What consitutes a "feat?"

[seskis281]

So I got this idea after a spirited exchange on another board.

Looking to see how many view the term "feat" and its place in RPG play.

I'm asking that this not turn into a rebuttal/counter-rebuttal kind of thing - because I don't believe there's a "right" or "wrong" here, just a matter of opinion, and I'm mainly curious to see just how many feel about the term.

Please feel free to make comments on why you personally (in your gaming experience) feel this way.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In D&D and d20, 'feat' is a technical rules term. When talking about a non-d20 game I would expect the word to have its common meaning.

 

[Simm]

I think that, within D&D and the d20 system, a feat is a mechanically specific rule unit used to represent a character's capability which, while not magical, is beyond that of most other people. So I say both answers.

 

[comrade raoul]

In D&D and d20, 'feat' is a technical rules term. When talking about a non-d20 game I would expect the word to have its common meaning.

I agree completely.

"Feat" in D&D is clearly a technical term. When you explicitly define a technical term in a particular context, you stipulate that--in that context--the term has the meaning you give it. It doesn't make sense to argue whether the stipulation is "wrong" or something. It's like trying to argue that someone named John is really named George, even though his parents named him John (and that's what his birth certificate says, what he calls himself, what all his friends call him, and so forth).

At best, you might say that the stipulation differs from ordinary language in some misleading or otherwise problematic way, so we should have chosen a different term to pick out the rule in question. Alternatively, you might accept that the rules stipulate a meaning for "feat", but disagree about exactly what that stipulation is. In that case, it's a question about how to interpret the text, and I think that particular question has a pretty obvious answer.

But it looks like the people you described are engaged in the other, more confused argument.

 

[Tonguez]

In D&D and d20, 'feat' is a technical rules term. When talking about a non-d20 game I would expect the word to have its common meaning.

Actually within the RAW Spells are described as Feats of Magic and whilst that is a very specific and qualified usage it does allow for some ambiguity of definition such that it might generate a tautological debate.
Although personally I think a system that links spells to feats and sees feats as extraodinary 'pseudospells' might be quite engaging

 

[Marshal Lucky]

A real feat would be getting me to waste my time on d20.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

A real feat would be getting me to waste my time on d20.

Pretty snarky.

If you have enough free time to post posts like this, maybe you should spend time on d20.

 

[Rel]

A real feat would be getting me to waste my time on d20.

You're done here.

 

[DM_Jeff]

I was always kind of fond of the original 3e designer's ideal that a feat was "a cool new way for characters to break the rules".