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.
What makes you think that "there is no training, experience or ability"?
You seem to think that someone taking the Sharpshooter feat who has been using a rapier in combat has been doing nothing else but practice with the rapier. They could have been spending hours or days practicing and perfecting their bow technique and then only choose to start using the bow in combat once they have perfected their technique.
The feat represents the RESULT of the intense training the character has been doing for the last several levels whether they state that explicitly or not. The feat and the corresponding effects are the RESULT of the training. The character taking the feat MEANS that the character has completed and succeeded at all of the relevant training.
You seem to think that the feat comes out of the blue. Oh, I take sharpshooter and somehow can instantly do something I couldn't before. That is certainly one interpretation, but it is equally valid to say that by taking the feat the character is acknowledging the long training that has gone into their success that results in the abilities granted by the feat. What makes you think the feat comes before the training? Most games do not role play every minute detail of a character and all the training they are doing every single day, all the time, that never gets mentioned because (honestly) it is pretty boring.
Anyway, a character taking a feat MEANS that the character has put in the requisite time and training over the preceding days/weeks/months/years to achieve the benefits granted by the feat (whether the player/character actually made mention of all the training from a back story perspective or not).
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.
What makes you think that "there is no training, experience or ability"?
You seem to think that someone taking the Sharpshooter feat who has been using a rapier in combat has been doing nothing else but practice with the rapier. They could have been spending hours or days practicing and perfecting their bow technique and then only choose to start using the bow in combat once they have perfected their technique.
The feat represents the RESULT of the intense training the character has been doing for the last several levels whether they state that explicitly or not. The feat and the corresponding effects are the RESULT of the training. The character taking the feat MEANS that the character has completed and succeeded at all of the relevant training.
You seem to think that the feat comes out of the blue. Oh, I take sharpshooter and somehow can instantly do something I couldn't before. That is certainly one interpretation, but it is equally valid to say that by taking the feat the character is acknowledging the long training that has gone into their success that results in the abilities granted by the feat. What makes you think the feat comes before the training? Most games do not role play every minute detail of a character and all the training they are doing every single day, all the time, that never gets mentioned because (honestly) it is pretty boring.
Anyway, a character taking a feat MEANS that the character has put in the requisite time and training over the preceding days/weeks/months/years to achieve the benefits granted by the feat (whether the player/character actually made mention of all the training from a back story perspective or not).
“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.“
“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.“
a direct quote I also said in the example you are using of mine, but failing to quote, to try and get to fit your argument.
you said I assume he hasn’t. No. I flat out gave a scenario where they never did. I even SPECIFICALLY call out a LONGBOW as an example. Longbow not something Any char are proficient in. Or can even use based on size.
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.
If the way that people have fun is to simply optimize for one thing or another, as long as the rest of their play group is ok with that, I say have at it. However, I look at all of the mechanical choices as being opportunities to tell the story of how the character came to be the adventurer that they are at this point. It doesn't mean that you have to have all sorts of details about every aspect of the character's life leading up to level 1 (or whatever level you'll be starting off at), but looking at some of the abilities, skills, feats or other aspects of the character to explain others can be interesting. For example, consider Strava Kirescu, a Sorcerer 1 female variant human with the spell sniper feat here. She's from Ravnica, but due to having her spark ignited while being infused with the power of the angels (getting her to Divine Soul Sorcerer), she now finds herself outside Neverwinter at the outset of Lost Mines of Phandelver. I'll read up on some of the lore behind the different places, classes, etc and consider them in conjunction with the personality that I either roll for the character or that speaks to me as to how that character is. Some of the initial choices that I'll make will get changed to fit the overall narrative as I'm discovering who the character is. For instance, Toll the Dead became Sacred Flame and Magic Missile became Guiding Bolt when I discovered that the embermages of the Boros Legion preferred holy/fire damage spells to other spells. Because she ran with the Rakdos in her youth and one of their cantrips that is added to spell lists is Fire Bolt, I'm going to weave in that she discovered some affinity for magic while creating some havoc with them in her youth and that she added Shocking Grasp and became adept at picking off people behind cover as a means to escape getting captured when her group inevitably caused too much trouble.
Later, when she meets Gundren Rockseeker for the first time, she originally thinks that he is just a short, stout human. She's a little distracted by some of the different people that she sees because Ravnica doesn't have all of the races of the PHB, let alone any of the races that are in the other sourcebooks not named Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica. When she gets up close, she realizes that there is something a little less human about him than just being short and stout. Since no one else seemed to think anything of it and she is sporting a +3 charisma modifier, she uses some combination of deception and performance to act like nothing is amiss as she's talking to him. I don't mention whether it worked or not, but it doesn't matter since the interaction is from her perspective.
The Boros Legionnaire background has a line that talks about her earning enough to maintain a poor lifestyle. I'm thinking that she must be used to living that lifestyle if she's content to keep working with the Boros prior to her initial planeswalk and I'm wondering what the story about that is. Once I'm done writing some of the background, I like to roll on the additional tables that start on page 62 of Xanathar's Guide to everything to get some generic information about the character. I'll even roll for 1-3 important people that may or may not have been identified within the background just for some extra fodder for the DM to play with. I roll up d10 for the number of siblings and I rolled a 7 followed by a 6 on the d6. Strava has 1d6+2 or 8 siblings (including a twin brother!). 9 kids and living in an encampment close enough to the Rakdos to run with them sounds like that might just be enough to allow someone to be used to living in poor conditions.
Some of this will help me better understand the character and allow me to role play her better. Some of this will possibly be a possible hook for the DM. Some of it will be completely meaningless, but it's all opportunities to tell a story while also discovering a bit about that same story. That's what I like about D&D and that's how I have fun with it. But I don't think that there is anything in the rules that says that anyone else has to have fun the same way that I do.
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.
What makes you think that "there is no training, experience or ability"?
You seem to think that someone taking the Sharpshooter feat who has been using a rapier in combat has been doing nothing else but practice with the rapier. They could have been spending hours or days practicing and perfecting their bow technique and then only choose to start using the bow in combat once they have perfected their technique.
The feat represents the RESULT of the intense training the character has been doing for the last several levels whether they state that explicitly or not. The feat and the corresponding effects are the RESULT of the training. The character taking the feat MEANS that the character has completed and succeeded at all of the relevant training.
You seem to think that the feat comes out of the blue. Oh, I take sharpshooter and somehow can instantly do something I couldn't before. That is certainly one interpretation, but it is equally valid to say that by taking the feat the character is acknowledging the long training that has gone into their success that results in the abilities granted by the feat. What makes you think the feat comes before the training? Most games do not role play every minute detail of a character and all the training they are doing every single day, all the time, that never gets mentioned because (honestly) it is pretty boring.
Anyway, a character taking a feat MEANS that the character has put in the requisite time and training over the preceding days/weeks/months/years to achieve the benefits granted by the feat (whether the player/character actually made mention of all the training from a back story perspective or not).
“taking a feat”
good use of language and goes full circle to my point.
As to the every minute of downtime blah blah blah is boring.
AL asks what you do.
and frankly if you think its boring to spend 4 seconds to say “I want to practice bow in free time”
but you’ll spend 7 minutes flirting with an NPC waitress... hey. Boring is in the eye of the beholder now isn’t it? guess you don’t spend much time carousing, or gambling, or pit fighting, or any of that other stuff that takes less time than to watch someone roll damage for a fireball and add it up because they are elemental adept.
As to the every minute of downtime blah blah blah is boring.
AL asks what you do.
and frankly if you think its boring to spend 4 seconds to say “I want to practice bow in free time”
but you’ll spend 7 minutes flirting with an NPC waitress... hey. Boring is in the eye of the beholder now isn’t it? guess you don’t spend much time carousing, or gambling, or pit fighting, or any of that other stuff that takes less time than to watch someone roll damage for a fireball and add it up because they are elemental adept.
This could be addressed fairly casually at the time that the feat is chosen by saying something along the lines of "All those times that you thought I was sneaking off into the bushes to take a nap... well, I've actually been practicing with the bow! Check this out!" Doesn't force the player to think about what they are going to do in advance so that they can say "I want to practice bow in my free time". Doesn't force them to even be aware that Sharpshooter is a thing prior to looking at it to choose it. It does acknowledge that the character was practicing, perhaps in secret and creates a little self deprecating humor in the process. Should it be required? No. But I don't think that there is any harm in a quick little RP moment like that to explain a mechanical advantage.
As to the every minute of downtime blah blah blah is boring.
AL asks what you do.
and frankly if you think its boring to spend 4 seconds to say “I want to practice bow in free time”
but you’ll spend 7 minutes flirting with an NPC waitress... hey. Boring is in the eye of the beholder now isn’t it? guess you don’t spend much time carousing, or gambling, or pit fighting, or any of that other stuff that takes less time than to watch someone roll damage for a fireball and add it up because they are elemental adept.
This could be addressed fairly casually at the time that the feat is chosen by saying something along the lines of "All those times that you thought I was sneaking off into the bushes to take a nap... well, I've actually been practicing with the bow! Check this out!" Doesn't force the player to think about what they are going to do in advance so that they can say "I want to practice bow in my free time". Doesn't force them to even be aware that Sharpshooter is a thing prior to looking at it to choose it. It does acknowledge that the character was practicing, perhaps in secret and creates a little self deprecating humor in the process. Should it be required? No. But I don't think that there is any harm in a quick little RP moment like that to explain a mechanical advantage.
Exactly. Takes less than 4 seconds. Literally a “minimal RP effort” and fits the wording of a rule which is optional.
Just in general. Is the feat being misused? (given out without the 4 seconds of RP. Ie: lazy DMing.)
argument : “what if it’s in their chars backstory already they shouldn’t need to RP it..” other players don’t know your backstory. In that case. That’s a lazy player, over 4 seconds of RP. Where your party members can get to know your player better as a player.
”not everyone plays the game...”
I get that too, that some people it’s 100% about the combat. But there’s other players at the table too. This is called consideration for the other players. Do you see the RP heavy guys just not do any this in combat because it’s not their bag? They just stand there and do no actions and let everyone else handle it?
Are feats being misused? This is a “yes but” or “no but” question. I should have done a poll in hindsight.
My direct answer to your question would be: It depends on how you define "misuse." Not a great answer, but as you have seen for yourself, it depends a lot on what the goals and motivations are of the players (not the PCs) at the table. Okay...
Perhaps another question, related to your question, would help. What motivated the developers to write feats the way that they did?
The answer to your question is: no, players are not misusing feats. RAW, there is no rule that forces a player to do anything to deserve a feat, other than reach level 4 (or any of the levels where feats are optional). Additionally, RAW, there is nothing that forces a fighter to fight in order to gain more fighter levels. It's unlikely, but not impossible.
Even if these rules did exist, the DM is allowed to change whatever he or she likes to better suit his or her game. If a DM decides that their players will get ASIs and Feats every time they level up or every time they Long Rest "just because," that's an entirely valid style of play. You may not enjoy it, but if the DM and their players do, then it's not "misuse".
The simplest explanation is that characters are doing things outside of active scenes, and I'm not just talking about "downtime activities". Your characters have lives, right? Are you declaring and tracking every waking moment of their time? Every minute action? Doubtful.
DM and players weave a story together. If your DM is okay with a particular feat, congratulations, your character spent just enough unstructured time qualifying for it. Move on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
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.
What makes you think that "there is no training, experience or ability"?
You seem to think that someone taking the Sharpshooter feat who has been using a rapier in combat has been doing nothing else but practice with the rapier. They could have been spending hours or days practicing and perfecting their bow technique and then only choose to start using the bow in combat once they have perfected their technique.
The feat represents the RESULT of the intense training the character has been doing for the last several levels whether they state that explicitly or not. The feat and the corresponding effects are the RESULT of the training. The character taking the feat MEANS that the character has completed and succeeded at all of the relevant training.
You seem to think that the feat comes out of the blue. Oh, I take sharpshooter and somehow can instantly do something I couldn't before. That is certainly one interpretation, but it is equally valid to say that by taking the feat the character is acknowledging the long training that has gone into their success that results in the abilities granted by the feat. What makes you think the feat comes before the training? Most games do not role play every minute detail of a character and all the training they are doing every single day, all the time, that never gets mentioned because (honestly) it is pretty boring.
Anyway, a character taking a feat MEANS that the character has put in the requisite time and training over the preceding days/weeks/months/years to achieve the benefits granted by the feat (whether the player/character actually made mention of all the training from a back story perspective or not).
“taking a feat”
good use of language and goes full circle to my point.
Feats are GIVEN not taken. ABI is taken.
feats are OPTIONAL.
Feats are optional. If a DM chooses to allow them in his game then players can choose to take them in place of an ASI. If feats are allowed, there is no difference between an ASI and a feat.
Do you require a fighter that chooses to spend an ASI boosting wisdom or charisma to roleplay studying/learning or practicing conversations being eloquent and persuasive? Are ASIs being misused if the character doesn't roleplay whatever they did to increase the stat? NO. This is because by taking the stat increase, in whatever stat, the character is assumed to have spent the time and effort needed over the last number of levels taking the actions needed to increase that particular stat. Whatever those actions might be.
In the same way, if a character chooses to take, great weapon master, sharpshooter, tavern brawler or tough, the character is assumed to have been
- practicing with their two handed weapons to make them more effective
- practicing with their ranged weapons to make them more effective
- getting into occasional bar fights and training to fight with whatever is handy
- doing some sort of conditioning to improve their ability to take hits
So NO, feats are not being misused any more than ASIs. D&D doesn't contain RULES about roleplaying. It contains rules about mechanics. It is up to each individual DM whether they want the players to describe the characters activities and training on a daily basis so they can explain their choice of future ASI or feat. Or NOT ... by taking that future ASI or feat the character is assumed to have been taking whatever actions were required, whatever training was required in order to develop the ability increase represented by the ASI or the special ability represented by the feat. Whether the DM wants the roleplaying to come first, whether the DM even cares about having a role playing explanation for a feat is up to the individual DM ... mechanically, the player chooses an ASI or feat for their character when they level up and all of the effort that went into that achievement is assumed to have been going on BEFORE they reach the point where they take the ASI or feat.
This complaint really assumes an RP-heavy table... Some players are in the game for min-maxing and combat, and that might not fit the spirit of D&D to you and your friends, but it's still a valid way to play the game. As long as they're not being obnoxious about it to the other players at their table, there's no harm.
And aside from that, you don't necessarily need a character to have overtly studied and practiced to justify, through RP, how they have a new skill suddenly. Maybe they were just hit with a burst of inspiration one day. Maybe it's something that their character is just naturally skilled at, but they never noticed until they tried.
The sharpshooter example you gave makes perfect sense to me. How is this character, who has never picked up a bow in-game, suddenly sniping foes from 3/4 cover 200 feet away? The answer could simply be... they've always been able to do that, but perhaps they didn't realize it because they'd never tried before. I think the Lucky feat is a good example of something like that... there's no logical training or work one could do to explain the feat... it's just an innate aura of luck that particular character has that kicks in at some point.
I think a group of players who care deeply about roleplay and want to make sure everything their character does has an in-game explanation are also the types to not just randomly grab feats just for fun or min-maxing. I even think it would be a good thing for a DM to ask the player to justify, in-story, how they gained access to the feat before allowing the player to take it (feats are optional at the discretion of the DM, after all). But while that would help to flesh out a character more and hopefully help to immerse the player in the world more, I still think it's fine if some players or DMs don't really care.
Your interpretation of misuse seems baffling to me. Firstly, the text describing what a feat is is generalising not providing a specific "it is this and nothing else" way. For example: that text taken so absolutely like you seem to imply it should, EightPackKilla, would mean nobody but a Sorcerer could take Magic Initiate: Sorcerer, and yet, there is no such requirement. Sorcery cannot be learned or developed, it is not something you worked on or trained for. Magic Initiate Sorcerer in a RP would be a small spark of sorcery unlocking within you. Or maybe your recent jaunt through Feywilds did some odd things.
But you're also overlooking 2 things: the text you refer to is not a prerequisite and simply says people must match only the preprequisite "in the feat". Also, it says a feat can be "a talent". A talent can be an innate ability, a natural thing you can just do that others can't or something you can learn faster than others or do without training. I've known people who almost never draw anything, and start to do so late in life and within a few days are drawing better than most others. There are people who are naturally better at puzzles: where even a highly intelligent person fond of puzzles could look at a puzzle and spend 7-10 mins to figure it out, a natural at it could do within the same time despite rarely ever doing puzzles.
I'm surprisingly good at archery. Not super great, sure. Now, I'm not athletic, overweight, have back issues and other health problems and yet the first time I tried archery I got the bullseye 3 times in a row and matched a guy who had been doing archery for 8 years. I had no training in anything like it in any aspect of my life and yet, I've impressed instructors - some level of natural talent.
So, while these feats are exaggerated examples if used like this it is is perfectly RAW to assume natural talent - since those rules - including the text you quoted - specifically say a feat can be used to show a talent or ability. Nothing in that says you "must" train for it. Here, I'll put it here again with emphasis:
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.
It need not be training, you see, it could just be an ability they have from natural talent. The intent of feats is to customise your character further beyond the features presented by Race, Class and Background.
Furthermore, a rule is only a rule when the DM makes it one. If the DM allows it, there's no misuse.
So the answer is "no". There's not even a "but". It's simply "no" - there is no misuse, it's RAW, it's RAI and the DM permits it.
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.
The answer to your question is: no, players are not misusing feats. RAW, there is no rule that forces a player to do anything to deserve a feat, other than reach level 4
In this discussion I also come back to that line from Quigley Down Under..
"... said I never had much use for 'em. Never said I didn't know how to use 'em."
Maybe your "all of a sudden Sharpshooter" character has always been an expert shot and knows it, they just hate having to haul around a quiver of arrows, so they've only used their rapier up to that point.
Same with resilient con. If they're wanting to take resilient con, there must be a reason they want better CON saves. Maybe they've "spent the last two years building up an immunity to iocaine powder."
This complaint really assumes an RP-heavy table... Some players are in the game for min-maxing and combat, and that might not fit the spirit of D&D to you and your friends, but it's still a valid way to play the game. As long as they're not being obnoxious about it to the other players at their table, there's no harm.
And aside from that, you don't necessarily need a character to have overtly studied and practiced to justify, through RP, how they have a new skill suddenly. Maybe they were just hit with a burst of inspiration one day. Maybe it's something that their character is just naturally skilled at, but they never noticed until they tried.
The sharpshooter example you gave makes perfect sense to me. How is this character, who has never picked up a bow in-game, suddenly sniping foes from 3/4 cover 200 feet away? The answer could simply be... they've always been able to do that, but perhaps they didn't realize it because they'd never tried before. I think the Lucky feat is a good example of something like that... there's no logical training or work one could do to explain the feat... it's just an innate aura of luck that particular character has that kicks in at some point.
I think a group of players who care deeply about roleplay and want to make sure everything their character does has an in-game explanation are also the types to not just randomly grab feats just for fun or min-maxing. I even think it would be a good thing for a DM to ask the player to justify, in-story, how they gained access to the feat before allowing the player to take it (feats are optional at the discretion of the DM, after all). But while that would help to flesh out a character more and hopefully help to immerse the player in the world more, I still think it's fine if some players or DMs don't really care.
This is part of the reason that I don't think that there should be a rule that establishes a prerequisite to gaining a feat that there must be some roleplay involved. If the rule is appropriate for the table, it will be in place by DM fiat. If it's not, there is no need to do anything at all... particularly since feats are optional anyway. This is definitely something that should be RAF for the table.
But I completely understand the OPs position and mostly agree that there should be at least some minimal explanation (at least for the player to consider when making decisions, if not overtly mentioned to the table or at least the DM) for the feats. For those saying "This is how all of D&D works, why is this special?" my reply is simply because there is at least some backstory baked in to class progression (I'm a cleric, of course I'm training to do cleric things, etc) versus something like I'm a Barbarian with low intelligence who suddenly knows how to speak and understand a few new languages (is that a bonus from multiclassing... maybe from something like knowledge domain cleric... hmmmm).
In this discussion I also come back to that line from Quigley Down Under..
"... said I never had much use for 'em. Never said I didn't know how to use 'em."
Maybe your "all of a sudden Sharpshooter" character has always been an expert shot and knows it, they just hate having to haul around a quiver of arrows, so they've only used their rapier up to that point.
Same with resilient con. If they're wanting to take resilient con, there must be a reason they want better CON saves. Maybe they've "spent the last two years building up an immunity to iocaine powder."
Having that explanation is an example of the minimal RP that the OP seems to be hinting at.
I find the conversation rather odd given that in 5e, everything amounts to being a magic power, so why do we pick on specific magic powers as "unrealistic" or "outside of RP". Consider for example the Alert Feat, you are magically able never to be surprised again for the rest of your life while conscious. Its basically Spidey Sense. Crossbow Expert allows you to ignore re-loading a weapon, Linguist? You suddenly know 3 languages. I mean none of these things are in the realm of reality, they are magic powers.. so logical explanations are not necessary. Pretty much all class abilities function under the same concept, even some skills are basically magic powers as well. Insight lets you read minds essentially.
You just have to accept it as is, its actually more damaging to try to DM fiat in some sort of requirements or logic into it, because if you do that, your players are going to start asking uncomfortable questions about how some of these other things can be logical and explained which is a whole other can of worms best avoided. You don't want to get into debates about how anything in this system can be explained with "logic", it can't hold up to that. Its a ultra abstracted, super high fantasy game, just let it be that, that's my advice.
You can RP those situations too. Surprise at understanding languages you didn't know before. "I've got a bad feeling about this." Most of the reasons why a person shouldn't RP in this thread actually gave reasonable, if brief, RP ideas as "proof" against having RP. But whatever.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What makes you think that "there is no training, experience or ability"?
You seem to think that someone taking the Sharpshooter feat who has been using a rapier in combat has been doing nothing else but practice with the rapier. They could have been spending hours or days practicing and perfecting their bow technique and then only choose to start using the bow in combat once they have perfected their technique.
The feat represents the RESULT of the intense training the character has been doing for the last several levels whether they state that explicitly or not. The feat and the corresponding effects are the RESULT of the training. The character taking the feat MEANS that the character has completed and succeeded at all of the relevant training.
You seem to think that the feat comes out of the blue. Oh, I take sharpshooter and somehow can instantly do something I couldn't before. That is certainly one interpretation, but it is equally valid to say that by taking the feat the character is acknowledging the long training that has gone into their success that results in the abilities granted by the feat. What makes you think the feat comes before the training? Most games do not role play every minute detail of a character and all the training they are doing every single day, all the time, that never gets mentioned because (honestly) it is pretty boring.
Anyway, a character taking a feat MEANS that the character has put in the requisite time and training over the preceding days/weeks/months/years to achieve the benefits granted by the feat (whether the player/character actually made mention of all the training from a back story perspective or not).
“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.“
“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.“
a direct quote I also said in the example you are using of mine, but failing to quote, to try and get to fit your argument.
you said I assume he hasn’t. No. I flat out gave a scenario where they never did. I even SPECIFICALLY call out a LONGBOW as an example. Longbow not something Any char are proficient in. Or can even use based on size.
Blank
If the way that people have fun is to simply optimize for one thing or another, as long as the rest of their play group is ok with that, I say have at it. However, I look at all of the mechanical choices as being opportunities to tell the story of how the character came to be the adventurer that they are at this point. It doesn't mean that you have to have all sorts of details about every aspect of the character's life leading up to level 1 (or whatever level you'll be starting off at), but looking at some of the abilities, skills, feats or other aspects of the character to explain others can be interesting. For example, consider Strava Kirescu, a Sorcerer 1 female variant human with the spell sniper feat here. She's from Ravnica, but due to having her spark ignited while being infused with the power of the angels (getting her to Divine Soul Sorcerer), she now finds herself outside Neverwinter at the outset of Lost Mines of Phandelver. I'll read up on some of the lore behind the different places, classes, etc and consider them in conjunction with the personality that I either roll for the character or that speaks to me as to how that character is. Some of the initial choices that I'll make will get changed to fit the overall narrative as I'm discovering who the character is. For instance, Toll the Dead became Sacred Flame and Magic Missile became Guiding Bolt when I discovered that the embermages of the Boros Legion preferred holy/fire damage spells to other spells. Because she ran with the Rakdos in her youth and one of their cantrips that is added to spell lists is Fire Bolt, I'm going to weave in that she discovered some affinity for magic while creating some havoc with them in her youth and that she added Shocking Grasp and became adept at picking off people behind cover as a means to escape getting captured when her group inevitably caused too much trouble.
Later, when she meets Gundren Rockseeker for the first time, she originally thinks that he is just a short, stout human. She's a little distracted by some of the different people that she sees because Ravnica doesn't have all of the races of the PHB, let alone any of the races that are in the other sourcebooks not named Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica. When she gets up close, she realizes that there is something a little less human about him than just being short and stout. Since no one else seemed to think anything of it and she is sporting a +3 charisma modifier, she uses some combination of deception and performance to act like nothing is amiss as she's talking to him. I don't mention whether it worked or not, but it doesn't matter since the interaction is from her perspective.
The Boros Legionnaire background has a line that talks about her earning enough to maintain a poor lifestyle. I'm thinking that she must be used to living that lifestyle if she's content to keep working with the Boros prior to her initial planeswalk and I'm wondering what the story about that is. Once I'm done writing some of the background, I like to roll on the additional tables that start on page 62 of Xanathar's Guide to everything to get some generic information about the character. I'll even roll for 1-3 important people that may or may not have been identified within the background just for some extra fodder for the DM to play with. I roll up d10 for the number of siblings and I rolled a 7 followed by a 6 on the d6. Strava has 1d6+2 or 8 siblings (including a twin brother!). 9 kids and living in an encampment close enough to the Rakdos to run with them sounds like that might just be enough to allow someone to be used to living in poor conditions.
Some of this will help me better understand the character and allow me to role play her better. Some of this will possibly be a possible hook for the DM. Some of it will be completely meaningless, but it's all opportunities to tell a story while also discovering a bit about that same story. That's what I like about D&D and that's how I have fun with it. But I don't think that there is anything in the rules that says that anyone else has to have fun the same way that I do.
“taking a feat”
good use of language and goes full circle to my point.
Feats are GIVEN not taken.
ABI is taken.
feats are OPTIONAL.
Blank
As to the every minute of downtime blah blah blah is boring.
AL asks what you do.
and frankly if you think its boring to spend 4 seconds to say “I want to practice bow in free time”
but you’ll spend 7 minutes flirting with an NPC waitress... hey. Boring is in the eye of the beholder now isn’t it?
guess you don’t spend much time carousing, or gambling, or pit fighting, or any of that other stuff that takes less time than to watch someone roll damage for a fireball and add it up because they are elemental adept.
Blank
This could be addressed fairly casually at the time that the feat is chosen by saying something along the lines of "All those times that you thought I was sneaking off into the bushes to take a nap... well, I've actually been practicing with the bow! Check this out!" Doesn't force the player to think about what they are going to do in advance so that they can say "I want to practice bow in my free time". Doesn't force them to even be aware that Sharpshooter is a thing prior to looking at it to choose it. It does acknowledge that the character was practicing, perhaps in secret and creates a little self deprecating humor in the process. Should it be required? No. But I don't think that there is any harm in a quick little RP moment like that to explain a mechanical advantage.
Exactly. Takes less than 4 seconds. Literally a “minimal RP effort” and fits the wording of a rule which is optional.
Blank
Back to topic:
Just in general. Is the feat being misused? (given out without the 4 seconds of RP. Ie: lazy DMing.)
argument : “what if it’s in their chars backstory already they shouldn’t need to RP it..” other players don’t know your backstory. In that case. That’s a lazy player, over 4 seconds of RP. Where your party members can get to know your player better as a player.
”not everyone plays the game...”
I get that too, that some people it’s 100% about the combat. But there’s other players at the table too. This is called consideration for the other players. Do you see the RP heavy guys just not do any this in combat because it’s not their bag? They just stand there and do no actions and let everyone else handle it?
Are feats being misused? This is a “yes but” or “no but” question. I should have done a poll in hindsight.
Blank
My direct answer to your question would be: It depends on how you define "misuse." Not a great answer, but as you have seen for yourself, it depends a lot on what the goals and motivations are of the players (not the PCs) at the table. Okay...
Perhaps another question, related to your question, would help. What motivated the developers to write feats the way that they did?
The answer to your question is: no, players are not misusing feats. RAW, there is no rule that forces a player to do anything to deserve a feat, other than reach level 4 (or any of the levels where feats are optional). Additionally, RAW, there is nothing that forces a fighter to fight in order to gain more fighter levels. It's unlikely, but not impossible.
Even if these rules did exist, the DM is allowed to change whatever he or she likes to better suit his or her game. If a DM decides that their players will get ASIs and Feats every time they level up or every time they Long Rest "just because," that's an entirely valid style of play. You may not enjoy it, but if the DM and their players do, then it's not "misuse".
The simplest explanation is that characters are doing things outside of active scenes, and I'm not just talking about "downtime activities". Your characters have lives, right? Are you declaring and tracking every waking moment of their time? Every minute action? Doubtful.
DM and players weave a story together. If your DM is okay with a particular feat, congratulations, your character spent just enough unstructured time qualifying for it. Move on.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Feats are optional. If a DM chooses to allow them in his game then players can choose to take them in place of an ASI. If feats are allowed, there is no difference between an ASI and a feat.
Do you require a fighter that chooses to spend an ASI boosting wisdom or charisma to roleplay studying/learning or practicing conversations being eloquent and persuasive? Are ASIs being misused if the character doesn't roleplay whatever they did to increase the stat? NO. This is because by taking the stat increase, in whatever stat, the character is assumed to have spent the time and effort needed over the last number of levels taking the actions needed to increase that particular stat. Whatever those actions might be.
In the same way, if a character chooses to take, great weapon master, sharpshooter, tavern brawler or tough, the character is assumed to have been
- practicing with their two handed weapons to make them more effective
- practicing with their ranged weapons to make them more effective
- getting into occasional bar fights and training to fight with whatever is handy
- doing some sort of conditioning to improve their ability to take hits
So NO, feats are not being misused any more than ASIs. D&D doesn't contain RULES about roleplaying. It contains rules about mechanics. It is up to each individual DM whether they want the players to describe the characters activities and training on a daily basis so they can explain their choice of future ASI or feat. Or NOT ... by taking that future ASI or feat the character is assumed to have been taking whatever actions were required, whatever training was required in order to develop the ability increase represented by the ASI or the special ability represented by the feat. Whether the DM wants the roleplaying to come first, whether the DM even cares about having a role playing explanation for a feat is up to the individual DM ... mechanically, the player chooses an ASI or feat for their character when they level up and all of the effort that went into that achievement is assumed to have been going on BEFORE they reach the point where they take the ASI or feat.
This complaint really assumes an RP-heavy table... Some players are in the game for min-maxing and combat, and that might not fit the spirit of D&D to you and your friends, but it's still a valid way to play the game. As long as they're not being obnoxious about it to the other players at their table, there's no harm.
And aside from that, you don't necessarily need a character to have overtly studied and practiced to justify, through RP, how they have a new skill suddenly. Maybe they were just hit with a burst of inspiration one day. Maybe it's something that their character is just naturally skilled at, but they never noticed until they tried.
The sharpshooter example you gave makes perfect sense to me. How is this character, who has never picked up a bow in-game, suddenly sniping foes from 3/4 cover 200 feet away? The answer could simply be... they've always been able to do that, but perhaps they didn't realize it because they'd never tried before. I think the Lucky feat is a good example of something like that... there's no logical training or work one could do to explain the feat... it's just an innate aura of luck that particular character has that kicks in at some point.
I think a group of players who care deeply about roleplay and want to make sure everything their character does has an in-game explanation are also the types to not just randomly grab feats just for fun or min-maxing. I even think it would be a good thing for a DM to ask the player to justify, in-story, how they gained access to the feat before allowing the player to take it (feats are optional at the discretion of the DM, after all). But while that would help to flesh out a character more and hopefully help to immerse the player in the world more, I still think it's fine if some players or DMs don't really care.
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
Your interpretation of misuse seems baffling to me. Firstly, the text describing what a feat is is generalising not providing a specific "it is this and nothing else" way. For example: that text taken so absolutely like you seem to imply it should, EightPackKilla, would mean nobody but a Sorcerer could take Magic Initiate: Sorcerer, and yet, there is no such requirement. Sorcery cannot be learned or developed, it is not something you worked on or trained for. Magic Initiate Sorcerer in a RP would be a small spark of sorcery unlocking within you. Or maybe your recent jaunt through Feywilds did some odd things.
But you're also overlooking 2 things: the text you refer to is not a prerequisite and simply says people must match only the preprequisite "in the feat". Also, it says a feat can be "a talent". A talent can be an innate ability, a natural thing you can just do that others can't or something you can learn faster than others or do without training. I've known people who almost never draw anything, and start to do so late in life and within a few days are drawing better than most others. There are people who are naturally better at puzzles: where even a highly intelligent person fond of puzzles could look at a puzzle and spend 7-10 mins to figure it out, a natural at it could do within the same time despite rarely ever doing puzzles.
I'm surprisingly good at archery. Not super great, sure. Now, I'm not athletic, overweight, have back issues and other health problems and yet the first time I tried archery I got the bullseye 3 times in a row and matched a guy who had been doing archery for 8 years. I had no training in anything like it in any aspect of my life and yet, I've impressed instructors - some level of natural talent.
So, while these feats are exaggerated examples if used like this it is is perfectly RAW to assume natural talent - since those rules - including the text you quoted - specifically say a feat can be used to show a talent or ability. Nothing in that says you "must" train for it. Here, I'll put it here again with emphasis:
It need not be training, you see, it could just be an ability they have from natural talent. The intent of feats is to customise your character further beyond the features presented by Race, Class and Background.
Furthermore, a rule is only a rule when the DM makes it one. If the DM allows it, there's no misuse.
So the answer is "no". There's not even a "but". It's simply "no" - there is no misuse, it's RAW, it's RAI and the DM permits it.
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.
read “prerequisites”
Blank
Agreed
Blank
In this discussion I also come back to that line from Quigley Down Under..
"... said I never had much use for 'em. Never said I didn't know how to use 'em."
Maybe your "all of a sudden Sharpshooter" character has always been an expert shot and knows it, they just hate having to haul around a quiver of arrows, so they've only used their rapier up to that point.
Same with resilient con. If they're wanting to take resilient con, there must be a reason they want better CON saves. Maybe they've "spent the last two years building up an immunity to iocaine powder."
This is part of the reason that I don't think that there should be a rule that establishes a prerequisite to gaining a feat that there must be some roleplay involved. If the rule is appropriate for the table, it will be in place by DM fiat. If it's not, there is no need to do anything at all... particularly since feats are optional anyway. This is definitely something that should be RAF for the table.
But I completely understand the OPs position and mostly agree that there should be at least some minimal explanation (at least for the player to consider when making decisions, if not overtly mentioned to the table or at least the DM) for the feats. For those saying "This is how all of D&D works, why is this special?" my reply is simply because there is at least some backstory baked in to class progression (I'm a cleric, of course I'm training to do cleric things, etc) versus something like I'm a Barbarian with low intelligence who suddenly knows how to speak and understand a few new languages (is that a bonus from multiclassing... maybe from something like knowledge domain cleric... hmmmm).
Having that explanation is an example of the minimal RP that the OP seems to be hinting at.
You can RP those situations too. Surprise at understanding languages you didn't know before. "I've got a bad feeling about this." Most of the reasons why a person shouldn't RP in this thread actually gave reasonable, if brief, RP ideas as "proof" against having RP. But whatever.