Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 1185560" data-attributes="member: 1757">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?"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.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 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.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.A. In fact, this is the supposedly "utterly untrue" statement that you labeled thus: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.</blockquote>

Verification