That's odd, I've always found that lot's of people use feats. They're an integral part of the game and many different classes and builds rely upon them heavily.
Removing feats would be massively complicated and would completely change the game. Yes, 5e works without them, but it would really need a lot of remodeling to other elements of the game if feats were removed.
Pretty sure the majority of players don't think about "builds," either. I think it's easy for people who are deep in a thing to forget that the majority of people who also like that thing...aren't deep in it. Plenty of people "like Thai food," but most of them can't make larb, or even know that it originated in Laos rather than Thailand. Many more people have seen a couple Avengers films than could tell you Hawkeye's real name, either the character's or the actor's. Millions watch the Super Bowl but couldn't name more than one player on either team in any given year.
I have zero doubt that the majority of people who play D&D don't use feats or multiclassing. That's something that only the people who play all the time, to the exclusion of other hobbies or pastimes, care about.
Please show me the data that hardly any players use feats. Also, most surveys that are not scientific are riddled with problems, such as sampling bias.
I don't personally have the data itself, I don't even know if it's been released publicly. However, WotC (or at least Crawford) has said more than once over the years that this is what they've found in analyzing their own game. They probably know better than hobbyists. It's why they are and will likely remain mostly (Strixhaven and recent UA are indicating some potential changes there) optional.
And again...I've played in several games where feats weren't "banned," just...nobody cared.
All he said was "a majority" don't use feats, in both the tweet and in the interview. I don't know how he can know that or what he's basing it on. But still, even at face value he only said "a majority" (which could be 51%) don't use feats, and you streeeeetched that to saying "Hardly any 5e players use feats or multiclassing." I'm not trying to get a gotcha here but come on, man.
Removing feats would be massively complicated and would completely change the game.
They are literally optional
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
But it just...seems like the added stuff and the drive to be the best tends to foster dissatisfaction.
That or it's something you really seem to want to see. There seems to be a big focus on trying to insist people are irrelevant, miserable (despite however they say they feel), and aren't actually allowed to have an opinion in the first place in these posts.
I don't really see it though. A lot of people think feats and multiclassing add some necessary flavor and customization to the game. Other people find them needlessly complicated or annoying or just don't want to deal with it. It's cool either way. Really.
I will say, I don't think I've ever tried playing without feats. We all just figured, we're gamers, we can handle the additional complexity. We never stopped to consider that there could be other negative effects on the game besides increased complexity.
In my personal experience, the "best feats" are showing up with only slightly higher frequency than the "middle feats," and the "worst feats" aren't showing up at all. I've seen GWM, Sharpshooter, Fey Touched, Lucky, War Caster, Polearm Master, at least one in every campaign. My friends are really obsessed with War Caster in particular. But it's not so samey that anyone's bored.
I would certainly try a game without them. But I don't care enough to try to convince my friends to do it.
Anyway, check out the Fighter! Absolutely killing it in this poll. There's been like, one person who hates Fighters. That's kinda crazy considering, you know... Magic exists.
It's just that it's hard for the fighter to be someone's least favorite class. I mean, thematically the fighter is iconic above any other class. And he is essential in a fantasy setting. There can be settings without clerics, without wizards / warlocks / sorcerers (or, using an old term, without magic users in general), without paladins, without barbarians, rangers, etc... But I can't think of any fantasy settings in which It can be justified that there are no fighters. And mechanically the fighter works as it is supposed to work, and therefore it is well designed.
However, that's not to say that in the opposite poll (your favorite class), the fighter was the first choice. It could be, but it could also not be. We can't extrapolate that the fighter is the community's favorite class from this poll, but it's hardly anyone's least favorite. And it makes a lot of sense. And it also makes sense that monk and artificer are the least favorite classes in the community. I like the Artificer, and someone else might like the Monk. But it is understandable that many people do not like them.
Everyone who hates Artificer because "sci-fi" clearly has never heard of Leonardo Da Vinci.
Or Greek Mythology, which D&D takes a lot of inspiration from (Hephaestus's automatons, Daedalus, and some of Archimedes' mythical inventions). Or Nicholas Flamel (or any other famous alchemist from history). Dr. Frankenstein would also count, except there's no official "flesh-stitcher" subclass yet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Everyone who hates Artificer because "sci-fi" clearly has never heard of Leonardo Da Vinci.
Or Greek Mythology, which D&D takes a lot of inspiration from (Hephaestus's automatons, Daedalus, and some of Archimedes' mythical inventions). Or Nicholas Flamel (or any other famous alchemist from history). Dr. Frankenstein would also count, except there's no official "flesh-stitcher" subclass yet.
Or the Rangaku scholars of feudal Japan. At a time when their country was largely closed off to the world, they built some very impressive machinery from the little contact they were able to have.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's just that it's hard for the fighter to be someone's least favorite class. I mean, thematically the fighter is iconic above any other class. And he is essential in a fantasy setting. There can be settings without clerics, without wizards / warlocks / sorcerers (or, using an old term, without magic users in general), without paladins, without barbarians, rangers, etc... But I can't think of any fantasy settings in which It can be justified that there are no fighters. And mechanically the fighter works as it is supposed to work, and therefore it is well designed.
However, that's not to say that in the opposite poll (your favorite class), the fighter was the first choice. It could be, but it could also not be. We can't extrapolate that the fighter is the community's favorite class from this poll, but it's hardly anyone's least favorite. And it makes a lot of sense. And it also makes sense that monk and artificer are the least favorite classes in the community. I like the Artificer, and someone else might like the Monk. But it is understandable that many people do not like them.
Yeah. In some ways fighter is great because while the base class lacks the distinct flavor of other classes, it's also a slab of clay you can make into almost anything with its varying subclasses. While you can reflavor any class to be something different, with fighter you can add just about any flavor you want.
Kind of like artificer it's very dependent on subclass to help define its identity, but it's built on a very solid martial base and can be expanded into just about any direction you can imagine. Battlemaster alone can cover a lot of ground depending on fighting style for weapon choice and what maneuvers you take. The quality of its subclasses varies unfortunately, but that's true of any class.
Yeah. In some ways fighter is great because while the base class lacks the distinct flavor of other classes, it's also a slab of clay you can make into almost anything with its varying subclasses. While you can reflavor any class to be something different, with fighter you can add just about any flavor you want.
Kind of like artificer it's very dependent on subclass to help define its identity, but it's built on a very solid martial base and can be expanded into just about any direction you can imagine. Battlemaster alone can cover a lot of ground depending on fighting style for weapon choice and what maneuvers you take. The quality of its subclasses varies unfortunately, but that's true of any class.
The base Artificer only gets simple weapons proficiency, no fighting style, and no extra attack. I would not call that a martial base at all, let alone a very solid one.
Yeah. In some ways fighter is great because while the base class lacks the distinct flavor of other classes, it's also a slab of clay you can make into almost anything with its varying subclasses. While you can reflavor any class to be something different, with fighter you can add just about any flavor you want.
Kind of like artificer it's very dependent on subclass to help define its identity, but it's built on a very solid martial base and can be expanded into just about any direction you can imagine. Battlemaster alone can cover a lot of ground depending on fighting style for weapon choice and what maneuvers you take. The quality of its subclasses varies unfortunately, but that's true of any class.
The base Artificer only gets simple weapons proficiency, no fighting style, and no extra attack. I would not call that a martial base at all, let alone a very solid one.
I was talking about fighter there, the only comparison I was making to artificer was that both kind of rely on their subclasses to develop their identity more so than some other classes. Maybe I should have phrased that a bit differently, baseline artificer are definitely not martial.
Yeah. In some ways fighter is great because while the base class lacks the distinct flavor of other classes, it's also a slab of clay you can make into almost anything with its varying subclasses. While you can reflavor any class to be something different, with fighter you can add just about any flavor you want.
Kind of like artificer it's very dependent on subclass to help define its identity, but it's built on a very solid martial base and can be expanded into just about any direction you can imagine. Battlemaster alone can cover a lot of ground depending on fighting style for weapon choice and what maneuvers you take. The quality of its subclasses varies unfortunately, but that's true of any class.
The base Artificer only gets simple weapons proficiency, no fighting style, and no extra attack. I would not call that a martial base at all, let alone a very solid one.
I was talking about fighter there, the only comparison I was making to artificer was that both kind of rely on their subclasses to develop their identity more so than some other classes. Maybe I should have phrased that a bit differently, baseline artificer are definitely not martial.
I'd probably say Ranger is my least favorite. Less because it's 'the weakest RAW', and more because much of what it does can largely be accomplished by other classes, whilst other classes get more besides. Arcane Archer and Scout being the strongest contenders. Tasha's did quite a bit to improve their lot, though; this isn't a 'least favorite because I dislike it' case, but more a 'least favorite because the others are more favorite' case. xD
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Working on a supplement for the adventure-minded. A project including (and crediting) homebrew subclasses from the community, a world of my own design, premade characters, magic items, and even a prologue adventure to start things off!
Past and Current Characters: Morgann 'Duskspear' Solbeard, Hill Dwarf Paladin/Fighter/Warlock; Ephemeral 'Skye' Solbeard, Hill Dwarf Artificer; Zaldrick Lawscrip of Orzhov, Hobgoblin Wizard; Eremys Spydrun, Shadar'kai Monk; Cuchulainn, Wood Elf Blood Hunter.
Yeah. In some ways fighter is great because while the base class lacks the distinct flavor of other classes, it's also a slab of clay you can make into almost anything with its varying subclasses. While you can reflavor any class to be something different, with fighter you can add just about any flavor you want.
Kind of like artificer it's very dependent on subclass to help define its identity, but it's built on a very solid martial base and can be expanded into just about any direction you can imagine. Battlemaster alone can cover a lot of ground depending on fighting style for weapon choice and what maneuvers you take. The quality of its subclasses varies unfortunately, but that's true of any class.
The base Artificer only gets simple weapons proficiency, no fighting style, and no extra attack. I would not call that a martial base at all, let alone a very solid one.
The sad thing here is that the UA Artificer at the base level did have Extra Attack (albeit limited to magic weapons). That allowed even the Alchemist (which had also been nerfed in other ways) to have a bit more oomph.
It's a very common complaint by people that hate artificers/Eberron. And it was mentioned in this thread, through a post with 7 "upvotes"/Thanks. So you're complaining about a correction to something that was mentioned and liked in this thread.
It's a very common complaint by people that hate artificers/Eberron. And it was mentioned in this thread, through a post with 7 "upvotes"/Thanks. So you're complaining about a correction to something that was mentioned and liked in this thread.
Most of the people in this thread who have talked about not particularly liking artificers have given reasons other than "because sci-fi"
Talking past those people to convenient "others" who aren't even here isn't exactly furthering the conversation
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's a very common complaint by people that hate artificers/Eberron. And it was mentioned in this thread, through a post with 7 "upvotes"/Thanks. So you're complaining about a correction to something that was mentioned and liked in this thread.
Most of the people in this thread who have talked about not particularly liking artificers have given reasons other than "because sci-fi"
Talking past those people to convenient "others" who aren't even here isn't exactly furthering the conversation
Its called a "joke". But you're right, I shouldn't have said it. It seems to have caused too much trouble, sorry.
If you think that a feat-less level 14 fighter can in any way keep up with a level 14 full caster I have a bridge to sell you...
It's just not even close in several regards but especially in combat.
Pretty sure the majority of players don't think about "builds," either. I think it's easy for people who are deep in a thing to forget that the majority of people who also like that thing...aren't deep in it. Plenty of people "like Thai food," but most of them can't make larb, or even know that it originated in Laos rather than Thailand. Many more people have seen a couple Avengers films than could tell you Hawkeye's real name, either the character's or the actor's. Millions watch the Super Bowl but couldn't name more than one player on either team in any given year.
I have zero doubt that the majority of people who play D&D don't use feats or multiclassing. That's something that only the people who play all the time, to the exclusion of other hobbies or pastimes, care about.
All he said was "a majority" don't use feats, in both the tweet and in the interview. I don't know how he can know that or what he's basing it on. But still, even at face value he only said "a majority" (which could be 51%) don't use feats, and you streeeeetched that to saying "Hardly any 5e players use feats or multiclassing." I'm not trying to get a gotcha here but come on, man.
They are literally optional
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That or it's something you really seem to want to see. There seems to be a big focus on trying to insist people are irrelevant, miserable (despite however they say they feel), and aren't actually allowed to have an opinion in the first place in these posts.
I don't really see it though. A lot of people think feats and multiclassing add some necessary flavor and customization to the game. Other people find them needlessly complicated or annoying or just don't want to deal with it. It's cool either way. Really.
I will say, I don't think I've ever tried playing without feats. We all just figured, we're gamers, we can handle the additional complexity. We never stopped to consider that there could be other negative effects on the game besides increased complexity.
In my personal experience, the "best feats" are showing up with only slightly higher frequency than the "middle feats," and the "worst feats" aren't showing up at all. I've seen GWM, Sharpshooter, Fey Touched, Lucky, War Caster, Polearm Master, at least one in every campaign. My friends are really obsessed with War Caster in particular. But it's not so samey that anyone's bored.
I would certainly try a game without them. But I don't care enough to try to convince my friends to do it.
Anyway, check out the Fighter! Absolutely killing it in this poll. There's been like, one person who hates Fighters. That's kinda crazy considering, you know... Magic exists.
Everyone who hates Artificer because "sci-fi" clearly has never heard of Leonardo Da Vinci.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
It's just that it's hard for the fighter to be someone's least favorite class. I mean, thematically the fighter is iconic above any other class. And he is essential in a fantasy setting. There can be settings without clerics, without wizards / warlocks / sorcerers (or, using an old term, without magic users in general), without paladins, without barbarians, rangers, etc... But I can't think of any fantasy settings in which It can be justified that there are no fighters.
And mechanically the fighter works as it is supposed to work, and therefore it is well designed.
However, that's not to say that in the opposite poll (your favorite class), the fighter was the first choice. It could be, but it could also not be. We can't extrapolate that the fighter is the community's favorite class from this poll, but it's hardly anyone's least favorite. And it makes a lot of sense. And it also makes sense that monk and artificer are the least favorite classes in the community. I like the Artificer, and someone else might like the Monk. But it is understandable that many people do not like them.
Or Greek Mythology, which D&D takes a lot of inspiration from (Hephaestus's automatons, Daedalus, and some of Archimedes' mythical inventions). Or Nicholas Flamel (or any other famous alchemist from history). Dr. Frankenstein would also count, except there's no official "flesh-stitcher" subclass yet.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Or the Rangaku scholars of feudal Japan. At a time when their country was largely closed off to the world, they built some very impressive machinery from the little contact they were able to have.
So, exactly one person in this thread then
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah. In some ways fighter is great because while the base class lacks the distinct flavor of other classes, it's also a slab of clay you can make into almost anything with its varying subclasses. While you can reflavor any class to be something different, with fighter you can add just about any flavor you want.
Kind of like artificer it's very dependent on subclass to help define its identity, but it's built on a very solid martial base and can be expanded into just about any direction you can imagine. Battlemaster alone can cover a lot of ground depending on fighting style for weapon choice and what maneuvers you take. The quality of its subclasses varies unfortunately, but that's true of any class.
The base Artificer only gets simple weapons proficiency, no fighting style, and no extra attack. I would not call that a martial base at all, let alone a very solid one.
I was talking about fighter there, the only comparison I was making to artificer was that both kind of rely on their subclasses to develop their identity more so than some other classes. Maybe I should have phrased that a bit differently, baseline artificer are definitely not martial.
My bad, I misread it.
I'd probably say Ranger is my least favorite. Less because it's 'the weakest RAW', and more because much of what it does can largely be accomplished by other classes, whilst other classes get more besides. Arcane Archer and Scout being the strongest contenders. Tasha's did quite a bit to improve their lot, though; this isn't a 'least favorite because I dislike it' case, but more a 'least favorite because the others are more favorite' case. xD
Working on a supplement for the adventure-minded. A project including (and crediting) homebrew subclasses from the community, a world of my own design, premade characters, magic items, and even a prologue adventure to start things off!
Past and Current Characters: Morgann 'Duskspear' Solbeard, Hill Dwarf Paladin/Fighter/Warlock; Ephemeral 'Skye' Solbeard, Hill Dwarf Artificer; Zaldrick Lawscrip of Orzhov, Hobgoblin Wizard; Eremys Spydrun, Shadar'kai Monk; Cuchulainn, Wood Elf Blood Hunter.
The sad thing here is that the UA Artificer at the base level did have Extra Attack (albeit limited to magic weapons). That allowed even the Alchemist (which had also been nerfed in other ways) to have a bit more oomph.
It's a very common complaint by people that hate artificers/Eberron. And it was mentioned in this thread, through a post with 7 "upvotes"/Thanks. So you're complaining about a correction to something that was mentioned and liked in this thread.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Most of the people in this thread who have talked about not particularly liking artificers have given reasons other than "because sci-fi"
Talking past those people to convenient "others" who aren't even here isn't exactly furthering the conversation
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Its called a "joke". But you're right, I shouldn't have said it. It seems to have caused too much trouble, sorry.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!