Epic Questions

[Urbannen]

Except, of course, that the ELH arguably has been prospectively overruled in 3.5.

Now, the fact that the FAQ references p.25 of the ELH makes it somewhat suspect. Still, reasonable minds can differ. Urbannen will probably be along to cite an e-mail from WotC custserv to the effect that only HD + class levels count for purposes of determining when a monster becomes "epic."

You are right to say that the FAQ's reference to p.25 makes it suspect. Rather than say that p. 25 is incorrect, Skip Williams references it even though he is contradicting it. Also the e-mail I received from WotC customer service wouldn't actually admit that the 3.5 DMG section on monsters as epic level characters was wrong, even though Darrin's (the customer service person)ruling contradicted it on that point.

In short, I don't think everyone at WotC agrees or sees a need to agree on this issue. In theory one of the goals of the new monster mechanics was to unify the character and monster creation processes. However, apparently monsters in the 3.5 MM don't follow the epic rule once they go over 20 HD. (Haven't checked personally.)

Considering how hard it is to get decent ACs at high levels, I don't see why a 40 HD dragon would be irreperably harmed by having a 30 BAB rather than a 40 BAB.

 

[Pax]

Except, of course, that the ELH arguably has been prospectively overruled in 3.5. According to the 3.5 FAQ, p.2:

Except, then, the FAQ contradicts itself. After all, the first rule in the 3.5 Main FAQ is the very rule about "primary sources". And by that ruling, the ELH is the primary source.

Since your quote declines to claim it is correcting or updating the referenced sidebar text, therefor, the ELH text in question stands as written, and remains the primary source.

Now, the fact that the FAQ references p.25 of the ELH makes it somewhat suspect.

More than suspect, it renders the FAQ entry, in my mind at least, utterly bankrupt of any rules value.

In any case:
1. Where the rules say "level," unless otherwise specified, they generally mean "class level" rather than "character level." (This is a general rule, not merely confined to discussions of epic levels.)

In the discussion of characters as relevant to Epic status, however, the ELH further refines "level" in terms of gained feats an similar non-class-specific benefits to mean total hit dice (a definition shared, by the by, with Savage Species). So, in this case, the Primary Source ruling seems again to apply, and again, fully in favor of the ELH "rules as written".

2. EAB and epic save bonuses apply from character level 21 onward. Epic bonus feats and other "epic" class features apply from class level 21 onwards.

Utterly untrue. Fighter(11)/Wizard(10) ... epic character, eligible for an Epic feat for their 21st character level feat choice. ELH as primary source, again.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Utterly untrue. Fighter(11)/Wizard(10) ... epic character, eligible for an Epic feat for their 21st character level feat choice. ELH as primary source, again.

Yep. Its TOTAL CHARACTER LEVEL that makes you epic...not just class level. Of course...then we get into Bonus Fighter Feats and its an unsolvable argument again.

 

[Li Shenron]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. EAB and epic save bonuses apply from character level 21 onward. Epic bonus feats and other "epic" class features apply from class level 21 onwards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Utterly untrue. Fighter(11)/Wizard(10) ... epic character, eligible for an Epic feat for their 21st character level feat choice. ELH as primary source, again.

He is talking about epic BONUS feats (from epic progression of the class), not feats every 3 levels for which he would be eligible for epic ones according to character level.

 

[Pax]

He is talking about epic BONUS feats (from epic progression of the class), not feats every 3 levels for which he would be eligible for epic ones according to character level.

I beg to differ.

ELH page 8, key text in red:

Whenever an Epic character is allowed to pick up a feat as part of character level advancement, he can choose either a nonepic feat or an epic feat (see Table 1-2: Experience and Level-Dependant Benefits). All class descriptions provide a list of bonus feats a character must choose from. When you have to choose from a list of bonus feats in yoru second class, you can also choose from the bonus epic feats described for each specific class below.

That's from the rules on adding a second class ... IOW, if you're a Wizard(15)/Elemental Savant(10), and you decide to add some Fighter levels ... your Fighter(1) bonus feat can be taken from the bonus Epic feat list for the Epic Fighter.

Yes, a few designers have indicated otherwise ... but there's no correction in the FAQ or in the ELH errata, to my knowledge. So ... the Primary Source rule means the actual text of the ELH trumps even the designers' comments!

 

[hong]

I beg to differ.

ELH page 8, key text in red:

...

That's from the rules on adding a second class ... IOW, if you're a Wizard(15)/Elemental Savant(10), and you decide to add some Fighter levels ... your Fighter(1) bonus feat can be taken from the bonus Epic feat list for the Epic Fighter.

Yes, a few designers have indicated otherwise ... but there's no correction in the FAQ or in the ELH errata, to my knowledge. So ... the Primary Source rule means the actual text of the ELH trumps even the designers' comments!

Pax,

Please stop stealing my schtick.

ThaADVANCEnks!

 

[WizarDru]

Pax,

Please stop stealing my wanger.

There, that's better.

This whole thread once again proving that WotC's design team has never been and never will be of a single mind about the D&D ruleset.

 

[hong]

*beats wizardru with a schtick*


Hong "but not a wanger" Ooi

 

[Urbannen]

Back on topic...

Have you ever noticed that the ELH contradicts itself? It's not exactly a finely tuned work of game design. If you want to say that the ELH is the "primary" source, that's fine, but you'll have to do some intepreting to decide which parts you think are primary.

 

[Thresher]

Back on topic...

Have you ever noticed that the ELH contradicts itself? It's not exactly a finely tuned work of game design. If you want to say that the ELH is the "primary" source, that's fine, but you'll have to do some intepreting to decide which parts you think are primary.

I think its been known to do it on a number of occassions, also like Ive been also on occassion to call it a 'steaming pile of excrement', 'work of 1000 bastard maniacs' and when something really neat, (like epic spellcasting) gets borked beyond belief, 'more greif than a teenage NIN fan'.

But there is no real set proceedure to interpreting these types of rules, sure you can read the first lot of rules laid down and take it for what it is, then you can go read what some other hand has penned as an addendum and take that with a pinch of salt.
Because folks its friggen obvious that one hand isnt looking at the other hand, while the first hand was typing one handed and thinking of naked elf chicks or something and the editorial department consists of 5 monkeys and a typewriter.

But ya get that, theyre only human...

So we do what every other gamer who's dedicated to playing without too much greif, tears, lamentations, hair pulling and tantrums. You "House rule it", now I know a lot of you dont like thinking outside the square orc and trying to put him in the round hole, I just dont like thinking if I can help it because I do that for a living and this sounds too much like work, 'cept theres no flashing lights...

Anyone got any ideas to make monster/races creation and advancement similar to making up a PC to help this fella out?
(That dosnt involve a bitch fest over who wrote what, because its bloody obvious that the writer(s) dont know either.)