Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 1958734" data-attributes="member: 1757">I disagree. You're failing to recognize the difference between being "epic" for purposes of qualifying for epic feats and being "epic" for purposes of kicking off EAB and epic save bonus progression. SavS, being neither a handbook for epic play nor a 3.5 source, is probably not the best source for determining epic-level benefits qualification.  Absolutely untrue. A monster can have an ECL of 21 or higher regardless of what its level adjustment is stated to be in its MM entry. "Level Adjustment: -" doesn't mean the creature has no ECL, only that it is unsuitable for non-epic play. See the "Monsters as Races" section in the MM for detailed explanation.Here I agree. They just got the example wrong, which is why you should use the ELH rather than the DMG, because it is more on point and has a better-written epic section!</blockquote>I absolutely disagree. The ELH rules are by far the more consistent, because they allow ECL creatures to gain epic feats at the appropriate level without being penalized by requiring early adoption of EAB and epic save bonus progressions. If you use the FAQ ruling, then a half-fiend half-dragon troll (6 HD, LA +12) can't take a single epic feat until it has 15 class levels, by which time (ECL 33) its non-LA counterparts will have had access to epic feats for twelve(!) character levels. That is simply grossly unfair. The two-tier system on ELH p.25, OTOH, allows all characters to qualify for epic feats at the same amount of XP/monster power level (ECL), but also allows all characters to pick up 20 HD worth of attack and save bonuses before being forced into the EAB and epic save progressions. It is thus the fairer model.[/QUOTE]

Verification