beyond), and Crawford has explicitly stated that they intend to continue supporting players who use feats.

Now, it's possible to be uncharitable and continue nitpicking every single word—like, "maybe to WotC, 'supporting' feats just means they aren't going to errata feats out of 5e entirely, but they're never going to publish another feat again", or "maybe they completely misinterpreted the data"—but that strikes me as an unwarranted degree of hostility.

WotC spends a lot of money paying professionals to collect and analyze market data on their many, many products (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wizards_of_the_Coast_products). Like, it's literally their job to understand things that might skew the results.

So I feel pretty comfortable assuming they've thought of the absolute most basic things like "D&D Beyond data probably isn't perfectly representative" and "most characters are low-level".

[Luccan]

I'd have no problem with them getting rid of feats in the hypothetical 6th edition. Feats in 5e feel like an unfinished element, highlighted by the power disparity between PAM and something like Keen Mind. The PHB feats feel like they just brainstormed ideas without really agreeing on what feats were supposed to be.

I disagree. Not that PAM is more powerful than Keen Mind (although Keen Mind is certainly more useful in the right situations), but I think variable power is fine, so long as each one gives unique abilities that aren't a replication of class features.

[War_lord]

Feats require sacrificing an ASI, so they need to be as powerful as the lost ASI. Always knowing which way is north is not equal to +2 strength or an increase in DPR.

[Scripten]

Feats require sacrificing an ASI, so they need to be as powerful as the lost ASI. Always knowing which way is north is not equal to +2 strength or an increase in DPR.

That said, the value of an ASI is variable. Once you've hit max in your primary stat, or even just 18, that function has now changed.

[Luccan]

Feats require sacrificing an ASI, so they need to be as powerful as the lost ASI. Always knowing which way is north is not equal to +2 strength or an increase in DPR.

Notably, Keen Mind increases Int, not as much as a full ASI, but still useful to some characters. Additionally, I know some people disagree that this should be done in D&D, but not every game nor character is purely combat focused. However, I accept that you think DPR is more important and in many games, it probably will be.

[Knaight]

Yes we are all in our own bubbles and it can be hard to see outside of it myself included.
There's some similarity in these bubbles though, starting with how we're all posting on an RPG forum. We're the deep end of the pool, and if casual players outnumber the deep end - which they almost always do in basically every game - the bubble similarities are outright misleading.


There are over 10 million active 5e players.

The sample size here is so small that it isn't worth looking at.

Not saying that people here don't count, just that they don't count towards these sorts of broad statements.
The sample size here is fine - necessary sample size isn't really a function of total population so much as rarity of occurrence (a fairly small sample can get you reasonably confident in a 50-50 split, a much larger sample is needed to be reasonably confident in a 99.95-0.05 split). The problem here is that the sample is ridiculously nonrepresentative because of a whole bunch of self selection mechanisms. There's the matter of RPG forum posters and RPG players being fairly distinct groups. There's the matter of how readers of a webcomic based in 3.5 D&D specifically are likely to be fairly familiar with 3.5 D&D and accustomed to it, where a lot of 5e players don't have that background. Basically, as a data set for the broader 5e community, we're useless.

That's just not a function of number.

[Errata]

Always knowing which way is north is not equal to +2 strength or an increase in DPR.

Keen Mind isn't the most powerful, by any means, but you know that's not a fair comparison. It's a half feat, so at most those benefits are comparable to +1 strength. And the direction thing is only one of 3 benefits, of which the memory thing is probably the most useful.

To a wizard with an odd int score, probably the question comes down to whether any of their important off stats are also odd, or how Keen Mind stacks up with other +1 int half feats for their character. Probably not as mechanically strong as Observant or Arcanist, but it could make some sense for certain niche builds or roleplaying concepts. If they happen to be an Elf, then Elven Accuracy, that's a no-brainer, but possibly so much of one that that could be the reason they have an odd int score in the first place.

[Cynthaer]

I disagree. Not that PAM is more powerful than Keen Mind (although Keen Mind is certainly more useful in the right situations), but I think variable power is fine, so long as each one gives unique abilities that aren't a replication of class features.

Agreed.

I mean, yeah, better-balanced feats are always better than the alternative, assuming it doesn't come with increased complexity. But even within the subset of players who do use feats, those who are seriously concerned with researching and optimizing damage output are a minority of real-world players. If the feats aren't fully balanced against each other, I don't think it actually hurts the game as a whole.

That might sound like I'm saying "bad game design is fine because players are stupid", but I'm not. There's a minimum threshold of quality here.

The feats still need to do what they claim to do
They can't be outright traps
No feat can be mandatory
There can only be so much distance between the best and worst (comparable) feats

I think the 5e feats meet these criteria overall. Keen Mind doesn't have anywhere near the raw combat power of PAM, but (A) it does what it's supposed to do, (B) it's not a trap, (C) PAM isn't mandatory for polearm builds, and (D) the two feats aren't really in direct competition.

At most you could argue that it encourages power disparities if the Fighter is optimizing damage feats while the Cleric is wasting ASIs on things like Keen Mind instead of maxing Wisdom or something, but without feats that Cleric was probably just going to boost Charisma so they didn't have a negative modifier. And either way, the 5e power gap is small enough that it doesn't necessarily ruin the game.

[War_lord]

(B) it's not a trap,

Explain to me how a feat like Grappler is not either A. trap (New player will assume that a grapple based character should take that feat) or B. evidence that feats were hurriedly added to the game at the last moment without proper testing (as evidenced by the errata'ed third bullet point).

Some feats are nice perks, some feats are build defining and some of them are worthless fluff, there's no consistency.

[Pex]

I'd have no problem with them getting rid of feats in the hypothetical 6th edition. Feats in 5e feel like an unfinished element, highlighted by the power disparity between PAM and something like Keen Mind. The PHB feats feel like they just brainstormed ideas without really agreeing on what feats were supposed to be.

The details of what abilities feats provide in a hypothetical 6E is to be determined, but the concept of feats was and is an excellent addition to the game 3E provided. At its basic it provides a player a choice of how his character develops. D&D uses a class system, which is fine, but it inherently means players get a set of abilities by game designer fiat. There can be a choices among those abilities, but it's still a limited set. Feats are complete player control of choice. That's what makes them interesting. They also help to differentiate two characters of the same class as different players choose different feats.

Depending on feat abilities they allow a player to specialize his class by either improving an already existing ability (3E has these, 5E does not though racial feats and Elemental Affinity sort of do), provide an ability that synergize well with class features (Monks like Mobility, Barbarians like Great Weapon Master, etc.), shore up a weakness, give a passive bonus for those who like them (personal bias), or allow for an ability to do something cool where class is irrelevant. Players like their toys of doing stuff.

[War_lord]

game designer fiat.

Game design is inherently by fiat.

[Pex]

Feats require sacrificing an ASI, so they need to be as powerful as the lost ASI. Always knowing which way is north is not equal to +2 strength or an increase in DPR.

That's 5E. Having better feats solves the issue as getting rid of them altogether would. The decision is which one is better for the game. In a hypothetical 6E they might not cost an ASI and be their own separate allocated resource again even if not as much as previous editions.

[War_lord]

That's 5E. Having better feats solves the issue as getting rid of them altogether would. The decision is which one is better for the game. In a hypothetical 6E they might not cost an ASI and be their own separate allocated resource again even if not as much as previous editions.

Making them optional can only be seen as a move towards removing them. What I've observed and what the info WoTC has put out would support is that 5e players largely define their character based around the personality they've given them, not what their stats are.

[Naanomi]

I mean... the ‘majority’ of characters are probably low level (or even never left level 1) by most measures... I’m not sure it is a useful metric. For example, I’d guess the ‘majority’ of characters stats are probably 8/8/14/8/10/8

[Wryte]

I'm currently DMing for a table of 7 players who have never played a tabletop game before. When we hit 4th level, about half of them chose feats, and the other half chose ASIs.

Before I started DMing for this group, I played in AL for about a year and a half. There, I'd say more players went featless than took feats.

For my own characters, I'm probably about half and half feats and featless.

Feats are cool, and things that I'd really like to play with on most of my characters, but more often than not I just feel like the ASIs outperform them, especially when a lot of feats amount to "guaranteed ability to do a thing that I can try to do anyway." Combat feats are the only ones that ever feel worth taking over an ASI, and even then it's dependent not only on the specific build, but also on who the rest of my party is and what they're doing with their builds. My dwarven monk would probably stick strictly to ASIs, except that she's one of only two frontline fighters in a party with no healers, which makes Dwarven Fortitude very appealing to her.

[Cynthaer]

Explain to me how a feat like Grappler is not either A. trap (New player will assume that a grapple based character should take that feat)

First, the part you quoted was specifically talking about Keen Mind, which was your chosen example of a bad feat.

Second, the existence of one malformed feat—and I do agree that Grappler is a trap—doesn't mean the entire collection is awful. Can you name a second PHB feat that is an actual trap? I can't find one.


or B. evidence that feats were hurriedly added to the game at the last moment without proper testing (as evidenced by the errata'ed third bullet point).

This is provably not the case. They weren't structured the same way, but feats were in the very first playtest packets, back in 2012.

The more likely scenario is that during the playtest, nobody worked out the grapple -> knockdown sequence that makes the first perk of the Grappler feat redundant.

Also, the bullet point that was errata'd referred to an older version of the combat/grappling rules. That means that if anything, they were changing the grappling rules late in the process, not the feats. (In fact, they were probably still changing both, and this particular error tells us very little.)


Some feats are nice perks, some feats are build defining and some of them are worthless fluff, there's no consistency.

Earlier you conflated a "full feat" and a "half feat" (the feats that come with +1 to an attribute). If you apply the distinction here, your claim becomes:


Some full feats are build-defining, some full feats are nice perks, some half feats are nice perks, and some half feats are worthless fluff. There's no consistency.

When you put it that way, it sounds rather silly, doesn't it?


Making them optional can only be seen as a move towards removing them.

Nonsense. It can and is easily seen as a move towards making them optional.

Considering they've explicitly, repeatedly said that they have every intention of continuing to support feats, asserting that this is a lie and they're actually secretly plotting to eliminate them entirely starts to sound downright paranoid.

[Naanomi]

While I’m not sure they would be classically called ‘traps’; I can’t imagine a character or setting where I would take Durable or Weapon Master

[Cynthaer]

While I’m not sure they would be classically called ‘traps’; I can’t imagine a character or setting where I would take Durable or Weapon Master

No argument here. I definitely wouldn't claim that all feats are equally useful—I think the "feat tier list" discussion from this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?551708-5e-Feat-quot-Tier-quot-List) does a decent enough job of classifying them by raw mechanical power.

For me, the important thing design-wise is that both of these half-feats do legitimately deliver what they promise. Durable really does make your Hit-Die-based healing more consistent, and Weapon Master is a straightforward way to get proficiency with that weapon you really want.

They both make you more effective than you were before (which Grappler mostly doesn't), and I think half-feats have a lot of leeway on their raw power because of how they interact with single odd stats.

(On that note: If Grappler simply added a +1 to Str, I would say it's no longer a "trap" option. The first bullet point is still useful if you just want to deal quick damage instead of investing another attack into a shove attempt first, and the second is situationally useful. If it didn't cost a full ASI, I think it would be quite reasonable for Grappler builds that need to round out an odd Str score.)

[Elana]

I can believe the lack of feat use.
I had even thought about removing them from a 3.5 game as feats fall in one of 3 categories
1) Should be a skill use
2) Everyone should be able to do it (sometimes if of appropriate class)
3) Traps

And if your GM embraces this, feats become utterly pointless as you can do the stuff they would grant you anyway

[Willie the Duck]

I mean... the ‘majority’ of characters are probably low level (or even never left level 1) by most measures... I’m not sure it is a useful metric. For example, I’d guess the ‘majority’ of characters stats are probably 8/8/14/8/10/8

As in someone picked rolled stats, rolled low, and abandoned the character?

[Zalabim]

As in someone picked rolled stats, rolled low, and abandoned the character?

I think the meaning there is that only a minority of characters care about any individual stat, other than Con. Thus, the majority of characters have 12 or less strength. The majority of characters have 12 or less intelligence. The majority of characters have 12 or less charisma. And so on. With the more universal dump stats perhaps seeing a more extreme minimum. It's not a single type of character with all dumped stats.

[Tanarii]

While I’m not sure they would be classically called ‘traps’; I can’t imagine a character or setting where I would take Durable or Weapon Master
Durable is amazing. I've saw lots of AL players with, especially Fighters or Babarians, and used it myself. It's a great way for a Con-save class with an odd Con score to bring it up. Being guaranteed (typically) a 6-8 hp return on every HD spent is very nice.

Weapon Master is one of what I like to call "single class" feats. They do something to give a player in a single class game that allows feats a touch of another class's ability, without full duplicating it. That's a niche reason for them to exist, and they do seem a little lower powered even from that perspective. In a multiclassing game they're pretty poor option in comparison. The Armor proficiency feats and the one that gives a battle-master die are other examples.

[DanyBallon]

Weapon Master is one of what I like to call "single class" feats. They do something to give a player in a single class game that allows feats a touch of another class's ability, without full duplicating it. That's a niche reason for them to exist, and they do seem a little lower powered even from that perspective. In a multiclassing game they're pretty poor option in comparison. The Armor proficiency feats and the one that gives a battle-master die are other examples.

I'd say that Magic Initiate fills the same roles, but can benefit to a wider range of classes.
On a side note, I'm thinking about creating a few more "single class" feats; one that would allow a character to sneak attack an deal 1d4 damage (non scalable), and another giving expertise in a single skill you already have. As you can see both picks up from thives features, as I don't see what else from other classes can be made available as a tone down version. Casters are pretty much covered with Magic Initiate on the spellcasting side. Any idea everyone?

[Cynthaer]

Weapon Master is one of what I like to call "single class" feats. They do something to give a player in a single class game that allows feats a touch of another class's ability, without full duplicating it. That's a niche reason for them to exist, and they do seem a little lower powered even from that perspective. In a multiclassing game they're pretty poor option in comparison. The Armor proficiency feats and the one that gives a battle-master die are other examples.

Good point. I have a Half-Orc Abjuration Wizard who's basically pulling an Eldritch Knight cosplay and swinging a quarterstaff around. If I ever wanted to start using a proper weapon, I'd obviously take a level in Fighter and get the armor proficiency, fighting style, second wind, and increased hit die along with it. But in a single-classed game, Weapon Master would be the only way to upgrade from 2-handed quarterstaff in this build.

[Cynthaer]

I'd say that Magic Initiate fills the same roles, but can benefit to a wider range of classes.
On a side note, I'm thinking about creating a few more "single class" feats; one that would allow a character to sneak attack an deal 1d4 damage (non scalable), and another giving expertise in a single skill you already have. As you can see both picks up from thives features, as I don't see what else from other classes can be made available as a tone down version. Casters are pretty much covered with Magic Initiate on the spellcasting side. Any idea everyone?

So, I'm using Magic Initiate, Weapon Master, and Martial Adept as my guidelines here.

Disciple of Rage: If you already have the Rage feature, you gain one more use per long rest. Otherwise, you can Rage once per long rest as a level 1 Barbarian (+2 damage).

Novice of Divinity: You may trigger a Divine Smite once per long rest as though using a level 1 spell slot (2d8 radiant damage). [This one might warrant a +1 to a stat.]

Ki Neophyte: You gain 2 ki points and the Flurry of Blows ki feature. While using Flurry of Blows, if you do not already have the Martial Arts feature, you may use Strength of Dexterity for your unarmed strikes and your unarmed strikes deal 1d4 damage.

The last one is stepping on a couple of Monk features at once, but you pretty much need all of Martial Arts to make Flurry of Blows worth half a damn.

[Beelzebubba]

Okay...? I don't know what I'm meant to do with that. I can't help being skeptical.

Of course you can't. If you don't know anything about the topic - i.e. how big companies do research - then all you have to go on is your own preconceived bias.

I work directly with qualitative and quantitative customer research for a living. Let me tell you how it is.

Hasbro is a $5 billion company. Customer research is a core competency in a company of that scale. It's unavoidable at that level. 'Child' brands like Magic and D&D get a sizable research budget and dedicated researchers of their own. They use the data from those findings literally every day.

They do it because knowledge is power. Knowing who your potential customers are, what your current customers are doing, and what makes them happy, is absolutely essential. When you're developing any complex system, you dig into specifics about the parts of the product they use (or don't), and stagger that research so you get the best coverage.

Researchers at that level are damn good - a Senior who organizes and executes a yearly research plan usually has at least decade of experience and a Master's or PhD. They know what they're doing.

The idea they'd be so stupid as to make public announcements based on research findings so flawed that any amateur could poke a hole in it in ten seconds by pulling a random doubt out of their ass is utterly ridiculous.

Like I said in another post, your doubts say more about you than Wizards.

[napoleon_in_rag]

I completely buy this. Three reasons:

1) Majority could mean 51%. He is not saying 95% of players.
2) A large number of players are level 3 or less where only a variant human can get a feat.
3) Most players I know will bulk up their primary stat to 20 before getting a feat. That means not getting a feat until level 8 or level 12. And how many PCs actually make it that high?

[Kurald Galain]

2. What possible motive do you think he has to lie to you?

Well that's pretty obvious. He has an incentive to justify his decision to make feats an optional rule. Absent a source for his claim, his post is little more than "SEE? I was right after all! And you were wrong to doubt me, so there!"

(edit) I'm not at all saying that's what happened here, but if you're asking what motive he could possibly have, then this is a really obvious one.

[Psikerlord]

Most of my PC's haven't had them.

Home game or AL game?

Also do you allow multiclassing?

[Psikerlord]

I have never played a 5e character that didn't have a feat. Even at level 1 I will play Variant Human and start with one.

Me too, although we dont use multiclassing, and we also make our own custom feats.

[2D8HP]

Home game or AL game?

Also do you allow multiclassing?


Both, and I'm not the DM, but most allow multi-classing.