The Gaming Den

my take on it is that every feat can be a class feature, but not every class feature is a feat.

btw, raging is totally something which does not exist in reality. you can neglect your defense in favour of offense, but i've never heard of anybody who got stronger and more healthy by being angry. that is because there is a limit to your muscles' strength based on the tonus of the actin and myosin filaments. taking performance enhancing drugs also doesn't achieve the effect a barbarian rage describes.

zugschef wrote:my take on it is that every feat can be a class feature, but not every class feature is a feat.

btw, raging is totally something which does not exist in reality. you can neglect your defense in favour of offense, but i've never heard of anybody who got stronger and more healthy by being angry. that is because there is a limit to your muscles' strength based on the tonus of the actin and myosin filaments. taking performance enhancing drugs also doesn't achieve the effect a barbarian rage describes.

http://www.cracked.com/article/197_the- ... battle_p2/
Number one.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19534_5- ... ic_p2.html

Also number one.

I can't find my favorite articles, but your statement makes me wonder if we're hypothesizing with a 13 year old. Look up police reports of raged out coke heads, or pcp fueled psychos, or celtic warriors fighting on leg, ffs.

Barbarian rage gives extra HP temporarily, to help represent the uncanny amount of abuse a raged warrior can withstand before dropping.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it feels like Zugschef is arguing from an editor point of view. And is trying to change the 3.5 rules into something he feels is more coherent.

While other people are arguing from a designer point of view and try to point out that they feel the 3.5 choices are pretty arbitrary.

And the disconnect between the two, is causing lots of needless frustation.

ishy wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it feels like Zugschef is arguing from an editor point of view. And is trying to change the 3.5 rules into something he feels is more coherent.

While other people are arguing from a designer point of view and try to point out that they feel the 3.5 choices are pretty arbitrary.

And the disconnect between the two, is causing lots of needless frustation.

ah thanks. that sounds about right.

OgreBattle wrote:Why not just make "fighting on horseback" part of the riding skill.

Riding skill + proficiency with cavalry weapons= you can participate in mounted combat.

..... or ditch skills and they all become feat/proficiencies.

if you think skills should substitute some of the feats, that's ok. dodge->mobility->spring attack could be part of tumble, for instance. you can do that of course, but that actually strays from this thread's topic which is to discuss the difference and distinction of class features and feats. "mounted combat" was just a random example.

At one point I extended the vestige binding feat progression from ToM, so a character could get an 8th level bind for either 7 or 8 feats.

I did the same thing with the Complete arcane feats that granted some spell like abilities to 9th level spells. I think the chain was 5 feats total.

So the math worked out to 7ish feats equals 1/4ish of a class