3.5 epic feats early entry

[jdizzlean]

first, can someone clarify what the general req's are for granting access to epic feats?

second, what is the earliest possible level with a rules legal character (no homebrew) that you could potentially qualify for an epic feat (please give examples)

I'm a little shaky on epic feats in general..

[Nifft]

The most legal (RAW and RAI) ways you get Epic feats are: have 21 hit dice worth of class levels, or be a monster in the Epic Level Handbook, or be a True Dragon of age category Old or older.

The most common and lowest-level cheese weasel way to subvert this would be to make a level 1 venerable Dragonwrought Kobold, which is ~arguably~ a True Dragon, and certainly older than old -- and therefore (arguably) qualifies for some Epic feats immediately. Not all, of course: the ones with skill rank gates are generally inaccessible.

[flappeercraft]

Dragonwrought Kobold is the only way I have heard of, a brief search finds nothing other than that.

[Venger]

first, can someone clarify what the general req's are for granting access to epic feats?

second, what is the earliest possible level with a rules legal character (no homebrew) that you could potentially qualify for an epic feat (please give examples)

I'm a little shaky on epic feats in general..

as mentioned, venerable dragonwrought kobold is the preferred way of getting epic feats.

rogue 10 (or any other source of an unrestricted feat without having to meet the prereqs)is also theoretically an option, but I wouldn't try it in actual play

[InvisibleBison]

rogue 10 (or any other source of an unrestricted feat without having to meet the prereqs)is also theoretically an option, but I wouldn't try it in actual play

I don't think these sorts of tricks work even in theory. The requirement that you must be an epic character to take an epic feat isn't a prerequisite, so things that bypass a feat's prerequisites wouldn't bypass it.

[JNAProductions]

I don't think these sorts of tricks work even in theory. The requirement that you must be an epic character to take an epic feat isn't a prerequisite, so things that bypass a feat's prerequisites wouldn't bypass it.

So if it's not a prerequisite... What is it?

[Gruftzwerg]

So if it's not a prerequisite... What is it?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm

Look up "Acquiring Epic Feats".

"Feats" and "Epic Feats" are 2 different things. You need to get an Epic Feat (via HD or classlvl or whatsoever) to be able to select an Epic Feat (or a regular one).

If you just got a regular feat, you don't get access to epic feats. (e.g. you hit character lvl 22 and bring your fighter dip to lvl2. The Fighter feat is just a regular Fighter feat and not an epic Fighter (lvl21+) feat.)

[ExLibrisMortis]

A relatively early way involves the use of the barghest's Feed ability, obtained through Supernatural Transformation + polymorph (you need CL 6, 6 HD, and the outsider type, as well). That's not so much a way to get feats early as it is a way to get lots of RHD, though.

You can also do Improved Psicrystal loops and feat leech, if that works on epic feats.

[Venger]

A relatively early way involves the use of the barghest's Feed ability, obtained through Supernatural Transformation + polymorph (you need CL 6, 6 HD, and the outsider type, as well). That's not so much a way to get feats early as it is a way to get lots of RHD, though.

You can also do Improved Psicrystal loops and feat leech, if that works on epic feats.

yeah, any variation on doing the wight thing, such as dusk giant, will also let you do this.

[Menzath]

I think the point of the "free feat" that certain classes of ACF's get is that it specifically says that you get a feat with the following text

need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them.

And can therefore bypass the whole epic requirement. Most of the classes with this text got errata'd I think, but a few exist.

[zergling.exe]

I think the point of the "free feat" that certain classes of ACF's get is that it specifically says that you get a feat with the following text



And can therefore bypass the whole epic requirement. Most of the classes with this text got errata'd I think, but a few exist.

Except that as mentioned, epic feats are their own category, separate from regular feats. What stops a character from taking Epic Reflexes at level 1 isn't a requirement of 21st level, but requiring an epic feat slot to take it. The only reason old dragons can get around this is that the Draconomicon says that they can take epic feats without needing class levels.

[flappeercraft]

Actually, would a Martial Monk be able to get Epic Feats?

[Menzath]

Actually, would a Martial Monk be able to get Epic Feats?

That depends on wether your DM rules that the [epic] tags on a feat is part of a requirement that can be ignored, like needing a caster level to get [metamagic] feats.

Is it intrinsic and not able to be bypassed, or a requirement/prerequisite that said wording would bypass. It's not defined well enough imo, and most times left up to DM discretion.

[Nifft]

like needing a caster level to get [metamagic] feats.

Just a point of order: there is no such requirement for [Metamagic] feats in 3.5e.

[Menzath]

Just a point of order: there is no such requirement for [Metamagic] feats in 3.5e.

By RAW, no it does not.

But seeing as how in 5/7 of the sub sections it specifies spellcasters I'm highly inclined to argue the validity though.

But as we know RAW can be very dumb. Painfully dumb.
So we have to go by RAI and try to agree on a consensus of what we all think he intention is.

[Bohandas]

The most legal (RAW and RAI) ways you get Epic feats are: have 21 hit dice worth of class levels,

I thought you just needed an ECL of 21 or higher

[Nifft]

I thought you just needed an ECL of 21 or higher

Acquiring Epic Feats

Characters gain epic feats in the following ways:

At 21st level, and every three levels thereafter, the character may select an epic feat in place of a nonepic feat.

Each character class gains bonus epic feats according to the class description. These feats must be selected from the list of bonus epic feats for that class.

Not ECL, but rather level.

[SirNibbles]

Actually, would a Martial Monk be able to get Epic Feats?

Depends on the difference between the Fighter Bonus Feat list and the Epic Fight Bonus Feat list. The latter is only for Epic Fighters.

[Karnith]

Not ECL, but rather level.

Epic character status is actually based on ECL, not level, for monstrous characters, as per DMG p. 209.

This is generally a disadvantage for monster PCs, as they must use epic attack and save bonuses prior to having 20 HD, and won't qualify for a lot of epic feats much before 21 HD anyway.

[Arael666]

The most legal (RAW and RAI) ways you get Epic feats are: have 21 hit dice worth of class levels, or be a monster in the Epic Level Handbook, or be a True Dragon of age category Old or older.

The most common and lowest-level cheese weasel way to subvert this would be to make a level 1 venerable Dragonwrought Kobold, which is ~arguably~ a True Dragon, and certainly older than old -- and therefore (arguably) qualifies for some Epic feats immediately. Not all, of course: the ones with skill rank gates are generally inaccessible.

There's no need to be a true dragon, being a dragon is enough, that's why dragonwrought kobolds of at least old age can select epic feats regardless of the whole "being a true dragon" problem (which they are not)

[zergling.exe]

There's no need to be a true dragon, being a dragon is enough, that's why dragonwrought kobolds of at least old age can select epic feats regardless of the whole "being a true dragon" problem (which they are not)

The thing is, almost 95% of the time Draconomicon is referring to 'True Dragons', but just says 'dragon'. The entire part of chapter 2 before the feat section is talking about True Dragon specific things (crush attacks, bite-claws-wings-tail attack areas, etc.) but is always referring to them as 'dragons'. In context, it's referring to True Dragons yet again. There's even a sidebar that says this:

In the D&D game, the term “dragon” encompasses a number
of different creatures, some of which bear little resemblance to
the great flying creatures with breath weapons that we commonly
think of as dragons.
For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten
varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual—
the five chromatic dragons (black, blue, green, red, white) and
the five metallic dragons (brass, bronze, copper, gold, silver).
True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful
as they grow older.

The book isn't talking about the dragon type for the most part, but True Dragons.

[jdizzlean]

thanks for the info, i was trying to avoid the whole dragonwrought kobold dead horse kicking that has ensued.

[Arael666]

The thing is, almost 95% of the time Draconomicon is referring to 'True Dragons', but just says 'dragon'. The entire part of chapter 2 before the feat section is talking about True Dragon specific things (crush attacks, bite-claws-wings-tail attack areas, etc.) but is always referring to them as 'dragons'. In context, it's referring to True Dragons yet again. There's even a sidebar that says this:
The book isn't talking about the dragon type for the most part, but True Dragons.

While that is true, most of the time that applies to fluff and not crunch, as you can see, when addressing actual game mechanics the book makes a very clear distinction, specially when discussing qualifications for feats/prestige classes/ACF's etc. The draconic knowledge, for example, has the "true dragon" prerequisite, on the other hand endure blows has the "dragon type" prerequisite, this right after the book stated that "Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels" when discussing epic feats.

That being said, I do believe both our arguments are quite solid but I favor RAW in this particular case because I can't really tell what the RAI is.

[zergling.exe]

While that is true, most of the time that applies to fluff and not crunch, as you can see, when addressing actual game mechanics the book makes a very clear distinction, specially when discussing qualifications for feats/prestige classes/ACF's etc. The draconic knowledge, for example, has the "true dragon" prerequisite, on the other hand endure blows has the "dragon type" prerequisite, this right after the book stated that "Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels" when discussing epic feats.

That being said, I do believe both our arguments are quite solid but I favor RAW in this particular case because I can't really tell what the RAI is.

At the time of the printing of the Draconomicon, True Dragons were the only dragons with age categories. From this I can only assume RAI intended it to be True Dragon specific. Though personally I don't like kobold association with dragons (largely due to dragonwrought kobolds) and have removed their reptilian nature in my own games.

[Crake]

At the time of the printing of the Draconomicon, True Dragons were the only dragons with age categories. From this I can only assume RAI intended it to be True Dragon specific. Though personally I don't like kobold association with dragons (largely due to dragonwrought kobolds) and have removed their reptilian nature in my own games.

I cannot think of a single dragon published after the draconomicon that had age categories. Kobolds don't actually count because they aren't actually dragons, despite the fact that you can gain a feat that gives you the dragon type, that doesn't actually change the fact that kobolds themselves aren't dragons, and thus cannot be considered true dragons.

That said, the problem is that the section about age doesn't specify the old age category, it simply says "of at least old age", which means any dragon with even regular age categories (including, say, an old age half dragon human*) would qualify by the strictest of RAW. But lets be honest, that's just a silly interpretation. The strangest part is that most true dragons already qualify for epic feats before old age, simply through virtue of having more than 21 HD, so it's kinda redundant for the most part.

^{*Please note, I do not endorse the use of any kind of early entry for epic feats. Anyone trying this at my table would be laughed at.}

[Remuko]

Epic character status is actually based on ECL, not level, for monstrous characters, as per DMG p. 209.

This is generally a disadvantage for monster PCs, as they must use epic attack and save bonuses prior to having 20 HD, and won't qualify for a lot of epic feats much before 21 HD anyway.

Monsters do not use epic progression until/unless they take a class level though, so I'm 99% sure they do not get hindered by this. But yeah the Paragon Mindflayer in the Epic level handbook took epic feats in place of normal feats despite not having even 10 HD because his ECL makes him epic at low HD.

Also I don't see the big issue with early entry into epic feats. Most of them require stuff you cant get pre 21 HD so what are they gonna do stack epic toughness or something? Its not gonna break the game except maybe at the lowest of op levels so I don't think its so bad.

[Darrin]

Actually, would a Martial Monk be able to get Epic Feats?

I've seen certain people I admire argue that this should be the case.

However, it doesn't really help much. Monk still stinks, even with epic feats.

[Arael666]

Monsters do not use epic progression until/unless they take a class level though, so I'm 99% sure they do not get hindered by this. But yeah the Paragon Mindflayer in the Epic level handbook took epic feats in place of normal feats despite not having even 10 HD because his ECL makes him epic at low HD.

Also I don't see the big issue with early entry into epic feats. Most of them require stuff you cant get pre 21 HD so what are they gonna do stack epic toughness or something? Its not gonna break the game except maybe at the lowest of op levels so I don't think its so bad.

If you're playing E6, access to epic feats is big power up.

[Cosi]

@Epic Feats: There was a discussion of this a while back (I think in one of the tiering threads?). My position is that you totally can take Epic Feats if you qualify for them, because interpreting the language used ("gain") as an exclusive allowance breaks other things that use the same language (or breaks all of RAW if you assume the same words mean different things for no obvious reason). That said, there's roughly a 0% chance it flies at any table, so whatever. For what its worth, (almost) none of the Epic Feats you could take as a non-Epic character would be a problem, so you should just houserule this anyway.

@Rogue Bonus Feats: RAW default is not meeting prerequisites, per MM. Comparing to other classes is a red herring, because both "does need to meet prerequisites" and "doesn't need to meet prerequisites" are spelled out explicitly for at least one class's bonus feats, meaning there is no consistent default. MM rules apply to class bonus feats, as can be observed by the Half-Fiend Cleric's War Domain bonus feat getting the B superscript. The only potentially compelling argument I've seen against this is that when bonus feats do require prerequisites, they don't get the B superscript, but IIRC there was no followup of showing whether Rogue bonus feats do in fact get that superscript.

@Kobolds: RAW, I'm reasonably sure this works. The listed definition of True Dragon is dumb, because it includes all creatures of the Dragon type. Gaining levels happens while you age, so any character that levels up (e.g. all PCs) gains power as they grow older. Thus, any PC with the Dragon type is a True Dragon, and may take Epic Feats if they are at least Old. That said, if you're going to allow it you should just let everyone take Epic Feats to avoid making people jump through hoops, and remove the aging rules because they are dumb and bad.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Epic character status is actually based on ECL, not level, for monstrous characters, as per DMG p. 209.

I think the ELH and Savage Species rules should supersede that, even if they are technically 3.0--they are the primary sources on epic levels and monster characters, after all. That they're also more sensible, being based off of HD/ECL, is a nice bonus. Worth houseruling in any case.