Why are they called 'feats'?

[Notafish]

My usual definition of "feat" outside of D&D is, "thing of note that someone has done" rather than "distinctive skill or ability". It's always confused me as to why the the set of class-independent character perks are called "feats" and not something like "talents" or "specializations". I was curious if anyone here knows why that term was chosen for the concept/why it has stuck around for multiple editions.

Was there initially an idea of relating it more to in-game actions than the level-up process (e.g., if the characters defeat a dragon, they get the "dragon-slayer" feat)?

[GloatingSwine]

So they had a different short and memorable word that made them stand out from "skills".

[Mastikator]

Depends on what it's for. If you're saying that a skill has a broad usage and you want to be better at a narrow part of that skill then specialization is the better term. If on the other hand it enables you to do something new, perk and feat are my favorite terms. If it's not related necessarily to a skill but an innate ability then IMO talent is better. Trait would also work for that.

I like games with both.

[Wraith]

Part of it is also due to brand recognition. Most games use similar words for their own systems - Vampire: the Masquerade, for example, has Talents which fulfil pretty much the same role as feats in D&D 5th, and has done so since the late 1990's. A company as big as WotC probably just didn't want to be seen as 'following' their competition, no matter how trivially.

Similarly, older versions of D&D already had 'specializations' as a mechanics terms. AD&D used the word to refer to how good you were with weapons - You would have 'levels' of proficiency on a scale of 1 to 5 rather than just "you are proficient" as in 5e, and when certain classes got 3 or more ranks then they could 'specialize' in order to be extra good with your chosen weapons. Usually it was more pedantic than a 5e feat though - Fighters could use any kind of sword with their proficiency rank, for example, but would get extra +1's if they specialized in and used longswords, or short swords, etc.
That probably mattered way, way more when AD&D became 3e and feats were added, so as not to get them confused by players who were still learning to make the transition and having a defined, separate term made more sense.

[Anonymouswizard]

I mean, the industry standard seems to be Talent, Feat is very much a D&Dism. As for why D&D choose Feat? To help it stands out from the crowd and make it look like they weren't copying anybody.

Alternatively it's because it's a feat that you can perform. Yeah, maybe a bit of a stretch, but I think it works.

[Notafish]

I guess there are only so many ways in English to efficiently say "special characteristic".

[MoiMagnus]

While the term is indeed more there for brand recognition than anything, I'd note that it is supposed to be understood as "a feat is a special talent that allows you to execute feats inaccessible to most". At least that's how it was explained to me.

[On a secondary note, the traditional translation in French for "feat" is "don", meaning "gift". Which while it sometimes matches the narrative of being a skill given by some magical entity, it totally goes against the usual narrative of being something obtained through learning and training. As in English where "feat" is exclusive to D&D, the use of the word "don" for skills learned from training is pretty much exclusive to D&D.]

[Psyren]

For what it's worth I prefer Talent. Especially since the word makes you realize that many of the D&D/PF things that are "talents," probably shouldn't be.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd suspect that the overloaded word here isn't 'skill', it's 'feature'. Feats (in D&D parlance) are basically additional features, gained through non-class means. But since 'feature' and 'class feature' were(?) near-synonyms, choosing a different but similar word was considered wise.

Or maybe, they thought of them as "here's a feat (of strength, of dexterity, of...) that you can perform because you have this added feature. So let's call them 'Feats' as metynomy".

Either way, it's now a D&D-ism like so many other things.

[Squire Doodad]

They're called Fighter Feats since most of them work best when you have shoes on!

[LibraryOgre]

For what it's worth I prefer Talent. Especially since the word makes you realize that many of the D&D/PF things that are "talents," probably shouldn't be.

Of course, you have Saga Edition SW, which had Talents as a separate thing from feats.

[Willie the Duck]

Similarly, older versions of D&D already had 'specializations' as a mechanics terms. AD&D used the word to refer to how good you were with weapons - You would have 'levels' of proficiency on a scale of 1 to 5 rather than just "you are proficient" as in 5e, and when certain classes got 3 or more ranks then they could 'specialize' in order to be extra good with your chosen weapons.

I think you might be mixing AD&D 1e's Unearthed Arcana's weapon specialization rules (which had proficiency, specialization, and double specialization) with BECMI's Weapon Mastery rules, which had 5 levels.

I'd suspect that the overloaded word here isn't 'skill', it's 'feature'. Feats (in D&D parlance) are basically additional features, gained through non-class means. But since 'feature' and 'class feature' were(?) near-synonyms, choosing a different but similar word was considered wise.

That's always been the explanation which made the most sense to me. 'non-class, non-race-based features' (shortened down to feats) seems like something that would have come up in a brainstorming session during the run up to 3e.

[Psyren]

Of course, you have Saga Edition SW, which had Talents as a separate thing from feats.

PF does too ("Talents" are the psionic form of Cantrips/Orisons there) but I'd probably tweak those to be something else too in order to free up the word - "Impulses" maybe, or "Notions."

Out of curiosity, how are Saga Talents different than Feats?

[Frogreaver]

My usual definition of "feat" outside of D&D is, "thing of note that someone has done" rather than "distinctive skill or ability". It's always confused me as to why the the set of class-independent character perks are called "feats" and not something like "talents" or "specializations". I was curious if anyone here knows why that term was chosen for the concept/why it has stuck around for multiple editions.

Was there initially an idea of relating it more to in-game actions than the level-up process (e.g., if the characters defeat a dragon, they get the "dragon-slayer" feat)?

I was curious how the dictionary defined feat. It says: "an achievement that requires great courage, skill, or strength."

That fits with a feat being a reward for a level up. In D&D terms your PC achieving that level required great courage, skill or strength. This also fits with the future facing nature, that you will use this ability to do something that requires great skill or strength.

[Leonard Robel]

I use the term Feats in my own game systems because it's old school romantic. Not as in old school role playing, I mean really old school, how people talked and wrote a long time ago. I also like that it's not a fixed skill, but an action. It feels a little more open to interpretation and a little more exciting, the difference between I know how to do this or I do this.

[Onos]

Well, thank the gods someone got it - it's literally just a contraction of the word "feature". As in, I want to add this feature to my character.

[Morty]

Part of it is also due to brand recognition. Most games use similar words for their own systems - Vampire: the Masquerade, for example, has Talents which fulfil pretty much the same role as feats in D&D 5th, and has done so since the late 1990's. A company as big as WotC probably just didn't want to be seen as 'following' their competition, no matter how trivially.

I'm not familiar with any version of Masquerade that used "talents". It's always had Disciplines as supernatural powers and Backgrounds as non-supernatural special traits.

[Batcathat]

Well, thank the gods someone got it - it's literally just a contraction of the word "feature". As in, I want to add this feature to my character.

"I really like this feature mechanic we've got... but it's just too much of a hassle to say."

"How about we remove three letters and turn it into an entirely different word?"

"Brilliant!"

[Martin Greywolf]

My usual definition of "feat" outside of D&D is, "thing of note that someone has done" rather than "distinctive skill or ability".

In reality, it's a bit of both. Feats in normal language often denote a sibset of small challenges that are somewhat formalized and exist to showcase a particular facet of your skills. The best example is the sword cutting feats that were popular in British Army for quite some time, and remained a thing long enough for a video to be made.

These involved things like cutting through ribbons, paper, lead bars and apples held on palm of other people's hands.

I've also seen the word feat applied to archery skill showcases, probably because British authors were writing about them and using a word they were familiar with - these include long range shots and shooting so that you have the maximum possible number of arrows in the air at once.

Spoiler: Some examples, rather gruesome

Show

“one of the Hussars, by one blow of his sword—a wonderful feat with a regulation weapon—cut the [Sudanese] man’s spear hand off.” (James Grant, Recent British Battles on Land and Sea, 1885.)

“at the sword, indeed, the Bilúchís are no mean proficients; it is well known that a common feat among them is to cut a sheep in two at one blow.” (Capt. E. B. Eastwick, A Glance at Sindh, 1849.)

Of the 500 that composed the square, about twenty escaped. The feat was a rare one in history, the breaking of a square by horsemen.” (D. H. Parry, Britain’s Roll of Glory, 1898.)

Feat is here used interchangably between what DnD uses it for - a specific subset of a skill - and thing of note someone has done. There is often an overlap between the two, often something is of note because you need to have a highly hones skill to achieve it.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm not familiar with any version of Masquerade that used "talents". It's always had Disciplines as supernatural powers and Backgrounds as non-supernatural special traits.

Yeah, in pre-V5 Talents were a subset of Abilities, alongside Skills and Knowledges.

The oWoD split Feats/Talents/Advantages things into whatever powers your splat got, and then the general Backgrounds and Merits (which in some cases, e.g. the property ownership ones, air breathing mermaided some of the Backgrounds).

V5 removed the three categories of Abilities (it's all just Skills now) and kept the Merit/Background distinction but have you pointed to spend on either instead of just Backgrounds, whereas nWoD/CofD just merged Backgrounds into Merits.

CofD is also the only part of the franchise not to give extra points for Flaws. Probably because of too many Malks taking both Stereotype and Victim of the Masquerade (both of which are sadly not in V5).

[farothel]

Because it's quite a feat to go through all the books to figure out which one you want to take.

[KillianHawkeye]

Out of curiosity, how are Saga Talents different than Feats?

Star Wars Saga Edition has feats that worked the same way as in D&D/Pathfinder, more or less. They also had talents, which are essentially class feature options. Every class and prestige class had access to certain "talent trees" which allowed different characters of the same class to focus on different abilities.

[Psyren]

Star Wars Saga Edition has feats that worked the same way as in D&D/Pathfinder, more or less. They also had talents, which are essentially class feature options. Every class and prestige class had access to certain "talent trees" which allowed different characters of the same class to focus on different abilities.

Gotcha - sounds like subclass features in 5e, or the pseudo-feats in PF1 (e.g. Alchemist Discoveries, Magus Arcana and the like) which became a separate feat track in PF2.

Because it's quite a feat to go through all the books to figure out which one you want to take.

Ha!

[LibraryOgre]

I suppose they called them "feats" because the word was... handy.

Yes, this works better verbally. I do not care.

[sktarq]

Alternatively it's because it's a feat that you can perform. Yeah, maybe a bit of a stretch, but I think it works.

You see to me this was the obvious answer when 3e came out.

the action of sundering an opponents weapon would be a feat. Firing multiple arrows to accurately hit a target? that would qualify as a feat worthy of acclaim. Its

so a feat is feat more when you perform it rather than when you take it. The kind of things (actions mostly but some just abilities) that would get people talking around a tavern table about what feat said hero could perform.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Alternatively it's because it's a feat that you can perform. Yeah, maybe a bit of a stretch, but I think it works.

According to Monte Cook, this is actually the case-- they were originally called "heroic feats."

[KorvinStarmast]

For OP, TLDR answer is summed up by this phrase: words have meanings.
---------------------------
Longer Answer.

@Grod: you are not accounting for how they were first alluded to in AD&D. Not disagreeing with your post that once WoTC got their hands on it, it became a kind of keyword.
-------------------------
For the OP:
If you read the AD&D 2e books, feat was a term used to describe the PC doing something extraordinary but it wasn't gamified in the sense that 3.x did it.
There was a dabbling in feats in AD&D 1e in UA.

Feat, as a term in English, has this definition.

an achievement that requires great courage, skill, or strength. "the new printing presses were considerable feats of engineering"

In the context of D&D writing, feats of strength or acrobatic feats were a way to describe a PC doing something well out of the ordinary. That came from the common usage of the term in normal English.

We who went to the circus watched the acrobats perform their feats on the flying trapeze: we recognized the extraordinary nature of what they were doing.

The NBA slam dunk competition features remarkable athletic feats within the context of basketball skills.

Back when I was a kid, some of the amazing things the Harlem Globetrotters did were similarly feats of skill in the basketball context. (I got to shake Curly Neal's hand, it was one of the highlights of my childhood experience)

Ooh. Aaah. Wow.

D&D 3.x took that general term in English and gave it a Game Mechanical sense such that, after two decades of usage, it has taken on a new meaning to mean a particular special thing that a PC does in D&D or another RPG.

Which makes sense. Acrobats in real life have a particular special thing that they do, as do strong men at the circus, World's Strongest Man competitors, and those doing the Ninja Warrior thing on TV. Amazing feats of skill. See also the top tier jugglers.

Amazing feats of skill.

That's why they call them feats. They are 'out of the ordinary' exercises of skill that the PC does/performs.

[quinron]

My counter to the "they're feats of Strength/Dexterity/etc." is that when the term was functionally introduced in 3e, about half of the feats were passive bonuses - Toughness, all the "+2 bonus to skills" feats, weapon proficiencies/specializations, stuff like that.

The fighter feats and, arguably, the metamagic feats actually did tend to have more active stuff, like Cleave, Power Attack, Multishot, and all the wacky ways to mod spells. I don't know much about the 3e design process, but I reckon they came up with those categories first, then kept the name "feat" as they gave feats to the other classes and expanded the list.

[icefractal]

I think I recall hearing that feats were originally (during the development of 3E) a Fighter-specific thing, although the linked article doesn't mention that.
So it would have been "the Fighter can perform heroic feats as their class ability, and they're so flexible that they can pick from a list of many".

And then they realized that really, any class could use these (good), but neglected to give the Fighter anything else exclusive (not good, although TBF if they did it probably would have been underwhelming, given how hugely they underestimated spellcasting at the time).

[quinron]

I think I recall hearing that feats were originally (during the development of 3E) a Fighter-specific thing, although the linked article doesn't mention that.
So it would have been "the Fighter can perform heroic feats as their class ability, and they're so flexible that they can pick from a list of many".

And then they realized that really, any class could use these (good), but neglected to give the Fighter anything else exclusive (not good, although TBF if they did it probably would have been underwhelming, given how hugely they underestimated spellcasting at the time).

"Underestimated" is one way of putting it; given Monte Cook's statements on his design philosophy in 3e, I'd say it's more "deliberately made more powerful."