Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tellerian Hawke" data-source="post: 6548365" data-attributes="member: 6790669">A Revelation (of sorts)...The thought occurred to me yesterday: how does 3.5 handle epic levels?I have been talking to people on my Facebook D&D group about 3.5 edition. One guy said that 3.5 ed had no Epic Level Handbook; he said that 3.5 did not address epic progression at all.This is the same guy who claims that a 50th level character should be able to auto-hit AC 90 all day long. (We were discussing how one of the high level NPCs in my epic game seemed "weak" for his level. And that floored me!)But then, the thought hit me: If 3.5 doesn't have specific epic rules, but on the other hand doesn't imply any restrictions on level attainment, how would one figure out the progression?This morning, I did a little experiment. I assumed that I was a 40th level Fighter. Straight, no prestige classes, just plain-jane-ordinary Fighter.If you're not looking at Epic Rules (i.e., if you're not using the Epic Level Handbook) then a 40th level Fighter has a Base Attack of +40.By the ELH rules, that same Fighter would progress as a Fighter to 20th level (+20 Base) but as an "Epic Character" past that point, which would give him a Base Attack of +30 at 40th level!There's the missing 10 points right there.And you know, I am all for slowed progressions for the sake of maintaining some semblance of balance, but I don't think that monsters follow that same rule!The bigger monsters (Outsiders, Dragons, etc.) all follow +1 per Hit Die progressions. A 40HD monster has a Base Attack of +40. Period.Therefore, I think what is called for (in this one, specific area) is for the monsters to have the same progression as characters. If a 40 HD monster had a +30 Base Attack, the same as the 40th level Fighter, we'd be back on even terms again.Thoughts?</blockquote>

Verification