D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Alternate form / change shape question

[Zeppo]

Quoth the SRD:

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).

My parsing abilities fail me: does the creature lose the rage class feature or not?

 

[Loonook]

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).

It loses extraordinary abilities NOT given by a class benefit. So in this case it would keep its rage.

Short answer: No, no loss of rage.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Greenfield]

Quoth the SRD:

My parsing abilities fail me: does the creature lose the rage class feature or not?

No. It specifically says that it loses form-related special abilities, but that class features are left intact.

 

[Zeppo]

OK, thanks! I guess I got hung up on whether you get rage by having class levels or just having the class.

 

[Greenfield]

I'm completely unclear on how someone could have the class without having class levels.

I'm equally unclear on how someone could have class levels without having the class.

But since the original clip referred to the Barbarian class feature explicitly, I'm unclear on how you were unclear on any of this.

Is that clear?

 

[scott2978]

A question I always wonder is who actually uses the ridiculous "polymorph subschool" introduced in one of the supllements. All.subsequent books made use of it, which thankfully wasn't many. There was something in the polymorph subschool, that replaced alternate form rules, that made your class features go away while you were in another form.... so, my familiar becomes a normal stupid animal while I'm in alternate form, I lose my animal companion, can't cast spells, can't use sneak attacks, can't turn undead.... etc. The stupidest rule ever published? A firm candidate IMHO.

 

[Zeppo]

Whoa, take it easy, man.

As I'm not a native speaker, I can't afford to make too many assumptions. Yes, I strongly suspected that barbarians do get to keep their rage, but since I felt the wording of the passage was a bit awkward (giving a long list of things you don't get to keep and then just tagging a "such as" example to the tail end of the sentence), I tried to come up with an explanation to the contrary, just in case.

Anyway, thanks! Problem solved.