With the release of the One D&D ideas for character creation, is everyone moving to giving their first level characters a Feat?
It seems like a sensible move to me provided we don't access the Feats likely to have a level requirement attached, such as the half-Feats (+1 to attribute score).
I mean, I usually give a bonus feat depending on backstory anyway nowadays, even before 1DD.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I've been considering giving free feats regardless for a while. The idea of a feat is cool, but the inherently competitive nature of the system (unless you're a Variant Human, you have to sacrifice an ASI for a feat, which given the design that, unless you're a Fighter, is previous commodity and is always quite desirable) and the lack of compelling feats for many builds means that feats don't really get taken. I'm glad that they're starting to decouple feats and ASIs. I don't mind them having the option of a feat as an alternative to ASIs, but feats need their own source too.
So yeah, a free feat is fine. I've handed extra ones out at L4 (so they got both an ASI and a feat), and found that, for my party at least, it didn't overpower them at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I was giving a free feat at level one but disallowed Variant Human or Custom lineage as I didn't want them to stack feats. I now give a free feat at their first ABI in addition, so usually around level four. I like the idea of some of the stronger feats having a level requirements or having a curated list available at level one. I did that before the new playtest.
I'm pretty sure in One D&D the 1st level feats are just anything that doesn't include the half-ASI, to avoid starting with something like +4 bonus to a stat, since all characters, even human with their extra starting feat, get +2, +1 / +1 to 3 as a starting ASI now.
I actually like the bonus starting feats, it really helps with customisation. Although being able to take Magic Initiate twice as a human is an amazing start to any spellcaster. It also sort of normalises the Strixhaven backgrounds, which is great because they're super interesting, even if not in a strixhaven game.
As somebody who always preferred customising backgrounds, the new One D&D rules on backgrounds is just a big plus for me. Other rules not so much but this one I really enjoy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I'm pretty sure in One D&D the 1st level feats are just anything that doesn't include the half-ASI, to avoid starting with something like +4 bonus to a stat, since all characters, even human with their extra starting feat, get +2, +1 / +1 to 3 as a starting ASI now.
I actually like the bonus starting feats, it really helps with customisation. Although being able to take Magic Initiate twice as a human is an amazing start to any spellcaster. It also sort of normalises the Strixhaven backgrounds, which is great because they're super interesting, even if not in a strixhaven game.
As somebody who always preferred customising backgrounds, the new One D&D rules on backgrounds is just a big plus for me. Other rules not so much but this one I really enjoy.
I have been ruminating lately over this new rule, the leveled feats aspect, and comments made by the devs. Specifically what they potentially mean for future rules on FEATS. We have been told that the leveled feats are staying. And all level 1 feats will lack anything resembling an ASI.
This makes me think we may see the loss of ASIs as an independent mechanic. And it will be tied into the feats themselves. (most likely as plus 1s tied to more powerful FEATS.)
I like the idea of just having a feat tied to your background instead of the unique background features, because even in times when I would go out of my way to utilize them they were always hard to actually integrate... especially ones that give something that doesn't have obvious mechanical implementation, like saying "The common people view you as one of their own" or something like that, which is the kind of thing most players can accomplish through roleplay without having it tied to a specific feature they get from their background.
That said... I'd be hesitant to just give free reign to declare that any and all feats are on the table, since some can be pretty intensely overpowered compared to others. I like the idea of leveled feats... it opens things up a bit more in that it both gives more value to the less overclocked feats that usually dominate the meta of D&D (stuff like Great Weapon Master, Polearm Fighter, Fey/Shadow Touch), since those would presumably become higher level feats... but it also leaves room open for some really deliberately overpowered feats for higher level play.
One thing I've been considering for playtesting is to let the players start with any half-feat, but they don't get the Ability Score Increase... just the feature. So someone could start with Tavern Brawler, and although they don't get the STR or CON boost, they still get all the other features of the feat itself. There's still a little room for abuse... Fey/Shadow Touched are both half-feats, and I consider those some of the ones that should be higher level, but it's something to start with, at least.
Giving feats away at first level is one thing I do not like about the new ideas. Personally I think feats should be earned by play or level not just a nice background. Background skills maybe but not feats.
ASI's should linked to race and age. Not levels.They should almost never change except by divine intervention or very powerful magic.
Giving feats away at first level is one thing I do not like about the new ideas. Personally I think feats should be earned by play or level not just a nice background. Background skills maybe but not feats.
I get what you mean, but what do you think about limiting it to specific "low level" feats? I feel like that makes it a lot more palatable... just letting a player pick any feat they want is likely to unbalance things, but if they can only pick from a few selected feats that are designed to not throw off game balance I think it's an elegant solution to background features being mostly ignored by the majority of players.
Although I suppose the alternate workaround is for the DM to actually create scenarios where a player's background features can actually come into play...
Giving feats away at first level is one thing I do not like about the new ideas. Personally I think feats should be earned by play or level not just a nice background. Background skills maybe but not feats.
I get what you mean, but what do you think about limiting it to specific "low level" feats? I feel like that makes it a lot more palatable... just letting a player pick any feat they want is likely to unbalance things, but if they can only pick from a few selected feats that are designed to not throw off game balance I think it's an elegant solution to background features being mostly ignored by the majority of players.
Although I suppose the alternate workaround is for the DM to actually create scenarios where a player's background features can actually come into play...
Ideally both the DM and the players would remember and utilize the background features. But given that many of them are viewed as little more than a ribbon; a background feat seems appropriate. (Makes one wonder if that was point of BG features in the first place.)
Feats just need to become decoupled from ASIs completely. There's a deep imbalance between rogues, wizards, hexblades, etc who can operate on one stat and the more MAD classes like ranger, paladin, monk. A rogue can max DEX and then have four more ASIs left to boost CON or choose feats. To perform at the same level, a monk needs to boost its main stats until level 19, when they can finally squeeze in a feat. It's just not a good system.
To be honest, I think they're better off fixing the MAD problem rather than band-aiding it by decoupling feats from ASIs. Building a Ranger at the moment...and it's a problem just getting him to be good in the aspects he needs to be. A Ranger needs to be good at Con, Wis and either Dex or Str just to function. I think a fix so there isn't a MAD/SAD dynamic. Maybe MAD classes get a boost to some of their attributes. Or maybe, each class gets a boost to the attributes it is dependent upon - MAD get more boosts, because they have more stats that they require to work well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Giving feats away at first level is one thing I do not like about the new ideas. Personally I think feats should be earned by play or level not just a nice background. Background skills maybe but not feats.
I get what you mean, but what do you think about limiting it to specific "low level" feats? I feel like that makes it a lot more palatable... just letting a player pick any feat they want is likely to unbalance things, but if they can only pick from a few selected feats that are designed to not throw off game balance I think it's an elegant solution to background features being mostly ignored by the majority of players.
Although I suppose the alternate workaround is for the DM to actually create scenarios where a player's background features can actually come into play...
Ideally both the DM and the players would remember and utilize the background features. But given that many of them are viewed as little more than a ribbon; a background feat seems appropriate. (Makes one wonder if that was point of BG features in the first place.)
I can see and would love background skills. Skills appropriate to an apprentice level worker not a master of their craft. Skills that can be used during role play but nothing that adds to the class or combat. Basically flavor. Having a character who knows how to maintain weapons or repair armor could be a very good thing. Or someone who knows how to make arrows. Skills an adventurer could even use to hide with. Drop the adventuring gear, dress like your old skills require and boom your someone new.
Why would it be called a feat if all it did was grant a simple background skill?
Giving feats away at first level is one thing I do not like about the new ideas. Personally I think feats should be earned by play or level not just a nice background. Background skills maybe but not feats.
I get what you mean, but what do you think about limiting it to specific "low level" feats? I feel like that makes it a lot more palatable... just letting a player pick any feat they want is likely to unbalance things, but if they can only pick from a few selected feats that are designed to not throw off game balance I think it's an elegant solution to background features being mostly ignored by the majority of players.
Although I suppose the alternate workaround is for the DM to actually create scenarios where a player's background features can actually come into play...
Ideally both the DM and the players would remember and utilize the background features. But given that many of them are viewed as little more than a ribbon; a background feat seems appropriate. (Makes one wonder if that was point of BG features in the first place.)
I can see and would love background skills. Skills appropriate to an apprentice level worker not a master of their craft. Skills that can be used during role play but nothing that adds to the class or combat. Basically flavor. Having a character who knows how to maintain weapons or repair armor could be a very good thing. Or someone who knows how to make arrows. Skills an adventurer could even use to hide with. Drop the adventuring gear, dress like your old skills require and boom your someone new.
Why would it be called a feat if all it did was grant a simple background skill?
I'm confused by your post. Backgrounds currently add proficiencies relevant to the background. So would One D&D version. Current background usually offers a feature of almost no merit or worth. One D&D version offers a feat - which with the right choice can do everything you describe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
With the release of the One D&D ideas for character creation, is everyone moving to giving their first level characters a Feat?
It seems like a sensible move to me provided we don't access the Feats likely to have a level requirement attached, such as the half-Feats (+1 to attribute score).
Most of the monsters that I use are from The Monster Manual, and especially the low level ones, aren't really balanced for PC's with an extra feat. Due to this, I don't give them feats at level one unless they pick a Strixhaven background or something that gives it. However, when 1DD comes out, I'll definitely be glad to use the background-feats-at-level-1 system.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
If it offers no merit or worth then why call it a feat which implies something of real value?
And no I do not like something of value given at first level that has not been played for and earned.
Call it a background skill.
Personally I can roof a house but I would in no way consider myself a roofer. But I make a great assistant.
So you don't let characters get their 1st-level class features either?
Are we talking about class feature or extra feats they get to pick?
Currently (5e rules), all backgrounds include a FEATURE. The terms "skill", "feat" and "feature" refer to different things in the game, so the way you are using them is what is causing confusion in your conversation above. So the "background skill" you are talking about already exists. Its called a "background feature", but you are confusing the matter by using the term "skill", which means something else in the game.
Skills are things like Stealth and Perception, which all characters can use, but some characters are "proficient" in them, meaning they have trained to be good at those skills and that gives them a better chance at success. They are also based off different attributes, so characters that have a high score in the associated attribute are also naturally better at those skills. Every background grants proficiency in 2 skills, as well as granting 2 proficiencies in either tools or languages (or one of each), and this applies to both 5e and the One D&D Playtest.
Feats are special talents that a character has learned that give them some unique things that they can do in certain circumstances, such as knowing how to make the most out of heavy armor to reduce incoming damage from the Heavy Armor Master feat. In the One D&D Playtest, backgrounds grant a feat instead of a feature. Some of the more recently added backgrounds in 5e also grant feats (Strixhaven Student, Wildspacer and Astral Drifter), but it is written in as part of the background's feature.
Features are abilities that the character has and can use. These include everything from Bardic Inspiration to Wild Shape, to Extra Attacks and Spellcasting, as well as the Ability Score Increases that characters get at different levels. They also include the racial traits such as Darkvision and Fey Ancestry. Backgrounds in 5e also granted a feature, but the features granted by most backgrounds were very under-utilized because they were either difficult to implement or had no real impact on the game. For example, the Entertainer background includes a feature that states you can always find a place to perform and you can get free room and board if you do so. The Urchin background's feature let's you navigate a way through town that cuts your travel time in half. The Outlander can always find enough food and water for up to 6 people each day in the wilderness. The One D&D Playtest replaced these features with a feat selection instead.
I think the other thing that you are missing here is that a level 1 adventurer is NOT an inexperienced person - they don't just pop into existence when they are created. These characters existed in the world before the start of the first session. They lived and experienced things. They have EARNED the skills and abilities that they have through the things that they did before the start of the game. That's why we make backstories - to tell the story of the character before the adventure. I personally include nods to the character's attributes, proficiencies and abilities (features) when I write backstories for my characters, and I incorporate the background as a major part of the backstory.
A level 1 fighter is leagues more advanced in martial training over your typical blacksmith, or even most town guards and soldiers. A level 1 wizard has already spent years learning their craft, and a level 1 sorcerer has spent a significant amount of time practicing to be able to control their innate magical abilities well enough to be able to create a few specific effects at will. A level 1 adventurer isn't some 5 year old kid with no real life experience. If they are on the younger side, then they have developed skills far beyond that of most of their peers, or if they are older, they may have only just now reached a level of skill that they qualify as whatever character class they are. So we are either looking at highly dedicated people with the natural skill and perseverance to be spectacular (like Olympic-level athletes), or people that have spent many years casually developing the skillset needed to change careers (like a 30-something that just got their master's degree while working in fast food for the last 15 years).
So it is very reasonable for a level 1 fighter to have practiced dual-wielding longswords or for the wizard to have spent some extra time learning some additional spells. It is also perfectly reasonable for these same characters to have worked on expanding their knowledge or physical skills (Skilled feat) or to have served as an apprentice in a workshop (Crafter feat). Thus the intent of giving feats instead of features in One D&D is to allow the players to choose the skills and abilities that their character learned in their life before their adventures started.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
With the release of the One D&D ideas for character creation, is everyone moving to giving their first level characters a Feat?
It seems like a sensible move to me provided we don't access the Feats likely to have a level requirement attached, such as the half-Feats (+1 to attribute score).
I mean, I usually give a bonus feat depending on backstory anyway nowadays, even before 1DD.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I've been considering giving free feats regardless for a while. The idea of a feat is cool, but the inherently competitive nature of the system (unless you're a Variant Human, you have to sacrifice an ASI for a feat, which given the design that, unless you're a Fighter, is previous commodity and is always quite desirable) and the lack of compelling feats for many builds means that feats don't really get taken. I'm glad that they're starting to decouple feats and ASIs. I don't mind them having the option of a feat as an alternative to ASIs, but feats need their own source too.
So yeah, a free feat is fine. I've handed extra ones out at L4 (so they got both an ASI and a feat), and found that, for my party at least, it didn't overpower them at all.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I was giving a free feat at level one but disallowed Variant Human or Custom lineage as I didn't want them to stack feats. I now give a free feat at their first ABI in addition, so usually around level four. I like the idea of some of the stronger feats having a level requirements or having a curated list available at level one. I did that before the new playtest.
I'm pretty sure in One D&D the 1st level feats are just anything that doesn't include the half-ASI, to avoid starting with something like +4 bonus to a stat, since all characters, even human with their extra starting feat, get +2, +1 / +1 to 3 as a starting ASI now.
I actually like the bonus starting feats, it really helps with customisation. Although being able to take Magic Initiate twice as a human is an amazing start to any spellcaster. It also sort of normalises the Strixhaven backgrounds, which is great because they're super interesting, even if not in a strixhaven game.
As somebody who always preferred customising backgrounds, the new One D&D rules on backgrounds is just a big plus for me. Other rules not so much but this one I really enjoy.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I have been ruminating lately over this new rule, the leveled feats aspect, and comments made by the devs. Specifically what they potentially mean for future rules on FEATS. We have been told that the leveled feats are staying. And all level 1 feats will lack anything resembling an ASI.
This makes me think we may see the loss of ASIs as an independent mechanic. And it will be tied into the feats themselves. (most likely as plus 1s tied to more powerful FEATS.)
I like the idea of just having a feat tied to your background instead of the unique background features, because even in times when I would go out of my way to utilize them they were always hard to actually integrate... especially ones that give something that doesn't have obvious mechanical implementation, like saying "The common people view you as one of their own" or something like that, which is the kind of thing most players can accomplish through roleplay without having it tied to a specific feature they get from their background.
That said... I'd be hesitant to just give free reign to declare that any and all feats are on the table, since some can be pretty intensely overpowered compared to others. I like the idea of leveled feats... it opens things up a bit more in that it both gives more value to the less overclocked feats that usually dominate the meta of D&D (stuff like Great Weapon Master, Polearm Fighter, Fey/Shadow Touch), since those would presumably become higher level feats... but it also leaves room open for some really deliberately overpowered feats for higher level play.
One thing I've been considering for playtesting is to let the players start with any half-feat, but they don't get the Ability Score Increase... just the feature. So someone could start with Tavern Brawler, and although they don't get the STR or CON boost, they still get all the other features of the feat itself. There's still a little room for abuse... Fey/Shadow Touched are both half-feats, and I consider those some of the ones that should be higher level, but it's something to start with, at least.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Giving feats away at first level is one thing I do not like about the new ideas. Personally I think feats should be earned by play or level not just a nice background. Background skills maybe but not feats.
ASI's should linked to race and age. Not levels.They should almost never change except by divine intervention or very powerful magic.
I ran a game with a free first level feat. I really liked it and will likely do this for any future games.
I get what you mean, but what do you think about limiting it to specific "low level" feats? I feel like that makes it a lot more palatable... just letting a player pick any feat they want is likely to unbalance things, but if they can only pick from a few selected feats that are designed to not throw off game balance I think it's an elegant solution to background features being mostly ignored by the majority of players.
Although I suppose the alternate workaround is for the DM to actually create scenarios where a player's background features can actually come into play...
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Ideally both the DM and the players would remember and utilize the background features. But given that many of them are viewed as little more than a ribbon; a background feat seems appropriate. (Makes one wonder if that was point of BG features in the first place.)
Feats just need to become decoupled from ASIs completely. There's a deep imbalance between rogues, wizards, hexblades, etc who can operate on one stat and the more MAD classes like ranger, paladin, monk. A rogue can max DEX and then have four more ASIs left to boost CON or choose feats. To perform at the same level, a monk needs to boost its main stats until level 19, when they can finally squeeze in a feat. It's just not a good system.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
To be honest, I think they're better off fixing the MAD problem rather than band-aiding it by decoupling feats from ASIs. Building a Ranger at the moment...and it's a problem just getting him to be good in the aspects he needs to be. A Ranger needs to be good at Con, Wis and either Dex or Str just to function. I think a fix so there isn't a MAD/SAD dynamic. Maybe MAD classes get a boost to some of their attributes. Or maybe, each class gets a boost to the attributes it is dependent upon - MAD get more boosts, because they have more stats that they require to work well.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I can see and would love background skills. Skills appropriate to an apprentice level worker not a master of their craft. Skills that can be used during role play but nothing that adds to the class or combat. Basically flavor. Having a character who knows how to maintain weapons or repair armor could be a very good thing. Or someone who knows how to make arrows. Skills an adventurer could even use to hide with. Drop the adventuring gear, dress like your old skills require and boom your someone new.
Why would it be called a feat if all it did was grant a simple background skill?
I'm confused by your post. Backgrounds currently add proficiencies relevant to the background. So would One D&D version. Current background usually offers a feature of almost no merit or worth. One D&D version offers a feat - which with the right choice can do everything you describe.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
It depends on the feat your talking about.
If it offers no merit or worth then why call it a feat which implies something of real value?
And no I do not like something of value given at first level that has not been played for and earned.
Call it a background skill.
Personally I can roof a house but I would in no way consider myself a roofer. But I make a great assistant.
So you don't let characters get their 1st-level class features either?
Most of the monsters that I use are from The Monster Manual, and especially the low level ones, aren't really balanced for PC's with an extra feat. Due to this, I don't give them feats at level one unless they pick a Strixhaven background or something that gives it. However, when 1DD comes out, I'll definitely be glad to use the background-feats-at-level-1 system.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Are we talking about class feature or extra feats they get to pick?
Currently (5e rules), all backgrounds include a FEATURE. The terms "skill", "feat" and "feature" refer to different things in the game, so the way you are using them is what is causing confusion in your conversation above. So the "background skill" you are talking about already exists. Its called a "background feature", but you are confusing the matter by using the term "skill", which means something else in the game.
Skills are things like Stealth and Perception, which all characters can use, but some characters are "proficient" in them, meaning they have trained to be good at those skills and that gives them a better chance at success. They are also based off different attributes, so characters that have a high score in the associated attribute are also naturally better at those skills. Every background grants proficiency in 2 skills, as well as granting 2 proficiencies in either tools or languages (or one of each), and this applies to both 5e and the One D&D Playtest.
Feats are special talents that a character has learned that give them some unique things that they can do in certain circumstances, such as knowing how to make the most out of heavy armor to reduce incoming damage from the Heavy Armor Master feat. In the One D&D Playtest, backgrounds grant a feat instead of a feature. Some of the more recently added backgrounds in 5e also grant feats (Strixhaven Student, Wildspacer and Astral Drifter), but it is written in as part of the background's feature.
Features are abilities that the character has and can use. These include everything from Bardic Inspiration to Wild Shape, to Extra Attacks and Spellcasting, as well as the Ability Score Increases that characters get at different levels. They also include the racial traits such as Darkvision and Fey Ancestry. Backgrounds in 5e also granted a feature, but the features granted by most backgrounds were very under-utilized because they were either difficult to implement or had no real impact on the game. For example, the Entertainer background includes a feature that states you can always find a place to perform and you can get free room and board if you do so. The Urchin background's feature let's you navigate a way through town that cuts your travel time in half. The Outlander can always find enough food and water for up to 6 people each day in the wilderness. The One D&D Playtest replaced these features with a feat selection instead.
I think the other thing that you are missing here is that a level 1 adventurer is NOT an inexperienced person - they don't just pop into existence when they are created. These characters existed in the world before the start of the first session. They lived and experienced things. They have EARNED the skills and abilities that they have through the things that they did before the start of the game. That's why we make backstories - to tell the story of the character before the adventure. I personally include nods to the character's attributes, proficiencies and abilities (features) when I write backstories for my characters, and I incorporate the background as a major part of the backstory.
A level 1 fighter is leagues more advanced in martial training over your typical blacksmith, or even most town guards and soldiers. A level 1 wizard has already spent years learning their craft, and a level 1 sorcerer has spent a significant amount of time practicing to be able to control their innate magical abilities well enough to be able to create a few specific effects at will. A level 1 adventurer isn't some 5 year old kid with no real life experience. If they are on the younger side, then they have developed skills far beyond that of most of their peers, or if they are older, they may have only just now reached a level of skill that they qualify as whatever character class they are. So we are either looking at highly dedicated people with the natural skill and perseverance to be spectacular (like Olympic-level athletes), or people that have spent many years casually developing the skillset needed to change careers (like a 30-something that just got their master's degree while working in fast food for the last 15 years).
So it is very reasonable for a level 1 fighter to have practiced dual-wielding longswords or for the wizard to have spent some extra time learning some additional spells. It is also perfectly reasonable for these same characters to have worked on expanding their knowledge or physical skills (Skilled feat) or to have served as an apprentice in a workshop (Crafter feat). Thus the intent of giving feats instead of features in One D&D is to allow the players to choose the skills and abilities that their character learned in their life before their adventures started.