Ripping apart the ELH...

[kreynolds]

Kreynolds, you seem to misunderstand.

Not at all. I understood you perfectly clear.

I'm saying that if your BAB is +20 and will never, ever get better (as in the Epic rules), IM won't give more than attacks.

The Improved Manyshot feat does not give you extra attacks at all. It gives you extra arrows with a single standard attack action. One attack, buttload of arrows.

When qualifying for feats, your epic attacks bonus and base attack bonus are added together, and I believe that also applies in regards to Improved Manyshot to determine how many extra arrows you get with your single attack. Like I said, it's obvious that the intent of the feat is to continue to improve as your attack bonus increases, without any kind of limit as to how many arrows you can fire. If it is not, the feat is worthless.

 

[CRGreathouse]

When qualifying for feats, your epic attacks bonus and base attack bonus are added together, and I believe that also applies in regards to Improved Manyshot to determine how many extra arrows you get with your single attack. Like I said, it's obvious that the intent of the feat is to continue to improve as your attack bonus increases, without any kind of limit as to how many arrows you can fire. If it is not, the feat is worthless.

My contention is not that the feat is worthless, but that the feat needs errata - hence the existance of this thread. The feat's intent is different from its wording.

 

[kreynolds]

My contention is not that the feat is worthless, but that the feat needs errata

I don't think it does. It seems pretty clear to me. That's all I was pointing out. I figured, better to point it out now before everyone gets all fired up about getting errata for something that doesn't need errata.

hence the existance of this thread.

I'm well aware of the purpose of this thread, so there's no need to patronize. My "contention" is that the feat doesn't belong on this thread, as I don't think it needs errata.

The feat's intent is different from its wording.

Like I said, I don't see anything wrong with the feat. The very beginning of the book details adding together your BAB and EAB when it concerns feats. If anything needs errata, that part does.

I'm not calling anybody an idiot for thinking it needs errata, I just don't think it needs it. That's all.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Like I said, I don't see anything wrong with the feat. The very beginning of the book details adding together your BAB and EAB when it concerns feats. If anything needs errata, that part does.

It says to add them togther for the purpose of qualifying for feats.

I'm well aware of the purpose of this thread, so there's no need to patronize.

I'm sorry if it seemed I was patronizing you. I find that in threads with extended discussions, posters often forget the original purpose of the thread.

 

[kreynolds]

It says to add them togther for the purpose of qualifying for feats.

Uhh...yeah. I know. That's why it needs errata. Qualifying for feats is not the only time you add them together.

I'm sorry if it seemed I was patronizing you. I find that in threads with extended discussions, posters often forget the original purpose of the thread.

I understand.

 

[Leopold]

anything new to report?

 

[kreynolds]

anything new to report?

The West Wing got 21 Emmy nominations.

 

[Crothian]

The West Wing got 21 Emmy nominations.

It's a good show, and I like to see shows I like do wel.

However, I hadn't located any new errors in the ELH. I think they did a pretty good job on it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

However, I hadn't located any new errors in the ELH. I think they did a pretty good job on it.

I do too. I'll send in the errors I have soon - Wednesday or Thursday.

 

[DeBhaal]

Table 2-3: Epic Spell Mitigating Factors [edit]page-91[/edit]
The exponent for Backlash is (^2) where as it should be (^1)