"In Lieu Of" means "instead; in place of; as a substitute for."
It's not in addition, you've got the entire meaning backwards. It does not mean in addition, it does not mean the old thing still applies. It specifically mean it does not apply.
JaronK
I think you misunderstand what I was saying --
the specific text of the second sentence of the "epic feats" paragraph of the Draconomicon says: "Dragons of old age
also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels" (emphasis mine).
I know what "en lieu" means -- within the context of the sentence, the dragon's age (and thus the corresponding racial HD -- look what section of the book it is in) substitutes for those class levels. This should be a no-brainer, given that it has long been established that creatures with 21+ racial HD also qualify for epic feats even if they have no class levels.
If you care to discuss why they made the distinction based on age category, as opposed to HD, then I'm open to that (something I have already thought about).
so, my reference to "also" was to the first part of the sentence; my use of "en lieu" was pertaining to the second part of the sentence.
To the contrary, the way that it is worded indicates that it is an "in addition to" or a "for clarification" situation.
I beg to differ. The Draconomicon on epic feats, page 66:
"These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher. Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels."
Emphasis mine, of course.
The underlined is quite clear.
Incidentally, it doesn't even state True Dragons.
Unless, of course, you can bring out some actual text with a page reference that disputes this.
And I do discount your RaI, it is quite clear to me that it is intended for Dragons to be able to access epic feats based on age, just not that it is intended for such an ability to see play in a 0 LA character race.
first -- FTFY
you're right -- it doesn't specifically state "true" dragons -- but "true" dragons are the only ones that ever have a listed age progression; thus, making any other dragon-types irrelevant to the discussion.
also, it appears that we somewhat agree (at least in part) -- nobody at WotC has ever intended to give 1st-lvl, 0-LA characters access to epic feats (well, at least it's a start
).
However, lets look at the RAI a little closer (as my RAW bit has already been covered; I don't know how else to explain it -- I know what I'm thinking, I'm just not sure in what order to put what words to make it more clear) --
Draconomicon pre-dates RoD by over 2 years -- this is of some importance when trying to see what's going on here:
Draconomicon -- November 2003
- the paragraph in question is in the chapter concerning how a DM should present/run these dragons
- true dragons are the only dragons that have ever been given an age progression
- every single dragon published that has an age progression has
at least 21 HD by time they hit "old" age (at least up until January '06)
RoDrag -- January 2006
- finally, an age progression for kobolds
- introduction of the "dragonwrought" feat -- this is the first time that we have a dragon other than a "true" dragon that has an age progression. this is also the first time that we have a dragon age progression that does not gain HD simply as a function of it's age
So, is it the intent of the dragonwrought feat to give epic feat access to sub-epic characters (as this would be the proper order-of-operations)? I think not. Additionally, the very concept of "dragonwrought" or the concept of the possibility of sub-21 HD "old" dragons did not even exist at the time of Draconomicon's printing.
Anything else seems like teapot-dance-healing reasoning. Now where have I gone wrong?
PS --
Ejo -- you are being inconsistent in how you adjudicate descriptive text. this is reminiscent of our discussion over leadership. (well, there is consistency -- you ignore context when convenient)
edit: corrected grammer