Qualifying for Epic Feats

[Hogsy]

How does one exactly qualify for Epic feats? Let's say I am a rogue, and I have managed by level 10 to have 8d6 SA (With or without magical items), Can I take Lingering Damage as my 11th level feat for example?


[Epic]

Your sneak attacks continue to deal damage even after you strike.
Prerequisite
Sneak attack +8d6, crippling strike class feature,
Benefit
Any time you deal damage with a sneak attack, that target takes damage equal to your sneak attack bonus damage on your next turn as well.


Or if I'm a Druid who can already wildshape into Huge animals, can I take Gargantuan Wild Shape before I am considered an Epic character?

[Epic, Wild]

You can wild shape into animals of Gargantuan size.
Prerequisite
Ability to wild shape into a Huge animal,
Benefit
You can use your wild shape to take the shape of a Gargantuan animal.
Normal
Without this feat, you cannot wild shape into an animal greater than Huge size.

[GilesTheCleric]

Just like regular feats, epic feats are chosen rather than bought with points. 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.

No, unless you negate the 21st level part via being a true dragon (see Drac).

[Inevitability]

You could also take Skill Focus (Diplomacy), then take a level in marshal. Because you already have the bonus feat it'd grant you, you can 'choose a different one'. It's still a bonus feat, though, and therefore bypasses the restriction [Epic] feats normally have.

[DarkSoul]

No, unless you negate the 21st level part via being a true dragon (see Drac).To expand on this, true dragons of "Old" age category or higher can take epic feats even with no class levels.

[Hogsy]

You could also take Skill Focus (Diplomacy), then take a level in marshal. Because you already have the bonus feat it'd grant you, you can 'choose a different one'. It's still a bonus feat, though, and therefore bypasses the restriction [Epic] feats normally have.

What are the chances that my DM is going to hit me with a DMG?

[Zaq]

At noted, by RAW, you must be level 21 to take [Epic] feats, regardless of which other prereqs you meet.

That said, many [Epic] feats (particularly the ones that don't deal with magic) are actually kind of underpowered, or at least they aren't so powerful that it would cause serious balance issues to allow characters who meet the other prereqs to take them. It's certainly worth having the conversation with your GM. Don't be shocked if your GM says no, but honestly, there's plenty of [Epic] feats that just aren't that good. (Some, of course, are very good, and it's best to keep those out of reach of non-Epic characters, but there's plenty that aren't.)

[Inevitability]

What are the chances that my DM is going to hit me with a DMG?

Assuming you're unarmored and of average dexterity, your AC should be 10.

Similarly, your DM should have a +0 attack bonus, unless they're exceptionally strong, very small, or specialized in hitting people with books.

Also, a DMG is pretty clearly an improvised weapon, so that's a -4 penalty right there.

All this considered means your DM is trying to hit 10 AC with -4 to his attack rolls, so the chances are about 35%.

[DarkSoul]

What are the chances that my DM is going to hit me with a DMG?About 50/50. He might just laugh at you instead.

[Zanos]

You could also take Skill Focus (Diplomacy), then take a level in marshal. Because you already have the bonus feat it'd grant you, you can 'choose a different one'. It's still a bonus feat, though, and therefore bypasses the restriction [Epic] feats normally have.
By this logic, a wizard can take epic metamagic and item creation feats with their bonus feats. The rules of choosing a feat and feat prerequisites are not incompatible or contradictory, so you still have to abide by all relevant statements.

[Troacctid]

To expand on this, true dragons of "Old" age category or higher can take epic feats even with no class levels.
Correction, any creature of the dragon type, not just true dragons.

[Necroticplague]

By this logic, a wizard can take epic metamagic and item creation feats with their bonus feats. The rules of choosing a feat and feat prerequisites are not incompatible or contradictory, so you still have to abide by all relevant statements.

A Wizard's bonus feat specifies that you must meet all the prerequisites. A Marshall's doesn't. Bonus feats generally don't require you to meet the prerequisites.

[Zanos]

A Wizard's bonus feat specifies that you must meet all the prerequisites. A Marshall's doesn't. Bonus feats generally don't require you to meet the prerequisites.
Meeting the prerequisites for feats is also a general rule, and the marshal feat does not contain any text that allows you to ignore it.

Bonus feats that you can select are generally a mixed bag of meeting the prerequisites or not. Fighters must, monks do not. But in the absence of specification, you must meet the prerequisites for feats that you select.

[AmericanCheese]

What are the chances that my DM is going to hit me with a DMG?

If you're qualifying for Epic Feats in any manner at all before you're actually Epic, I think there's pretty much a 95% chance of that happening at all

[elonin]

Surprised no mention of Dragonwrought Kobold shenanigans. It strikes me as odd that the consensus seems to approve of bypassing requirements just because the sourcebook doesn't state you must meet all of the requirements. Just because another book states in explicit manner that you must.

On the other hand do all of the feats in the epic handbook state the minimum level requirement? For example while all of the feats in Libris Mortis are undead focused some of those can be taken by people who are not in that group.

I'm also wondering how strict, by raw, other aspects of epic play are within raw. For example I've had gm's in the past state that if a character can make the epic skill checks that's ok. I've seen rules that suggest otherwise unless i've misunderstood things.

[Necroticplague]

Meeting the prerequisites for feats is also a general rule, and the marshal feat does not contain any text that allows you to ignore it.

Bonus feats that you can select are generally a mixed bag of meeting the prerequisites or not. Fighters must, monks do not. But in the absence of specification, you must meet the prerequisites for feats that you select.

Source of the bolded? I know it's the general rule for feats, but bonus feats have specific text that says they don't.

Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat......A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites.

[Tvtyrant]

Assuming you're unarmored and of average dexterity, your AC should be 10.

Similarly, your DM should have a +0 attack bonus, unless they're exceptionally strong, very small, or specialized in hitting people with books.

Also, a DMG is pretty clearly an improvised weapon, so that's a -4 penalty right there.

All this considered means your DM is trying to hit 10 AC with -4 to his attack rolls, so the chances are about 35%.

You are forgetting the DM has a +4 circumstance bonus to hit from pure disgust.

[Zanos]

Source of the bolded? I know it's the general rule for feats, but bonus feats have specific text that says they don't.
That text refers specifically to superscript B racial bonus feats. Bonus feats from class levels are not listed in this manner in statblocks.

But this is an old argument anyway. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?421607-Bonus-Feats-amp-Prerequisites)

[Gruftzwerg]

I know it's the general rule for feats, but bonus feats have specific text that says they don't.

Bonus feats can have (!) text, that excludes the requirements. But it isn't a general rule. It's an exception that needs to be in the text. Otherwise the general rule that you need the requirements applies imho.
Look up Fighter & Monk Bonus feats. One needs the requirements, the other doesn't.
If the text for the bonus feat doesn't explicitly allow you to bypass the requirements, you have to meet them before you take it.

[Esprit15]

I'm pretty sure that items can't help you qualify for feats or classes.

[Troacctid]

I'm pretty sure that items can't help you qualify for feats or classes.
Sure they can. I don't think anyone disputes that a headband of intellect can allow you to qualify for Combat Reflexes.

[The Glyphstone]

Sure they can. I don't think anyone disputes that a headband of intellect can allow you to qualify for Combat Reflexes.

I've seen quite a bit of dispute, actually, since it leads directly into the never-ending argument of what happens when you then take that headband off and don't quality for the feat you took anymore, an answer that is not given anywhere in 3.5.

[Inevitability]

Sure they can. I don't think anyone disputes that a headband of intellect can allow you to qualify for Combat Reflexes.

But that's, like, not real brains, man. It's gotta be organic, you know?

[Troacctid]

I've seen quite a bit of dispute, actually, since it leads directly into the never-ending argument of what happens when you then take that headband off and don't quality for the feat you took anymore, an answer that is not given anywhere in 3.5.
What do you mean? It's in the core rules. PH 87.

[The Glyphstone]

What do you mean? It's in the core rules. PH 87.

...That's why I don't post at 2AM.:smalleek: I glitched out and got feats confused with prestige classes.

[rrwoods]

Assuming you're unarmored and of average dexterity, your AC should be 10.

Similarly, your DM should have a +0 attack bonus, unless they're exceptionally strong, very small, or specialized in hitting people with books.

Also, a DMG is pretty clearly an improvised weapon, so that's a -4 penalty right there.

All this considered means your DM is trying to hit 10 AC with -4 to his attack rolls, so the chances are about 35%.

My favorite part about this post is the tacit assumption that the book gets thrown in the first place :-P

[Crake]

To expand on this, true dragons of "Old" age category or higher can take epic feats even with no class levels.

I've always found this strange that they included such a stipulation. Most, if not all true dragons already have 21HD, and thus qualify for epic feats, BEFORE old age.

[Troacctid]

There are other dragons besides true dragons. Half-dragons, dragonwrought kobolds, wyverns, dragon turtles, etc.

[Inevitability]

My favorite part about this post is the tacit assumption that the book gets thrown in the first place :-P

Actually, things get slightly different if it gets thrown (I was assuming the book was used for a melee attack) because throwing uses two ability scores. The chances of both having a +0 modifier is significantly smaller than the chance of one score having it.

[Remuko]

This may be because the book is poorly written but I remember reading the epic level handbook and from what I could gather from it, your ECL only had to be 21+ to take epic feats, not your actual character level. In specific iirc, the example paragon mind flayer has multiple epic feats despite having less than 10 HD.

[ProGun]

How does one exactly qualify for Epic feats? Let's say I am a rogue, and I have managed by level 10 to have 8d6 SA (With or without magical items), Can I take Lingering Damage as my 11th level feat for example?


[Epic]

Your sneak attacks continue to deal damage even after you strike.
Prerequisite
Sneak attack +8d6, crippling strike class feature,
Benefit
Any time you deal damage with a sneak attack, that target takes damage equal to your sneak attack bonus damage on your next turn as well.


Or if I'm a Druid who can already wildshape into Huge animals, can I take Gargantuan Wild Shape before I am considered an Epic character?

[Epic, Wild]

You can wild shape into animals of Gargantuan size.
Prerequisite
Ability to wild shape into a Huge animal,
Benefit
You can use your wild shape to take the shape of a Gargantuan animal.
Normal
Without this feat, you cannot wild shape into an animal greater than Huge size.

only way I know is class feature of Rogue. It says pick any feat. No restrictions, so epic feats are up for grabs. I often use this as a way to instantly master TWF by taking Perfect TWF with this single pick and by-passing the laundry list of pre req feats.

[Gruftzwerg]

There are other dragons besides true dragons. Half-dragons, dragonwrought kobolds, wyverns, dragon turtles, etc.

But only True Dragons & Dragonwrought Kobolds have the needed age category. Other "lesser Dragons" don't have the (special true dragon) age categories and thus don't get the special treatment for epic feats.

[Troacctid]

But only True Dragons & Dragonwrought Kobolds have the needed age category. Other "lesser Dragons" don't have the (special true dragon) age categories and thus don't get the special treatment for epic feats.
I'm sure I don't know what you mean. "Old" is a standard age category. Everyone who has age categories at all has it.

[Gruftzwerg]

I'm sure I don't know what you mean. "Old" is a standard age category. Everyone who has age categories at all has it.

Sorry, my mistake. Dark Soul was talking about "age categories" and that mislead me to wrong conclusions.

I looked up Draconomicon to get sure..^^
Draconomicon says: That dragons of "old age" qualify for epic feats.
(not the "old age category" that I thought of, due to Dark Souls comment.)
Because only True Dragons have "age categories", everything else has "aging effects". And both can be of "old age".

[Troacctid]

Everyone who ages has age categories.

[Keral]

Correction, any creature of the dragon type, not just true dragons.

wait what? you mean to tell me that my retired kobold could have taken epic feats? :smalleek:

where can I find this?

[Inevitability]

Everyone who ages has age categories.

Yes, but they typically have only 4. Dragonwroughts have 12, and those who follow the 'a true dragon is a dragon that has 12 age categories' line of reasoning consider that to mean dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons.

[DarkSoul]

Draconomicon says: That dragons of "old age" qualify for epic feats.
(not the "old age category" that I thought of, due to Dark Souls comment.)
Because only True Dragons have "age categories", everything else has "aging effects". And both can be of "old age".So tell me then, how do you determine that a true dragon is "old" if you don't want to use the age category designation that says so? I was referring to the age category because that's what the book does, and is the simplest method regardless.

[Gruftzwerg]

Everyone who ages has age categories.

nope. PHB talks about "Aging Effects" and only True Dragons (+ D.Kobold) have "Age Categories".

but as said: for the epic feats you only need to be "a dragon of old age".

and you can become of "old age" with both of em.
old age (aging effect)
&
old age (age category)

edit:
@darksoul: I meant that I got mislead by your "old age category" comment, while draconomicon only talks about "old age". That did lead me to wrong conclusions in my 1st post.

[DarkSoul]

nope. PHB talks about "Aging Effects" and only True Dragons (+ D.Kobold) have "Age Categories".

but as said: for the epic feats you only need to be "a dragon of old age".

and you can become of "old age" with both of em.
old age (aging effect)
&
old age (age category)

edit:
@darksoul: I meant that I got mislead by your "old age category" comment, while draconomicon only talks about "old age". That did lead me to wrong conclusions in my 1st post.So, can a 60 year old half-dragon human take epic feats before ECL 21?

[Troacctid]

wait what? you mean to tell me that my retired kobold could have taken epic feats? :smalleek:

where can I find this?
In Draconomicon. I believe the rule was already quoted somewhere upthread.


Yes, but they typically have only 4. Dragonwroughts have 12, and those who follow the 'a true dragon is a dragon that has 12 age categories' line of reasoning consider that to mean dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons.
Old age is a standard age category, not a true dragon age category. Everyone has it.

And that line of reasoning has no basis in the rules AFAICT. I don't believe there's any rule that says the number of age categories matters. What matters is whether you advance by age.


nope. PHB talks about "Aging Effects" and only True Dragons (+ D.Kobold) have "Age Categories".
So the -2 penalty on Disguise checks for disguising yourself as a different age category only matters for dragons? The Extended Lifespan feat is dragon-only? A Ruathar's Arvandor's Grace ability has no effect for nondragons?


So, can a 60 year old half-dragon human take epic feats before ECL 21?
Yes.

[DarkSoul]

Yes.I disagree, because the requirement to be ECL 21 is not listed as a prerequisite. It's an additional qualifier any character has to meet in order to take the feat. If it were a prerequisite it would be listed in the "Prerequisites" sectionon page 46 of the Epic Level Handbook, or in the same section (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#prerequisites) of the SRD. That's plainly not the case however, if you'd care to look. As written there are two ways to gain epic feats; every third level at ECL 21 or higher, and bonus epic feats by class. Because it's not a prerequisite, the bonus feats granted to rogues, monsters, etc., can't ignore it without falling into the realm of house rules.

[Gruftzwerg]

In Draconomicon.
Old age is a standard age category, not a true dragon age category. Everyone has it.

And that line of reasoning has no basis in the rules AFAICT. I don't believe there's any rule that says the number of age categories matters. What matters is whether you advance by age.


So the -2 penalty on Disguise checks for disguising yourself as a different age category only matters for dragons? The Extended Lifespan feat is dragon-only? A Ruathar's Arvandor's Grace ability has no effect for nondragons?


If you would go strick by RAW, yes ... it's as stupid as it sounds. Sure I bet everyone is interpreting and playing it the RAI way (including myself^^..). But that doesn't change the odds of RAW.

RAW is strict when it comes to wording:
Aging Effects != Age Categories

This is one of the real messed up rules in 3.5 (and there are plenty more. just look up the threads that make fun of the 3.5 RAW bugs).
3.5 tried to work with keywords and key-sentences, but they failed badly with that as you can see with "age categories" and "aging effects".
Disguise (skill) makes use of "Age Categories" as if everybody would have it, but everybody (expect the dragons with "Age Categories") has only "Age Effects". "Age Categories" isn't a defined keyword anywhere in the PHB and that's what causes this stupid problem.
"defined" means it's either written bold with some explanation after or it the title of a paragraph / table.

and as said, "Old Age" is for both available.
old age - aging effect
&
old age - (dragon) age category

[Troacctid]

I disagree, because the requirement to be ECL 21 is not listed as a prerequisite. It's an additional qualifier any character has to meet in order to take the feat. If it were a prerequisite it would be listed in the "Prerequisites" sectionon page 46 of the Epic Level Handbook, or in the same section (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#prerequisites) of the SRD. That's plainly not the case however, if you'd care to look. As written there are two ways to gain epic feats; every third level at ECL 21 or higher, and bonus epic feats by class. Because it's not a prerequisite, the bonus feats granted to rogues, monsters, etc., can't ignore it without falling into the realm of house rules.
I suppose you could reasonably interpret it as only applying to dragons that have no class levels, just RHD; and/or as being restricted to only the epic feats in Draconomicon. But it is clearly a counterpoint to the "21st level or higher" rule.


If you would go strick by RAW, yes ... it's as stupid as it sounds. Sure I bet everyone is interpreting and playing it the RAI way (including myself^^..). But that doesn't change the odds of RAW.

RAW is strict when it comes to wording:
Aging Effects != Age Categories

This is one of the real messed up rules in 3.5 (and there are plenty more. just look up the threads that make fun of the 3.5 RAW bugs).
3.5 tried to work with keywords and key-sentences, but they failed badly with that as you can see with "age categories" and "aging effects".
Disguise (skill) makes use of "Age Categories" as if everybody would have it, but everybody (expect the dragons with "Age Categories") has only "Age Effects". "Age Categories" isn't a defined keyword anywhere in the PHB and that's what causes this stupid problem.
"defined" means it's either written bold with some explanation after or it the title of a paragraph / table.

and as said, "Old Age" is for both available.
old age - aging effect
&
old age - (dragon) age category
I think you just made that up.

[Gruftzwerg]

I think you just made that up.

and which part of it do you think is made up??

That "Age Categories" and "Age Effects" are not the same words?
Or that 3.5 relies on keywords (or sentences) and that it failed at that?
anything else?

PS: That's just one of the reason why a DM should never say he plays 100% strict by RAW. cause RAW is full of bugs & exploits. just simple as that.

[Troacctid]

and which part of it do you think is made up??

That "Age Categories" and "Age Effects" are not the same words?
Or that 3.5 relies on keywords (or sentences) and that it failed at that?
anything else?
That age categories are only for dragons by RAW. They're mentioned in many places in reference to other creature types. And Player's Handbook p109 explicitly has age categories for all the core PC races.

I don't think you can cite any rule that says age categories are exclusive to dragons.

[Gruftzwerg]

And Player's Handbook p109 explicitly has age categories for all the core PC races.


PHB p109 has:

Rules for "Age" (cause bold title of a paragraph) and Rules for "Aging Effects".

Nowhere on the page are "Age categories" mentioned, not even just "category".

as said, they failed with their keyword usage/declaration which causes this mess of 3.5 RAW rules.

Don't get me wrong, I play RAI with my friends all the time (with switching DMs). I just want to point out the silliness of 3.5 RAW.

[Troacctid]

PHB2 discusses age categories with a note that says "(see page 109 of the Player's Handbook.)"

[Gruftzwerg]

PHB2 discusses age categories with a note that says "(see page 109 of the Player's Handbook.)"

"Discussing" still doesn't help with the problem that it isn't defined.

You need to define a keyword in the first place before you can make use of it. Simple logic. And as far as I am aware, 3.5 did failed to "define" "Age Categories" for all PCs/Races. They thought they had (as you can see how every other instance of "Age Categories" refers to it as they would have), but they didn't.
They did define "Age" and "Age Effects" for all Races but "Age Categories" only for Dragons.

[Troacctid]

Humans and elves explicitly have age categories as per Ruathar.

[Gruftzwerg]

Humans and elves explicitly have age categories as per Ruathar.

same here. Ruathar just refers just to "Age Categories" (as if everybody would get it). It still doesn't define em for regular (non dragon) races, nor does it give it to them.

you need to find a text passage where "Age Category" needs to be written bold with explanation behind it. Or a paragraph/table title that reads "Age Category".
Otherwise it's just referring to it but let's it still undefined (!).

again, first you define a keyword. and the only instance where "Age Category" is defined is in the Monster Manuals (for Dragons) and Draconomicon.
Welcome to the poor written 3.5 RAW

edit: imho it's funny as hell that everywhere else they use "Age Category" and when you look up the Age section in the PHB, they perfectly avoided even just the word category.
They talk about reaching X age instead of reaching X age category. It's just freaking stupid as hell.

[Troacctid]

The RAW doesn't say that at all. And Ruathar clearly defines adult, middle age, old age, and venerable age as age categories for humans, so nyah.

There are enough dysfunctions in this edition without adding new ones that aren't in the text.

[Gruftzwerg]

The RAW doesn't say that at all. And Ruathar clearly defines adult, middle age, old age, and venerable age as age categories for humans, so nyah.

RAI yea, but RAW no. Ruathar mentions and refers to Age Categories. It still doesn't define em (bold with explanation behind or as title for a paragraph/table .. how many times I need to repeat how a defined keyword looks like?)


There are enough dysfunctions in this edition without adding new ones that aren't in the text.

and you can't just ignore the absence of a real definition and just make up one in RAW (rules as written). RAI (rules as intended) this is totally fair & valid. And as said, I play it the same way. But this still doesn't change the status of 3.5 RAW where "Age Categories" is only a defined keyword for Dragons.

edit: It would have been everything fine if the "Aging Effects" Table in the PHB would have been named "Age Categories & Aging Effect" or similar. Or they could have named the "Age" paragraph "Age Categories", what would have been another option. But they missed it. :(

[Troacctid]

You can't take a position that's inconsistent with the RAW and claim it's RAW. It's clearly not, or else the RAW wouldn't contradict it.

[Gruftzwerg]

You can't take a position that's inconsistent with the RAW and claim it's RAW. It's clearly not, or else the RAW wouldn't contradict it.

?
I explained how it works RAW, but that I play RAI (because of the RAW bugs). Where do u see the contradiction?

If you read the Rules As Written, you don't ask for consistence or intention. You just read the rules word by word. You don't interpret more or less as the text gives you.

If you read the Rules As Intended, you can ask for consistency, logic and everything.

But that still does not change how badly the text is written (and thus interpreted by RAW).

Maybe I should give a real life example of RAW & RAI.
There are 2 kind of people who believe in religions.
The first group tries to interpret the text in the religion books as far as he get with his logic & hearth. (RAI)
The second group just reads the text word by word and get fanatic of each word (RAW).

To read the rule text RAW you need to become a fanatic wording lawyer. If something isn't defined strictly by rules, it doesn't count. It's like when the police doesn't follow the rules/laws when they do an investigation: all evidence found becomes meaningless in front of the law.

It's not my fault that WotC failed to follow their own rules (about defined keyword).

[Troacctid]

I'm sorry, but I don't see any evidence that the RAI differs from the RAW here. As far as I can tell, there's plenty of text that says humanoids have age categories, and no text that says age categories are exclusive to dragons. Do you have a source for your claim? Because I can't find anywhere in the Monster Manual or Draconomicon where "age categories" are "defined" as belonging exclusively to true dragons.

[Gruftzwerg]

I'm sorry, but I don't see any evidence that the RAI differs from the RAW here. As far as I can tell, there's plenty of text that says humanoids have age categories, and no text that says age categories are exclusive to dragons. Do you have a source for your claim? Because I can't find anywhere in the Monster Manual or Draconomicon where "age categories" are "defined" as belonging exclusively to true dragons.

you define a keyword either written bold with explanation text:
"Age Category: ....."
or as tile of a paragraph/table.

"Age Categories" as table can be found for dragons, but not for the other races.
And I fail to see anywhere where it is defined for the other races. They mention it everywhere as "Age Category". But that doesn't change the fact that it was never declared/defined as that.
edit: It was defined/declared as "Age" & "Aging Effects"
edit 2: you can also look up Races of the Dragon. Regular Kobolds have a table for "Kobold Age Categories". Now try to find a Table named "Age Categories" for the regular races. The only thing you'll find are "Aging Effects".

[ben-zayb]

One thing not being mentioned yet is that one of the traits of being an Abomination is enabling you to take epic feats. That said, getting Abomination traits pre-epic is its own brand of cheese.

[Crake]

you define a keyword either written bold with explanation text:
"Age Category: ....."
or as tile of a paragraph/table.

"Age Categories" as table can be found for dragons, but not for the other races.
And I fail to see anywhere where it is defined for the other races. They mention it everywhere as "Age Category". But that doesn't change the fact that it was never declared/defined as that.
edit: It was defined/declared as "Age" & "Aging Effects"
edit 2: you can also look up Races of the Dragon. Regular Kobolds have a table for "Kobold Age Categories". Now try to find a Table named "Age Categories" for the regular races. The only thing you'll find are "Aging Effects".

Why are you guys even arguing about this? The rule quoted in draconomicon literally does not even use the word "category" or any variation therof, so this argument is completely moot.

[Gruftzwerg]

Why are you guys even arguing about this? The rule quoted in draconomicon literally does not even use the word "category" or any variation therof, so this argument is completely moot.

Dark Soul was talking about "age categories" and that mislead me to wrong conclusions. (I thought that it would stand that way for epic feats in Draconomicon, but it doesn't).
This caused me to point out that by RAW "age categories" isn't a defined keyword for regular races, only for dragons. and yadda yadda..^^