I've always interpreted the ability score increases you get from feats as being instantaneous effects. If you're ineligible for them at the time, they just go away; they don't reappear later if you somehow become eligible for them. But this is my interpretation, and I'm not sure there's a solid RAW answer.
I've always interpreted the ability score increases you get from feats as being instantaneous effects. If you're ineligible for them at the time, they just go away; they don't reappear later if you somehow become eligible for them. But this is my interpretation, and I'm not sure there's a solid RAW answer.
(So, in that example: 17.)
So, if you managed to change out the feat, your stat wouldn't go down?
(It's not, AFAIK, possible to swap out feats that provide stat bumps in the WotC rules (short of a wish), but that's not a guarantee it never will be.)
I've always interpreted the ability score increases you get from feats as being instantaneous effects. If you're ineligible for them at the time, they just go away; they don't reappear later if you somehow become eligible for them. But this is my interpretation, and I'm not sure there's a solid RAW answer.
(So, in that example: 17.)
So, if you managed to change out the feat, your stat wouldn't go down?
(It's not, AFAIK, possible to swap out feats that provide stat bumps in the WotC rules (short of a wish), but that's not a guarantee it never will be.)
Well, I think that's a big part of why swapping out a feat is not generally possible: it would be essentially undoing the past, which is why it's (currently, at least) uniquely available via a spell that can reshape reality.
With that in mind, I think it would make sense for any ability score improvements granted by a feat to be undone when the feat is swapped out, though I acknowledge that might make less sense if there were a more commonplace and less reality-breaking way to do it.
This is just my opinion, but to me the "Increase your ability score by..." language in the feats that I looked at suggests that it is a one-time increase, not a constant bonus.
If it were a bonus to your score, I feel like it would read "Add +1 to your strength score" or something similar.
Because you couldn't increase your Strength score because it was already 20, that part has no effect after you take the feat, and if you Strength score is decreased later (as by the example you gave in the OP) the feat still won't have any effect because the increase happens at the time it is taken, not granted as a constant effect.
I don't have any rules I can cite to back that up, it's just my opinion based on the wording used in the rules.
Pure hypothetical here, inspired by a different thread.
Suppose you have a 20 strength, and then take a feat that gives you +1 strength, because you want the rest of its bonuses.
Then you fight a shadow. It hits, and reduces your strength by 3. Is your strength now 17 or 18?
The feat gives a one-time bump at that point in time. But if the score is already 20 then you don't get the one time bump. Later if you then have your strength reduced by 3 from the Shadow, then your strength is a 17.
Pure hypothetical here, inspired by a different thread.
Suppose you have a 20 strength, and then take a feat that gives you +1 strength, because you want the rest of its bonuses.
Then you fight a shadow. It hits, and reduces your strength by 3. Is your strength now 17 or 18?
IMO, since the feats say "You gain the following benefits", I interpret this as permanent and instantaneous, as others said, but not a continuous effect.
But I also wanted to mention that the 2014 PHB had this text. The 2024 PHB doesn't have it, so it seems to me the benefits are yours even if you don't meet the requirements after picking a particular feat.
You must meet any prerequisite specified in a feat to take that feat. If you ever lose a feat's prerequisite, you can't use that feat until you regain the prerequisite. For example, the Grappler feat requires you to have a Strength of 13 or higher. If your Strength is reduced below 13 somehow—perhaps by a withering curse—you can't benefit from the Grappler feat until your Strength is restored.
But I posed this question in the discord to get some more conversation around it, and there seemed to be more consensus that RAW did not allow you to choose CHA for any effect. I'm inclined to agree after mulling over it. The "to a maximum of 20" prevents it from increasing. It did not increase and then get brought back down. And if it didn't increase, it can't be "the ability you increased with this feat".
There's a very common attitude that RAW is always the most restrictive interpretation of any ambiguous point, but it's not supported by the rules themselves.
The feat has you increase a stat, with a cap. It also gives you an ability that keys off the stat you increased. The idea that, if you pick a stat that's already maxed, you get absolutely nothing from the feat is just silly. If you managed to rearrange your base stats, perhaps with a wish, the stat you chose would get the feat bonus applied to it. (Very much an edge case, I admit, but I think it's clarifying.)
Trying to draw a distinction between "the stat you increased" and "the stat you chose to increase" is needless hair-splitting.
I also interpret it to mean the Feat benefits are instantaneous and permanent. If it's possible to change Feat, such as in Organized Play rules like LEGENDS OF GREYHAWK where Rebuilding Your Character is possible, i would assume you loose any benefit associated to a Feat replaced, as well as anything you'd no longer qualify.
Pure hypothetical here, inspired by a different thread.
Suppose you have a 20 strength, and then take a feat that gives you +1 strength, because you want the rest of its bonuses.
Then you fight a shadow. It hits, and reduces your strength by 3. Is your strength now 17 or 18?
IMO, since the feats say "You gain the following benefits", I interpret this as permanent and instantaneous, as others said, but not a continuous effect.
Yeah, that would be my read on it too. "Increase by" also implies a one-time boost and is the same language they used with the Backgrounds section
Parts of a Background
A background includes the following parts.
Ability Scores. A background lists three of your character’s ability scores. Increase one by 2 and another one by 1, or increase all three by 1. None of these increases can raise a score above 20.
While wearing this belt, your Strength score changes to a score granted by the belt. The item has no effect on you if your Strength without the belt is equal to or greater than the belt’s score.
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I agree with the consensus in the example that the resulting ability score would be 17.
However, I also agree that when such a feature also says something like "the ability that you increased with this feat" then this does successfully refer to the ability in question, even if the result was that that ability was "increased by 0".
It's sort of like saying something like "I pushed the immovable object". One could take a picture of me pushing on it as evidence. The result was that the object was not actually pushed anywhere, but that doesn't negate the fact that I pushed it. I did perform the activity, it just wasn't successful.
While you're trying to get it restored, you level up and take a feat that bumps your stat to 19. You get it restored back to 20.
Now, you attune the artifact again. Should your stat be 18 or 19? (I know what you say it is, but should it be?) Is it good that it behaves differently from somebody that started with an 18 in their stat?
While you're trying to get it restored, you level up and take a feat that bumps your stat to 19. You get it restored back to 20.
Now, you attune the artifact again. Should your stat be 18 or 19? (I know what you say it is, but should it be?) Is it good that it behaves differently from somebody that started with an 18 in their stat?
Hmm, let's see. The exact wording on that artifact property is
When you become attuned to the Artifact, a random one of your ability scores is reduced by 2, to a minimum of 3. A Greater Restoration spell restores the ability.
which is the same basic wording used for feats etc.
If you were at 20 in a stat that got hit by this effect, it would go down to 18, as a one-time effect
You level up and bump it to 19, for reasons that are your business, as a one-time effect
If you de-attune and re-attune to the artifact, it would go back down to 18, as a one-time effect
On the other hand, if you were at 18
The stat would go down to 16
The feat would bump it to 17
greater restoration would remove the -2, making it 19
De-attuning/re-attuning would re-apply it, making the stat 17 again
I don't see the problem. In both cases, the stat is two points lower than it would be had you never found the artifact
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You then get a greater restoration to go back to 20 [20 --> 18 --> 19 --> 20]
. . .
greater restoration would remove the -2, making it 19 [18 --> 16 --> 17 --> 19]
I find these two rulings to be inconsistent. Also, there is nothing within the wording for the greater restoration spell that interacts with any sort of cap. The spell removes the following effect from a target creature: Any reduction to one of the target's ability scores.
The two ways to interpret the concept of removing a "score reduction effect" are:
-- restore the score back to what it was before being targeted by this effect, but only if the current score is still lower. Resulting in: 20 --> 18 --> 19 --> 20 and also 18 --> 16 --> 17 --> 18.
OR:
-- keep track of the amount that was reduced and then add that numerical value back in during the restoration. Resulting in: 20 --> 18 --> 19 --> 21 and also 18 --> 16 --> 17 --> 19.
You then get a greater restoration to go back to 20 [20 --> 18 --> 19 --> 20]
. . .
greater restoration would remove the -2, making it 19 [18 --> 16 --> 17 --> 19]
I find these two rulings to be inconsistent. Also, there is nothing within the wording for the greater restoration spell that interacts with any sort of cap. The spell removes the following effect from a target creature: Any reduction to one of the target's ability scores.
The two ways to interpret the concept of removing a "score reduction effect" are:
-- restore the score back to what it was before being targeted by this effect, but only if the current score is still lower. Resulting in: 20 --> 18 --> 19 --> 20 and also 18 --> 16 --> 17 --> 18.
OR:
-- keep track of the amount that was reduced and then add that numerical value back in during the restoration. Resulting in: 20 --> 18 --> 19 --> 21 and also 18 --> 16 --> 17 --> 19.
But ability scores are capped at 20.
It's consistent with the model that ability score increases from feats are one-off, instantaneous changes, but that model produces weird results when one pokes at the edge cases.
We no longer have level drains, so to date the model causes mostly hypothetical problems in practice, but those hypothetical problems aren't guaranteed to remain hypothetical, especially with third-party material in the mix.
I prefer the model that stat bumps are ongoing. It has no weird edge cases, and, depending on how you treat temporary stat drains, might provide minor benefit in protecting against them.
I find these two rulings to be inconsistent. Also, there is nothing within the wording for the greater restoration spell that interacts with any sort of cap.
So you're just going to ignore that the artifact property tells you how it interacts with greater restoration, huh
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's consistent with the model that ability score increases from feats are one-off, instantaneous changes, but that model produces weird results when one pokes at the edge cases.
I don't think you've actually explained what you find to be "weird" about the scenario you proposed. It doesn't seem weird to me, or problematic
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Pure hypothetical here, inspired by a different thread.
Suppose you have a 20 strength, and then take a feat that gives you +1 strength, because you want the rest of its bonuses.
Then you fight a shadow. It hits, and reduces your strength by 3. Is your strength now 17 or 18?
I've always interpreted the ability score increases you get from feats as being instantaneous effects. If you're ineligible for them at the time, they just go away; they don't reappear later if you somehow become eligible for them. But this is my interpretation, and I'm not sure there's a solid RAW answer.
(So, in that example: 17.)
pronouns: he/she/they
So, if you managed to change out the feat, your stat wouldn't go down?
(It's not, AFAIK, possible to swap out feats that provide stat bumps in the WotC rules (short of a wish), but that's not a guarantee it never will be.)
Well, I think that's a big part of why swapping out a feat is not generally possible: it would be essentially undoing the past, which is why it's (currently, at least) uniquely available via a spell that can reshape reality.
With that in mind, I think it would make sense for any ability score improvements granted by a feat to be undone when the feat is swapped out, though I acknowledge that might make less sense if there were a more commonplace and less reality-breaking way to do it.
pronouns: he/she/they
This is just my opinion, but to me the "Increase your ability score by..." language in the feats that I looked at suggests that it is a one-time increase, not a constant bonus.
If it were a bonus to your score, I feel like it would read "Add +1 to your strength score" or something similar.
Because you couldn't increase your Strength score because it was already 20, that part has no effect after you take the feat, and if you Strength score is decreased later (as by the example you gave in the OP) the feat still won't have any effect because the increase happens at the time it is taken, not granted as a constant effect.
I don't have any rules I can cite to back that up, it's just my opinion based on the wording used in the rules.
The feat gives a one-time bump at that point in time. But if the score is already 20 then you don't get the one time bump. Later if you then have your strength reduced by 3 from the Shadow, then your strength is a 17.
IMO, since the feats say "You gain the following benefits", I interpret this as permanent and instantaneous, as others said, but not a continuous effect.
But I also wanted to mention that the 2014 PHB had this text. The 2024 PHB doesn't have it, so it seems to me the benefits are yours even if you don't meet the requirements after picking a particular feat.
Not sure if the inspiration comes from this comment, but it's an interesting take, jl8e:
I also interpret it to mean the Feat benefits are instantaneous and permanent. If it's possible to change Feat, such as in Organized Play rules like LEGENDS OF GREYHAWK where Rebuilding Your Character is possible, i would assume you loose any benefit associated to a Feat replaced, as well as anything you'd no longer qualify.
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I agree with the consensus in the example that the resulting ability score would be 17.
However, I also agree that when such a feature also says something like "the ability that you increased with this feat" then this does successfully refer to the ability in question, even if the result was that that ability was "increased by 0".
It's sort of like saying something like "I pushed the immovable object". One could take a picture of me pushing on it as evidence. The result was that the object was not actually pushed anywhere, but that doesn't negate the fact that I pushed it. I did perform the activity, it just wasn't successful.
I have to say that I think you're all wrong, in reason if not result. (I can argue it either way from my model.)
Chew on this more complicated one:
You have a 20 stat. You attune an artifact that drains the stat by 2. Your stat is 18 now.
While you're trying to get it restored, you level up and take a feat that bumps your stat to 19. You get it restored back to 20.
Now, you attune the artifact again. Should your stat be 18 or 19? (I know what you say it is, but should it be?) Is it good that it behaves differently from somebody that started with an 18 in their stat?
Hmm, let's see. The exact wording on that artifact property is
which is the same basic wording used for feats etc.
If you were at 20 in a stat that got hit by this effect, it would go down to 18, as a one-time effect
On the other hand, if you were at 18
I don't see the problem. In both cases, the stat is two points lower than it would be had you never found the artifact
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I find these two rulings to be inconsistent. Also, there is nothing within the wording for the greater restoration spell that interacts with any sort of cap. The spell removes the following effect from a target creature: Any reduction to one of the target's ability scores.
The two ways to interpret the concept of removing a "score reduction effect" are:
-- restore the score back to what it was before being targeted by this effect, but only if the current score is still lower. Resulting in: 20 --> 18 --> 19 --> 20 and also 18 --> 16 --> 17 --> 18.
OR:
-- keep track of the amount that was reduced and then add that numerical value back in during the restoration. Resulting in: 20 --> 18 --> 19 --> 21 and also 18 --> 16 --> 17 --> 19.
But ability scores are capped at 20.
It's consistent with the model that ability score increases from feats are one-off, instantaneous changes, but that model produces weird results when one pokes at the edge cases.
We no longer have level drains, so to date the model causes mostly hypothetical problems in practice, but those hypothetical problems aren't guaranteed to remain hypothetical, especially with third-party material in the mix.
I prefer the model that stat bumps are ongoing. It has no weird edge cases, and, depending on how you treat temporary stat drains, might provide minor benefit in protecting against them.
So you're just going to ignore that the artifact property tells you how it interacts with greater restoration, huh
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't think you've actually explained what you find to be "weird" about the scenario you proposed. It doesn't seem weird to me, or problematic
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)