If you don't see the difference between a ranger gaining a few nature spells at 8th level and the over-the-top feats available in 3.0 and beyond, nothing I say will make my point here. There are levels of suspension of disbelief and later edition feats are significantly more difficult to rationalize than the abilities earned through leveling up in early editions. It's a lot easier to build into the campaign storyline the new abilities gained through leveling in 2e and 1e than subsequent additions.
Acquiring the ability to work magic is less remarkable than learning how to shoot a bit farther, more accurately at very short ranges, or slightly honing one's reflexes, fortitude, or will?
I'm with Oni here. Most feats are far far less jarring than getting an entire extra level of spells, let alone miraculously gaining out of nowhere the ability to have a castle. Especially if your character doesn't
want a castle.
axiomatic strike (hey i've "learned" how to do extra damage against "chaotic" opponents!)
A monk power - hardly any more outlandish than other powers AD&D monks get.
destructive rage (hey i've "learned" how to increase my strength by 8 on command!)
You mean rage gets slightly more effective. Not a problem compared to e.g. Getting A Castle.
faster healing (hey i've "learned" how to heal faster!)
Makes perfect sense to me, knowing self-healing techniques and knowing how not to aggravate wounds.
greater resiliency (hey i've "learned" how to not take as much damage when hit with things!)
You mean you have a problem with
hit points?
intimidating rage (hey i've "learned" how to yell at an enemy and make them "shaken"!)
If a Barbarian's raging at me I'm going to be intimidated. Some will be more intimidating than others.
weakening touch (hey i've "learned" how to make enemies lose 6 strength by hitting them!)
Pressure points. This
is a monk ability.
these are just from the complete warrior book. most books containing feats contain a solid percentage of crap feats that grant quasi-magical abilities that make no intuitive sense in a world where characters (prior to 3.0) always had to pray for or study for spell-casting.
And that's the part that made no intuitive sense to me. Why in such a high magic world there were people who
weren't wizards. For that matter, hit points are supernatural - if an orc lands a critical hit on any human alive with an axe they are going to die. Every adventurer was supernatural - but it was only expressed by their toughness unless they were an explicit caster. Why couldn't I play Hercules or Cucuhlain?
with 4E it got even closer to video game design, complete with the reality-defying "once per encounter" abilities. seriously? how does your body know what constitutes an 'encounter'?
It's a superb narrative limit rather than a physical one as far as I'm concerned. Look at comics. How often is there a fastball special? 1/fight at most. Yes, it's not
simulationist. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
What if an encounter lasts more than 5 minutes?
/full disclosure: I hate encounter powers with the passion in my cold little heart.
Then the encounter power ends. But you recharge after a
rest (or scene change) not after 5 minutes.