Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 1514460" data-attributes="member: 1757">I use the ELH reasonably extensively in my (started in 1e, continued through 2e, converted to 3e) main campaign, but my philosophy is similar to Piratecat's and Sepulchrave's. Fact is, I tinkered with sub-epic high-level play rules much more than with epic rules when I went through my books with the editor's axe. The potential for abuse given stuff like forcecage, time stop, 3.0 harm, and 3.5 shapechange vastly outstrip any playability issues raised by the ELH (except epic ability buff spells; see below).I quite like the epic rules, generally; the two major turkeys, IMHO, are the epic skill DCs and epic spellcasting, which just annoys me. While I take Sep's point to heart, it's really irritating that pretty much the ONLY effective use of epic spells is to pump your casting stat into the 100s, and that use is really an ABuse.I'm fond of the feats, the PrCs, the EAB and epic save rules, the monsters, and the epic class progressions. I've skipped over everything else, which means that I really could have done without buying the book and just used the relevant SRD sections. But I'm actually fond of the epic rules; they give me a starting tempate for 21+ level play that I'd never have wanted to generate on my lonesome.I've just started a new game (the PCs are now 2nd level) and will be using the epic rules if the PCs ever rise that high. For now, "epic spells" provide a good catch-all for the ancient magical effects scattered around my campaign world, and a few of the NPCs are epic level, with correspondingly neat abilities. I've also dropped some of the (IMHO) weaker epic feats (Armor Skin, Legendary Rider) to feats with the [Legendary] descriptor; these feats can be taken by fighters and a few others with their class bonus feats (only).Tried this when doing the initial conversions, and scrapped it when I realized that the barbarian/ranger's AB at 32nd level was twenty points higher than the rogue's. No good.No, largely because while I don't want the fighter-types to have vastly higher ABs than the second-rank fighters, I do want them to preserve a distinct combat advantage.</blockquote>

Verification