Master of Many forms and Human Bonus feat

[Gruftzwerg]

There's always the option that feats are their own thing and not Special Abilities (in the RAW sense) at all. Which is RAW unless BoED is on the table.


The FAQ is a lot of things, but it's only very rarely considered "proof" of anything. Mostly because it has an unfortunate habit of contradicting both the RAW and itself.

It's certainly not deserving of the term "undisputed" in any sense.

Edit: not that i disagree that the human racial traits are (Ex), but the FAQ is not a source of RAW.


I have no idea how you've reached this conclusion. You never get feats that aren't listed in a statblock, no matter the answer to the previous questions.
Just because the human racial trait mentions the 1st level feat doesn't mean you get an extra one in addition to the bonus feat, no matter how permissive the reading.

I have shown rules several times, that 3.5 has a finite list for Special Abilities. There is no option for other/non-categorized Abilities by RAW. It has to be one of them. You are making assumptions while ignoring that the rules do not leave any room for that. Show me in the Special Ability section where you read that there are other options possible and that it ain't a finite list of options. Can you back up your argument with rule text (from Special Abilities)?

Human Wild Shape:
As already explained, MOMF Extraordinary Wild Shape gives you access to all extraordinary special qualities. Feats fall under this category.

To make it simple, lets first assume another basic PHB race for which we have stats in the MM, e.g a Dwarf Fighter 1 (MM p90)
His feats are legal targets for Extraordinary Wild Shape.

Now, if you would limit the human selection to only commoner 1, as human he still has 2 feats which I would gain by the rules. Even if you would give him only a racial HD at first lvl, he would still have 2 legal feats to copy.

Just because we don't have the human statblock served on a silver plate, doesn't mean we lack rules in text form to solve the situation at hand imho. It is not that hard to set up a statsblock for a 1st human, even if you have to fall back to commoner/racial HD it doesn't change anything. Cause the table doesn't provide more info (for our situation) than the text does. And since text trumps table, for what do you need a statblock anyway?

[sleepyphoenixx]

I have shown rules several times, that 3.5 has a finite list for Special Abilities. There is no option for other/non-categorized Abilities by RAW. It has to be one of them. You are making assumptions while ignoring that the rules do not leave any room for that. Show me in the Special Ability section where you read that there are other options possible and that it ain't a finite list of options. Can you back up your argument with rule text (from Special Abilities)?

I'd say it's up to you to prove that feats are special abilities first. Because afaik they're not listed as such anywhere.
There's a list of special abilities in every MM and a few other books. "Feats" appears in none of those.

The only thing you have is a throwaway line from BoED that feats are usually Ex, but that's it.

Human Wild Shape:
As already explained, MOMF Extraordinary Wild Shape gives you access to all extraordinary special qualities. Feats fall under this category.

You've yet to show the RAW for that. As i said above none of the listings for special qualities mention feats at all.

To make it simple, lets first assume another basic PHB race for which we have stats in the MM, e.g a Dwarf Fighter 1 (MM p90)
His feats are legal targets for Extraordinary Wild Shape.

No they're not. You can't wild shape into a creature with class levels, so you can't wild shape into a Dwarf Fighter.

Now, if you would limit the human selection to only commoner 1, as human he still has 2 feats which I would gain by the rules. Even if you would give him only a racial HD at first lvl, he would still have 2 legal feats to copy.

You can't wild shape into a commoner any more than you can wild shape into a fighter.

Just because we don't have the human statblock served on a silver plate, doesn't mean we lack rules in text form to solve the situation at hand imho. It is not that hard to set up a statsblock for a 1st human, even if you have to fall back to commoner/racial HD it doesn't change anything. Cause the table doesn't provide more info (for our situation) than the text does. And since text trumps table, for what do you need a statblock anyway?

You can't wild shape (or polymorph) into specific creatures, only generic examples of a species. A generic human has neither a class nor any feats.
You get exactly what is listed under the human race entry (subject to the limitations of your method of shapechanging). And nothing else.

[Gruftzwerg]

I'd say it's up to you to prove that feats are special abilities first. Because afaik they're not listed as such anywhere.
There's a list of special abilities in every MM and a few other books. "Feats" appears in none of those.

The only thing you have is a throwaway line from BoED that feats are usually Ex, but that's it.


You've yet to show the RAW for that. As i said above none of the listings for special qualities mention feats at all.

List = table
text trumps table. I have showed you the rule text for Special Abilities and how they are categorized. EX, SU & SLA either as Attack or Quality. The rule text doesn't leave room for non-categorized Special Abilities. How about trying to counter my rule text arguments with actual rule text arguments back instead of pointing to lists who have less weight than text. You won't convince anybody with tables, when we have text that says otherwise.
It's your claim that there are other "untyped" Special Ability categories for feats without any textual evidence so far.

No they're not. You can't wild shape into a creature with class levels, so you can't wild shape into a Dwarf Fighter.


You can't wild shape into a commoner any more than you can wild shape into a fighter.


You can't wild shape (or polymorph) into specific creatures, only generic examples of a species. A generic human has neither a class nor any feats.

Can you back that up with some rule text? Where does Wild Shape or Alternate Form mention that you may not shape into a creature with class levels?I can't find any class restriction nor anything indicating only generic specimen. I'm curious where is that rule (I "know" the rule from memory but can't find it?? Alter Self/poly line maybe?..)
And even if I would shape into a human with a single( or 1/2, 1/4, 1/8...) Racial HD, the targeted form still has 2 feats (one for the 1st HD and the HBF). The sole difference compared to shaping into a 1HD animal/monster is that player races haven't set their 1st lvl feat into stone.

____________________

It would be kind if you would start to follow the intention of this thread that I mentioned in the very first post:
"point me to RAW pls" - Rules as Written and no more tables/list anymore pls. This is not a thread about the designers intention or what it should have been. I'm asking for RAW and nothing else here. I have provided enough rule text to work with. You can either agree or disagree and present rule text with your own interpretation/explanation and I will gladly response to it. Because it is annoying (and to some degree provoking since you ignore my request) when I have to dig out the rules for your arguments. Just a kind request (and I hope nobody feels offended here. not my intention ;) )

[sleepyphoenixx]

List = table
text trumps table. I have showed you the rule text for Special Abilities and how they are categorized. EX, SU & SLA either as Attack or Quality. The rule text doesn't leave room for non-categorized Special Abilities. How about trying to counter my rule text arguments with actual rule text arguments back instead of pointing to lists who have less weight than text. You won't convince anybody with tables, when we have text that says otherwise.
It's your claim that there are other "untyped" Special Ability categories for feats without any textual evidence so far.

No, that's not my claim. As should be obvious because i've already said so twice in this thread.

You have yet to show that feats are special abilities at all. Because i've yet to see a single shred of RAW saying that feats are special abilities any more than skill points or hp are.
The rules for special abilities are completely irrelevant unless feats are special abilities.

Can you back that up with some rule text? Where does Wild Shape or Alternate Form mention that you may not shape into a creature with class levels?I can't find any class restriction nor anything indicating only generic specimen. I'm curious where is that rule (I "know" the rule from memory but can't find it?? Alter Self/poly line maybe?..)
And even if I would shape into a human with a single( or 1/2, 1/4, 1/8...) Racial HD, the targeted form still has 2 feats (one for the 1st HD and the HBF). The sole difference compared to shaping into a 1HD animal/monster is that player races haven't set their 1st lvl feat into stone.

The basic Alternate Form rules. Specifically this part:

Except as described elsewhere, the creature retains all other game statistics of its original form, including (but not necessarily limited to) HD, hit points, skill ranks, feats, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses.

You don't gain the HD of your new form. You can't gain class levels without gaining HD.
Do note that feats are mentioned as their own thing instead of with special qualities.

And humans don't have racial HD. They never get racial HD (see the rules on the Humanoid type).

Humanoids with more than 1 Hit Die are the only humanoids who make use of the features of the humanoid type.

Even if they did Wild Shape does not grant you the targets HD so you don't gain any of the benefits of HD, such as skill points, hp or feats derived from HD.

The reason you get racial bonus feats at all is that those are part of your racial traits, which are (Ex) special qualities (see the player race entries in the MM).

It would be kind if you would start to follow the intention of this thread that I mentioned in the very first post:
"point me to RAW pls" - Rules as Written and no more tables/list anymore pls. This is not a thread about the designers intention or what it should have been. I'm asking for RAW and nothing else here. I have provided enough rule text to work with. You can either agree or disagree and present rule text with your own interpretation/explanation and I will gladly response to it. Because it is annoying (and to some degree provoking since you ignore my request) when I have to dig out the rules for your arguments. Just a kind request (and I hope nobody feels offended here. not my intention ;) )

I wouldn't exactly call the glossary a table, but whatever.

I'm willing to back up specific points of contention with RAW quotes, but i'm not quoting half a book at you to recap what's common knowledge.
If we can't even agree on that much i'm afraid we have no basis for productive discussion.

If you want to argue that common knowledge is wrong it's up to you to provide RAW backing it up.

[Gruftzwerg]

No, that's not my claim. As should be obvious because i've already said so twice in this thread.

You have yet to show that feats are special abilities at all. Because i've yet to see a single shred of RAW saying that feats are special abilities any more than skill points or hp are.
The rules for special abilities are completely irrelevant unless feats are special abilities.

I have pointed you several times to the Special Abilities section:
The way that things are worded here, any kind of ability has to fit into the categories mentioned and it even says what those that don't fit into the mentioned categories are. There is no other option for an ability as to be one of the mentioned thing here. If you can prove that the text leaves room for other non categorized and not named things, show me where it says so:
1:Natural Abilities

This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

So anything that doesn't fit into EX, SU and SLA, has to be an "ability a creature has because of its physical nature" to count as Natural Ability. On the contrary anything that is not an Natural Ability has to fall into either EX, SU, SLA.
I think we can safely assume that feats are not Natural Abilities, since they are not part of our physical nature.
There is no room for any untyped abilities the way the text is worded.

2: EX, SU & SLA
Since SU and SLA are magical abilities, all nonmagical feats can only fit into EX (unless otherwise mentioned).
While this is never called out explicitly, the Exalted Feats paragraph shows very well that feats default to EX unless otherwise mentioned.

You are constantly ignoring that "Abilities" are either "Natural" or "EX, SU, SLA". There are no other untyped abilities that you are trying to fit feats into just because "tables show otherwise". Well the tables don't need to. They don't contradict the rules when they give feats their own line for better visualization even if feat are also Special Qualities.
You would have to argue that feats are not "Abilities" to ignore the Special Ability rules, but I assume that this is not your intention, since that argument has no base in 3.5 or by default English definition.

The basic Alternate Form rules. Specifically this part:

You don't gain the HD of your new form. You can't gain class levels without gaining HD.
Do note that feats are mentioned as their own thing instead of with special qualities.

And humans don't have racial HD. They never get racial HD (see the rules on the Humanoid type).

Even if they did Wild Shape does not grant you the targets HD so you don't gain any of the benefits of HD, such as skill points, hp or feats derived from HD.

Ehm, sorry but No, that is not how Wild Shape functions. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to shape into dragons of various HD (dragon wild shape feat). They can have different HD and you get anything that is related to their HD (for those things that your Wild Shape ability gives access to). You don't get the HP and HD, but that doesn't limit your access to things that thrive from HD (the text doesn't say so and it doesn't work that way). Your target stats for anything else are still thriving partially from the target forms HD (e.g. the age/size of a dragon, access to special abilities..). Your assumption is simply wrong here and the text doesn't support your claim.
While you don't get the target forms HD, the HD is still used as power measurement if the target form allows for flexible HD and thus flexible power lvl depenging on that HD.

edit:

Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class. Humanoids of this sort are presented as 1st-level warriors, which means that they have average combat ability and poor saving throws.

Humanoids with more than 1 Hit Die are the only humanoids who make use of the features of the humanoid type.

If you still claim that you can only wild shape into only a generic humanoid, here are rules presented how they are handled. The 1st RHD gets exchanged to 1st-level-warrior. This instructions give enough rules to wild shape into a human warrior 1. I still fail to see how this is going to limit Wild/Humanoid Shape.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I have pointed you several times to the Special Abilities section:
The way that things are worded here, any kind of ability has to fit into the categories mentioned and it even says what those that don't fit into the mentioned categories are. There is no other option for an ability as to be one of the mentioned thing here. If you can prove that the text leaves room for other non categorized and not named things, show me where it says so:

You're still missing my point. The section on special abilities applies only to special abilities.
You have yet to show that feats are a special ability.

If you look at the index of the page you have linked you will note that feats are not listed in that section. They're in their own section.
Unless you can provide a RAW source stating the opposite the conclusion is that feats are not special abilities, so the rules for special abilities don't apply.

Ehm, sorry but No, that is not how Wild Shape functions. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to shape into dragons of various HD (dragon wild shape feat). They can have different HD and you get anything that is related to their HD (for those things that your Wild Shape ability gives access to). You don't get the HP and HD, but that doesn't limit your access to things that thrive from HD (the text doesn't say so and it doesn't work that way). Your target stats for anything else are still thriving partially from the target forms HD (e.g. the age/size of a dragon, access to special abilities..). Your assumption is simply wrong here and the text doesn't support your claim.
While you don't get the target forms HD, the HD is still used as power measurement if the target form allows for flexible HD and thus flexible power lvl depenging on that HD.

That's a function of age category, not HD. Wild shaping into a dragon doesn't add the dragons HD to your own. You still don't get the feats, skill points or hp derived from HD.

If you still claim that you can only wild shape into only a generic humanoid, here are rules presented how they are handled. The 1st RHD gets exchanged to 1st-level-warrior. This instructions give enough rules to wild shape into a human warrior 1. I still fail to see how this is going to limit Wild/Humanoid Shape.

You don't get class levels/HD from wild shape or any benefits derived from class levels or HD. Reread the Alternate Form rules. You get what they say you get and nothing else.
If you wild shape into a humanoid your HD or class levels do not change. You're still a Druid X.
So obviously the rules for humanoids exchanging their RHD for their first class level don't apply because you already have class levels.

A human druid 10 wild shaping into an elf is still a druid 10, not a druid 10/warrior 1. A druid 10 wild shaping into a tiger is still a druid 10 with 10 HD, not a druid 10 with 6 animal RHD.
Basically the only thing wild shape changes is your race (partially, subject to the limitations of Alternate Form). It doesn't add or change class levels or HD, so you don't gain any benefits of either.

[ciopo]

You have yet to show that feats are special abilities at all. Because i've yet to see a single shred of RAW saying that feats are special abilities any more than skill points or hp are.
The rules for special abilities are completely irrelevant unless feats are special abilities.

Well, per the srd, the fighter bonus feat is a special quality in the same venue that a druid woodland stride is a special quality, since that is where it is listed on the advancement tables.

so at the very least having extra feat is something special per the PHB, it is not supernatural or SLA because fighters bonus feats keeps on working inside AMF, it is not natural because they are class-dependent and not linked to race/creature, therefore the fighter bonus feat is an extraordinary special ability of "having more feats"

Devil argument may be had that it's fighter feat(ex), and not the granted feat itself that is (ex), same as monk feat(ex).

I'd like to add that alter self specifically says that you gain the racial feats of the target form, what that means in relation to shapechanging to a sentient race instead of a Monster (something) it's up in the air.

To OP:

As pertaining to the opening question, my RAW interpretation of shapechange is that you gain the feats of a solar.
if your MoMF wild shapes to a human, my question to you (OP) would be "do you wild shape to a generic human, or do you wild shape to "specific human that has feat X" ? I can't find a text justification that would let you go "generic human" but then choose what the HBF was. the assumption I go by is that when you wild shape to a creature that has 0 HD, you do not gain anything that has the header " at 1st level ", because you are shapechanging to a 0 HD target.
Therefore, if you shapechange to a dwarf, you gain +2CON and -2 DEX and the other little things. if you shapechange to a human, sadly you gain nothing because their prominent feature is in function of them becoming 1st level , however that happens. You can't wild shape to a human commoner 1 any more than you can wild shape to a human fighter 10 commoner 1 is table, not rule, per your parlance. Or reversing that, why wild shape to a commoner 1 when you can wild shape to a fighter X? *CAN* you wildshape to a fighter X? Can you wildshape to the specific creature that is your evil twin personality and instead of a druid5/MoMF7 you are a human with 12 completely differently built class levels? (i haven't read up on why "fighter X isn't a valid alter self/wild shape etc target form, but I recall that by RAW it isn't, and so do you unless i've been mistaken about what I'm reading in this thread, I have a short attention span!)

[Darg]

Well, per the srd, the fighter bonus feat is a special quality in the same venue that a druid woodland stride is a special quality, since that is where it is listed on the advancement tables.

so at the very least having extra feat is something special per the PHB, it is not supernatural or SLA because fighters bonus feats keeps on working inside AMF, it is not natural because they are class-dependent and not linked to race/creature, therefore the fighter bonus feat is an extraordinary special ability of "having more feats"

They are class features. The table only says "special." So "special feature" seems much more likely than "special ability" as not every class feature is an ability. Not to mention that the PHB defines feats as a special feature, not as a special quality or ability. Feats grant abilities. Hence you get the fey/fiendish heritage feats and others like them. Reserve feats grant an ability and are not the ability themselves.

Even the BoED quote doesn't actually conflict with this. The exalted feats are supernatural in nature yes, but it doesn't say they are abilities themselves. The reference to other feats being extraordinary abilities could also be a turn of phrase.

[ciopo]

They are class features. The table only says "special." So "special feature" seems much more likely than "special ability" as not every class feature is an ability. Not to mention that the PHB defines feats as a special feature, not as a special quality or ability. Feats grant abilities. Hence you get the fey/fiendish heritage feats and others like them. Reserve feats grant an ability and are not the ability themselves.

Even the BoED quote doesn't actually conflict with this. The exalted feats are supernatural in nature yes, but it doesn't say they are abilities themselves. The reference to other feats being extraordinary abilities could also be a turn of phrase.

Class Table: This table details how a character improves as he or she gains levels in the class. Some of this material is repeated from Table 3–1: Base Save and Base Attack Bonuses, but with more detail on how the numbers apply to that class. Class tables typically include the following information.
Level: The character’s level in that class.
Base Attack Bonus: The character’s base attack bonus and number of attacks.
Fort Save: The base save bonus on Fortitude saving throws. The character’s Constitution modifier also applies.
Ref Save: The base save bonus on Reflex saving throws. The character’s Dexterity modifier also applies.
Will Save: The base save bonus on Will saving throws. The character’s Wisdom modifier also applies.
Special: Level-dependent class abilities, each explained in the Class Features section that follows.

emphasis mine, so, I respectuflly disagree with you, those under special all are abilities of one sort of another.
I agree that not every class feature is an ability, spellcasting being the most evident of them, but lucky for me spellcasting isn't listed on the column that lists level-dependent class abilities

We agree to disagree I suppose

[Gruftzwerg]

They are class features. The table only says "special." So "special feature" seems much more likely than "special ability" as not every class feature is an ability. Not to mention that the PHB defines feats as a special feature, not as a special quality or ability. Feats grant abilities. Hence you get the fey/fiendish heritage feats and others like them. Reserve feats grant an ability and are not the ability themselves.

Even the BoED quote doesn't actually conflict with this. The exalted feats are supernatural in nature yes, but it doesn't say they are abilities themselves. The reference to other feats being extraordinary abilities could also be a turn of phrase.

1. The sole definition for "ability" in 3.5 is in the glossary and that is talking about Ability scores. We can assume that the "ability" in Special "Ability" thus only can refer to basic English definition. And that should easily include feats.

2. Being called "special features" (undefined term) ain't a rule to exclude em as Special Abilities. I don't see anything that would indicate that. Further, I could also say that all class features are not abilities, and only give abilities.. do you see how pointless everything then becomes? Under that assumption noting is an ability and only gives the ability as effect. This kind of interpretation only causes dysfunctions and thus can't be the intention here.

3. Unless you can show a rule, that explicitly excludes feats from being abilities, it's not within the "feat rules" territory to decide if they are Special Abilities or not. Because it is the Special Ability rules territory that define what is one and what is not. Feats could only be an exception if they specifically call it out. And being called a Special Feature (undefined term) is not enough.
And these rules are explicit, that only Natural Abilities are not Special Abilities and everything else has either to be EX, SU or SLA (a finite list with no indicators for any untyped/undefined categories).

To OP:

As pertaining to the opening question, my RAW interpretation of shapechange is that you gain the feats of a solar.
if your MoMF wild shapes to a human, my question to you (OP) would be "do you wild shape to a generic human, or do you wild shape to "specific human that has feat X" ? I can't find a text justification that would let you go "generic human" but then choose what the HBF was. the assumption I go by is that when you wild shape to a creature that has 0 HD, you do not gain anything that has the header " at 1st level ", because you are shapechanging to a 0 HD target.
Therefore, if you shapechange to a dwarf, you gain +2CON and -2 DEX and the other little things. if you shapechange to a human, sadly you gain nothing because their prominent feature is in function of them becoming 1st level , however that happens. You can't wild shape to a human commoner 1 any more than you can wild shape to a human fighter 10 commoner 1 is table, not rule, per your parlance. Or reversing that, why wild shape to a commoner 1 when you can wild shape to a fighter X? *CAN* you wildshape to a fighter X? Can you wildshape to the specific creature that is your evil twin personality and instead of a druid5/MoMF7 you are a human with 12 completely differently built class levels? (i haven't read up on why "fighter X isn't a valid alter self/wild shape etc target form, but I recall that by RAW it isn't, and so do you unless i've been mistaken about what I'm reading in this thread, I have a short attention span!)

I did give the generic example because the argument of "limited to generic form" did come up, but my question where this rule stands for Wild Shape / Alternate Form remains unanswered.
So, I have to ask genuinely, where is the rule that would stop me from doing the following:

1. calculate my max HD for Wild/Humanoid Shape
2. shape into a max HD human = any class combo

The sole limitation I could find was the denial of templates. Where is this rule (as said, from memory I know it, but is it really a Wild Shape rule or maybe a Alter Self/Poly?)? I'm confused here, if there is really any rule that would stop me from doing so.
I don't even see that "HD" (in the Wild Shape rules) would exclude HD from class lvl and would only refer to RHD.

edit: k, I found at least one limitation I was missing in this assumption which could be important:

The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with.

So one could argument that I don't get to pick any class/feat combo myself, but would have to rely on a class/feat combo I am familiar with..? (e.g. shape into someone specific)

[ciopo]

I did give the generic example because the argument of "limited to generic form" did come up, but my question where this rule stands for Wild Shape / Alternate Form remains unanswered.
So, I have to ask genuinely, where is the rule that would stop me from doing the following:

1. calculate my max HD for Wild/Humanoid Shape
2. shape into a max HD human = any class combo

The sole limitation I could find was the denial of templates. Where is this rule (as said, from memory I know it, but is it really a Wild Shape rule or maybe a Alter Self/Poly?)? I'm confused here, if there is really any rule that would stop me from doing so.
I don't even see that "HD" (in the Wild Shape rules) would exclude HD from class lvl and would only refer to RHD.

edit: k, I found at least one limitation I was missing in this assumption which could be important:

So one could argument that I don't get to pick any class/feat combo myself, but would have to rely on a class/feat combo I am familiar with..? (e.g. shape into someone specific)

I'm saying I don't remember either where the rule of "you can't shapechange to something with class levels" is. I have it in mind that it is "a thing", but not where it is defined.
The only inference I can make is that the progression is "shapechange is like polymorph but with these differences", "polymorph is like alter self with these differences", and alter self does not say that you gain the class features of the creature you polymorph into, but it also doesn't esplicitly forbid you to do so.

I.e. , I surmise that you *can* alter self to "a dwarf fighter 5", but alter self specifically says what it is you gain, you are not forbidden to do so, but there is no benefit gained from alter self to a dwarf figther instead of a dwarf druid. I'm getting an Air Bud vibe here.

but things change when it's shapechange that you do, or MoMF, since those esplicitly give you "everything that alter self does, but also these other goodies".
5e shapechange esplicitly says " forms with class levels or spellcasting are forbidden", which could be used as a reference that the same could be true for 3.5, but it is not *esplicitly* so as far as I've read


I can't find where it is codified that you can't alter self/shapechange/etc to something with class levels. My point on HBF boils down to "you'd get it if something with class levels is a valid target form for you to polymorph to" .
The "common sense" answer I can think of is that just because you've shapechanged to be a rogue, you aren't any better at trapfinding than you were before, or at evading explosions, because these are qualities derived from training, but I meh at this explanation because shapechange is *magic* and "it's magic" is a perfectly valid explanation for your sudden prowess at trapfinding after shapechanging to something/someone you know is good at trapfinding

[Gruftzwerg]

I'm saying I don't remember either where the rule of "you can't shapechange to something with class levels" is. I have it in mind that it is "a thing", but not where it is defined.
The only inference I can make is that the progression is "shapechange is like polymorph but with these differences", "polymorph is like alter self with these differences", and alter self does not say that you gain the class features of the creature you polymorph into, but it also doesn't esplicitly forbid you to do so.
...

I think I found the root of the problem...

the 3.5 PHB ERRATA...

________________________

Before the Errata:
Before the errata was released, Wild Shape referred to Polymorph, which further refers to Alter Self. Alter Self has this line:

You are effectively disguised as an average member of the new form’s race.

Here we had a rule that limits us to an average/generic member of our new form's race.
Further since Wild Shape said to behave exactly like the "spell" it was forced to behave under the spell effect stacking rules. E.g. when you activate Wild Shape while a previous instance of it is active, all changes from the previous form would be irrelevant for the duration of the new form. But the effect would still be there if you would cancel the new form while the previous form still has remaining duration left .
See Casting Spells > Stacking Effects
Note that these rules only apply to "Spells" and not overall effects. The entire page talks about "casting spells" and not about abilities nor effects in general.

________________________

The mess that the Errata caused...
Now Wild Shape refers to Alternate Form, which doesn't have said line.
Further Wild Shape doesn't refer to a spell anymore and thus is not affected by the spell effect stacking rules, since it doesn't need to behave like a spell anymore..
Which means, when you now shape into another shape while a previous instance is active, you do what you would normally do when Wild Shaping: keep the things mentioned and add the things mentioned..
This escalates, because now you can benefit from special qualities of multiple forms (as MOMF) with remaining duration, since that is something you keep and add..

________________________

Imho this was caused because they ignored the existance of the MOMF prc, which is in another book, while doing the errata for the PHB. Otherwise I have no answer how they have caused this monstrosity

Hell yeah.. I don't know what to say to this mess.. 3.5 RAW. I need an emote to smash my head against a wall

edit: changed a sentence to prevent misinterpretation.

[Darg]

Further Wild Shape doesn't refer to a spell anymore and thus is not affected by the spell effect stacking rules, since it doesn't need to behave like a spell anymore..
Which means, when you now shape into another shape while a previous instance is active, you do what you would normally do when Wild Shaping: keep the things mentioned and add the things mentioned..
This escalates, because now you can benefit from special qualities of multiple forms (as MOMF) with remaining duration, since that is something you keep and add..

Spells stacking refers to the "Combining Magical Effects" rules which use "spells or magical effects" as the subjects of its rules. Supernatural abilities are magical. Features of a form don't stack with another. That means you only have one form at a time. Extraordinary Wild Shape says, "a master of many forms gains the extraordinary special qualities of any form she assumes with wild shape." You have 2 options. Either the MoMF never loses the Ex abilities or it only applies to the currently occupied form. The most logical assumption is the latter.

[Warmjenkins]

I'm gonna have to agree that feats aren't extraordinary abilities unless I see rules stating they are. I've yet to see any evidence of that in this thread so far, only guesswork and leaps in logic trying to say they have to be because what else are they. Unfortunately plenty of things aren't well defined in d&d and just because nothing says they aren't does not prove that they are.

Hit points aren't extraordinary abilities, I don't belive it is ever stated that they aren't but that doesn't prove that they are. Skill points likewise aren't extraordinary abilities ect... these examples could go on for ever obviously but I think the point is rather obvious. Feats are said to be special features, not abilities. Some feats may grant abilities, attack, or qualities and some may even be those things themselves but that is on a case by case basis not the general rule. Some feats even expressly deal with physical characteristics such as bloodline or body type and could therefore fall under natural abilities.

As for the OP, personally I'd allow that specific character to work regardless because I think it is an interesting and entertaining idea. I just wouldn't have it work due to human bonus feat shenanigans and have them essentially be another character that can draw upon a certain amount of shared general knowledge (thus the similar skills and class abilities) but not specifics memories or personality traits.

[Gruftzwerg]

Spells stacking refers to the "Combining Magical Effects" rules which use "spells or magical effects" as the subjects of its rules. Supernatural abilities are magical. Features of a form don't stack with another. That means you only have one form at a time. Extraordinary Wild Shape says, "a master of many forms gains the extraordinary special qualities of any form she assumes with wild shape." You have 2 options. Either the MoMF never loses the Ex abilities or it only applies to the currently occupied form. The most logical assumption is the latter.

The rules of "Combining Magical Effects" is on the Casting Spells page:

Same Effect with Differing Results

The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

While some parts of the page mention effects, it seems that only spells get the short end of the stick here. I don't see any base that would affect "all magical stuff/abilities". Only spells are limited by this rule. The errata for Wild Shape causes you to "keep what Wild Shape says that you keep" and "add what Wild Shape says that you should add" (modified by MOMF in our special chase here).
The title of the page makes it clear: "Casting Spells" and not "resolving magical effects overall".

I'm gonna have to agree that feats aren't extraordinary abilities unless I see rules stating they are. I've yet to see any evidence of that in this thread so far, only guesswork and leaps in logic trying to say they have to be because what else are they. Unfortunately plenty of things aren't well defined in d&d and just because nothing says they aren't does not prove that they are.

Hit points aren't extraordinary abilities, I don't belive it is ever stated that they aren't but that doesn't prove that they are. Skill points likewise aren't extraordinary abilities ect... these examples could go on for ever obviously but I think the point is rather obvious. Feats are said to be special features, not abilities. Some feats may grant abilities, attack, or qualities and some may even be those things themselves but that is on a case by case basis not the general rule. Some feats even expressly deal with physical characteristics such as bloodline or body type and could therefore fall under natural abilities.

As said several times. The "primary source" rule for what is and what is not a "Special Ability" is defined in the "Special Abilities" section and not in the feats section of the rules. Feats can only make exceptions to the general rules for what is an Special Ability and what is not by calling it explicitly out.

Hit-Point aren't any kind of ability to begin with as per regular English definition of "ability". HP aren't an "ability" you use, it's a resource you use. Sorry but that argument is flawed.
Feats on the other hand are "abilities" per default English definition (they give you either the ability to do something or the ability to do something better/in a special way). As such the Special Ability rules have supremacy to categorize em. Unless the feats or feat-type calls itself as an exception out (see Exalted Feats and other feats that are called out as something else than EX), the rules will categorize em accordingly to the Special Ability section.

And the Special Ability section says that every ability which is not a Natural Ability has to be either of EX, SU, SLA. A finite list of options with no room for untyped or unmentioned types.

Feats in general (exceptions may exist as noted) easily disqualify as Natural Ability and are not magical thus further excluding SU & SLA a possible answers. Which leaves EX as sole category where regular feats perfectly fit the description.

Unless you can present rules that differ from the Primary Source for categorizing Special Abilities and makes a special exceptions for feats, you have to apply em as presented.
I've presented the rules more than once now. Ignoring em won't change the fact that the ball is now on your side of the field. If you want to deny it, you have to disprove how the primary source rules in the Special Abilities section define what is and what is not a Special Ability. ;)

PS: I hope you all know what "primary source" for 3.5 rules means and how it is applied/used to interpret the rules correct. A book or a paragraph can have supremacy for its main topic. Other paragraphs that don't have this as main topic can only make exceptions and may not change the primary rules. As such, even if Feats aren't called out as Special Abilities/EX, it doesn't change that it's still the Special Ability section that has supremacy over this topic (what counts as a Special Ability and what doesn't).

[Warmjenkins]

Hit-Point aren't any kind of ability to begin with as per regular English definition of "ability". HP aren't an "ability" you use, it's a resource you use. Sorry but that argument is flawed.
Feats on the other hand are "abilities" per default English definition (they give you either the ability to do something or the ability to do something better/in a special way). As such the Special Ability rules have supremacy to categorize em. Unless the feats or feat-type calls itself as an exception out (see Exalted Feats and other feats that are called out as something else than EX), the rules will categorize em accordingly to the Special Ability section.

Except hp and skills meet the English definition of an ability better than many feats do. In fact hp is derived from an "ability" called constitution. Its in chapter 1 of the player handbook. You know that chapter titled "abilities" where it says "your character has six abilities: strength ect... that has to be one of the weakest and most blatantly false arguments I've ever seen.

The rules never say feats are special abilities, you're making a logical leap because it supports your argument but not because it's true. Feats don't necessarily give abilities or the ability to do something better. Although by your definition of ability hp does count, it gives you the ability to take hits better. Toughness is a feat... just gonna leave that there. Skills flat out give you the ability to do things you couldn't yet aren't categorized as special abilities. I also noticed you conveniently ignored the example of skills not being special abilities. It seems to me you intentionally ignored this because it doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to force and realize that it causes your whole argument to fall apart.

It never once in the rules states that feats are handled by the special abilities rules. Many feats just give a flat small bonus to something like a save or attack roll, is everything that gives a bonus to any aspect of a character now some sort of special ability unless it explicitly says otherwise? Intelligence must be an exceptional ability then since it "isn't physical" and is explicitly stated to be an ability. Obviously not and I think you know that and are only making this argument because you really want it to work that way for your benefit. All evidence I've seen in the rules points to feats not being considered special abilities and your only argument that they are is a flimsy one based on your interpretation of the English word ability that isn't even accurate to many feats.

Feats in general (exceptions may exist as noted) easily disqualify as Natural Ability and are not magical thus further excluding SU & SLA a possible answers. Which leaves EX as sole category where regular feats perfectly fit the description.

How do feats not qualify as natural abilities any more than extraordinary ones in most cases? Is having a bonus on fort saves, climb, swim, strength checks ect... not a natural ability, they are clearly physical abilities? What about having a prehensile tail, or earth elemental ancestry, both feats and clearly both physical "abilities"(except they aren't abilities obviously because the rules never say or imply they are)

As said several times. The "primary source" rule for what is and what is not a "Special Ability" is defined in the "Special Abilities" section and not in the feats section of the rules. Feats can only make exceptions to the general rules for what is an Special Ability and what is not by calling it explicitly out.

Except feats aren't special abilities at all. The primary source for feats rules is the feats section of the players handbook. It explicitly calls feats out as being a special feature of a character, not a special ability. Therefore, even under your own twisted logic feats wouldn't be extraordinary abilities, at best they are extraordinary features.

Unless you can present rules that differ from the Primary Source for categorizing Special Abilities and makes a special exceptions for feats, you have to apply em as presented.
I've presented the rules more than once now. Ignoring em won't change the fact that the ball is now on your side of the field. If you want to deny it, you have to disprove how the primary source rules in the Special Abilities section define what is and what is not a Special Ability. ;)

Challenge accepted and completed. However the burden of proof was always on you because you are the one going against the commonly accepted knowledge of how the rules work. You never once provided rules stating that feats are special abilities despite many posts asking for exactly that.

[newguydude1]

both the 3.5 faq and the boed says feats are ex abilities so thats what they are. boed and bovd are referenced constantly multiple times across all 3.5 books so trying to disregard them is meaningless. fcii for example says the archfiends real stats and not their aspect stats are in bovd and tells you directly to look it up in that book.

feats are ex abilities. and if ex abilities must be either attacks or qualities then feats are qualities and shapechange gives them to you.

this is the end of the discussion. you get feats via shapechange and improved wild shape from momf. so disregard anyone who demands you to bring up even more proof. the boed alone is enough, and faq speaks to intent. if you dont disregard them then your gonna end up hunting for 10+ rule quotes, all of which will be "rejected" and they will demand even more. ive personally witnessed certain forum members dismissing all of the rule quotes i hunted down by saying "wotc made a typo" or "wotc is being lazy" and continued to demand i hunt more quotes down. so.... yeah. they need to be the ones rule hunting not you so disregard anyone that says "not enough, give me more rule quotes saiyng feats or ex abilities" and wait for anyone who actually shows rules that directly contradict boed, if there is any.

---

so this the new part we need to get over:
you cant polymorph into specific creatures.

john selected spell focus for his human bonus feat
jane selected improved initiative for her human bonus feat.

you cant polymorph into john, and you cant polymorph into jane. you can only polymorph into the generic human, and get the feat the generic human selected for his human bonus feat. now the problem here is that the generic human doesnt exist. so you need to get your dm to make a generic human stat block that you can polymorph into. and thats the only feat youll ever get from polymorphing into a human.

this is the same problem i had when i tried polymorphing into illumians and getting their naenhoon ability with assume supernatural ability illumian sigil and assume supernatural ability power sigil. i cant polymorph into specific illumians with the exact sigils i want.

[ciopo]

A case for feats being abilities, and special abilities, is the rogue
level 10 rogue get a special feature called "special ability", and gets to pick among a list, one of the options is picking a feat instead of the other stuff

let me also play devil's advotace, since the wording is "Feat : A rogue may gain a bonus feat in place of a special ability.", that works as an argument that feats aren't actually abilities. It all depends of the interpretation of that wording, inclusive or exclusive

[Warmjenkins]

both the 3.5 faq and the boed says feats are ex abilities so thats what they are. boed and bovd are referenced constantly multiple times across all 3.5 books so trying to disregard them is meaningless. fcii for example says the archfiends real stats and not their aspect stats are in bovd and tells you directly to look it up in that book.

feats are ex abilities. and if ex abilities must be either attacks or qualities then feats are qualities and shapechange gives them to you.

this is the end of the discussion. you get feats via shapechange and improved wild shape from momf.

No they don't, the boed says most feats are extraordinary abilities. Some clearly are magical in nature and don't specify that they are supernatural or spell like. Many are also clearly great candidates for natural abilities so we can not assume things are extraordinary abilities at all. Many may not be abilities at all as they don't fit any of the criteria of abilities. (This is all ignoring that the book of exalted deeds is widely considered one of the worst books for any rules. The faq flat out contradicts itself frequently so I, as well as many others, don't really consider it rules text at all. When they contradict the players handbook I think i know what most people will side with.)

Most drow are neutral evil, the mm1 says so. That doesn't mean we can assume that any given drow is evil. It doesn't prove that something about their biology automatically turns them neutral evil and that unless otherwise stated they are neutral evil. Most creatures found on the plane of fire have the fire subtype, most creatures on the outer planes are outsiders... None of those statements mean anything when it comes to the rules.

Most spells that detect things are blocked by a sheet of lead. Does that mean if a spell entry doesn't state that it isn't blocked by lead that it defaults to following those rules? I mean if a feat entry doesn't state that its an extraordinary ability we get to assume it is so I can just go ahead and assume that it does. I'll assume that drow npc without a stat block is evil and my smite will work because the rules don't say it won't. Fortunately the rules don't work that way and the absence of identifying characteristics don't let you just assume whatever is favorable for you. Most feats may well be extraordinary abilities, that doesn't equate to all feats are extraordinary abilities(or even special abilities at all) unless stated otherwise.

The metamagic feats in the players handbook aren't stated to be supernatural despite clearly being magical in origin. Nor are the item creation feats, or any number of clearly supernatural or magical feats. The communicator feat in the complete arcane grants you spell like abilities, not specified that it isn't an extraordinary ability. We cannot simply assume all feats not specified as otherwise are extraordinary abilities just because it says some are. (Edit: found a better example now that I was able to actually get to my books. Arcane strike, apparently an extraordinary ability that lets you channel arcane energy into your melee attacks. Apparently non-magical arcane energy since its not specified to not be extraordinary.)

If there is rules text saying unless otherwise stated all feats are extraordinary abilities then I concede that I'm wrong here. But as far as I know there isn't rules text stating all feats are special abilities or even abilities at all. In the absence of evidence for your argument you are simply guessing or making assumptions whether or not a feat is an extraordinary ability.

That said I completely agree with the second part of your statement. Even if all feats are extraordinary abilities they aren't part of somethings race they represent acquired traits, usually as a result of experiences or training. Not all members of a race will have the same feats so wild shaping into one wont grant you any feat unless every member of that race would possess it.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If there is rules text saying unless otherwise stated all feats are extraordinary abilities then I concede that I'm wrong here. But as far as I know there isn't rules text stating all feats are special abilities or even abilities at all. In the absence of evidence for your argument you are simply guessing or making assumptions whether or not a feat is an extraordinary ability.

There isn't. It's a simple fact that pretty much every 3.5 book makes a distinction between feats and special qualities. And none even come close to equating them.

The only argument otherwise is that single line from BoED saying feats are usually extraordinary abilities (though it does not call them special abilities at all),
combined with the section on special abilities stating that special abilities must be (Ex), (Sp) or (Su) - though note it does not state that all (Ex), (Sp) and (Su) abilities must be special abilities - making the argument mostly wishful thinking.

Well, that and the FAQ question which simply quotes that passage in the question and has an answer that doesn't go into that at all.
But that's the FAQ, so even if it didn't just copy & paste BoED it still wouldn't be RAW. If it told you outright that feats can be bought with skill points that still wouldn't make it so.

In fact you only really have to look at the Alternate Form rules:

Spoiler: Alternate Form rules

Show

A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume one or more specific alternate forms. A true seeing spell or ability reveals the creature’s natural form. A creature using alternate form reverts to its natural form when killed, but separated body parts retain their shape. A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template. Assuming an alternate form results in the following changes to the creature:

The creature retains the type and subtype of its original form. It gains the size of its new form. If the new form has the aquatic subtype, the creature gains that subtype as well.
The creature loses the natural weapons, natural armor, and movement modes of its original form, as well as any extraordinary special attacks of its original form not derived from class levels (such as the barbarian’s rage class feature).
The creature gains the natural weapons, natural armor, movement modes, and extraordinary special attacks of its new form.
The creature retains the special qualities of its original form. It does not gain any special qualities of its new form.
The creature retains the spell-like abilities and supernatural attacks of its old form (except for breath weapons and gaze attacks). It does not gain the spell-like abilities or attacks of its new form.
The creature gains the physical ability scores (Str, Dex, Con) of its new form. It retains the mental ability scores (Int, Wis, Cha) of its original form. Apply any changed physical ability score modifiers in all appropriate areas with one exception: the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution.
The creature retains its hit points and save bonuses, although its save modifiers may change due to a change in ability scores.
Except as described elsewhere, the creature retains all other game statistics of its original form, including (but not necessarily limited to) HD, hit points, skill ranks, feats, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses.
The creature retains any spellcasting ability it had in its original form, although it must be able to speak intelligibly to cast spells with verbal components and it must have humanlike hands to cast spells with somatic components.
The creature is effectively camouflaged as a creature of its new form, and it gains a +10 bonus on Disguise checks if it uses this ability to create a disguise.
Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the ground in its space. If the creature changes size, any gear it wears or carries that can be worn or carried in its new form changes size to match the new size. (Nonhumanoid-shaped creatures can’t wear armor designed for humanoid-shaped creatures, and vice versa.) Gear returns to normal size if dropped.

I've bolded the relevant parts, but to summarize: according to the AF rules feats are an "other game statistic", not a special attack or quality.

If you want to be really nitpicky you can also look up "special quality" on the officlal glossary, which tells you this:

Characteristics possessed by certain monsters (and sometimes characters) that are distinctive in some way. The Monster Manual has detailed information on all special qualities.

None of the Monster Manuals list feats under special qualities.

For those who have trouble with AF and Wild Shape there's also the Rules of the Game Archive which goes through it step-by-step (look for the articles titled "Polymorph Revisited", there's 4 of them).
It's certainly more official than the FAQ at least.
It also gives an explicit, plain language, no-misunderstandings-possible "you can't WS into something with class levels" rule if you need one.

[newguydude1]

I've bolded the relevant parts, but to summarize: according to the AF rules feats are an "other game statistic", not a special attack or quality.

thats what i said but then you quoted some other place that said all ex are either attacks or qualities.

you cant use glossary. glossary is a summary not actual rules. glossary got a lot of stuff wrong. for example, a wizards spell known list is whatever spell he wrote into his spellbook at any point in time. thats why you can only prepare spells that you know from a borrowed spellbook and not spells you dont know. glossary however says a wizards spell known is spells he has in his spellbook when even complete arcane says there are no special connection between a wizard and his book.

so if you go glossary are rules route, then the borrowed spellbook rules dont function. if you dont then everything functions which is the correct way to go because primary source rule. actual text trumps glossary text.

anyways if boed says most feats are ex abilities then all feats that arent explicitly not extraordinary are extraordinary, like psionic feats. unless you have a contradicting rule elsewhere, which you dont.

alter self puts racial bonus feats as physical qualities not extraordinary qualities.

[Warmjenkins]

anyways if boed says most feats are ex abilities then all feats that arent explicitly not extraordinary are extraordinary, like psionic feats. unless you have a contradicting rule elsewhere, which you dont.

What? I really hope you don't belive that or you mistyped or something because that makes absolutely no sense. That statement is objectively and undeniably false. The very most you could say from the information given is if boed says most feats are extraordinary abilities then most feats that aren't explicitly not extraordinary are extraordinary.

Contradicting rule? Contradicting what? You never cited a rule. There is nothing to contradict. You cited a vague statement describing a section of feats. You can't contradict it because it doesn't say anything of substance.

It never said all other feats, unless specified otherwise are extraordinary. It could have said that, and likely would have if it were true. But it didn't because its not true. Arcane strike doesn't channel non-magical arcane energy. Metamagic feats don't non-magically modify your magic spells. Neither are stated to be non-extraordinary abilities.

It is never stated that all feats are extraordinary abilities, or even special abilities of any kind. It is stated that some are but never all. It is never even implied that they are. The onus of proof is on you. You've never provided any rules text that even suggest that all feats are special abilities let alone extraordinary abilities. I have no clue why you would assume such things with no evidence and a huge amount of evidence to the contrary. Those examples i provided were just a few of very many.

For those who have trouble with AF and Wild Shape there's also the Rules of the Game Archive which goes through it step-by-step (look for the articles titled "Polymorph Revisited", there's 4 of them).

Thats pretty cool and Im surprised I hadn't seen it before now honestly and thanks for bringing it up

[Gruftzwerg]

Except hp and skills meet the English definition of an ability better than many feats do. In fact hp is derived from an "ability" called constitution. Its in chapter 1 of the player handbook. You know that chapter titled "abilities" where it says "your character has six abilities: strength ect... that has to be one of the weakest and most blatantly false arguments I've ever seen.

An "ability" (per English definition) is something that you use and not just a resource like HP. In 3.5 "Ability" refers to Ability scores by the definition of the glossary. We can assume that the "ability" in "Special Ability" ain't referring to Ability Scores, since that would make no sence. Thus it has to fall back to regular English definition.
HP doesn't derive from Constitution. It's just that CON gives a bonus on HD. That doesn't turn any of those (HD/HP) into abilities.

The rules never say feats are special abilities, you're making a logical leap because it supports your argument but not because it's true. Feats don't necessarily give abilities or the ability to do something better. Although by your definition of ability hp does count, it gives you the ability to take hits better. Toughness is a feat... just gonna leave that there. Skills flat out give you the ability to do things you couldn't yet aren't categorized as special abilities. I also noticed you conveniently ignored the example of skills not being special abilities. It seems to me you intentionally ignored this because it doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to force and realize that it causes your whole argument to fall apart.

It never once in the rules states that feats are handled by the special abilities rules. Many feats just give a flat small bonus to something like a save or attack roll, is everything that gives a bonus to any aspect of a character now some sort of special ability unless it explicitly says otherwise? Intelligence must be an exceptional ability then since it "isn't physical" and is explicitly stated to be an ability. Obviously not and I think you know that and are only making this argument because you really want it to work that way for your benefit. All evidence I've seen in the rules points to feats not being considered special abilities and your only argument that they are is a flimsy one based on your interpretation of the English word ability that isn't even accurate to many feats.

You keep ignoring my argument about primary source. The Special Ability section determines what is a feat or what is not. It doesn't care if everything has a friendly reminder in () or in its text or not. The rules are clear and leave no room for any ability that doesn't fit the mentioned 4 categories (where only 3 count as Special Ability). Every ability can be easily classified by just knowing these 4 categories:
1: Abilities a creature has because of its physical nature are Natural Abilities
2: Every ability that is not magical is Extraordinary
3: Magical effects who mimic a specific spell are SLAs
4: Magical effects who doesn't mimic a specific spell are SU
These are the rules that you have to apply to all abilities. There is no rule and no need to give you always a friendly reminder in each abilities text. While 3.5 often makes use of friendly reminder, but they lack consistency. Just because the obvious category isn't pointed out for you doesn't mean that you have right to exclude it from there. Further BOED also references that feats default to EX. But you ignore that too or just assume "it must be wrong" because it contradicts your interpretation.
Feats lack the permission to ignore the Special Ability rules unless they call it out. And the is no general exception for feat, we instead have references that they are by default EX.

How do feats not qualify as natural abilities any more than extraordinary ones in most cases? Is having a bonus on fort saves, climb, swim, strength checks ect... not a natural ability, they are clearly physical abilities? What about having a prehensile tail, or earth elemental ancestry, both feats and clearly both physical "abilities"(except they aren't abilities obviously because the rules never say or imply they are)

See above, but if you really have a problem to differentiate these two I'll try to point you into the right direction.
Natural Abilities includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. You don't have feats because of you physical nature. You have them because you spent a feat tax on em, which has nothing to do with your physical nature. You learn em which is effectively a mental process in the first place for all feats that are EX and not called out to be SU or SLA. SU and SLA feats (yeah we have both as exceptions IIRC) are magical, which automatically disqualifies em as NA and EX.
The "Abilities" that give bonuses on skill checks because of your race/form are Natural Abilities, but the "bonus" itself is not. A class ability, feat or item giving you bonuses to skill checks ain't a Natural Ability.
"prehensile tail, or earth elemental ancestry" are feats you take, not Abilities you gain (automatically) because of your form/race (which is the requirement for NA). Can't you see that you "spent a feat to add the effects to you form"? That is something totally different as "something that your get (for free) because you have the form"(aka racial in many other games).

Except feats aren't special abilities at all. The primary source for feats rules is the feats section of the players handbook. It explicitly calls feats out as being a special feature of a character, not a special ability. Therefore, even under your own twisted logic feats wouldn't be extraordinary abilities, at best they are extraordinary features.

Can you show me a definition of "special feature"? I assume no. I don't see any kind of explanation, not in the glossary and no paragraph or title is named as such anyhere. Than it can't be a new category that could suppress the Special Ability rules. It's just basic English which doesn't set any rules. As said, the Special Ability section, is the primary source that decides what is and what is not an Special Ability. An undefined term in the feats section won't change these rules. The categories are clear and by definition feats fit into EX.

Challenge accepted and completed. However the burden of proof was always on you because you are the one going against the commonly accepted knowledge of how the rules work. You never once provided rules stating that feats are special abilities despite many posts asking for exactly that.

Here the primary source rules:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

You are ignoring that the Special Abilities section has Primacy about what is and what is not Special Ability (it's own topic, more proof ain't possible). The feats section only has primacy over feats. And unless it is explicitly called out that they ignore the Special Ability rules/categories, they have to behave under them. And no, once again, an undefined term (special feature) doesn't make a rule. It's just basic English describing something.
You define something in 3.5 either as:
1: Title + explanation
2: paragraph with explanation
3: bold written term + ":" + explanation
4: Glossary
I don't see how special feature is defined and what they do (or not). It's just a basic English telling you that feat are special features. That is describing what feats are in a fancy way but lack any kind of information that would turn it into a rule. Undefined term != rule




__________________________

let me also play devil's advotace, since the wording is "Feat : A rogue may gain a bonus feat in place of a special ability.", that works as an argument that feats aren't actually abilities. It all depends of the interpretation of that wording, inclusive or exclusive

It's still the Special Abilities section that has supremacy over its own topic and rogue could only make an exception for itself at best. Rogue won't set any new global rules for Special Abilities.

[Warmjenkins]

Snipped for length

Ok, most of what you wrote was just nonsense predicated on a false assumption.(to be fair, upon rereading it, I think there are a few bad typos that are making it sound way worse than it really is) The key point you are missing is feats are not by default special abilities. Full stop, that's it. The rules never state that feats are abilities. Some feats say they are abilities so some are but not all. You have never provided evidence to the contrary. Feat /= special ability. Also since this seems to be a common misconception somehow most/=all. I can't believe I've had to explain it this many times any somehow people still don't get it.

Skills are often times more of abilities than feats. Guess what, they aren't special abilities either. You know what are abilities according to chapter of the player handbook? Stength, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom and charisma. Seriously, read the first chapter it explicitly calls them abilities constantly. So stop trying to use a misinformed English language definition to back up your argument. Plenty of abilities in d&d and covered by the special abilities rules. It never states feats fall under those rules once, never references them in the feats section, never even hints at them.

Also did you really just try to argue that being born with a tail isn't a physical characteristic and is a learned trait? Having ancestors is a learned trait? Channeling your magic into arcane energy in your weapon is 100% non-magical?

Feats are special abilities but skills are not? The things literally reffered to as abilities are not? Some feats are clearly not abilities by your very own definition. Others are clearly not extraordinary yet lack anything saying thearen't. You're saying the players handbook and other core rulebook text is wrong but a vague statement that doesn't even say anything of substance and your own misconception of the non-game definition of an English word are definitely correct? Multiple people cited multiple sources that state feats are not considered special abilities by default. You stated one sentence in one of the least respected rulebooks that at best only says most feats are special abilities. Most, not all.

In summary feats are not abilities, they aren't spells, they aren't weapons or items. They don't need to say every single thing they aren't because they were never implied to be any of those things in the first place. Unless a feat says its an ability it isn't, those are the rules. Feats aren't spells just because they don't say they aren't, feats aren't extraordinary abilities just because they don't say they aren't. Show me a rule that states feats are always special abilities. If you can't then you have no argument to start with.

[sleepyphoenixx]

thats what i said but then you quoted some other place that said all ex are either attacks or qualities.

No, the special abilities section says that all special abilities are either attacks or qualities, and those must be either (Ex), (Sp) or (Su).
As i said in the very post you quoted that does not mean the reverse in that all (Ex) abilities must be special qualities.

you cant use glossary. glossary is a summary not actual rules. glossary got a lot of stuff wrong. for example, a wizards spell known list is whatever spell he wrote into his spellbook at any point in time. thats why you can only prepare spells that you know from a borrowed spellbook and not spells you dont know. glossary however says a wizards spell known is spells he has in his spellbook when even complete arcane says there are no special connection between a wizard and his book.

That's not really a valid argument if you're trying to use the FAQ as a RAW source.

alter self puts racial bonus feats as physical qualities not extraordinary qualities.

Yeah, but the Alternate Form rules are worded differently so you don't get racial bonus feats by default.
Racial traits are explicitly (Ex) special qualities, including bonus feats (see the Elf MM entry for example), so you can get them with MoMF 7 or Enhance Wild Shape.

You keep ignoring my argument about primary source. The Special Ability section determines what is a feat or what is not.

The special ability section doesn't even mention feats.

[Gruftzwerg]

Ok, most of what you wrote was just nonsense predicated on a false assumption.(to be fair, upon rereading it, I think there are a few bad typos that are making it sound way worse than it really is) The key point you are missing is feats are not by default special abilities. Full stop, that's it. The rules never state that feats are abilities. Some feats say they are abilities so some are but not all. You have never provided evidence to the contrary. Feat /= special ability. Also since this seems to be a common misconception somehow most/=all. I can't believe I've had to explain it this many times any somehow people still don't get it.

The Special Ability rules never claim that they explicitly call out everything one by one what is and what is not an SA. It presents rules how to distinguish if an "ability" (normal English definition, not Ability Scores) is a Natural Ability or if not, to which one of the Special Ability categories it belongs.
Think about stacking rules as example. Does every bonus in any ability/spell/whatsoever remind you of those? There are many which do, but also enough instances that don't remind of those rules. But the stacking rules have supremacy over its topic and it doesn't need to call out each possible instance. It just needs to present global working rules (which can be altered by specific exceptions in their niche). The same can be said for Special Abilities. They present global rules and as long as feats fit the description, they qualify for being Special Abilities (unless feats would make an explicit counter statement, which it doesn't).

Skills are often times more of abilities than feats. Guess what, they aren't special abilities either. You know what are abilities according to chapter of the player handbook? Stength, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom and charisma. Seriously, read the first chapter it explicitly calls them abilities constantly. So stop trying to use a misinformed English language definition to back up your argument. Plenty of abilities in d&d and covered by the special abilities rules. It never states feats fall under those rules once, never references them in the feats section, never even hints at them.

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

Most skills who can be used even untrained automatically disqualify, because it is something that anyone can do.
Just because English is my 3rd language doesn't mean that I have problems gasping the rules behind the text. I know that my English sentence structure is bady influenced by 2 other languages and that I often make typos or twist some similiar words while typing. But these lil problems don't stop me from grasping the logic behind the text (especially if I take my time to grasping it). That assumption is just rude. You are constantly ignoring the "primary source rule for topics" and the reference in BOED. And for the topic what is and what is not an Special Ability, it is the "Special Abilities" section that sets the general rules, not the feats section.
E.g. Combat rules have their own section. Magic (spell) rules make use of em and sometimes alter these for their nice (either magic overall: e.g. rules for Ray & Weapon-like attacks, or spell specific rules: E.g. Invisibility is redefining what is an attack for "itself").
The same way, the feats section can only change/ignore the Special Ability rules when they explicitly call it out. And you haven't presented any valid exception rule for feats so far.

Also did you really just try to argue that being born with a tail isn't a physical characteristic and is a learned trait? Having ancestors is a learned trait? Channeling your magic into arcane energy in your weapon is 100% non-magical?

You are mixing fluff text (something very common in 3.5) with actual rules.
While the fluff text implies that you are born with it, by RAW you get to take the feat when you reach the starting age for your first class lvl (or if the monster is matured in the chase of monsters without class lvls).
While you may claim that the feat tells you, that you are born with it, it doesn't alter the rules when you get and benefit from your first feat. So you don't get to pick that feat when you are born, sorry. And to ask you a simple question here: "Are you arguing that you didn't "spent a feat to learn the feat"? If you needed to spend resources, it is not a Natural Ability. Only if you race description instead tells you that "you get the feat for free" it becomes a Natural Ability (IIRC there are a few examples of this).
Further, Natural Abilities never tell you that you need to be born with em. The rules call em out as things that you just have because of your race/form. So your ability to sexually reproduce (which you get as teenager) is a Natural Ability that you aren't born with. But compared to your feat examples, you don't need to spend any feats or resources to gain this Natural Ability. Because it's "natural".

edit:

The special ability section doesn't even mention feats.

The Special Ability section presents rules in form of categories with a description of each. The rule enforces you to apply the rules to anything that is valid.
Since when does every rule have to call out each specific chases name? > Rules mainly set parameters to follow.

And if you would just read the EX desperation and can follow me that feats default to abilities in the English language you have to apply the rules.

[Yak folklore]

There is nothing that explicitly states that that doesn't work, but in other instances of being able to exchange feats (I'm thinking chameleon), it does say that you can't undermine prerequisites, just can't.
Again, mostly boils down to ask your DM, but if I were DMing I would look at the change in mechanical power, versus the flair and coolness of it.

[Warmjenkins]

And if you would just read the EX desperation and can follow me that feats default to abilities in the English language you have to apply the rules.

Ok, first of all I was not disparaging or insulting you for your typos or lack of English profiency. That's why I added the statement about it possibly being the reason so much came across as nonsense. It made things hard to understand but its hardly the worst I've seen on these forums. I just pointed it out to try and be fair in assuming things like that you don't think the special abilities section gets to decide what is or isn't a feat ect... sorry if it came across that way I was just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on a few of the more ridiculous statements being typos.

Second, while there are plenty of other holes and logical leap in your reasoning (like a warforgeds entire body not being a physical characteristic because it was decided by a feat you must take at character creation, you're the one who decided English definitions apply to game rules remember) you seem to be getting hung up on lots of meaningless things and keep ignoring the real issue here. Feats aren't special abilities. The rules never say that all feats are special abilities. That's it. Feats are not special abilities unless the rules say they are. The rules never say all feats are special abilities. The rules only call out certain feats as special abilities. I know I'm repeating myself a lot here but you are either not getting the point or being willfully ignorant. You seem to think feats are special abilities because they fit your personal definition of the word ability in non-game terms. I, as well as many others, have provided a large number of examples of feats not fitting the definition you put forth of abilities. I've pointed out that by both the English definition that you gave and the in game definition that many other things meet both definitions better than most feats do. You are either ignoring this because it doesn't fit your argument or somehow still missing it.

The English language does not equate to rules text. Also feats absolutely do not default to abilities in the English language. The English definition of a skill and the d&d definition of a skill do not always line up. Being able to fight with a sword is 100% a skill, but in d&d there is no swordfighting skill. Being able to forge someone's name is definitely an ability, much more than have three more hp is yet guess which one is a feat and which one is a skill. None are special abilities in the d&d sense. Feats aren't special abilities.

Feats aren't special abilities. Rules text has been provided to you from multiple sources showing that feats aren't special abilities. The special abilities rules do not govern feats in any way unless the rules explicitly state feats to be special abilities. In which case they are only the primary source on the parts of the feat that pertain to the specific parts of that feat that interact with those rules. Your primary source argument keeps being ignored because it is irrelevant. The primary source on ability scores is chapter 1 of the players handbook. Guess what, that doesn't matter because feats aren't ability scores. If a feat modifies ability scores or somehow is an ability score then the primary source matters now. But that doesn't make all feats suddenly become ability scores just because one is. Feats aren't special abilities, show me any rules text that says that feats, as a whole not specific ones, are special abilities. If you can't then the special abilities rules don't matter. Feats aren't special abilities. Your own personal definition of the word ability doesn't equate to rules, especially when most trained skills meet the definition of special ability as well or better than most feats. Im getting tired of saying it now but feats are not special abilities.

(Edit, I was going to try to keep my point more focused because you are either getting distracted or intentionally deflecting from the core flaw of your argument but I guess I couldn't help myself.)

You are mixing fluff text (something very common in 3.5) with actual rules.
While the fluff text implies that you are born with it, by RAW you get to take the feat when you reach the starting age for your first class lvl (or if the monster is matured in the chase of monsters without class lvls).
While you may claim that the feat tells you, that you are born with it, it doesn't alter the rules when you get and benefit from your first feat. So you don't get to pick that feat when you are born, sorry. And to ask you a simple question here: "Are you arguing that you didn't "spent a feat to learn the feat"? If you needed to spend resources, it is not a Natural Ability. Only if you race description instead tells you that "you get the feat for free" it becomes a Natural Ability (IIRC there are a few examples of this).
Further, Natural Abilities never tell you that you need to be born with em. The rules call em out as things that you just have because of your race/form. So your ability to sexually reproduce (which you get as teenager) is a Natural Ability that you aren't born with. But compared to your feat examples, you don't need to spend any feats or resources to gain this Natural Ability. Because it's "natural".

Aside from your misconception about the ability to reproduce being inborn. Where in the rules does it say natural abilities can't be gained by spending resources? Also, if I have to choose between multiple different natural abilities (something many races do such as a drogonborns wing/breath weapon ect... don't get hung up on the example though because there are tons more) does that make them not natural now? Does player choice somehow suddenly decide what kind of ability something is? I spent the resource of one of my racial traits, there was an opportunity cost to take the choice i did. There were a finite number of choices. Some natural abilities are gained over time and must be chosen (just like skills or feats, wierd huh?) at various points along the characters life/level progression.

In fact natural abilities are described by the srd "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like." So therefore all feats, if they were special abilities, that don't otherwise specify as one of those three default to natural abilities. It doesn't say you need to be born with them, can't acquire or lose them, or that they can't involve knowledge or intelligence. An aboleths ancestral memories and ability to absorb memories of other creatures would be a good example.

Once again though, this is a side argument that has nothing to do with the core reason you are wrong about special abilities so don't let it distract you. In reality special abilities in game terms are only the specific things the game says they are. Id consider spells and skills special abilities, they are certainly abilities and definitely special but the game doesn't. I'd consider many things spells by the English definition that the game doesn't. Some things the game considers spells i would not because they don't fit the English definition. None of that matters though because the game defines what is a spell, what is a special ability what is a feat, and what is a skill. Feats aren't special abilities.

(Side note i just noticed that is related to the OP, level adjustment is listed under the same racial traits (EX): heading as the rest. So if you argue that everything under that heading is an extraordinary special quality get to get the human bonus feat you'd also have to get level adjustment, favored class, languages ect... obviously not the intended effect)

[Darg]

The rules of "Combining Magical Effects" is on the Casting Spells page:
While some parts of the page mention effects, it seems that only spells get the short end of the stick here. I don't see any base that would affect "all magical stuff/abilities". Only spells are limited by this rule. The errata for Wild Shape causes you to "keep what Wild Shape says that you keep" and "add what Wild Shape says that you should add" (modified by MOMF in our special chase here).
The title of the page makes it clear: "Casting Spells" and not "resolving magical effects overall".

Welp, looks like I can stack conditions, SLAs, Su, Ex, and armor and weapon abilities as long as they aren't modifiers. It should be really nice guaranteeing my eldritch essence lands with infinite instances of the essence attached to an eldritch blast. I may be limited to one essence, but it is still only one essence when I apply it infinitely.

The chapter of the PHB is called Magic. Being under the casting spells section is relevant as 95% of all SLAs and Su refer back to the spell to understand how the ability functions. The title of the subsection is indeed "Combining Magical Effects." Ignoring the structure and focusing only on specific lines tends to lead to the unfortunate misunderstanding in this thread.

Even if feats are Extraordinary Abilities, the human extra feat is not a racial trait. The trait is picking the feat at level one. You have not even demonstrated how wild shape gives you the racial traits of the form you take.

As others have stated, the BoED feat clause does not apply to all feats. The clause is not even ironclad exclusive to where feats can only be supernatural or extraordinary as that would make SLA feats no longer SLA. It may be the case that feats that are abilities are mostly extraordinary, but then again nothing says that all feats are abilities in the first place. This makes interpreting that all feats being extraordinary abilities and thus special qualities not only never represented, but also logical fallacy.

[Gruftzwerg]

*snip*

I've to apologize that due to the overheated discussion maybe some of my arguments may have sound to polarizing. Let me try to put it in in a more detailed way:

When I see an untyped ability (assuming the ability in Special "Ability" defaults to base English definition and that feats are abilities by English definition) I ask myself the following questions, because the Special Ability section enforces these rules:
1. "Is it a Natural Ability?" In some chases races can even have racial feats (as NA) because of some parts of their body that enables them to have em without any "special" effort. That doesn't mean that all feats in a monster stat block are racial feats, only those explicit mentioned that come from form/body-parts.

2. If it doesn't fit into (1): "Is it non magical?" When it ain't magical it can only be an Extraordinary Ability, since we excluded NA as possibility. Most feats generally default into this group but not all.

3. If it doesn't fit into (1+2): "Is it referring to a spell?" if it is, then it has to be a SLA.

4. If it doesn't fit into (1+2+3): If it is magical but not resembling a spell it can only be an SU ability.

An easy guideline to categorize, that doesn't cause any conflicts.

I don't get why some of you insist that either one (Special Abilities or Feats) has to call out the other to have a reason for interaction. Let me give you a similar example to our situation. There are many combat spells that make use of the "Combat" rules. Do you see that the "Combat" rules are always referring to the fact that spells might fall under this rule? No, because they don't have to. As soon as a spell provides a scenario to follow the combat rules they apply.
The same can be said about Feats and Special Abilities. As soon as feats provide the required things to follow the Special Ability rules they apply. So what is in you opinion the requirement than one is enforced to apply the Special Ability rules? The sole reason of the Special Ability section is, that you can categorize all the abilities that don't have a friendly reminder for you in their rule text (like most Feats).

Welp, looks like I can stack conditions, SLAs, Su, Ex, and armor and weapon abilities as long as they aren't modifiers. It should be really nice guaranteeing my eldritch essence lands with infinite instances of the essence attached to an eldritch blast. I may be limited to one essence, but it is still only one essence when I apply it infinitely.

Eldritch Blast is an SLA. Spell-Like-Ability. The "like a spell" part ain't just for looks ;) It has to behave like a spell unless noted otherwise in the SLA description. As such, it has to follow the regular spell stacking rules. No conflict/dysfunction here.
And just because an ability is stackable, doesn't mean that their effects (e.g. bonus types, size bonuses..) are stackable as you wish. They still follow all other rules that apply in the specific situations.

The chapter of the PHB is called Magic. Being under the casting spells section is relevant as 95% of all SLAs and Su refer back to the spell to understand how the ability functions. The title of the subsection is indeed "Combining Magical Effects." Ignoring the structure and focusing only on specific lines tends to lead to the unfortunate misunderstanding in this thread.

As said, SLAs have to follow the spell casting rules unless otherwise mentioned in the (general and specific) SLA rules. But that isn't the chase for SU abilities since they aren't related to casting spells.

Even if feats are Extraordinary Abilities, the human extra feat is not a racial trait. The trait is picking the feat at level one. You have not even demonstrated how wild shape gives you the racial traits of the form you take.

As other have also confirmed it: All racial traits are Ex. Just because we lack a table to confirm this for HBF doesn't change that the HBF doesn't call itself out as an exception and as such has to follow the Special Ability Rules.
And I have said several times that MOMF7 gives all Extraordinary Qualities. Where is your problem? Did you miss that this topic ain't about base Wild Shape?

As others have stated, the BoED feat clause does not apply to all feats. The clause is not even ironclad exclusive to where feats can only be supernatural or extraordinary as that would make SLA feats no longer SLA. It may be the case that feats that are abilities are mostly extraordinary, but then again nothing says that all feats are abilities in the first place. This makes interpreting that all feats being extraordinary abilities and thus special qualities not only never represented, but also logical fallacy.

as I said to Warmjenkins, maybe my arguments have been a bit to polarizing.
If you look at a feat (and from where it is provided: racial or HD progression?) and take the Special Ability rules, you can clearly categorize em into the groups. It's obvious that feats that give SLA are SLA unless otherwise mentioned. BoED doesn't say that "all non-exalted feats are EX".. it says "rather than being
extraordinary abilities, as most feats are". It just tells us that most are EX as simple guideline. Which is true if you start to categorize all feats with the guidelines given in the Special Ability section. Only a small section are SLAs and SUs.