Epic Level Feats: I meet the pre-reqs, why can't I take it?
- Thread starter reveal
- Start date
Larry Fitz
First Post
Ok, so I was wrong...
I like the epic level feats not having a huge string of prerequisites that pre-deternmine how you have to spend a sizable chunk of your feats. It allows for story driven characters as opposed to brutally efficient character creation at the expense of the story. It also allows for variety. I think a Halfling Outrider who reaches epic levels and spends the appropriate feats should be able to take this feat (and then go kitty hunting....) the level restriction is better than creating a feat where if you do not follow a prescribed character path you can never reasonably achieve this ability. You want to be a Wizard with a few levels in Arcane Archer and get Swarm of Arrows? Cool. But consider this, do you want to meet a 12th level NPc with that feat while you're 8th or 9th level? Would that feat in the NPC's hands be fair at your level?
I like the epic level feats not having a huge string of prerequisites that pre-deternmine how you have to spend a sizable chunk of your feats. It allows for story driven characters as opposed to brutally efficient character creation at the expense of the story. It also allows for variety. I think a Halfling Outrider who reaches epic levels and spends the appropriate feats should be able to take this feat (and then go kitty hunting....) the level restriction is better than creating a feat where if you do not follow a prescribed character path you can never reasonably achieve this ability. You want to be a Wizard with a few levels in Arcane Archer and get Swarm of Arrows? Cool. But consider this, do you want to meet a 12th level NPc with that feat while you're 8th or 9th level? Would that feat in the NPC's hands be fair at your level?
Trainz@work
First Post
The official ruling, IIRC, is that if you loose the stat boosting item that barely lets you have a certain feat, your feat is INACTIVE until your stat comes back to the feat prereq. . You don't loose it, you just can't use it. Big diff.
Enceladus
First Post
reveal said:
If I showed the rest of my sheet, you'd probably think I WAS a munchkin. Combine a simple 3d6 6 times and luck beyond belief and you get the following rolls: 16, 15, 15, 14, 14, 13. I've never had that kind of luck with rolling stats and I probably never will again.
This was a foregone conclusion deducted from the title of the thread. No going back now.
Let us know what your DM decides!
Squire James
Explorer
The stat prereq question is a grey area not answered by the books, so each individual DM could go either way. Those who think "official" is important can ask the Sage or others who wrote the material for their answers. If I remember correctly, the Sage's answer was that magically-enhanced stats CAN be used, but the character loses the benefits of the feat or PrC if he loses the item (or some poison reduces the stat below the minimum).
Personally, I use "natural" ability scores for prerequisite purposes, so temporary increases and reductions do not change the situation. This has the benefit that someone can still Power Attack if his Str gets reduced to 10 by a roper, for instance.
Wizard 17/Sorcerer 1/Cleric 1/Rogue 1 has a BAB of +8. So it is possible to not meet that prereq, though I agreee it's unlikely. My guess is that the feat was originally intended to be non-epic, but somebody changed their mind later.
Personally, I use "natural" ability scores for prerequisite purposes, so temporary increases and reductions do not change the situation. This has the benefit that someone can still Power Attack if his Str gets reduced to 10 by a roper, for instance.
Wizard 17/Sorcerer 1/Cleric 1/Rogue 1 has a BAB of +8. So it is possible to not meet that prereq, though I agreee it's unlikely. My guess is that the feat was originally intended to be non-epic, but somebody changed their mind later.
The point remains that simply giving something a requirement of level 21+ is a crappy design decision.
Instead of relying on game mechanics, and prerequisites that reflect your ability in some area (BAB, skill ranks, even base save values...), it's just a completely arbitrary division that highlights how badly the Epic rules integrate into the existing system. It makes absolutely no sense for a 30th level Wizard to be more eligible to be an Epic archer than a 20th level Fighter, because the fighter doesn't have an official "Epic" label with hologram security features.
Bottom line, don't make Epic feats with requirements 9th level characters can meet.
Instead of relying on game mechanics, and prerequisites that reflect your ability in some area (BAB, skill ranks, even base save values...), it's just a completely arbitrary division that highlights how badly the Epic rules integrate into the existing system. It makes absolutely no sense for a 30th level Wizard to be more eligible to be an Epic archer than a 20th level Fighter, because the fighter doesn't have an official "Epic" label with hologram security features.
Bottom line, don't make Epic feats with requirements 9th level characters can meet.
drnuncheon
Explorer
Piratecat said:
Well, assuming you allow inherent bonuses (which is fine by me, they're inherent after all), it seemed like everyone was in favor of dropping the requirements by about 6 points - but never to lower than 19.
Of course, that would vary with the campaign. With our current Planescape crowd, the stats are pretty sick, while in Freeport, I'll have to lower them if I expect either of the PCs to get anywhere near some of them.
On another note, I figured out 'why a BAB 9+ for an epic feat?' See, standard WOTC practice is, when printing prerequisites for a feat, to print all prerequisites for the entire chain leading up to that feat. So BAB +9 crept in - I'm assunign the feat in quesiton is Two-Weapon Rend, BTW - because BAB +9 is a prerequisite for Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. It's not a case of not thinking things through, it's a case of following the standards.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
