E6 with Generic Classes

[Yora]

Has anyone done this?

There are two things that particularly bug me about D&D and Pathfinder which is the character classes and character levels. E6 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html) does a great job in fixing almost all the problems I have with character levels and the Generic Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) seems flexible enough to represent about all kinds of characters in a game that does not focus overly on tactical combat.

Since there are no class features and maximum level is 6th, I don't see any realy issues with balance, and with the large number of feats E6 offers it shouldn't be that hard to represent about any character concept in a somewhat useful way.

Any experiences with this?

[sonofzeal]

It's a good idea. One possible danger is that Generic classes have significantly expanded Feat choices, and E6 throws feats around everywhere. I'd want to take a good look through the new ones before allowing it, or limit the bonus feats at the end to non-Generic content.

[Nero24200]

I've tried to work with such an idea before and it's definately something that can work. Though one thing I fuond strange was that a 6th level warrior could easily master all manner of unusual talents (such as raging and smiting) and gain extra affinity with skills (such as by taking the Talented feat) but was not able at all to learn spells.

[Flickerdart]

Hm, it would address the normal E6 problem (your abilities stop growing) quite well. You can always take Hidden Talent to sprinkle some psionic powers on your character.

[LibraryOgre]

It sounds like a good idea. Does anyone know how True20 and E6 would synergize?

[Draz74]

These were two of the original thoughts that got me going on CRE8 ... then it kind of spun out of control. But it's still kind of similar to E8 with Generic Classes.

I guess that's one recommendation I have: use E8 rather than E6. It makes the difference between Medium BAB and Poor BAB much more meaningful.

[Yora]

But it makes the difference between High and Medium BAB irrelevant.

Hm, it would address the normal E6 problem (your abilities stop growing) quite well.
Isn't that the point if E6?

One problem I've always had with d20 systems is that you are so very tempted to solve problems with your character sheet and not by finding solutions outside the rules. Does this change when you have such a limited selection of spells and barely any class features?
I'm thinking mostly about "pre-Epic" characters in an E6 setting. Once you have 15 extra feat it's most probably the same thing again.

[Coidzor]

Isn't that the point if E6?

Not as far as I've been able to penetrate it. I just got that the point of E6 is that the magic users don't grow to the point that non-casters are irrelevant and growth is slowed to the acquisition of feats rather than also coming along with further and further spell levels and HD.

I believe part of it is the size of the HP reservoir as well...


One problem I've always had with d20 systems is that you are so very tempted to solve problems with your character sheet and not by finding solutions outside the rules. Does this change when you have such a limited selection of spells and barely any class features?

I'm not quite clear on what you're getting at. Do you mean such things as eliminating social skills from the skill system in order to prevent mechanics from affecting that sort of thing at all? Or do you mean more along the lines of a rube goldberg machine of death for the dragon instead of overpowering it with sword and spell?

[Yora]

Yeah, the R-G-M is definately something I want to encourage with my players. :smallbiggrin:

I did some sample builds for popular fantasy characters (without feats and skills) and so far they look really nice. I'm going to post them later, but right now I have to get to the last lecture of this semester to get hints for the exam next week. :smallamused:

[RagnaroksChosen]

I didn't like it. We have tried it a few times... makes it feel to close to normal dnd(aka higher power level). So I wasn't a huge fan.


I like e6 because it makes me feel like i'm playing 2nd ed, every thing's hyper leathal, players can't kick down the door all the time... etc.

Yora from what I've seen you post you may like using the generic classes. I'm not a fan of non class based RPG's, but from what i've seen you post you will probebly like it.



Yora... your character sheet issue. My old GM(old grogranard from 2nd ed) used to complain about 3.5 saying pritty much the same thing. I got him to relise it was the players he had not the system. We don't have the problem you talk about. I as our current GM have issues with the system when players want to do "out of the box" ideas. Though i do see what you are saying as far as the falling into that mind set...

[Roderick_BR]

I did start on it, ages ago (and like many things, dropped it), but basically, I made the 4 classic roles (warrior, expert, mage, priest), and gestalts (warrior-priest, expert-mage. Maybe make warrior-mages and expert-priests too). Basically, you give one feat for every level in a class that doesn't gain a new spell level. Warriors and experts get 6 feats through the 6 levels, and mages and priests get 3, for example. All feats would be fixed to scale with level, so it would keep up with spellcasting.
This way, you can choose a base "chassis", and custom it as you want, instead of having to level dip in dozens of classes.

That's all I had before I kinda lost interest. May still have the files somewhere, but I'm working on other things now.

[Draz74]

But it makes the difference between High and Medium BAB irrelevant.

Only at Level 8, and only if iterative attacks are the main purpose of BAB. (I tend to mix Tome of Battle-like feats into my Generic Classes, and use BAB like an initiator level, so BAB +7 and +8 qualify a character for the cooler martial moves. And I got rid of iterative attacks in general ... in fact, that was probably one of the earliest changes I made to the system after capping the level and throwing out traditional classes.)

[BobSutan]

Has anyone done this?

There are two things that particularly bug me about D&D and Pathfinder which is the character classes and character levels. E6 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html) does a great job in fixing almost all the problems I have with character levels and the Generic Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) seems flexible enough to represent about all kinds of characters in a game that does not focus overly on tactical combat.

Since there are no class features and maximum level is 6th, I don't see any realy issues with balance, and with the large number of feats E6 offers it shouldn't be that hard to represent about any character concept in a somewhat useful way.

Any experiences with this?

All my years playing D&D and I've never looked at running generic classes before. This is a great idea and is the kind of system a few guys and I were thinking about. I'll have to pass this along to Tyndmyr and see if he knows about this.

[Yora]

I considered generic classes years ago, but found the idea to bland back then. But now I think that using only three base classes worked very well in Dragon Age, which really did a a good job of blurring the lines between warriors and rogues and completely ignored the differences between different types of spellcasters.
And in D&D you can even combine classes as you want, which lets you built custom characters as you like, without all the complex character creation found in most classless systems. And with the E6 system you can increase your range of abilities withouth getting high level, giving you just the right balance of features in RPGs that makes it almost exactly what I want from it. At least on paper.

[Tyndmyr]

I dislike it. The bonus feats in generic are(well, most of them) stronger than normal feats. Things like Evasion in feat form are amazing for E6. No spellcaster level loss to get them? Yes please.

The generic spellcaster is basically a sorc with all sorts of added awesome. Int based. Gets to pick his own class skills. Oh look, bonus feats? Can pick his spells from several different lists?

In return, this is balanced by the fact that, like the lightening warrior, he lacks a familiar.


On the flip side, you can't replicate other basic classes like Bard at all. So...you actually end up with less variety. You end up with characters that are essentially "I can do everything".

Consider that in this combo you can spend one feat to get improved uncanny dodge. You are now immune to sneak attack from everything without ten levels of rogue. Wait, not only does rogue not exist, this is E6. Nobody has more than six class levels. You're immune to all sneak attack.

[Draz74]

Yeah ... I tend to assume that whenever someone (anyone) asks anything about Generic Classes, they actually mean, "a homebrew spin-off of Generic Classes, with some actual thought put into it." Because it was a great idea that they clearly didn't spend more than an hour typing up before they threw it into Unearthed Arcana.

[Yora]

Well, everytime I implement any rule in my games it's a homebrew modified version of it.
I don't use even core by RAW.

But thanks, thats some things I overlooked for needing a change:
Evasion -> Requiring 4 levels of Rogue.
Uncanny Dodge -> Out.

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah ... I tend to assume that whenever someone (anyone) asks anything about Generic Classes, they actually mean, "a homebrew spin-off of Generic Classes, with some actual thought put into it." Because it was a great idea that they clearly didn't spend more than an hour typing up before they threw it into Unearthed Arcana.

Pretty much. The basic idea of a build your own class is awesome...but the implementation is terrible. Hell, you can't even replicate all the core classes.

Though...if you're building your own class, why not just go classless?

[Yora]

If you do 3.5e completely classless, you have to find a way to advance BAB, saves, and spellcasting.
Which is about, what the Generic Classes are.

True 20 is similar, but that's too much work for me. Genric E6 doesn't require learning new ways to create characters and allows to keep using all the feats, skills, and spells you know.

[Tyndmyr]

If you do 3.5e completely classless, you have to find a way to advance BAB, saves, and spellcasting.
Which is about, what the Generic Classes are.

True 20 is similar, but that's too much work for me. Genric E6 doesn't require learning new ways to create characters and allows to keep using all the feats, skills, and spells you know.

Oh, E6 originally was that. You could advance everything for discrete xp costs. he simplified because his players just chose feats.

An alternative explanation is that he priced feats too low relative to everything else.

Even now, E6 includes a number of things like custom feats to get additional skill points or raise the cap on skills. Allowing +1 BaB or hit die for a feat price hardly seems like a major change.

[pasko77]

I dislike it. The bonus feats in generic are(well, most of them) stronger than normal feats. Things like Evasion in feat form are amazing for E6. No spellcaster level loss to get them? Yes please.

The generic spellcaster is basically a sorc with all sorts of added awesome. Int based. Gets to pick his own class skills. Oh look, bonus feats? Can pick his spells from several different lists?

In return, this is balanced by the fact that, like the lightening warrior, he lacks a familiar.


On the flip side, you can't replicate other basic classes like Bard at all. So...you actually end up with less variety. You end up with characters that are essentially "I can do everything".

Consider that in this combo you can spend one feat to get improved uncanny dodge. You are now immune to sneak attack from everything without ten levels of rogue. Wait, not only does rogue not exist, this is E6. Nobody has more than six class levels. You're immune to all sneak attack.

I agree 100%. Generic classes in E6 is a terrible idea.


Allowing +1 BaB or hit die for a feat price hardly seems like a major change.

Now I disagree. As it was pointed out in a earlier thread, allowing BAB and HD would return to standard d&d, just slower progression -> more xp = no difference at all.

[Tyndmyr]

That's what E6 is, though...slower progression. Feats eventually = progression, even if you use creative means to do so.

Remember the challenge to take on a Balor with an E6 party(20 feats per char)? I built a party that could with relatively few shenanigans kill a few Balors per round.

hp is already accessible, via toughness(and more importantly, better versions of that feat). Increased attack bonus is available via a number of ways. Increased BaB for the purposes of prereqs is already available via feats.

[Yora]

Generic classes in E6 is a terrible idea.
Care to elaborate?

I see certain problems when using the core rules, the Generic Classes directly from the SRD, and E6 rules exactly as described in the pdf.

But are there any reason why it's a flawed idea to begin with that can't be salvaged?

I've been doing some adjustments to the basic chasis of the classes, modifying and kicking out some special feats from the Generic Classes variant and the E6 standard rules, and currently writing a new spell list for the customized "Mage" class, and it all looks pretty neat so far.

[Tyndmyr]

I once played E6 in a variant where people were allowed to pick up class features from other classes. The rules were as follows:

1. Pick a class. You can buy it's features for 5k per feature.
2. You must buy the features in order.
3. Until you buy all the features, you can't pick a second class.
4. You must meet prereqs of a class in order to buy it's features.

It worked quite well, with a fair amount of playtime in this. Even traditionally "broken" PrCs work out well because they typically have a number of low powered features.

[SexyPlantLover]

I had starting working on this (generic classes/picking class abilities in E8) for my next game, but the more I worked on it, the more it moved away from the 3.5 rules because there was so much to go through/it so was complicated. I am now making my own version, but you can see the work I started with, maybe you can cherry-pick ideas from it, specifically the talents sections. https://sites.google.com/site/dnderica/home

I'd be interested in seeing what others have done with the same idea.

[Yora]

Looks interesting.
But since I have an exam tomorrow morning and it's allready 11:30 around here, I'll give it a closer look tomorrow. :smallbiggrin:

[Pechvarry]

But now I think that using only three base classes worked very well in Dragon Age, which really did a a good job of a) blurring the lines between warriors and rogues and b) completely ignored the differences between different types of spellcasters.
And in D&D you can even combine classes as you want, which lets you built custom characters as you like, without all the complex character creation found in most classless systems. And with the E6 system you can increase your range of abilities withouth getting high level, giving you just the right balance of features in RPGs that makes it almost exactly what I want from it. At least on paper.

A) seemed to have been a big problem in dragon age: no damage dealing-focused warrior was better than a similarly built rogue.
B) is actually a huge problem in D&D: when you streamline all casters to 1-2 classes, the result is always "I fulfill every magical archetype ever conceived" which leads to unlimited versatility, the Tier system, etc.

Keep a close eye on the parity of features between warrior and expert, and consider limiting what kind of spells mages and priests use. Whether it's "choose a normal D&D class list", "choose a school of magic", or even just a gentlemen's agreement of "tell me what kind of character you're going for, and only get spells that support that image."

[Yora]

B) really only is a problem if you play a game in which all types of magical effects exist. If you use the generic spellcaster as in the SRD, it's certainly a problem.

For my personal use, I already have a specific background setting in mind that includes its own limitation what things magic can do, and what it can't. (Which, in addition to all 4th to 9th level spells, excludes almost all divinations that don't rely on direct sight, all force effects, spells that allow communication with animals, plants, or in unknown languages, and long-lasting runes and sigils.)
I also already have set some spells apart to be included in "spheres" or specializations with another name. So far I have celestial magic (divine protection), wild magic (animals and plants) and blood magic (most necromancy). But I havn't decided yet how access to these specialization spells is handled.

[Pechvarry]

Yeah, that sounds like it could be really cool. Since you're using E6 and all, seems like feats to access those special spheres of magic would work. Though I guess that'd make them "prestige schools" if you aren't able to access them 'til you're level capped.

[Yora]

Same Subject, different issue:

I'm currently trying to figure out a good way to deal with Level Adjustment in an E6 game. And after dabbling in LA Buyoff and considering to change the Listed LAs of SRD races, I came up with a possible solution, that should be completely obvious:

Don't change anything. Use the ECL rules as normal.

Level Adjustment
In the context of E6, this means characters gain XP until they reach 6 HD (racial HD plus class levels) and then they gain a bonus 5 for every additional 5,000 XP they make.
This means that ECL races have to make a great deal more XP before gaining bonus feats, and as a result, have lower number of feats total.
Here are the numbers:
ECL +1: +6,000 XP, -1 Feat.
ECL +2: +13,000 XP, -3 Feats
ECL +3: +21,000 XP, -4 Feats
ECL +4: +30,000 XP, -6 Feats
ECL +5: +40,000 XP, -8 Feats
ECL +6: +51,000 XP, -10 Feats

Since max HD is always 6, there's no real difference in BAB, hp, base saves, and Skill Ranks. ECL races benefit only from their special powers but lose feats. And lots of people consider all the abilities of dwarves to be inferior to the one human bonus feat. So I think this might actually be quite balanced.
One issue I havn't really thought about yet is XP distribution. As 9th level characters, ECL 9 characters would gain a lot less XP than other 6th level characters. However this proposed system is supposed to bring all characters to a similar power level, so for simplicities sake I would just count ECL +x characters as the same level as everyone else.

Spellcasters and racial HD
Level adjustment and racial HD always hurt spellcasters the most. LA we have already took care of, which leaves racial HD. Since racial HD always come at a minimum of 2, this means that 3rd level spells become unavailable to characters of such races. (Though I've heard there's some cheese that can grant access to 4th and 5th level spells in E6.) One solution to this would be very simple:
A feat that improves the spellcasting ability of the character by one level, exactly as with levels in spellcasting advancing prestige classes. The feat can be taken multiple times, but only as often as the character has racial HD. Class levels in other classes still count against the maximum effective spellcaster level (but not caster level, if you allow Practiced Spellcaster). However, this would be a quite powerful feat, I think, one that's an absolute no brainer for all characters with just one level in a spellcasting class. So I'm not completely sure if it's a good idea to implement it in this way.
For spontaneous spellcasters it would be possible to split it into two feats, one for spells per day and one for spells known. Since I use a variant of the generic classes, all characters in my game would be spontaneous casters. But in games that include preparing spellcasters, such a split would only penalize the spontaneous casters and do nothing the the rest.

Please share your thoughts.

[Tyndmyr]

The standard way lowers your point buy. It's not perfect, but it's fairly good, as one common advantage of solid LA is higher stats.

[Yora]

I know, but I don't really like that. What's the point of playing an Ogre when you have only 10 points (assuming 25 PB) to spend and you start with Dex 6, Int 4, and Cha 4?
There isn't anything left to raise your Strength above 18 and you still end up with Str 18, Dex 9, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 8. A human fighter could have the same stats and would still have 4 more points to distribute. So all you gain for giving up 4 levels of class features is Large size and +5 natural armor.

As a gnoll you lose 7 points to distribute for a bonus of +2 to ability scores. You also gain +1 natural armor and that's all. But you lose 2 levels of class features and potentially skill points. You only pay extra and the only benefit is when you dump everything to maximize strength.

[Tyndmyr]

The benefit is you get to play race x, and still be balanced.

Yes, there's a few LA races that are either better or worse than average...but that's a side effect of how LA is assigned. Some are just better or worse by default. You can't fix that without having the GM mod the LA(which is often justified).

You don't really want people to be starting with ridiculous stats from a balance perspective. If you could trade off feats(an unlimited resource) for stats(a limited resource) it would be used by essentially everyone. There would be no reason not to.

Also, in E6, LA does not remove class levels, so that's not a thing. Racial HD can be leveled drained off if your GM really won't let you skip them.

[Draz74]

The standard way lowers your point buy. It's not perfect, but it's fairly good, as one common advantage of solid LA is higher stats.

This way is terrible for many characters. (Pixies become ridiculously overpowered!) I haven't had time to ponder all the implications of Yora's idea, but so far I like it much better.

[Yora]

Though I think using that system, there's still a number of races that would be much stronger than others.

For example, let's compare a 30,000 XP ogre barbarian 2 with a 30,000 XP half-orc barbarian 6.

Ogre
Str 23, Dex 13, Con 16, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 6
4d8+12 plus 2d12+6; 52 hp
Fort +9, Ref +2, Will +2
AC: 18 (-1 size, +1 Dex, +5 natural, +3 hide armor), touch 10, flat-footed 17
BAB: +5; Grapple +15
Attack: Large Greataxe +11 (3d6+9)
Speed: 50 ft.
Skills: Climb +11, Listen +5, Spot +3, Survival +3
Feats: Weapon Focus (Greataxe), Extra Rage, Power Attack
Rage 3/day, Uncanny Dodge

Half-Orc
Str 18, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 6
6d12+12; 56 hp
Fort +9, Ref +3, Will +3
AC: 15 (+1 Dex, +3 hide armor, +1 dodge), touch 12, flat-footed 13
BAB: +6/+1; Grapple +10
Attack:Greataxe +11/+6 (1d12+6) plus Cleave
Speed: 40 ft.
Skills: Climb +13, Survival +10, Listen +10
Feats: Weapon Focus (Greataxe), Dodge, Power Attack, Great Fortitude, Cleave, Extra Rage
Rage 4/day, Improved Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense +2

Turns out the half-orc compares pretty well. These are not very strong or creative builds, and I tried to make them as similar as possible.
While the ogre clearly wins when it comes do damage and grappling, and to AC, the half-orc actually has more hp and not only the same attack bonus but also a second attack per round and Cleave. Also better saves and skills.
One more rage per day is also nice and he has improved uncanny dodge, which the ogre lacks. I think these two actually compare very well. I'm suprised by that.

But I think pixies are just too much different from normal player races to work well. As a sorcerer you probably invest most of your feats to get Expanded Knowledge and learn more spells. A pixie already has 4 nice spell like abilities per day, and on top of that you get +16 to mental stats and +4 to physical stats, permanent invisibility, DR 10/cold iron, and SR 21. In no way is that equal to 4 feats or spells known.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Though I think using that system, there's still a number of races that would be much stronger than others.

For example, let's compare a 30,000 XP ogre barbarian 2 with a 30,000 XP half-orc barbarian 6.

Ogre
Str 23, Dex 13, Con 16, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 6
4d8+12 plus 2d12+6; 52 hp
Fort +9, Ref +2, Will +2
AC: 18 (-1 size, +1 Dex, +5 natural, +3 hide armor), touch 10, flat-footed 17
BAB: +5; Grapple +15
Attack: Large Greataxe +11 (3d6+9)
Speed: 50 ft.
Skills: Climb +11, Listen +5, Spot +3, Survival +3
Feats: Weapon Focus (Greataxe), Extra Rage, Power Attack
Rage 3/day, Uncanny Dodge

Half-Orc
Str 18, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 6
6d12+12; 56 hp
Fort +9, Ref +3, Will +3
AC: 15 (+1 Dex, +3 hide armor, +1 dodge), touch 12, flat-footed 13
BAB: +6/+1; Grapple +10
Attack:Greataxe +11/+6 (1d12+6) plus Cleave
Speed: 40 ft.
Skills: Climb +13, Survival +10, Listen +10
Feats: Weapon Focus (Greataxe), Dodge, Power Attack, Great Fortitude, Cleave, Extra Rage
Rage 4/day, Improved Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense +2

Turns out the half-orc compares pretty well. These are not very strong or creative builds, and I tried to make them as similar as possible.
While the ogre clearly wins when it comes do damage and grappling, and to AC, the half-orc actually has more hp and not only the same attack bonus but also a second attack per round and Cleave. Also better saves and skills.
One more rage per day is also nice and he has improved uncanny dodge, which the ogre lacks. I think these two actually compare very well. I'm suprised by that.

Im wicked tired today but how does the human have more feats then the ogre they in theory should have the same.
Feats for 1st 3rd and 6th + exp feats.

[Yora]

The ogre has LA+2 and starts with 4 racial HD. So to get a total of 6 HD (racial HD plus class levels), he has to gain as many XP as a regular character would to reach 8th level. That's what the Level Adjustment +2 means.

The required amount of XP to reach 8th level is 28,000 XP. At 30,000 XP the ogre has +2,000 XP in addition. Not enough to get an E6 bonus feat for 5,000 XP.
The half-orc is LA +0, so to gain a total of 6 HD, he needs only as many XP as every regular character needs to become 6th level. Which is 15,000 XP. At 30,000 XP, this makes a surplus of 15,000 XP, enough for 3 bonus feats for 5,000 XP each.

tl;dr
The ogre is an LA +2 race, so to reach 6th level he has to gain as many XP as it takes regular characters to reach 8th level. When he starts buying bonus feats for 5,000 XP each, he lags behind 13,000 XP. So it's always fewer feats for him.

That was the entire point of this exercise. :smallbiggrin:

[Shademan]

answer to OP:
yes I've done it. my current campaign is core only E6.
everyone is having fun

[RagnaroksChosen]

The ogre has LA+2 and starts with 4 racial HD. So to get a total of 6 HD (racial HD plus class levels), he has to gain as many XP as a regular character would to reach 8th level. That's what the Level Adjustment +2 means.

The required amount of XP to reach 8th level is 28,000 XP. At 30,000 XP the ogre has +2,000 XP in addition. Not enough to get an E6 bonus feat for 5,000 XP.
The half-orc is LA +0, so to gain a total of 6 HD, he needs only as many XP as every regular character needs to become 6th level. Which is 15,000 XP. At 30,000 XP, this makes a surplus of 15,000 XP, enough for 3 bonus feats for 5,000 XP each.

tl;dr
The ogre is an LA +2 race, so to reach 6th level he has to gain as many XP as it takes regular characters to reach 8th level. When he starts buying bonus feats for 5,000 XP each, he lags behind 13,000 XP. So it's always fewer feats for him.

That was the entire point of this exercise. :smallbiggrin:

As I understood it in E6 the LA gets droped in favor of the lower point buy? or where you trying to point out that the LA isn't a factor?

[Draz74]

As I understood it in E6 the LA gets droped in favor of the lower point buy? or where you trying to point out that the LA isn't a factor?

The entirety of Post #30 in this thread was Yora proposing a new way to handle LA in E6.

[Yora]

Exactly. Thank you. :smallbiggrin:

[Kiero]

This might be just about the only way I could be persuaded to give 3.x a try.

Though I wonder at what point you might have been better off just playing True20?

[Tyndmyr]

Different sort of game. Not saying it's bad, but E6 has a certain feel to it.

[Yora]

The huge advantage of E6 is that you don't have to learn any new rules and can use all content from all your other D&D books just as it is without any modifications. (Some stuff can't be used at all, but the rest is all ready to go.)

The main change in E6 is not so much about the way you advance your character, that is classless by selecting individual abilities above 6th level, but about what aspects it removes from a standard D&D game. Limited to 6th level, hit points and AC are low and you can only learn spells up to 3rd level. (Usually, hardcore optimization can overcome this, when the DM allows it.) Even more important, these limitations also go for NPCs, which changes the structure and dynamics of a campaign significantly.
Everyone, PCs and NPCs, can be killed by a horde of goblins or enraged commoners. Also lots of monsters are just too strong to engage with sword in hand, so you have to rely heavily on tactics to bring them down. And most of the spells that allow the PCs to completely get around certain problems or limitations don't exist. This also goes for NPCs who can't create a big magic economy.
I think the major difference of E6 is how it changes the setting, not so much how it changes the way a low level campaign is played.

[Kiero]

I meant specifically E6 with generic classes, compared to a similar level cap with True20 (which was designed with three roles).

[Yora]

I have the True20 rulebook, but I really don't like it.

It has all these open ended powers and is not compatible with any other d20 books.

[Land Outcast]

Just thought I'd point at this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9119786&postcount=3) in case it is useful to anyone interested in E6+Generic classes.

[Mayhem]

One idea I've been toying around with for a while now is taking the d20 modern idea of talent trees and making fantasy versions of them. For example the generic warrior class would have access to berzerker talent tree, fighter talent tree, knight talent tree etc, likewise the other two generic classes would have customised trees. Under this concept I was thinking that if you have bought a certain number of features from a tree, you would gain additional benefit, like say 2 berzerker features would grant you an extra rage a day, or something.
I've found that magic users are difficult to fit into this system however. I guess a generic mage with domains would work, which would limit their spell lists and thus hopefully the generic feel of them. Spell points would be pretty nice, as would the "vitalising" spell point variant.

Another idea I've had, is to take the generic classes and the d20 modern basic classes and semi-gestalt them, so that a strong warrior and a smart warrior would be quite different regardless of their chosen warrior talents. Basically, each d20 modern basic class would raise a certain level aspect(base attack, HD, skills, etc) and at certain levels grant talents. For example, tough class would raise hit dice twice, and fortitude, and say fast would instead raise reflex, dodge, and BaB.

Naturally under this system I've been toying with, I would use class-based defense bonuses to further differntiate them, and use armour as damage reduction similar to Conan d20.

EDIT: as a side note, semi-gestalting generic(profession) classes from UA and basic(personality) classes from d20modern allows level adjustment races to exist alongside player races. The level adjustment races simply wouldn't get the benefit of the basic classes as they would use their monster class from savage species instead. Or you could instead rule they have the basic(personality) class but not the generic(profession) class.