Simple Weapon, Martial Weapon, and Armor proficiencies (3.5ed)
I'm seeing the argument going back and forth about if proficiencies need
to be feats or not.
The people who say "no" have a very convincing argument based on the
information in the classes, that it grants proficiency but doesn't
automatically grant feats.
The people who say "yes" have a very convincing argument based on the
information in the feats, that classes explicitly gain these as bonus
There seems to be an argument as to who is right. But the point that's
being missed isn't an either/or. Both can be right, since the rules
define what is right and the rules define it both ways. So in order for
the LST to match the rules as set forth by the RSRD, it needs to be both
I here cries of "we shouldn't have double data". I happen to agree.
But if you don't have double data, then the LST is not a correct
translations of the rules, and /someone/ will have a problem with it.
As keeps reoccurring on the Y! group.
If you /really/ want to be correct, code up the classes to give just
proficiencies, and the code the feats to grant themselves automagically
(.MOD to classes listed?), to keep it separate as per the RSRD. I
personally wouldn't be that precise and just code in the union of both
rules. (I believe giving the feats grants the appropriate proficiencies
for the classes listed, covering both parts of the rules.)
To sum up - this isn't an "us or them", by the rules both are correct,
and if you want to properly represent the rules you need to have at the
very least the union of the two rules if not all of the rules