Epic Questions

[WizarDru]

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...

First lesson about Epic Levels: It's all intepertetive.

Seriously. The powers that Epic level players wield is truly terrifying, on some levels, and can easily be likened to epic myths as much as standard gameplay. I have a 21st level cleric in my game who can turn 38 HD undead, and 24 HD outsiders, for example. The wizard is throwing down shapeable maximized, empowered sonic delayed-blast fireballs...during a Time Stop, he may drop two or three of them. The Druid can summon a small army of beings, including a small host of Shamblers and elementals. The rogues doesn't need invisiblity, as her hide check climbs into the high 60s and beyond and becomes more reliable than invisibility. The paladin can smite evil Outsiders into the stone age, if they make the mistake of crossing his path. The arcane archer can thread a needle at a 1000' feet, 5 times a round, and add elemental damage on top of it. This isn't even counting their cohorts, companions and the rest.

And they're only 21st level.

Now, originally there was a great deal of argument over the Epic Feats issue, and the true definition of 'epic'. The original interpetation of it was that a character at 21st level was an Epic character, but a multiclassed character was not an Epic XXX. For example, a FTR 21 is an Epic Fighter, as well as an Epic character, while a FTR18/WIZ3 is an Epic character ONLY. This was signficant mostly because the original interpetation was that Epic Bonus Feats were only available to characters when they were Epic within their class...so that a FTR 21 would get an Epic Fighter Bonus Feat (or 22, whichever), while a similar multiclassed character could only take a feat from the normal fighter list, until his fighter levels were Epic, in which case he could then choose from the Epic Fighter bonus list.

That, however, wasn't terribly fun, IMHO...especially given that I don't see Epic levels as fun without them, and more difficult to sustain over the long-haul. YMMV.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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!

I wasn't referring to non-epic class bonus feats "turning" epic, but fine. The book does say this, but both Andy and Bruce have said that the p.8 text is INCORRECT. You can stand on your high horse and trumpet the "primary source rule" as much as you like, but interpreting the p.8 text to mean that bonus feats from non-epic class levels can be used to acquire epic bonus feats is nonsense and you know it. I have no idea why the designers haven't bothered to issue an erratum on the matter, but that doesn't change the fact that both of them think the p.8 text is erroneous, and given the fact that it creates serious logical problems with regard to multiclass character advancement, I'd say it needs to be interpreted according to the designers' intent.

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.

The FAQ does NOT "decline to claim it is correcting or updating the referenced sidebar text." It says the following:

A monster becomes an epic-level character when its
character level hits 21, just like any other character. A
monster’s character level is equal to its racial Hit Dice + class
levels.

A creature’s ECL has no effect on when it becomes an epic
character, although once it becomes an epic character, its ECL
continues to affect how much experience it earns and when it
can add a new level.

That is a ruling that directly contradicts, and as such corrects, the ELH p.25 text. Moreover, the fact that the FAQ ruling cites p.25 does NOT render it "utterly bankrupt," because the p.25 text doesn't really give much credence to ECL's effect on "epic" status. While it does say that ECL counts "in any other place in [the ELH]" that refers to epic levels, the only real effect this has is to allow characters of ECL 21+ to choose epic feats with their character level feats (e.g., a svirfneblin Rog18 could take an epic feat with his CL 18/ECL 21 feat).

In summary: The issue isn't as cut-and-dried as you seem to think, Pax. Nor are any of my points as "utterly untrue" as you seem to be claiming, for no rhetorical reason I can understand.

Oh well...

 

[Pax]

I wasn't referring to non-epic class bonus feats "turning" epic, but fine. The book does say this, but both Andy and Bruce have said that the p.8 text is INCORRECT. You can stand on your high horse and trumpet the "primary source rule" as much as you like, but interpreting the p.8 text to mean that bonus feats from non-epic class levels can be used to acquire epic bonus feats is nonsense and you know it. I have no idea why the designers haven't bothered to issue an erratum on the matter, but that doesn't change the fact that both of them think the p.8 text is erroneous, and given the fact that it creates serious logical problems with regard to multiclass character advancement, I'd say it needs to be interpreted according to the designers' intent.

Thats funny, because the last time this issue came up, it was pointed out that Bruce supported the text-as-written, while Andy opposed it.

As far as interpretation: FFS, man, I read it literally and in context. What "interpretation" is there to DO, unless one is trying to avoid a conclusion one simply doesn't like ... ?

The FAQ does NOT "decline to claim it is correcting or updating the referenced sidebar text." It says the following:

That is a ruling that directly contradicts, and as such corrects, the ELH p.25 text.

Contradict != correct. The FAQ not only gives that answer, it speaks as if the rule it refers to agrees with it; it speaks as if it were supporting that rule.

Thus, it is bankrupt: if you'e going to contradict a rule in the FAQ, then for god's sake, don't support the RAW with the very, exact same statement.

Moreover, the fact that the FAQ ruling cites p.25 does NOT render it "utterly bankrupt," because the p.25 text doesn't really give much credence to ECL's effect on "epic" status. While it does say that ECL counts "in any other place in [the ELH]" that refers to epic levels, the only real effect this has is to allow characters of ECL 21+ to choose epic feats with their character level feats (e.g., a svirfneblin Rog18 could take an epic feat with his CL 18/ECL 21 feat).

The point here is, wether or not you can choose an epic feat relies solely on the answer to the question "are you an epic character". The ELH sidebar says "when your ECL is 21 or higher, you are an epic character"; the FAQ says "you are an epic character only when your character level is 21 or higher, no matter how high or low your ECL may be". The two are oppoites, yet the FAQ states it's version of affairs in reference to the ELH. Thus, Primary Source definitely comes into effect.

In summary: The issue isn't as cut-and-dried as you seem to think, Pax. Nor are any of my points as "utterly untrue" as you seem to be claiming, for no rhetorical reason I can understand.

The issue is cut-and-dried, if you take off the blinkers and read the RAW in a literal fashion, instead of trying to read as many extra limitations in as you possibly can.

And the (few) places I've said somethign was completely untrue, they have been. It's not been rhetoric, it's been plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face truth.

 

[Urbannen]

Be careful. If you follow the sidebar on p. 25 literally, then you have opened a can of worms. The sidebar doesn't say that once a character has an epic ECL, it can choose epic feats for the feats it gets for its character level. It says that once it hits epic ECL, you can subsitute its ECL for its character level in every instance except when determining BAB and saving throw bonuses.

If you'll notice, the charts and text in the ELH don't say that at 21st level, you become eligible for epic level feats. They say that at 21st level, you receive a feat, and that feat may be epic. The charts in the ELH also say that at 21st level, your maximum class skill rank is 24. According to a literal reading of the p. 25 sidebar, that means a character with a +2 LA will get a feat at 18th character level (ECL 20) and another at 19th character level (ECL 21). His max class skill ranks will jump from 21 at character level 18 to 24 at character level 19.

The sidebar on p. 25 is not well-thought out nor well-written. The FAQ corrects it and brings it in line with the later Savage Species. Why Skip Williams refers to p. 25 as an example while at the same time invalidating it, we will probably never know. I imagine it's because he didn't actually read it closely, he was using Savage Species as his source, and he just assumed that the sidebar said the same thing as SS.

 

[WizarDru]

Why Skip Williams refers to p. 25 as an example while at the same time invalidating it, we will probably never know. I imagine it's because he didn't actually read it closely, he was using Savage Species as his source, and he just assumed that the sidebar said the same thing as SS.

I think Skip's a swell guy, and I appreciate his attempts to answer questions...but I no longer consider anything the sage has to say on the matter as anything more than a qualified opinion. He often contradicts himself, and his answers are often 'off the cuff', and not always terribly well thought out. Add into this fact the issue that most of the designers fail to agree on certain points of the system, and you see the issue. "Bruce said this" versus "Andy intended this..." versus "Well, MONTE said this..." all prove this point. They each see the system working differently, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if you're looking for an "official" answer, then I think the stated heirarchy is newer releases over old (T&B overrules PHB, Savage Species overrules ELH) and FAQ over all (unless it hasn't been updated lately, or support says otherwise, or it's a rainy wednesday in late October).

 

[ruleslawyer]

Thats funny, because the last time this issue came up, it was pointed out that Bruce supported the text-as-written, while Andy opposed it.

As far as interpretation: FFS, man, I read it literally and in context. What "interpretation" is there to DO, unless one is trying to avoid a conclusion one simply doesn't like ... ?

That's untrue. The last online chat with Bruce and Andy had BOTH of them opposing the p.8 text. Also, please refrain from using masked profanity.

In any case, if you'll reread my post instead of getting so excited, you'll see that I was trying to explain to The Spectrum Rider that in general, where the rules say "level," they refer to class level, not character level. I don't actually care about the p.8 issue, although I do think that the wording regarding using bonus feats from nonepic class levels is a big mistake, since a) Andy thinks so as well AND b) more importantly, if you play with that rule, it gives rise to the following two absurd scenarios:

1) The epic-level fighter (Ftr21+) gains FEWER epic bonus fighter feats (which, incidentally, are the fighter's ONLY class ability) than a member of any other class or classes who takes his 1st level of fighter after 20th level.

2) A character such as a Ftr20/Bbn20 gains 0 epic bonus fighter feats AND no epic barbarian bonus feats, whereas a Bbn20/Ftr20, who arguably should be a comparably effective melee combatant, gains 11 fighter bonus feats and precisely the same range of barbarian abilities, plus has the ability to choose epic barbarian-applicable feats (chaotic rage, etc.) earlier.

Incidentally, "read[ing text] literally" is one method of interpretation among others, last I checked. In any case, I don't think, however, that reading the text in context automatically supports your conclusion, because the text isn't well-written. For example, what is this sentence supposed to mean, "in context?"

From the ELH, p.8:
All class descriptions provide a list of bonus feats that characters must choose from.

Contradict != correct. The FAQ not only gives that answer, it speaks as if the rule it refers to agrees with it; it speaks as if it were supporting that rule.

Actually, when a later source contradicts an earlier source, that is correction. Speaking as a litigator, I can tell you that while legislators and promulgators of regulations usually do spell out the fact that new laws and rules prospectively overrule old ones, they do sometimes leave out such wording, and judges will still understand that newer law that contradicts older law is a "correction" (a.k.a. "amendment") of older law.

As for "agreeing with": The FAQ cites ELH p.25 only in order to support the statement that "[a] monster's character level is equal to its racial Hit Dice + class levels." The FAQ's separate, and original, statement that a creature's ECL has no effect on when it becomes epic level is in a separate paragraph that is clearly and grammatically not subject to the earlier citation to ELH p.25.

Thus, it is bankrupt: if you'e going to contradict a rule in the FAQ, then for god's sake, don't support the RAW with the very, exact same statement.

Again, I agree that the FAQ shouldn't refer to p.25 at all (it's why I called the FAQ "problematic," AND why I think it doesn't actually resolve the issue), but again, the FAQ does not actively support the interpretation of ECL given on p.25. It cites ELH p.25 only to the effect of backing up its assertion that character level = class level + racial HD. Here, the FAQ is in agreement with the ELH, notably the first two paragraphs of the p.25 sidebar.

The point here is, wether or not you can choose an epic feat relies solely on the answer to the question "are you an epic character". The ELH sidebar says "when your ECL is 21 or higher, you are an epic character"; the FAQ says "you are an epic character only when your character level is 21 or higher, no matter how high or low your ECL may be". The two are oppoites, yet the FAQ states it's version of affairs in reference to the ELH. Thus, Primary Source definitely comes into effect.

The statement in the FAQ that "A creature’s ECL has no effect on when it becomes an epic character" is NOT made in conjunction with the citation to the ELH, and as such directly contradicts the ELH text, thereby prospectively overruling it.

Reread the sidebar. The ELH refers to character level in TWO contexts: First, as charactrer level (HD + class levels), which applies in the first two paragraphs of the sidebar dealing with Table 1-1, and second, as ECL, which applies "n any other place in [the ELH] where "character level" is indicated." The FAQ, while badly worded, quite conceivably supports the characterization of "level" in the first context, while contradicting the characterization of "level" in the second context. As such, it is quite arguably a correction of the ELH p.25 sidebar text.

The issue is cut-and-dried, if you take off the blinkers and read the RAW in a literal fashion, instead of trying to read as many extra limitations in as you possibly can.

I'm hardly reading in extra limitations. The issue is NOT cut-and-dried, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to "read the RAW in a literal fashion" in this context. You yourself admit that diffferent rules sources are contradicting each other in this context; a literal reading is thus hardly possible.

And the (few) places I've said somethign was completely untrue, they have been. It's not been rhetoric, it's been plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face truth.

A. In fact, this is the supposedly "utterly untrue" statement that you labeled thus:

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.

If you had actually READ my statement, you would see that, in fact, it is PRECISELY correct according to the rules. You blast it as "utterly untrue" without actually addressing it. The fact that you can choose epic feats as your character level feats from 21st character level onwards has NOTHING to do with the fact that EAB and epic save progressions are based on character level, whereas epic bonus feats (read carefully, Pax!) and epic class features apply only from class level 21.

B. As my above post hopefully demonstrates, it is not "plain-as-the-nose-on-your face" how ECL and epic levels interact. In fact, I think WizardDru has set forth the wisest way to deal with the ELH: Subjectively and with an eye to balanced, satisfying play.

 

[jasamcarl]

I think its pretty obvious that they are heading to epic class abilities (i.e. feats, epic bab/saves) begin at a 20+ class levels while everything else (the xp/level chart and treasure) follows the epic pattern assuming an ECL of 20+. The latest FAQ points to this pretty clearly, even if the citation is off (which is much easier to make a mistake on than a pretty comprehensive/consistent explanation in the text itself).

Now, from what i've heard about the feedback others have been getting, Andy Collins is pushing for this change from the ELH/DMG 3.5 text in the forthcoming erreta for those books.