Epic Feats

[drnuncheon]

In OA, the monk can switch out certain class features for feat.s Wizards can choose an epic feat at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20. Rogues can do it as their special ability at levels 10, 13, 16, and 19. IF you use Monte's Ranger, they can do it at levels 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19.

Granted not all classes get bonus feats, but any of them that do, can take epic feats as long as they have Character level of 21 and higher.

1. Not everyone uses OA.
2. Not everyone uses Monte's Ranger
3. Rogues cannot take an Epic Feat instead of a special ability. They may, however, take a Special Ability in place of an Epic Class Feat.

Also, none of this addresses the core of my point, which is not that it's a bad idea for Fighters, but that it's a bad idea in general. Fighters are merely the specific example that I was using to illustrate it.

J

 

[Crothian]

All in all it's been a great discusion. I've been argueing the point of the book since it says you can take epic feats as reguliar feats on pg 8 or something like that. Sometimes it's just fun to argue for the rules every now and then.

However, I'm sticking with my gut reaction and saying this is wrong. Sure, it's a 180 degree turn of what I've been argueing, but it's the point I took when the topic was first brought up many weeks before after the book was first released. It was before I realized what the book said.

drnuncheon, you post some great arguements and it's been fun. However, I must say that aside from playing the card that "it's what the book says" I lost the arguement. Maybe I'll do better next time.

 

[Marshall]

Also, none of this addresses the core of my point, which is not that it's a bad idea for Fighters, but that it's a bad idea in general. Fighters are merely the specific example that I was using to illustrate it.

J

Actually, FTR is the ONLY example to demostrate it, as Feats are their class abilities. But all the arguments you put forth are the same arguments people have been stating since 3e came out.

"Gee, it would be nice to take a couple levels of FTR for those bonus (epic)feats"

As to your BRB up there, Hes given up quite a bit in the skills dept for 10hp and 1 feat, at least 20 ranks and probably more considering the FTRs anemic class skill list, not to mention rage duration and maybe access to some of the higher order Rage feats. It looks to me that the only classes that would actually gain a real benefit from MC to FTR at epic levels are the FTR cousins. ie Ranger, Barbarian and maybe, only maybe, Paladin. All the other classes are going to give up major abilities, skill points, or the better spellcasting feats for some tangential power grab.

 

[da chicken]

Help! The Fighter is broken with multiclassing!

One of my players, playing a 11th level cleric, multiclasses to Fighter at level 12, and he takes Improved Critical as his bonus feat!!! I mean, a 1st level Fighter can't do that!


This reality check brought to you by da chicken.

You know why the Wiz 20/Ftr 1 taking epic Fighter feats looks so good on paper? Because there are only about 3 feats total designed exclusively for levels 10-20. That's why it looks like a 1st level Wizard getting 9th level spells. There's a massive gap in the feat pool for those levels. Notice many players multiclass away from Fighter? You can easily take every worthwhile feat before level 10, but there's only 2 core feats for high levels (Improved Crit, Improved TWF), and only a few more in the supplements (Dragon's Toughness). Everything else is available easily before level 6. Even Whirlwind Attack.

Frankly, the ELH came out too early. WotC still has no material excepting Wizard and Cleric spells for levels 15-20, and very little at all for levels 12-15. It's dumb, it's bad game design, and there isn't a thing we can do about it right now unless we want to start publishing reams of feats and other high level abilities. PrC help, but they're very narrow.

 

[smetzger]

I just don't see why I should let a 5th level Wizard take 1 level of fighter and get a certain amount of stuff (feat and some skills) and then turn around and let a 20th level Wizard take 1 level of fighter and be aloud to take a completely different set of stuff.

Because he has met different prerequisites.

 

[drnuncheon]

Actually, FTR is the ONLY example to demostrate it, as Feats are their class abilities. But all the arguments you put forth are the same arguments people have been stating since 3e came out.

Sure. But there was a cost to pay when you could only hit 20th level - you were losing the higher level abilities of both classes. (And Fighter isn't the only one - any class with bonus feats demonstrates it to some extent, as Crothian pointed out.)

As to your BRB up there, Hes given up quite a bit in the skills dept for 10hp and 1 feat, at least 20 ranks and probably more considering the FTRs anemic class skill list, not to mention rage duration and maybe access to some of the higher order Rage feats.

Rage duration is not affected by level. The number of times you can rage per day is, but you'll notice I mentioned that (and with Extra Rage, dealt with it). None of the rage feats require anything other than the ability to rage 5/day (Brb 16) or Greater Rage (Brb15).

As for skills, let's be honest - nobody plays the barbarian because they're a skill monster - a ranger or a rogue would both be better for that purpose. The following skills are on the barbarian list that aren't on the fighter list: Intimidate, Intuit Direction, Listen, Wilderness Lore. "Oh, no! My 24 ranks of Intuit Direction may not be enough to let me find north!" I guess if those four skills were the ones that you'd been pumping since first level, it might not be worth while, but if you're like most barbarians, you've probably been dropping quite a few ranks into Climb, Jump, and maybe Ride - all class skills for the fighter. And once you've got 25 or so ranks in a skill, there's not many normal situations you can't handle.

It looks to me that the only classes that would actually gain a real benefit from MC to FTR at epic levels are the FTR cousins. ie Ranger, Barbarian and maybe, only maybe, Paladin. All the other classes are going to give up major abilities, skill points, or the better spellcasting feats for some tangential power grab.

That depends on what they're going after. An Epic Cleric who engaged in a lot of combat might find a couple of levels of Epic Fighter very attractive. Fighter/Rogue is a very powerful multiclass, and it'd be even more powerful as EpicFtr/Rog. Wizards and sorcerers, less so, it's true (although if they were already MCed as Ftr/Wiz they're suddenly getting it all over the Rog/Wiz or Rng/Wiz - "Hey, I get Epic stuff now and you have to wait for 15 more levels, ha ha!")

The ELH rewards sticking with a path - whether that be a single class or a PrC. Allowing fighters to take Epic feats with their bonus feat does not.

J

 

[toberane]

Help! The Fighter is broken with multiclassing!

One of my players, playing a 11th level cleric, multiclasses to Fighter at level 12, and he takes Improved Critical as his bonus feat!!! I mean, a 1st level Fighter can't do that!

I'm not sure how much I agree with your other points, but this is an excellent example of what I've been saying all along. A higher level character multiclassing into a fighter is a stronger combatant than the straight 1st level fighter, and it is only natural that he have access to some of the more potent feats right off the bat. Your example shows that it has been that way since 3E came out, and so it makes logical sense to extend the same benefit to 21st+ level characters.

As to the multiclassing system being broken, and there not being enough feats for levels 11-20, I'm not going to disagree with you, but I'm not gonna agree either. I'll have to consider this one. I just had a character reach 21st level, and yeah, I did notice that I was having a hard time finding any feats I wanted the last couple of times, But I think that had more to do with my character and what my character wanted than it did any lack of good feats for higher level characters. I don't know about that one.

 

[mikebr99]

All in all it's been a great discusion. I've been argueing the point of the book since it says you can take epic feats as reguliar feats on pg 8 or something like that. Sometimes it's just fun to argue for the rules every now and then.

However, I'm sticking with my gut reaction and saying this is wrong. Sure, it's a 180 degree turn of what I've been argueing, but it's the point I took when the topic was first brought up many weeks before after the book was first released. It was before I realized what the book said

You're right... this has been one of the better (read: civil) discussions we've had.

 

[Crothian]

You're right... this has been one of the better (read: civil) discussions we've had.

And people actually posted arguements that made sense. Usually we don't have the best arguers on the boards. They post badly thought out arguements and leave a lot to be desired.

I wonser how long it'll take to errata this?

 

[toberane]

And people actually posted arguements that made sense. Usually we don't have the best arguers on the boards. They post badly thought out arguements and leave a lot to be desired.

I wonser how long it'll take to errata this?

Errata what? The ambiguous statement in the ELH or the unusually civil discussion on these boards.