[Epic] Feats

[Crothian]

Well, it should be noted the FAQ will do whatever Wizards wants their FAQ to do. If they want errata like answers in their FAQ, then they are allowed as it is their FAQ. It's not well written text, and I will always take the word of the authors clarifications over badly written text. Case closed on this topic!!

 

[Kraedin]

From Bruce Cordell (you know, the other name on the cover):

Just to be clear (and maybe I'm misunderstanding some of the last few posts), if your character is 21st level or higher through any combination of multiclassing, you can take epic feats. "Whenever an epic character is allowed to pick up a feat as part of character level advancement, he can choose either a nonepic or epic feat..." So, if your either one of your multiclassed character's class charts from the Player's Handbok gives you a bonus feat, as long as your total level is 21 or higher, you can choose an epic feat that you qualify for.

If this is already understood by everyone here, sorry. Sorry also to continue this conversation for those of you not strictly interested in epic stuff .

brc

Because a discussion with a "correct" answer isn't any fun.

 

[Pax]

Thanks, Kraedin; now we have the ruling of the other half of the guys who wrote the book in question. Unsurprisingly, it not only exactly matches what I've been saying all along ... it also is perfectly in accordance with the passage in teh book that I've quoted multiple times now.

So; we have to ask: who wrote the "Adding a second class" passage on page 8?

I'm willing to say, probably Bruce. Heck, as perpetually poor as I am, I'd be willing to put MONEY on it.

So, Andy; , if you're still with us; what would you say now? Clearly Bruce, at least, had the same interpretation in mind when you and he wrote the ELH, as I have now.

Which one of you handled the (overly brief) multiclassing rules in the ELH?

 

[green slime]

Hello All.

Just to throw my two bits on the flames of contention, not that I'm anything of the stature of the two authors of this rules volume we are discussing,

but...

Originally I interpreted the passage to be as Andy has explained. Then a huge discussion of this erupted on this very board, at which time it was pointed out BC explaination. At first I was rather certain that to do otherwise would be cheating the single-classed Epic hero of his justly deserved desserts.

But then just look at the prerequisites of some of these feats!

Secondly, a mage 20/fighter 6 although he might qualify for Epic weapon specialisation, can never by the rules gain four iterative attacks. (for example)(common house rule is to allow the best twenty levels count towards iterative attacks.)

Thirdly many multiclassed epic characters will loose out on their bonus Epic class feats for their Epic class Levels, so they will in general be 1-3 Epic level feats behind their singleclassed companions.

Fourthly; at these levels, it isn't really about balance (to assume so is ludicrous), its more about flavour. Let the heroes be heroes for goodness sake.

So I'm with BC on this one. Just so you people know.

 

[AuraSeer]

When the FAQ directly and literally contradicts the rulebook itself ... the rulebook wins, IMO.

Remember that they've stopped updating the errata sheets. Mistakes are now being corrected in the FAQ, so they don't have to track two PDFs for each book.

You're ignoring the original intent of the rules, in order to preserve the exact text of a mistake.

(...just so you're aware.)

 

[Pax]

Remember that they've stopped updating the errata sheets. Mistakes are now being corrected in the FAQ, so they don't have to track two PDFs for each book.

You're ignoring the original intent of the rules, in order to preserve the exact text of a mistake.

(...just so you're aware.)

Ah, but, it's not even certain teh text in question was a mistake.

Bruce Cordell interprets the situation exatly the way I do; he, too is credited as co-Author, so his "author's rulings" would bear as much weight as Andy Collins' do.

I think it's pretty clear, Bruce probably wrote that bit, and intended it to mean exactly what I've gotten from it: the only requirement to be able to select an epic feat no matter why you're picking a new feat, is to be, yourself, an Epic character.

It is in fact just that simple.

 

[kreynolds]

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if Bruce's credit with the ELH is merely due to the presence of psionics...and little else. In other words, I just think Andy's viewpoint holds more water than Bruce's.

 

[Crothian]

But the part Bruce quotes is "Character level advancement" which isa the feats every third level. So, even if he is right, he quoted a section that doesn't support it.

 

[Scion of Vyshaan]

I think part of the problem is the wording of the highlighted text:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whenever an epic character is allowed to pick up a feat as part of level advancement, he can choose either a nonepic feat or an epic feat (see table 1-2: Experience and LEvel-Dependent Benefits). All class descriptions provide a list of bonus feats that characters must choose form. When you have to choose from a list of bonus feats in your second class, you can also choose from the bonus epic feats described for each specific class below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The subject of the sentance in question is "all class descriptions." Clearly, this has caused some confusion, even among the designers themselves. However, Mr. Collins does not contradict this passage, as it can be taken to mean "all class descriptions in the Epic Level Handbook." If this is the case (and any arguments of mechanics or interpretation aside, this is a possible meaning of the words) then the sentance's meaning is "all charaters that receive bonus epic feats for class progression must choose from the list of bonus epic feats in that class's epic level description."

The second sentance would then be a second, independent thought refering to classes with a bonus feat progression and a list of bonus feats. To be specific, if a character gains a level in a class that would normally recieve a feat (i.e. a 22 level fighter, or a Prestige Class with a set feat progression), they could recieve either a normal feat, or an Epic Feat once they progress beyond the listed level progression of the class. For example, if I were progressing the Divine Champion from the FRCS (assuming I could progess in a 5 level Prestige Class), I would gain one Feat every other level. These bonus feats could be taken from the Fighter bonus feat list (as they normally would) or since this is an Epic Progression of the class, they could take epic feats off of the Epic Fighter's bonus feat list.

Again, this is merely one way to read the sentances. The other interpretation is also correct, at least from a perspective of grammar. I would be inclined to agree with Mr. Collins, and the interpretation he gave of what I assume to be his own writing. However, the assertion that Mr. Collins' answer and the FAQ are "changing" the rules is not completely fair: instead, they are clarifying an uncertain point of grammar.

With all that said, Pax, when I first read the ELH, I interpretted the sentance the same way you did.

 

[Tzarevitch]

Rog 5 / Wiz 19 takes another wizard level. He gets a bonus feat, but can this feat be epic or must this be a normal feat?

If it is any consolation, that exact same section of the ELH confused me too. That particular passage is VERY badly written and seems to say the exact opposite of what it means. As has been pointed out in this thread, the ELH was sloppy about the difference between an epic character's level and an epic class' level.

My understanding of what the ELH meant (and what the FAQ was intended to clarify) is that you only get Epic Bonus Feats from an epic CLASS that grants those bonus feats. Wiz 20 grants a bonus feat at that level, but being a non-epic class it cannot not give an epic bonus feat even if you reach it in epic levels.

Tzarevitch