So I was reading some necro’d old feats thread and it gave me the question:
are feats being misused?
“A feat represents a talent or an area of expertise that gives a character special capabilities. It embodies training, experience, and abilities beyond what a class provides. At certain levels, your class gives you the Ability Score Improvement feature. Using the optional feats rule, you can forgo taking that feature to take a feat of your choice instead. You can take each feat only once, unless the feat's description says otherwise. 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.”
I want to focus on that 2nd sentence. If a character has never done anything in any of the combats or downtime or anything to signify .... ex: sharpshooter.
maybe they only ever fought with a rapier prior to that.
why the heck are they all of a sudden a sharpshooter?
Feats are optional and subject to DM discretion. If the DM wants to mandate some sort of training before allowing a feat choice, that’s fine. But if they don’t want to require that, that’s also fine. Tons of stuff gets handwaved. Why does any character suddenly get access to new features when they level up?
I think that feats should be linked to the background that you choose, an entertainer wouldn't have use of Great Weapons Master in their line of work, but they might make use of the feats Actor, Keen Mind or Observant feat. So when you go to choose a background, a list of feats that are logical for that choice would be more appropriate.
Feats are optional and subject to DM discretion. If the DM wants to mandate some sort of training before allowing a feat choice, that’s fine. But if they don’t want to require that, that’s also fine. Tons of stuff gets handwaved. Why does any character suddenly get access to new features when they level up?
Those skills are atleast based off their relative knowledge training and experience.
been attacking a lot. Now I can attack twice.
been casting spells a lot, they become easier, cast harder ones. Etc.
in no way does using a rapier, in my example, prepare you to make a 600 ft longbow shot ignoring 3/4ths cover on a... let’s say goblin... behind a tree to hit it between the eyes perfectly.
why the heck are they all of a sudden a sharpshooter?
This isn't specific to feats. You could ask this question about almost any aspect of character progression. Why does a wizard automatically add 2 spells to their spellbook every level even if they haven't spent any time or money researching those spells? Why do fighters, rogues and monks suddenly unlock new fighting styles at 3rd level if they haven't been working towards them? Why can warlocks pick up new spells and features from a patron they haven't been in contact with at all?
The game's designers are perfectly fine with letting you punt on those questions if coming up with answers isn't fun for you. There's no right or wrong way to play the game. Some people care about this sort of thing way more than others.
I'd interpret gaining feats the same way I'd interpret general character progression. It's assumed that as you've been adventuring, you've been thinking and working towards getting better at it, and levels represent that.
Sure, the abstraction breaks if you think about it too hard. There's lots of abilities you could get at level up that don't make sense if your character hasn't been working towards them. It breaks immersion the most when they're abilities that seem like they should take lots of work - feats like Linguist or character abilities like choosing a Bard College don't seem like the kind of thing you should be able to pick up from spending a bunch of time down in some deep dungeon! Whereas others seem to make more sense - it seems obvious that you could get a feat like Observant over the course of normal adventuring, or a Sorcerer's Font of Magic.
I'd put that as part of the fundamental suspension of disbelief you have to accept to play D&D. We accept that, just by adventuring, characters gain XP and eventually get more power - including abilities that technically should require separate training from the adventuring they've been doing.
I'd interpret gaining feats the same way I'd interpret general character progression. It's assumed that as you've been adventuring, you've been thinking and working towards getting better at it, and levels represent that.
Sure, the abstraction breaks if you think about it too hard. There's lots of abilities you could get at level up that don't make sense if your character hasn't been working towards them. It breaks immersion the most when they're abilities that seem like they should take lots of work - feats like Linguist or character abilities like choosing a Bard College don't seem like the kind of thing you should be able to pick up from spending a bunch of time down in some deep dungeon! Whereas others seem to make more sense - it seems obvious that you could get a feat like Observant over the course of normal adventuring, or a Sorcerer's Font of Magic.
I'd put that as part of the fundamental suspension of disbelief you have to accept to play D&D. We accept that, just by adventuring, characters gain XP and eventually get more power - including abilities that technically should require separate training from the adventuring they've been doing.
really. Linguist as one of the examples?
you don’t think in the characters X years of life he has heard a single language spoken besides common?
I’d chalk linguist or skilled up there with observant as those that are easiest to believe.
the bard college, why are you starting with their experiences at going to dungeons? If that’s the case argue how do they learn an instrument only going into a dungeon.
(and maybe now you see my point about the feats being misused)
*spelled out*
why do most DMs just allow whatever feat to be taken by a character if they have never done anything toward it from an RP setting?
edit:
classic example you see all the time.
reslieint con.
they are rarely (if ever) hit while concentrating, they aren’t doing drinking contests to point of con saves, they aren’t holding their breath to swim underwater and near drowning, they aren’t walking through super cold areas and fighting off freezing to death, or the opposite in a desert, etc etc etc.
”I want the resilient con feat, so I can be proficiency for con saves”
hrmmmm....
would a better title than “are feats being misused” instead be “are feat prerequisites too lenient”
Feats are optional and subject to DM discretion. If the DM wants to mandate some sort of training before allowing a feat choice, that’s fine. But if they don’t want to require that, that’s also fine. Tons of stuff gets handwaved. Why does any character suddenly get access to new features when they level up?
Those skills are atleast based off their relative knowledge training and experience.
been attacking a lot. Now I can attack twice.
been casting spells a lot, they become easier, cast harder ones. Etc.
in no way does using a rapier, in my example, prepare you to make a 600 ft longbow shot ignoring 3/4ths cover on a... let’s say goblin... behind a tree to hit it between the eyes perfectly.
Except nothing requires the fighter to have actually done any attacking to earn that second attack. A wizard gets more spell slots and two new free spells at a level-up even if they’ve done exactly zero casting
Why do characters just automatically get better at skills when their proficiency bonus increases, even if they’ve never used them? Why can they increase ANY of their ability scores, even the ones they’ve never rolled? Because unlike The Elder Scrolls, D&D doesn’t have an advancement system based on feature use. That’s fundamentally not how it works.
Again, it’s totally fine if you want to put extra requirements on fear acquisition. But the idea that feats are somehow unique in the “acquired all of a sudden with no prerequisite” area is demonstrably false, because this is just how the game works.
Feats are optional and subject to DM discretion. If the DM wants to mandate some sort of training before allowing a feat choice, that’s fine. But if they don’t want to require that, that’s also fine. Tons of stuff gets handwaved. Why does any character suddenly get access to new features when they level up?
Those skills are atleast based off their relative knowledge training and experience.
been attacking a lot. Now I can attack twice.
been casting spells a lot, they become easier, cast harder ones. Etc.
in no way does using a rapier, in my example, prepare you to make a 600 ft longbow shot ignoring 3/4ths cover on a... let’s say goblin... behind a tree to hit it between the eyes perfectly.
Except nothing requires the fighter to have actually done any attacking to earn that second attack. A wizard gets more spell slots and two new free spells at a level-up even if they’ve done exactly zero casting
Why do characters just automatically get better at skills when their proficiency bonus increases, even if they’ve never used them? Why can they increase ANY of their ability scores, even the ones they’ve never rolled? Because unlike The Elder Scrolls, D&D doesn’t have an advancement system based on feature use. That’s fundamentally not how it works.
Again, it’s totally fine if you want to put extra requirements on fear acquisition. But the idea that feats are somehow unique in the “acquired all of a sudden with no prerequisite” area is demonstrably false, because this is just how the game works.
Nothing requires the fighter to have done an attack to get the 2nd attack.
really? Guy levels up 4 times without ever being in a fight? Ever?
The rule states “It embodies training, experience, and abilities beyond what a class provides.”
if there is no training, experience, or ability in a character doing something. Why give the feat?
this is going off rules. Not assumptions.
That's not a "rule", it's just flavor text. If you don't want to give the feat because a character hasn't done anything to work towards it, don't give it. If other DMs don't care if the character has done anything, then that's fine too.
There are certain qualifications that must be had before taking certain feats, and those are listed in the feat. Racial feats are an obvious example and so are things like Spell Sniper or Elemental Affinity. The flavor text does not fall under this category. RAW, there is nothing preventing a wizard from taking Great Weapon Master, or a sword and shield fighter from taking Polearm Master when they have the option to take a feat.
Your assumption in this case is that a game can’t possibly level up a fighter without putting them in combat. It’s perhaps not the most common type of game, but nothing in any book says a DM HAS to run combat.
But anyway, the line you’re quoting isn’t the rule. The rule is that you can choose a feat instead of an ability score increase, if your DM allows it.
The fact that you’re singling our feats for this complaint when literally everything else in the game works the same way is bizarre.
Your assumption is that a fighter becomes a fighter without ever being in any combat. Or even before that, swinging a weapon at a practice dummy to get proficient.
you’re assuming everyone is just magically innate knowledge appearing into the world via Object Permanence when the adventure begins.
the rule also states. There are pre-requisites. Spelled out clearly in some cases. Such as grappler. Which is used as an example in the feat rule even I believe.
Since you keep bringing up fighter: let’s pull some text from fighter for you.
”
Well-Rounded Specialists
Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles. Every fighter can swing an axe, fence with a rapier, wield a longsword or a greatsword, use a bow, and even trap foes in a net with some degree of skill. Likewise, a fighter is adept with shields and every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each fighter specializes in a certain style of combat. Some concentrate on archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad general ability and extensive specialization makes fighters superior combatants on battlefields and in dungeons alike.”
Feats are optional and subject to DM discretion. If the DM wants to mandate some sort of training before allowing a feat choice, that’s fine. But if they don’t want to require that, that’s also fine. Tons of stuff gets handwaved. Why does any character suddenly get access to new features when they level up?
Those skills are atleast based off their relative knowledge training and experience.
been attacking a lot. Now I can attack twice.
been casting spells a lot, they become easier, cast harder ones. Etc.
in no way does using a rapier, in my example, prepare you to make a 600 ft longbow shot ignoring 3/4ths cover on a... let’s say goblin... behind a tree to hit it between the eyes perfectly.
Except nothing requires the fighter to have actually done any attacking to earn that second attack. A wizard gets more spell slots and two new free spells at a level-up even if they’ve done exactly zero casting
Why do characters just automatically get better at skills when their proficiency bonus increases, even if they’ve never used them? Why can they increase ANY of their ability scores, even the ones they’ve never rolled? Because unlike The Elder Scrolls, D&D doesn’t have an advancement system based on feature use. That’s fundamentally not how it works.
Again, it’s totally fine if you want to put extra requirements on fear acquisition. But the idea that feats are somehow unique in the “acquired all of a sudden with no prerequisite” area is demonstrably false, because this is just how the game works.
Nothing requires the fighter to have done an attack to get the 2nd attack.
really? Guy levels up 4 times without ever being in a fight? Ever?
I think that feats should be linked to the background that you choose, an entertainer wouldn't have use of Great Weapons Master in their line of work, but they might make use of the feats Actor, Keen Mind or Observant feat. So when you go to choose a background, a list of feats that are logical for that choice would be more appropriate.
So an entertainer alternate gladiator couldn't favor a greatsword? I get what you are saying but a reasonable amount of backstory work and roleplay could easily explain any particular feat choice.
I think that feats should be linked to the background that you choose, an entertainer wouldn't have use of Great Weapons Master in their line of work, but they might make use of the feats Actor, Keen Mind or Observant feat. So when you go to choose a background, a list of feats that are logical for that choice would be more appropriate.
So an entertainer alternate gladiator couldn't favor a greatsword? I get what you are saying but a reasonable amount of backstory work and roleplay could easily explain any particular feat choice.
The wording of feats. Is basically stating you need to put some effort of RP or backstory into why you deserve the feat, which is an OPTIONAL rule.
it doesn’t just get given to you for no reason, like Saga wants to believe.
hence, why I am asking if feats are being misused. Since it seems few people put in the RP/backstory work into their feats. But more so just pick a feat because of optimization.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blank
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I was reading some necro’d old feats thread and it gave me the question:
are feats being misused?
“A feat represents a talent or an area of expertise that gives a character special capabilities. It embodies training, experience, and abilities beyond what a class provides.
At certain levels, your class gives you the Ability Score Improvement feature. Using the optional feats rule, you can forgo taking that feature to take a feat of your choice instead. You can take each feat only once, unless the feat's description says otherwise.
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.”
I want to focus on that 2nd sentence. If a character has never done anything in any of the combats or downtime or anything to signify .... ex: sharpshooter.
maybe they only ever fought with a rapier prior to that.
why the heck are they all of a sudden a sharpshooter?
Blank
Feats are optional and subject to DM discretion. If the DM wants to mandate some sort of training before allowing a feat choice, that’s fine. But if they don’t want to require that, that’s also fine. Tons of stuff gets handwaved. Why does any character suddenly get access to new features when they level up?
I think that feats should be linked to the background that you choose, an entertainer wouldn't have use of Great Weapons Master in their line of work, but they might make use of the feats Actor, Keen Mind or Observant feat. So when you go to choose a background, a list of feats that are logical for that choice would be more appropriate.
Those skills are atleast based off their relative knowledge training and experience.
been attacking a lot. Now I can attack twice.
been casting spells a lot, they become easier, cast harder ones. Etc.
in no way does using a rapier, in my example, prepare you to make a 600 ft longbow shot ignoring 3/4ths cover on a... let’s say goblin... behind a tree to hit it between the eyes perfectly.
Blank
This isn't specific to feats. You could ask this question about almost any aspect of character progression. Why does a wizard automatically add 2 spells to their spellbook every level even if they haven't spent any time or money researching those spells? Why do fighters, rogues and monks suddenly unlock new fighting styles at 3rd level if they haven't been working towards them? Why can warlocks pick up new spells and features from a patron they haven't been in contact with at all?
The game's designers are perfectly fine with letting you punt on those questions if coming up with answers isn't fun for you. There's no right or wrong way to play the game. Some people care about this sort of thing way more than others.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I'd interpret gaining feats the same way I'd interpret general character progression. It's assumed that as you've been adventuring, you've been thinking and working towards getting better at it, and levels represent that.
Sure, the abstraction breaks if you think about it too hard. There's lots of abilities you could get at level up that don't make sense if your character hasn't been working towards them. It breaks immersion the most when they're abilities that seem like they should take lots of work - feats like Linguist or character abilities like choosing a Bard College don't seem like the kind of thing you should be able to pick up from spending a bunch of time down in some deep dungeon! Whereas others seem to make more sense - it seems obvious that you could get a feat like Observant over the course of normal adventuring, or a Sorcerer's Font of Magic.
I'd put that as part of the fundamental suspension of disbelief you have to accept to play D&D. We accept that, just by adventuring, characters gain XP and eventually get more power - including abilities that technically should require separate training from the adventuring they've been doing.
really. Linguist as one of the examples?
you don’t think in the characters X years of life he has heard a single language spoken besides common?
I’d chalk linguist or skilled up there with observant as those that are easiest to believe.
the bard college, why are you starting with their experiences at going to dungeons? If that’s the case argue how do they learn an instrument only going into a dungeon.
(and maybe now you see my point about the feats being misused)
*spelled out*
why do most DMs just allow whatever feat to be taken by a character if they have never done anything toward it from an RP setting?
edit:
classic example you see all the time.
reslieint con.
they are rarely (if ever) hit while concentrating, they aren’t doing drinking contests to point of con saves, they aren’t holding their breath to swim underwater and near drowning, they aren’t walking through super cold areas and fighting off freezing to death, or the opposite in a desert, etc etc etc.
”I want the resilient con feat, so I can be proficiency for con saves”
hrmmmm....
would a better title than “are feats being misused” instead be “are feat prerequisites too lenient”
Blank
Except nothing requires the fighter to have actually done any attacking to earn that second attack. A wizard gets more spell slots and two new free spells at a level-up even if they’ve done exactly zero casting
Why do characters just automatically get better at skills when their proficiency bonus increases, even if they’ve never used them? Why can they increase ANY of their ability scores, even the ones they’ve never rolled? Because unlike The Elder Scrolls, D&D doesn’t have an advancement system based on feature use. That’s fundamentally not how it works.
Again, it’s totally fine if you want to put extra requirements on fear acquisition. But the idea that feats are somehow unique in the “acquired all of a sudden with no prerequisite” area is demonstrably false, because this is just how the game works.
Nothing requires the fighter to have done an attack to get the 2nd attack.
really? Guy levels up 4 times without ever being in a fight? Ever?
😂
Blank
Your assumptions about how a game goes aren’t really relevant to how the rules work.
The rule states “It embodies training, experience, and abilities beyond what a class provides.”
if there is no training, experience, or ability in a character doing something. Why give the feat?
this is going off rules. Not assumptions.
Blank
That's not a "rule", it's just flavor text. If you don't want to give the feat because a character hasn't done anything to work towards it, don't give it. If other DMs don't care if the character has done anything, then that's fine too.
There are certain qualifications that must be had before taking certain feats, and those are listed in the feat. Racial feats are an obvious example and so are things like Spell Sniper or Elemental Affinity. The flavor text does not fall under this category. RAW, there is nothing preventing a wizard from taking Great Weapon Master, or a sword and shield fighter from taking Polearm Master when they have the option to take a feat.
Your assumption in this case is that a game can’t possibly level up a fighter without putting them in combat. It’s perhaps not the most common type of game, but nothing in any book says a DM HAS to run combat.
But anyway, the line you’re quoting isn’t the rule. The rule is that you can choose a feat instead of an ability score increase, if your DM allows it.
The fact that you’re singling our feats for this complaint when literally everything else in the game works the same way is bizarre.
Your assumption is that a fighter becomes a fighter without ever being in any combat. Or even before that, swinging a weapon at a practice dummy to get proficient.
you’re assuming everyone is just magically innate knowledge appearing into the world via Object Permanence when the adventure begins.
the rule also states. There are pre-requisites. Spelled out clearly in some cases. Such as grappler. Which is used as an example in the feat rule even I believe.
Since you keep bringing up fighter: let’s pull some text from fighter for you.
”
Well-Rounded Specialists
Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles. Every fighter can swing an axe, fence with a rapier, wield a longsword or a greatsword, use a bow, and even trap foes in a net with some degree of skill. Likewise, a fighter is adept with shields and every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each fighter specializes in a certain style of combat. Some concentrate on archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad general ability and extensive specialization makes fighters superior combatants on battlefields and in dungeons alike.”
first sentence... Fighters Learn....
learn....
not born with innately. It’s learned.
Blank
He's all about combat theory :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Lol. Right?!
hell of a guy. Never swings a weapon once in his life but can get off 2 attacks in succession vs a moving target. (Prob a 6 int too)
Blank
Resident grappler?
So an entertainer alternate gladiator couldn't favor a greatsword? I get what you are saying but a reasonable amount of backstory work and roleplay could easily explain any particular feat choice.
Exactly!!!!
Blank
The wording of feats. Is basically stating you need to put some effort of RP or backstory into why you deserve the feat, which is an OPTIONAL rule.
it doesn’t just get given to you for no reason, like Saga wants to believe.
hence, why I am asking if feats are being misused. Since it seems few people put in the RP/backstory work into their feats. But more so just pick a feat because of optimization.
Blank