Feats versus Improvised Actions

[No brains]

Feats that allow new options are a fun part of the game. Actor can geometrically enhance disguise attempts, Shield Master gives us an offensive use for our shields, and even Grappler has a use.

Where I find this goes wrong is when a player wants to attempt something that is described in a feat. Improvised actions are allowed and it's easy to see someone attempting a feat move even without the extra training they are supposed to represent. Anyone can try to do an Elvis voice, anyone can can punch while holding a shield, and anyone can try to restrain someone they've grabbed.

What is a reasonable separation between feats and similar improvised actions?

For one, I think that bonus/ reaction benefits are off the table for improvised actions. It is reasonable to assume that pulling off these feats fast without practice is a bridge too far. Someone could do Warcaster's opportunity spell, but they gotta ready an action like normal. Same goes for a readied stab from Pole Arm Master. A butt strike is also plausible, but pulling it off in a speedy manner superior to two-weapon fighting is unlikely.

Another reasonable limitation is on numerically special moves like the Sharpshooter/ Great Weapon Master -5/+10 attack. Combining that with the last point, a Charger charge probably wouldn't be possible. Also the Healer feat's use of the healer's kit probably represents a use that can't be done by someone without the feat.

Are there any other thoughts on what can't be done without a feat?

On the subject of plausible improvised feat benefits, mimicing a voice could reasonably be done if the creature is very similar to an impostor already, but reproducing a dragon's roar, giant's laugh, or some other markedly inhuman sound is probably best left to Actors. Grappler's benefit is already considered too costly as it is, so in lieu of buffing the feat, probably just giving an attempt at an untrained pin disadvantage is good enough.

A good way to think about allowing feat actions as improvised actions is to consider a kind of 'possibility ladder'. With a feat, a person is able to move up the ladder by one or maybe two steps. Impossible becomes possible with a check, maybe with disadvantage. A check gains advantage, possibly becoming a sure thing. I don't want to make that a solid rule, just a guideline for considering what to do.

What do you think about Feats versus Improvised Actions?

[Unoriginal]

The "improvised action" is the thing anyone can do. The feat is the "trained to get better results" version.

Ex: mimicking a voice? Charisma check with Deception proficiency. Or you have the Actor feat.

Fighting with improvised weapons? Attack roll without proficiency. Or you have Tavern Brawler, which also let you do a grapple a

Sometime feats let you do actions that cannot be attempted without it, though, but those cases are fairly obvious (ex: Magic Initiate).

[Willie the Duck]

Feats that allow new options are a fun part of the game. Actor can geometrically enhance disguise attempts, Shield Master gives us an offensive use for our shields, and even Grappler has a use.

Where I find this goes wrong is when a player wants to attempt something that is described in a feat. Improvised actions are allowed and it's easy to see someone attempting a feat move even without the extra training they are supposed to represent. Anyone can try to do an Elvis voice, anyone can can punch while holding a shield, and anyone can try to restrain someone they've grabbed.

This is predominantly what I dislike about feats like Actor--takes what players ought to have been able to do just by being inventive (and every DM would have likely allowed if the Actor feat hadn't been invented) -- and gates it behind a character build option (one which takes up to 4 levels of planning to pick up, if you discovered that you really wanted an ability right after having picked up your last feat). It reminds me of 1st edition Unearthed Arcana (the book), where the Thief-Acrobat classes' main starting ability was that it used the falling damage chart that used to be the norm, and now all other classes used a new, harsher, falling damage -- you literally gain nothing you wouldn't have if the specific section had just been ignored.

[Pex]

Ex: mimicking a voice? Charisma check with Deception proficiency. Or you have the Actor feat.



Careful on this one. With the exception of some tool uses being proficient in a skill is not a permission slip to do things. It only means you have a better chance of success due to adding your proficiency bonus. Some DMs do have it be a permission slip, but it's not the actual rule. One could argue having the Actor feat is the permission slip to mimic a voice since it's specified there, but with feats being optional it would mean that could never be done unless you use feats. The conundrum is solved in the feat itself since it gives you Advantage on checks to impersonate someone. Therefore anyone can try to mimic a voice with a Deception check, proficient or not, but having Actor feat gives you Advantage on the roll.

As for the overall point of the OP, it is a DM judgment call. I advise not to think of it in feat terms. Only think about the situation at hand and what the player wants to do at that moment. Sometimes their clever idea is what allowing them the roll in the first place, but if you feel inspired by the player's idea you can show it by either allowing advantage or proficiency even when not proficient or a bonus +2 to the roll. They can do the thing that one time because everything aligned just right for that situation. If they want to make a habit of it they'll need the feat.

[Unoriginal]

Careful on this one. With the exception of some tool uses being proficient in a skill is not a permission slip to do things. It only means you have a better chance of success due to adding your proficiency bonus. Some DMs do have it be a permission slip, but it's not the actual rule.

How is that relevant to what I wrote? I said that trying to imitate a voice is a Charisma check, with proficiency bonus in Deception added if you have it. I never even implied you would need Deception to do it.

Some DMs will also allow one's proficiency in Performance to be used, but that's up to them to decide.

[Toofey]

So I want to focus my answer on one part of this post

What is a reasonable separation between feats and similar improvised actions?

Most feats let you take actions that end up using your proficiency bonus either as part of setting the DC to save against that feat ability or as part of your natural attack roll to perform the feat. I would say that if you want to try a feat action without the feat, I would treat this as an un-proficient action, and therefore deny the use of the proficiency bonus for the action.

[MaxWilson]

Another reasonable limitation is on numerically special moves like the Sharpshooter/ Great Weapon Master -5/+10 attack...
Are there any other thoughts on what can't be done without a feat?

I allow anyone with any weapon to do -5 for +5. The feat just boosts it to -5 for +10. -5 for +5 is basically a wash in DPR terms except against very soft targets like zombies, which are exactly the targets it makes the most sense to hit as hard as you can, from a game fiction standpoint.

In general my recommendation is to decide what you think is reasonable as an improvised action, and if that happens to overlap with a feat (like Dual Wielder) or class/race feature, just improve the feat/feature instead of nerfing the improvised action. But I think your instincts for things like bonus actions are pretty spot on anyway, from what I read in your post. Another point of comparison is to look at Battlemaster maneuvers vs. regular fighter attacks using Shove/Grapple/DMG Disarm. Both versions do pretty much the same thing in most cases, but the Battlemasters gets to e.g. Trip AND do damage (with bonus damage) at the cost of a superiority die, whereas a Paladin or Samurai has to choose between doing damage and knocking prone. The design principle implied is that it's okay to trade damage (i.e. time) for special effects during combat. You can use this to design other Battlemaster-inspired maneuvers like Parry and Feint, as long as they just don't do damage. (I'd be careful though about Menacing and Rally.)

[Pelle]

I think 5e largely avoids the air-breathing mermaid problem. Which is also why I think you don't really need to play with feats in order to realize character concepts...