E-6 Houseruling to level the Tiers of PC's? PEACH

[vitkiraven]

I'm going to be starting up a PbP d20 3.5 E-6 (any more letter/number codes I can tack on to that?), and I was looking at some Houserules to make things a bit less lopsided towards the casting types. While I have looked at other things before, I think I went to far overboard with them, and now I'm trying to come up with a different set, to not be as harsh to people that might want to join, but still not have spellcasters being the only stars of the game. The one's I've picked for this go are an attempt at being thematic ant metaphysically valid. Some are cribbed from others, I'll not deny, but then again, there are no new thoughts in the world anymore, right?

EDIT: After some problems with some, I am removing them from consideration. I know this won't solve every problem, I am trying to ensure I don't go Machiavelli on the group. I am just trying to ensure that no one is constantly outshined.

A) Metamagic reducers to not exist as they do currently. They can only reduce a metamagic feat's spell level increase by 1, and to an obvious minimum of zero. They are also specific, i.e. Each Metamagic Reducer has to be specified to a different metamagic feat. If they are only specific to an individual spell, then they retain that requirement and have an additional requirement of requiring a specification of a metamagic feat. Only one metamagic reducer can be applied to the use of a metamagic'd spell per metamagic effect used. Modified 11/20

B) Spells Cap out at 3rd level, at 6th level of ability. No Spells above 3rd level as spell slots/ learned spells. 4th level spells as feats are still open. Pretty much common sense, in my opinion. Modified 11/20

C) Spells with Verbal or Somatic Components may NOT be cast in Alternate Forms. The Language of Magic is increasingly precise, and as such, altering one's vocal chords in any way, prevents one from being able to use said spells. Natural Spell does not exist as a feat. The same is similar with the perfected, measured movements of somatic spells. Using a spell in your native form, you know your muscles, and how everything bends. As you change your form, you lose that grasp of fine musculature that allows the precise movements. No Alter Self, WildShape, or any other ability that changes form. Spells without Vocal and Somatic Components can be cast as normal. Modified 11/20

D) I am very tempted in making Small sized spell casters do less damage, have smaller areas of effect, and have a shorter range, but I'm not 100% on that. (Logistically, from a rules standpoint, it would make sense, but thematically, I'm not there yet) Removed 11/19

E) All spellcaster classes are on full approval only. Modified 11/20

F) As a non-nerf, but social constraint, Wizards are disliked in the Campaign world I am creating. I am thinking an auto drop of one category for social interaction at the start. Flavor of campaign setting.

G) I am also considering a maximum amount of "buffing" type spells equal to the lesser of the recipient's Constitution or Wisdom modifiers (the body and mind can only hold so much arcana in it, at one time). This will prevent multiple spells of different sorts being cast on someone at the same time. (Maybe I'll just average the two, and do it that way, as always, minimum of 1). This would use the Character's Base Constitution, rather than any spell modified constitution. This is now, "Spellcasters are limited to two concurrent buffs simultaneously." Removed 11/20, but remaining as an option should it be necessary.

H) Oh yeah, Divine Metamagic is right out. Clerics can use metamagic feats, and pay for them like everyone else. And the feat that does the same with Bards, out as well. This is mainly a concern looking into the future for the +6th level feats, where every feat can be a feat that gets more turning. Explained 11/20

I) Keeping track of non-expensive spell components has been pointed out by many people to not be liked, so therefore, I will keep the option of Eschew Material Components, but also, the Spell Component pouch only has 50 level "charges" equivalent in it. Once 50 spell levels have been cast, a new one must be purchased, at 5gp. This simulates the utilization of the inexpensive components but isn't that much to spend. It's a Pittance, that is just thematic, rather than a real "cost". Priced Spell Components cost the same as before. Also, the spell component pouch is the size, and shape of a belt pouch. If it couldn't fit in a belt pouch, it won't fit in a Spell Component Pouch. Not Modified.


So, 9, 87 House rules to bring Magic down only slightly. Are any of them too far?

EDIT: I have edited this based on feedback. Please continue with evaluation.

EDIT 2: 11/20 I have further modified the houserules. Some brief explanation of the reasoning behind them some of them was included as well. This will not bring spellcasters down any tiers at all, but it might prevent them from being the stars of the show with a tag-along group. I know that individual spells are a large part of the problem. Those are being handled on a spot basis.

And the Campaign will be using encumbrance, so if that is abhorrent to you, there has already been a warning, leveled at me, once. I will not be discussing it again.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm going to be starting up a PbP d20 3.5 E-6 (any more letter/number codes I can tack on to that?), and I was looking at some Houserules to make things a bit less lopsided towards the casting types. While I have looked at other things before, I think I went to far overboard with them, and now I'm trying to come up with a different set, to not be as harsh to people that might want to join, but still not have spellcasters being the only stars of the game. The one's I've picked for this go are an attempt at being thematic ant metaphysically valid. Some are cribbed from others, I'll not deny, but then again, there are no new thoughts in the world anymore, right?

A) Metamagic reducers to not exist as they do currently. They can only reduce a metamagic feat's spell level increase by 1, and to an obvious minimum of zero. They are also specific, i.e. Each Metamagic Reducer has to be specified to a different metamagic feat.

There's already metamagic reducers like that. There's also metamagic reducers that go by school spell, etc. By making them all of the same type, you're actually boosting them, as it makes it much easier to make, say, quicken apply to absolutely everything with a lessened or null cost.

I would not classify the above as a nerf, strictly speaking.


B) Spells Cap out at 3rd level, at 6th level of ability. Any benefit that is used/abused to increase caster level increases only caster level, not the level of spells that may be used. Kobold Cheese, Orange Ioun Stones, et all, increase the caster level of the spells cast, but not the spells that one can cast. Pretty much common sense, in my opinion.

Er...caster level never increases spells that can be cast. That's RAW.

Hell, caster level isn't even a prereq for many ways of getting higher level spells. This really needs clarification.

Also, note that learning 4th level spells as feats(such as stone to flesh and raise dead) is a pretty standard E6 thing.


C) Spells with Verbal or Somatic Components may NOT be cast in Alternate Forms. The Language of Magic is increasingly precise, and as such, altering one's vocal chords in any way, prevents one from being able to use said spells. As such, Natural Spell does not exist as a feat. The same is similar with the perfected, measured movements of somatic spells. Using a spell in your native form, you know your muscles, and how everything bends. As you change your form, you lose that grasp of fine musculature that allows the precise movements. No Alter Self, WildShape, or any other ability that changes form. Things that change only size, may be allowed if one spends some time (a round or two) hashing out the differences in vocal resonance and somatic musculature. Spells without Vocal and Somatic Components can be cast as normal.

Just ban natural spell and call it a day. The rest of this basically just means they take the single, already existing feat, specifically to fix this. Or still/silent/reducers.


D) I am very tempted in making Small sized spell casters do less damage, have smaller areas of effect, and have a shorter range, but I'm not 100% on that. (Logistically, from a rules standpoint, it would make sense, but thematically, I'm not there yet)

This balances very little(read, it's exploitable as hell). What is the purpose from a mechanics perspective? Hell, how do you justify physical size setting the effect of your words/magic?


E) Artificers are not present in this campaign setting, nor are Archivists. This should get rid of a lot of the ability to get access to higher level spells thru PRC class spell lists. Also, they are not exactly thematically appropriate for the Campaign Setting.

How do you feel about warlocks, southern magicians, etc?


F) As a non-nerf, but social constraint, Wizards are disliked in the Campaign world I am creating. I am thinking an auto drop of one category for social interaction at the start.

Meh. This sounds like a hassle for fairly little gain. Anyone who cares about social standing already can diplomacy to helpful without a second thought. Anyone else just gets nerfed for being a good team player.


G) I am also considering a maximum amount of "buffing" type spells equal to the lesser of the recipient's Constitution or Wisdom modifiers (the body and mind can only hold so much arcana in it, at one time). This will prevent multiple spells of different sorts being cast on someone at the same time. (Maybe I'll just average the two, and do it that way, as always, minimum of 1). This would use the Character's Base Constitution, rather than any spell modified constitution.

This sucks for MAD chars. They need buffs more than anyone else. You'll note tier 1 and 2 classes are almost invariably SAD, and con is their secondary stat, and will almost invariably be pretty juicy.


H) Oh yeah, Divine Metamagic is right out. Clerics can use metamagic feats, and pay for them like everyone else. And the feat that does the same with Bards, out as well.

You realize those are in addition to metamagic feats, and by default, are extremely limited in how much they do, right? Clerics get 3+cha, and cha isn't used for much else. Each time they reduce a metamagic, they must pay x+1 where x is the normal cost.

So, by dumping a 14 into cha(generally suboptimal) and blowing two feats on quicken and DMM quicken(it's MM locked, not a general feat), the cleric gains the ability to quicken....one spell per day. Er...yay? That's a fairly decent use of it to. Persist eats EIGHT turning attempts per use. Good luck getting that in E6 without nightstick abuse, and that'd eat THREE feats.


I) Keeping track of non-expensive spell components has been pointed out by many people to not be liked, so therefore, I will keep the option of Eschew Material Components, but also, the Spell Component pouch only has 50 level "charges" equivalent in it. Once 50 spell levels have been cast, a new one must be purchased, at 5gp. This simulates the utilization of the inexpensive components but isn't that much to spend. It's a Pittance, that is just thematic, rather than a real "cost". Priced Spell Components cost the same as before. Also, the spell component pouch is the size, and shape of a belt pouch. If it couldn't fit in a belt pouch, it won't fit in a Spell Component Pouch.

Pittances should just be ignored. This not only does not affect power, it gives players something else trivial to track. This is probably not particularly fun. I suggest giving Eschew material components to all spont casters as a bonus feat.


So, 9 House rules to bring Magic down only slightly. Are any of them too far?

They don't really do what's advertised well, I'm afraid.

[NeoSeraphi]

Just ban natural spell and call it a day. The rest of this basically just means they take the single, already existing feat, specifically to fix this. Or still/silent/reducers.


Forcing people to take feats in order to abuse alter self is better than just letting them do it without a feat, I'd say.



This balances very little(read, it's exploitable as hell). What is the purpose from a mechanics perspective? Hell, how do you justify physical size setting the effect of your words/magic?


Exploitable? Exploitable how? There's only one spell that forcibly reduces a character's size, and it allows a Fort save for 11+mod to negate, and it only works on humanoids.




Meh. This sounds like a hassle for fairly little gain. Anyone who cares about social standing already can diplomacy to helpful without a second thought. Anyone else just gets nerfed for being a good team player.

Wizards don't have Diplomacy as a class skill. They have no reason to pump Charisma. It's very unlikely they'd succeed a flat DC 15 Diplomacy check.




This sucks for MAD chars. They need buffs more than anyone else. You'll note tier 1 and 2 classes are almost invariably SAD, and con is their secondary stat, and will almost invariably be pretty juicy.


Everyone needs Con. If they're playing a class that doesn't need Con, they aren't going into melee, and that means they need fewer buffs.



You realize those are in addition to metamagic feats, and by default, are extremely limited in how much they do, right? Clerics get 3+cha, and cha isn't used for much else. Each time they reduce a metamagic, they must pay x+1 where x is the normal cost.

So, by dumping a 14 into cha(generally suboptimal) and blowing two feats on quicken and DMM quicken(it's MM locked, not a general feat), the cleric gains the ability to quicken....one spell per day. Er...yay? That's a fairly decent use of it to. Persist eats EIGHT turning attempts per use. Good luck getting that in E6 without nightstick abuse, and that'd eat THREE feats.


Persist Spell has a level increase of +6, not +7. Having 18 Charisma will allow you to DMM Persist one spell per day. Even choosing divine power makes clerics a totally different character, and it also completely removes the one penalty they had for being cloistered clerics instead. DMM Persist is an extremely potent combination.



Pittances should just be ignored. This not only does not affect power, it gives players something else trivial to track. This is probably not particularly fun. I suggest giving Eschew material components to all spont casters as a bonus feat.


Really? Do you let your archers have infinite arrows as well?

[vitkiraven]

There's already metamagic reducers like that. There's also metamagic reducers that go by school spell, etc. By making them all of the same type, you're actually boosting them, as it makes it much easier to make, say, quicken apply to absolutely everything with a lessened or null cost.

I would not classify the above as a nerf, strictly speaking.

Okay, maybe I should just limit to only being able to reduce a spell's metamagic component by 1 level, and no stacking? I mean, the way I was trying to portray it, was that if you had quicken, then you would have to get multiple metamagic reducer feats/ abilities to reduce it, and those metamagic feats/ abilities only apply to the quicken spell metamagic.



Er...caster level never increases spells that can be cast. That's RAW.


I do not plan on removing the 4th level spell feats at all, just removing the ability to use them in a combat sense. Since I've seen optimizers use increasing caster level to get access to higher level spells, that is what I was focusing on. Much easier to just ignore what I said, and just limit the spells one can cast not including the feat based spells, to be limited to 3rd level then.



Just ban natural spell and call it a day. The rest of this basically just means they take the single, already existing feat, specifically to fix this. Or still/silent/reducers.


Banning natural spell doesn't take care of Alter Self, does it? And if it's REALLY important for the wizard in question to still be able to cast while in Varag or Troglodyte form, then taking those Silent/ Still (plus reducers), then they have utilized a large portion of their ability in leveling up to be able to do so, and hence they are focused appropriately.



This balances very little(read, it's exploitable as hell). What is the purpose from a mechanics perspective? Hell, how do you justify physical size setting the effect of your words/magic?


As for exploitable? I am not sure I follow. If someone is naturally small sized, they do less damage, effect a smaller area, and have a smaller range for their spells. Sure, they can focus on spells that have none of those things, and if they do, then they are playing to that type of caster. If they area focusing on Area based Debuffs, then the area they hit is smaller, to compensate for their smaller size. Having less area of effect is nice, when utilized in confined spaces, as it allows much easier tac nukes, I'll allow. When one is dealing with larger areas though, it would definitely be more hindering than not. If your sleep spell effects a smaller area of effect, then you might not be able to hit all of the orcs, or goblins, or what have you. Ultimately, it is up to the player to decide if that want to play a race with that side effect, for the benefit of being small. And, I haven't decided on using it just yet. The main reason for that is that I haven't meshed how it should work in the campaign setting.



How do you feel about warlocks, southern magicians, etc?

Well, for Southern Magicians, since it is a FR specific feat, and this realm is not in FR, it's neither here nor there. Anything that is Campaign specific, I am reserving the right to not allow. It is already looking more like Dragonlance so far... As for warlocks, I am not sure. It could be thematic, I have to look over the class again. Even if they are a part of the campaign setting, they would have to be classified first, as to what role they filled during the Campaign's Big Event.



Meh. This sounds like a hassle for fairly little gain. Anyone who cares about social standing already can diplomacy to helpful without a second thought. Anyone else just gets nerfed for being a good team player.


Ah, big hassle for fairly little gain. This is where the Campaign Setting's Big Event comes in. About 200 years ago, there was a series of wars which wracked the continent, known as the Wizard Wars. It was a massive battle between multiple schools of wizardry, where the common folk suffered because the wizards were concerned with which school of magic was superior. That is where the suspicion and hatred come from. It might be a hassle, but it also makes sense, so even if it is a hassle, it won't be too big of one, and it's even less of a hassle than the last version I had thought up for it (where common folk get bonuses to saves and skill checks against wizards based on how much they hate them).



This sucks for MAD chars. They need buffs more than anyone else. You'll note tier 1 and 2 classes are almost invariably SAD, and con is their secondary stat, and will almost invariably be pretty juicy.


Actually, I thought it would fairly hurt Arcane Casters the most, since they now have to boost Con and Wis to have multiple spell effects concurrently benefiting them, but you are right, were SAD have it easier. So I guess all SAD class spellcasters will have to get a secondary attribute for their casting DC's and Bonus Spells, based on their Specialty (or what not as the case may be)? Would that level it out a bit?



You realize those are in addition to metamagic feats, and by default, are extremely limited in how much they do, right? Clerics get 3+cha, and cha isn't used for much else. Each time they reduce a metamagic, they must pay x+1 where x is the normal cost.

So, by dumping a 14 into cha(generally suboptimal) and blowing two feats on quicken and DMM quicken(it's MM locked, not a general feat), the cleric gains the ability to quicken....one spell per day. Er...yay? That's a fairly decent use of it to. Persist eats EIGHT turning attempts per use. Good luck getting that in E6 without nightstick abuse, and that'd eat THREE feats.

I never thought that using Turn Undead for it's actual use was worthless. Maybe I'm just not thinking of it in those manners, since I am keeping myself open for utilizing a lot of undead in the Campaign. I will have to re-evaluate it, but as it stands, action economy is where most spell casters have a boost over non-caster types. Maybe I'll just Eliminate Quicken Spell and Persist Spell, and that will eliminate that problem.



Pittances should just be ignored. This not only does not affect power, it gives players something else trivial to track. This is probably not particularly fun. I suggest giving Eschew material components to all spont casters as a bonus feat.



They don't really do what's advertised well, I'm afraid.

Do you not account for rations or food in your campaigns, or night stays at the inn? What about buying that Bottle of Expensive Mead, for your character? I didn't think of the spell components as a nerf, just as a logical extension. A spell component pouch is not a magical item, it's not infinite in size, and it doesn't conjure the materials you need constantly. If it did, the party could just survive on the dried bug parts that a mage pulls for to cast a jump spell. This is just a minor accounting thing, rather than go into the whole Aurora's Whole Realms Guide and make every item cost. If they want to not worry about it, the only cost is a feat, which has no metamagic level attached to it, and is available at level 1. I worked it up BECAUSE I make the fighter types buy whetstones and armor maintenance kits, and I use a more gritty campaign than the high fantasy. If you don't like that, that's fine, but this isn't a nerf, it's just common sense.

I appreciate your opinions, and have taken some of them into consideration. Thank you for pointing out that the MAD characters get hurt more by the Magic Tolerance bit, as it made me quite aware that spell casters need a second required attribute in the campaign setting.:smallamused:

[Siosilvar]

Really? Do you let your archers have infinite arrows as well?

I'll field this one.

Yes. To a certain extent.

At level 2 and up, it's reasonable to assume the archer has an effectively infinite supply of nonmagical ammunition. 2-3 arrows per round, 4-5 rounds per combat is 5sp per fight. A level 2 character can spend 10gp on arrows and not worry about it until they get to level 3, and the game essentially assumes level 2 characters have 900gp to spend.

If they want masterwork ammunition, 50 arrows for 300gp becomes a nearly-irrelevant cost at level 4. Likewise with +1 arrows at level 7-8.

Obviously, you still keep track of the arrows that are big enough to matter.

I don't keep track of cantrips and 1st-level spells for high-level casters, either. If you have 9 spells per day at your lower spell levels, it's highly unlikely that you'll use all of them, so the added granularity of keeping track adds little to the game. If you've got 6th level spells to toss around, the difference between casting 4 first-level spells and 5 first-level spells is negligible.


Do you not account for rations or food in your campaigns, or night stays at the inn? What about buying that Bottle of Expensive Mead, for your character?

Past level 3? Nope. Keeping track of expenses of less than 1% of the character's wealth doesn't really help the game any; it's just detail for the sake of detail.

If you're running a world where little details like that do matter (say, post-apocalyptic or there's a bunch of detail-oriented players in the group), that's fine. But in many games, it's irrelevant whether you've got 2100gp or 2067gp - you're going to be able to afford a lot of ale and wenches before running dry.

[vitkiraven]

I don't keep track of cantrips and 1st-level spells for high-level casters, either. If you have 9 spells per day at your lower spell levels, it's highly unlikely that you'll use all of them, so the added granularity of keeping track adds little to the game. If you've got 6th level spells to toss around, the difference between casting 4 first-level spells and 5 first-level spells is negligible.



Past level 3? Nope. Keeping track of expenses of less than 1% of the character's wealth doesn't really help the game any; it's just detail for the sake of detail.

If you're running a world where little details like that do matter (say, post-apocalyptic or there's a bunch of detail-oriented players in the group), that's fine. But in many games, it's irrelevant whether you've got 2100gp or 2067gp - you're going to be able to afford a lot of ale and wenches before running dry.

Well, I have to say that my experience on both sides of the shield are different than yours. I am not trying to judge, but it seems like the game you are portraying is more of an adventure grind, whereas I tend to prefer much grittier games, but then YMMV. I don't know if the groups that you run with bother to track encumbrance, but I know that I have (again, on both sides of the shield). None of the games that I played in were P.A., but I did have a tendency to buy more roleplaying type expenditures, with a higher immersion factor than specing the best equipment for each level. When I had that much cash, I might have gotten some nifty magic items, but then again, I was just as likely to have a statue made of my character, out of marble, and have old magic items melded into the statue, but again, it's my style. Not everyone is needed to follow it.
It makes absolutely no sense to have people have things in Hammer-space without some magic behind it. If this works for you and your games, that is excellent. It does not work for me though. Maybe I'm just one of those detail-orientated Players / DM's, with a desire for some small measure of verisimilitude. And my DM's ALWAYS made me keep track of my arrows, and I had Craft: Bowyer/Fletcher maxed, and a wagon to store them in. :smallbiggrin:

[DeAnno]

The poor Kobold Sorcerer cries at this e6 ruleset. Metamagic hampered, Small size penalized, and his Greater Rite of Passage for 7th level effective casting (which includes no 4th level spells, incidentally) obliterated all in one false swoop.

Of course if no one plays Kobolds then no one will care! :smallwink:

On a more likely to matter note, the small size hampering spellcasting thing is just silly, and all that will do is make absolutely sure nobody plays a small spellcaster. If you think Halflings and Gnomes thematically shouldn't cast spells, go with it I guess.

[absolmorph]

A) Okay, that makes sense.

B) Caster Level and available spell levels are completely disassociated already. Kobolds have a unique ritual that grants them a free level of sorcerer casting; to my knowledge, it's the only E6-viable instance of such a thing.

C) ... Okay, this is a smaller change for an E6 game.

D) From a rules perspective, it makes no sense. From a theoretical perspective, it makes no sense. From a balance perspective, it makes no sense. This isn't a good rule. It needlessly punishes players for playing a small character.

E) Not really a houserule, but sure. That's fine.

F) Not a houserule, just a flavor factor, but sure. That's fine (if you can explain why they actually went to war over spell schools).

G) Again, this punishes lower tier classes far more than high tier. The higher tier classes have an easier time putting points into non-primary stats. The first two tiers are almost purely SAD classes.

H) Sure, that helps a bit.

I) Honestly, I don't understand how this will make the game more fun for anyone. I can understand requiring that it be an item that would logically fit in a pouch, but the 50 levels thing just adds something that will bog down the players as they consider what they need to pick up in town.
If this makes the game more fun for your players, fine, but it's not actually doing anything to level the playing field except make playing a caster a bit more irritating.

Now, one of the two reasons that I find E6 interesting is that it tops off right where melee and magic are closest to even. There are still some problem spells, but melee can be a threat without magic. Limiting the nasty cheese (DMM, Metamagic reducers) makes sense, but these rules go a bit far.

[Siosilvar]

-snip-

Immersion and detail like that are fine, but if you've got a wagon to store arrows in and Craft: Bowyer/Fletcher, you've already got as many masterwork arrows as you need. Did you ever run out of arrows? If you didn't, there was little need to keep track of them, and that wagon was your hammerspace.

I don't find that keeping track of such little things helps my games any. I don't tend to run adventure "grinds", but I do think that Heroes (capital H) shouldn't have to worry about whether they're going to run out of ammunition or spell components or whatever.

Gritty is a perfectly valid style of play, but it doesn't work well with D&D past the very low levels, in my experience. There's already so much abstraction in the combat system and a high-magic standard that adding detail in other places seems off to me.

And yes, I don't keep track of encumbrance, so long as the PCs have some sort of transportation or 20+ Strength.

[vitkiraven]

D) From a rules perspective, it makes no sense. From a theoretical perspective, it makes no sense. From a balance perspective, it makes no sense. This isn't a good rule. It needlessly punishes players for playing a small character.

F) Not a houserule, just a flavor factor, but sure. That's fine (if you can explain why they actually went to war over spell schools).

G) Again, this punishes lower tier classes far more than high tier. The higher tier classes have an easier time putting points into non-primary stats. The first two tiers are almost purely SAD classes.
H) Sure, that helps a bit.

I) Honestly, I don't understand how this will make the game more fun for anyone. I can understand requiring that it be an item that would logically fit in a pouch, but the 50 levels thing just adds something that will bog down the players as they consider what they need to pick up in town.
If this makes the game more fun for your players, fine, but it's not actually doing anything to level the playing field except make playing a caster a bit more irritating.

Now, one of the two reasons that I find E6 interesting is that it tops off right where melee and magic are closest to even. There are still some problem spells, but melee can be a threat without magic. Limiting the nasty cheese (DMM, Metamagic reducers) makes sense, but these rules go a bit far.

My reasoning behind D) is that Small size is not a penalty. It's actually a bonus to characters, and I feel that it was calculated strictly as a penalty. From a look at small creatures, they get a penalty to carrying things equal to -25%, but almost all their equipment weighs half as much as it would for a normal sized entity. Ergo, it would be as if they received an actual bonus to what they can carry, rather than a penalty. One primary mode of dealing damage is reduced in Die size by one step by smaller creatures, but another die size is not. This means that they area not balanced in that regard, and it falsely rewards those who min-max to get the benefits of being small, while not being hampered by the negatives of it (How many different ways are there to getting out of a grapple?). I am not dead set in stone about this one, but I feel something needs to be done to level the field a bit. Maybe one of the three (damage, range, or area of effect) picked when the spell is learned? The main reason why I wasn't dead set on it, is because I haven't discerned a valid in game reason. Maybe the amount of Arcane or Divine Energies an entity can have is purely somehow purely related to gross physical mass? But then that benefits Large creatures more. More thought will have to go into it on my part.
F) Because wizards are always fighting over who has the bigger ... spell list? I mean, quite honestly, we are dealing with people who can have reality shattering levels of power, even in an e-6 campaign. Hubris is something that can easily set one to arms, and pride is a dangerous beast when it is hurt. Hell, with wizards, it could have started over an argument over whose chili recipe was better, but I figured that having the war 200 years in the past be between different specialties of wizard would be a very likely and easy to conceive notion. People don't change. There is always those who wants power, and there are those who will do anything to prevent those people from attaining power. Even if it basically meant razing the continent. What do the common folk know of the world of wizards anyway? Most of what is known of the Wizard Wars is passed down from survivors that were enchanted and forced to fight on one side, against outsiders, humanoids, undead, etc...
G) Hmm, multiple people have pointed out that this doesn't effect the spellcasters as much as everyone else. Would changing it to be just spellcasters have a limit of 2 active spells at any time on their own person make much of a difference. The mechanic I was kind of cribbing from M:tA, so I had liked the flavor of it.
I) I never really thought that it would be leveling the field in any way. Honestly, Spellcasters are horribly horribly broken in that regard, to make them even close to Tier 3, you need to make every spell a full round action to cast, make it actually cost something to acquire and cast spells, and make them level similar to other ability progression. I haven't found a quick easy fix, besides going through the books with a razor blade and a flame thrower. The Spell component pouch is just so that there is some verisimilitude. Having the material components for EVERY spell you will ever cast, already bought at your handy dandy general store, strikes an odd chord with me. I make archers keep track of arrows, why shouldn't there be some mechanism for keeping track of spells? At the price, 5 gp for 50 levels of spells (that's 100 cantrips), that is the equivalent of 1 sp per spell. That is on par with arrows and bolts. Not exactly a big cost, for sure, but it gives a reason to keep buying the pouches, and the only time a "level" is expended, is when the spell actually calls for material components. The other issue I had, is that there are a LOT of items that have some amount of mass or size. I am merely codifying the total amount of size available in said pouch, and actually being generous at that. In the base description, it is listed as having many sub-compartments and pockets. That would decrease the amount of size for larger components greatly. As I pointed out, if the people really do not like it, they can acquire the Eschew Material Components feat.

Thank you for your comments, I am still on the fence with not doing the small sized issue.

[vitkiraven]

Immersion and detail like that are fine, but if you've got a wagon to store arrows in and Craft: Bowyer/Fletcher, you've already got as many masterwork arrows as you need. Did you ever run out of arrows? If you didn't, there was little need to keep track of them, and that wagon was your hammerspace.

I don't find that keeping track of such little things helps my games any. I don't tend to run adventure "grinds", but I do think that Heroes (capital H) shouldn't have to worry about whether they're going to run out of ammunition or spell components or whatever.

Gritty is a perfectly valid style of play, but it doesn't work well with D&D past the very low levels, in my experience. There's already so much abstraction in the combat system and a high-magic standard that adding detail in other places seems off to me.

And yes, I don't keep track of encumbrance, so long as the PCs have some sort of transportation or 20+ Strength.

Actually, I had run out of arrows at a few times, which is why I really started to do all that with the cart, and every watch making arrows. With the amount of focus I put into making arrows (as a barbarian mind you), I ended up looking more like a ranger. Archery wasn't even his primary mode of combat. :smallbiggrin:
Ah, there is a disconnect. I don't play adventurers as Big Heroes, I play them as people who stepped up, or just decided to go out adventuring. I require that my own characters have a trade skill of some kind, that they are not professional heroes or something of the sort, and I tend to focus on lower levels and lower magic. Again, YMMV, and everyone's playing style is their own, and as such correct.
I keep track of encumbrance even when the PC's have massive strengths or modes of transport. I've had players try to get all manner of things in their equipment lists, stuff that has no reason to be in there. :smallbiggrin:
But also, one of my most memorable gaming events was when I was a player in 2nd edition, and my character was saved due to an utterly random mundane piece of equipment I purchased at character start.

[vitkiraven]

The poor Kobold Sorcerer cries at this e6 ruleset. Metamagic hampered, Small size penalized, and his Greater Rite of Passage for 7th level effective casting (which includes no 4th level spells, incidentally) obliterated all in one false swoop.

Of course if no one plays Kobolds then no one will care! :smallwink:

On a more likely to matter note, the small size hampering spellcasting thing is just silly, and all that will do is make absolutely sure nobody plays a small spellcaster. If you think Halflings and Gnomes thematically shouldn't cast spells, go with it I guess.

Kobolds are sewer sweepers in this campaign setting. :smallamused:

Honestly, the small size thing is just trying to reconcile why the developers thought specifically that their one form of damaging others should be gimped, but not another. Again, I am not dead set on it.

[Coidzor]

D) I am very tempted in making Small sized spell casters do less damage, have smaller areas of effect, and have a shorter range, but I'm not 100% on that. (Logistically, from a rules standpoint, it would make sense, but thematically, I'm not there yet)

...Not to me it wouldn't, so you're gonna have to explain yourself as to how it makes sense that the same spell being cast by a halfling, a human, and a giant should be altered based upon who is casting it.

Or, hell, to take it further, why should a pixie, a naturally magical creature, be a worse caster than a human?


Honestly, the small size thing is just trying to reconcile why the developers thought specifically that their one form of damaging others should be gimped, but not another. Again, I am not dead set on it.

You don't understand how smaller weapons would be less damaging and larger weapons would be without spells that have a magical effect irrespective of size being made to conform to that? :smallconfused:

If thats your reason for it, just forget about changing it.

[vitkiraven]

...Not to me it wouldn't, so you're gonna have to explain yourself as to how it makes sense that the same spell being cast by a halfling, a human, and a giant should be altered based upon who is casting it.



You don't understand how smaller weapons would be less damaging and larger weapons would be without spells that have a magical effect irrespective of size being made to conform to that? :smallconfused:

If thats your reason for it, just forget about changing it.

Balance wise. I don't see how it is balanced is what I am trying to get at. I probably won't end up using it. I couldn't justify it to myself, so the Small sized races will just have to be nerfed in some other way is all.

[Coidzor]

Balance wise. I don't see how it is balanced is what I am trying to get at. I probably won't end up using it. I couldn't justify it to myself, so the Small sized races will just have to be nerfed in some other way is all.

Balance? Small sized races are pretty explicitly called out in the rules as being only slightly different from Medium-sized creatures as opposed to every other size category being more different from one another. And you're arguing that this wasn't intentional when, presumably, Medium and Small sized creatures are meant to live and adventure and fight alongside one another in a similar capacity? :smallconfused:

[vitkiraven]

Balance? Small sized races are pretty explicitly called out in the rules as being only slightly different from Medium-sized creatures as opposed to every other size category being more different from one another. And you're arguing that this wasn't intentional when, presumably, Medium and Small sized creatures are meant to live and adventure and fight alongside one another in a similar capacity? :smallconfused:

Yes, and yet, they have only true benefits over Medium Sized Creatures. They have few weaknesses, which area easily repaired, and more than their fair amount of benefits. Some might have a negative in Strength (common sense), but they basically get the equivalent of an increased strength when it comes to equipment encumbrance.
I'm already dropping it from the things I am going to do. Maybe I will drop the carrying capacity of small sized humanoids to just half instead of 3/4, and find some other way of making them less obviously optimal choices for spellcaster builds.

[DeAnno]

Some might have a negative in Strength (common sense), but they basically get the equivalent of an increased strength when it comes to equipment encumbrance.

Seriously, no one cares about the encumbrance thing. At all. It isn't some massive advantage that needs to be countered with combat nerfs.

[vitkiraven]

{{scrubbed}}

[absolmorph]

{{scrubbed}}
{{scrubbed}}
Also, encumbrance is a carry-over from earlier editions of D&D, and is quite honestly a ridiculous rule.
Plus, as I mentioned, there's very little practical optimization that can be done within the first 6 levels. Theoretically, I could make Pun-Pun by level 4 (level 1 if I really push it), but that's a theoretical exercise and way beyond what most DMs will let happen.
Personally, the only time I would play a small character as a spellcaster would be if I'm playing an illusionist (Gnome) or feel like being a dragon (Kobold); in general, Human (and if they're allowed, Strongheart Halflings) are the most attractive option for any character, since they get an extra feat.

[Rainbownaga]

I don't know why you're talking about encumbrance as a small spellcaster's advantage, I was under the impression that the real advantage was size. +1 to AC and attacks with rays isn't much but it's something.

In melee characters its offset by reduced damage per size and a strength penalty, but casters don't even need strength so the points go into something useful.

The real danger is how you apply this to larger sizes, and justify how medium is the "optimal spellcasting size". Not that wizards benefiting from enlarge person would be necissarily bad...

Actually, I'm starting to like this idea.

Incidentally, it would make it a lot easier to design tiny or smaller PC classes.

[vitkiraven]

Thank you to the mod for scrubbing my post. I acknowledge that the hit was below the belt.

To those who feel that encumbrance doesn't matter (In their games) that is fine, for your games. I feel very strongly that it has a perfectly valid and appropriate place in my games. YMMV. Otherwise I end up with people carrying the equivalent of a ton when they are playing an 8 str wizard. If people do not feel the need to use it for their campaigns, so be it. I've always said that at other tables, people do what they want.

I have stricken the Houserule from the list anyway, so I will not discuss it any further, in respect for the mods, and to prevent myself from devolving into trolldom any further.

[jiriku]

In general, I'm not seeing how these rules correct game balance. I agree that they personalize the game for you, and make it feel more "your own". However, I generally recommend using fluff and setting for that purpose, rather than house rules.

The root issue here is that for every loophole that you've closed, there are ten more that you didn't. Trying to balance the game by spot-nerfing or spot-banning specific feats and combos is like playing a game of whack-a-mole against rabid hasted fiendish dire moles. It's much easier to cut this sort of thing off at the player level, by talking with them about the kind of game you want to run and what your vision for an appropriate power level is.

E6 is already pretty well-balanced compared to 3.5/PF in general. I'd recommend that you just roll with it, have a good time, and keep a careful DM's hand on the wheel to ensure that the game stays on a right course.

[vitkiraven]

In general, I'm not seeing how these rules correct game balance. I agree that they personalize the game for you, and make it feel more "your own". However, I generally recommend using fluff and setting for that purpose, rather than house rules.

The root issue here is that for every loophole that you've closed, there are ten more that you didn't. Trying to balance the game by spot-nerfing or spot-banning specific feats and combos is like playing a game of whack-a-mole against rabid hasted fiendish dire moles. It's much easier to cut this sort of thing off at the player level, by talking with them about the kind of game you want to run and what your vision for an appropriate power level is.

E6 is already pretty well-balanced compared to 3.5/PF in general. I'd recommend that you just roll with it, have a good time, and keep a careful DM's hand on the wheel to ensure that the game stays on a right course.

A very good point. I really just don't want the other party members to suffer if the game I am starting up ends up being an escalation of power to keep the spellcaster types challenged. It's the challenging part that always gets me. I can make an adventure that would challenge the Tier 1's no problem. It will unfortunately be tailored to tier 1's.
I've already banned fighters and monks, but even with that, there are so many broken spellcaster combos that I feel that mitigating the worst of them can keep them from making me... indulge in my more TPK scenarios. Every time I read another post by the Wizard or Druid optimizers, I see another way in which a non-spellcaster is left in the dust. In my campaign setting, I prefer to have things on a relative equal footing. If that can't be done, my only other choice is to open up options for non-casters only, as why should the spellcasters be the only ones to have nice things. Unfortunately, that ends up turning into a free-for-all book dive for the melee, while the casters are stuck with a (severely) edited pamphlet of the Player's Handbook.

The setting Fluff already has a decidedly caster-hating feel to it, so I'm going to shorten the list further, and spot nerf the spellcasters with a Greathorn Minotaur Greathammer o' Doom (and banning). If I see the spellcasters start to pull away, I'll wait and observe. Then I'll come out swinging for the bleachers.

I'll clean up the top list, to account for things I might be removing.