E6 Brainstorming

[Gnorman]

Initial disclaimer: If you don't know what E6 is, this is your go-to source (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html).

This is going to be a vague and fairly open-ended thread, so bear with me on this one. As some of you may or may not know, I really like E6 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250820). But I'm just one guy, and as part of my ongoing design-based dilettantism, I'd like to dig into the opinions and thoughts of a larger sample. Call it crowdsourcing if you must.

1. What do you like the most about E6? What compels you about it? Why give up 70% of your potential (read: theoretical) character development?

2. What do you dislike about E6? What problems do you see with it? What do you miss most about those other 14 levels?

3. What kinds of stories/settings/characters do you feel best mesh with E6? What kinds do not?

4. If you had to distill the philosophy of E6 down to a single sentence, what would that sentence be? For example, mine would be: "Every encounter matters and every character counts."

5. Any other miscellaneous thoughts on the subject?

[sdream]

1) (As I haven't actually had a chance to play an e6 game, I'm limited to waxing eloquent about how what I have read appeals to me)

An epic character and reasonable adult care about the same things. (I normally have all adults (and starting players) around lvl 3, takes care of the cat issue, and the crazy health difference between 1 and 3)

Class balance is a lot more reasonable without spells going so crazy.

Some of the weirdness of level based RPGs (as opposed to stat based) is reduced. "I killed more things, so I am better at basketweaving than you could possibly comprehend"

I actually strongly disagree with "giving up 70% of your character development"... feat selection is one of the most unique things about many characters, as classes often dictate what advances they get at what levels. Pushing the focus back to learning the new trick OF YOUR CHOICE, instead of just progressing further along the set path gives MORE character development not less... viewing character development a different way, having NPCs that do not become irrelevantly weak over your campaign is also good for development of the character of your personality and world.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I can and will elaborate more on this when I am not limited to a phone. (New motherboard is on order... Yes, it was that bad.)

I am a DM with 9 months of experience with my current campaign, which became an E6 campaign around ECL 2 for the players (so before it was ever established that people with more than 6 class levels exist in the game). I have played occasionally in E6 games, mostly by play-by-post, but my schedule (and my companions' interest) seems to disagree with the game right about the time initiative is first rolled, so most of my input comes from the DM side.

1) E6 offers a nice sweet spot for inter-character balance, so it is quite hard for a concept to utterly fail in the hands of anyone with reasonable talent for optimization. My players were able to get a very good feel for the way their characters worked, and then retain that feel, as subsequent changes through feats reflected small, incremental changes instead of big, qualitative ones. Bookkeeping is easy for characters, as I don't have to deal with leveling up a bunch of people time and time again. Combat is easy to create on the fly, as classes can basically be templated or constructed at a moment's notice, without fifty different class features and abilities that need to be accounted for. The CR of creatures is (mostly) accurate at this stage, so I can expect a wyvern to represent a reasonable threat for a party whose ECL equals its CR. (This is less true for my party, which has a dozen people.) The game is less gear-dependent, and somebody can explore magic items as a convenience less than a necessity. They are also less likely to break the game wide open (with reasonable limitations applied). There is always an element of danger to the game, as nobody has plot armor (hit points, saves, AC, etc) that are in the stratosphere, unless they built for that one thing... Conversrly, the "save or die" is a concept largely alien to E6, and when it does exist, it is the centerpiece of an incredibly difficult end-game fight. Players are less likely to be shut down or forced to reroll because of a single bad roll. Staging and sequencing encounters in a story arc is easy, and it's easier to give an "epic" feel to, say, slaying an adult green dragon (or young adult, if need be).

Whoop. Just nodded off. I'll respond to 2-5 later.

[hymer]

1: The real kicker is actually how it makes my job as a DM easier. It’s far faster to make a level 6 spellcaster, even with a bunch of extra feats, than a level 17 one. I might spend an hour or even longer on a wizards’ technical data in my earlier campaign. Now it takes about ten minutes, and I know most of the spells well enough I don’t have to look them up all the time. I don’t need to cook up all sorts of defences for the plot against readily available abilities. And I can take all that time and put into something productive, making me much happier with the end product.

2: I haven’t really found anything to dislike yet, but my first E6 campaign is barely three months old, so there’s time yet.

3: We’re doing a heavily story-driven campaign, where the PC family is trying to return to power in a Rome-esque city after a PR disaster ten years ago. Keeping powerful magic in check makes it far better able to capture the mood we’re looking for, and footing an army many thousands strong may actually make sense from a crunchy perspective as well as a fluffy one.

4: I’d refuse outright.

5: None right now, but maybe I’ll have some later.

[Yora]

1. Best thing about E6 is lack of high level magic and powerful monsters never becomming mundane critters.

2. Bad thing would probably be that it still suffers from many of the inherent problems of 3rd Edition, like way too many rules for minor things.

3. E6 works well for all stories in which the protagonists are limited to what humans are capable of. They are exceptional and at the very top, but apart from magical effects, they still have to obey basic laws of physics. You can't fatally damage a stone golem by stabbing its toe with a dagger.
In turn, E6 doesn't work for stories where the protagonists are essentially superheroes or even superhuman beings.

4. Summed up, E6 is an RPG system for alternative worlds where there are also other humanoid species and some basic magical effects. Like in probably 95% of all fantasy fiction.

[Calimehter]

I've only ever DM'ed it, but would love to play it. As a DM, I've had many NPC concepts that I wouldn't mind fleshing out a bit more and playing!

1) As others have said, making NPCs characterful but quickly is a lot easier. Running lower magic than your typical D&D campaign still requires some extra houserules, but it is a *lot* easier. Homebrew campaigns and settings can actually take concepts and inspiration from loads of good (and even not-so-good) fantasy fiction that does *not* involve a world with scry-n-die Justice Leaguers running around. You can run melee characters and not worry about being made irrelevant halfway through the story as the casters reach levels 7+.

2) Some iconic monsters that would otherwise be easy to include sometimes require some reworking and thus extra work to fit into the campaign, especially if you've added a couple of extra low-magic houserules.

3) Really, just about any story that does not involve easy and systematic access to world-bending magic can be told better in E6 than in typical D&D. You can even run magic-heavy E6 if you want a pseudo-Eberron-esque world where magic is heavily incorporated into everyday society (since low-level magic and magic items are still easy enough and systematic enough to be common if desired).

Sometimes its fun to cut loose with superheroes, though, and for that type of story you need to leave E6 behind for that.

4) It would be a hideous run-on sentence that incorporated what everyone has said so far. :smalltongue: I guess if I had to make an actual stab at it, I would say "Its *the* best single tool for putting heroic fantasy back into D&D".

5) Maybe when my battery recovers.

[Gnorman]

1) (As I haven't actually had a chance to play an e6 game, I'm limited to waxing eloquent about how what I have read appeals to me)

An epic character and reasonable adult care about the same things. (I normally have all adults (and starting players) around lvl 3, takes care of the cat issue, and the crazy health difference between 1 and 3)

Class balance is a lot more reasonable without spells going so crazy.

Some of the weirdness of level based RPGs (as opposed to stat based) is reduced. "I killed more things, so I am better at basketweaving than you could possibly comprehend"

I actually strongly disagree with "giving up 70% of your character development"... feat selection is one of the most unique things about many characters, as classes often dictate what advances they get at what levels. Pushing the focus back to learning the new trick OF YOUR CHOICE, instead of just progressing further along the set path gives MORE character development not less... viewing character development a different way, having NPCs that do not become irrelevantly weak over your campaign is also good for development of the character of your personality and world.

I was being slightly facetious about the 70%. Feats often come in elaborate chains that require a very large chunk of your finite resources to invest in in regular level 20 D&D. E6 lets you make that reserve-feat caster that never runs out of steam, or that versatile, trick-shot fighter. But there's a downside to having so many feats - it opens up a few methods of abuse. How many times can I take psionic feats with Psionic Body before it becomes over the top? Is it an unfair advantage for a psion to have more hit points than the barbarian? In E6, due to the lack of efficient magical healing and low totals in general, hit point damage is a serious threat. But if you invest a majority of your resources into being hard to kill via HP damage (even if they are theoretically infinite), isn't it fair that your psion be hardier than the barbarian?


I can and will elaborate more on this when I am not limited to a phone. (New motherboard is on order... Yes, it was that bad.)

I am a DM with 9 months of experience with my current campaign, which became an E6 campaign around ECL 2 for the players (so before it was ever established that people with more than 6 class levels exist in the game). I have played occasionally in E6 games, mostly by play-by-post, but my schedule (and my companions' interest) seems to disagree with the game right about the time initiative is first rolled, so most of my input comes from the DM side.

1) E6 offers a nice sweet spot for inter-character balance, so it is quite hard for a concept to utterly fail in the hands of anyone with reasonable talent for optimization. My players were able to get a very good feel for the way their characters worked, and then retain that feel, as subsequent changes through feats reflected small, incremental changes instead of big, qualitative ones. Bookkeeping is easy for characters, as I don't have to deal with leveling up a bunch of people time and time again. Combat is easy to create on the fly, as classes can basically be templated or constructed at a moment's notice, without fifty different class features and abilities that need to be accounted for. The CR of creatures is (mostly) accurate at this stage, so I can expect a wyvern to represent a reasonable threat for a party whose ECL equals its CR. (This is less true for my party, which has a dozen people.) The game is less gear-dependent, and somebody can explore magic items as a convenience less than a necessity. They are also less likely to break the game wide open (with reasonable limitations applied). There is always an element of danger to the game, as nobody has plot armor (hit points, saves, AC, etc) that are in the stratosphere, unless they built for that one thing... Conversrly, the "save or die" is a concept largely alien to E6, and when it does exist, it is the centerpiece of an incredibly difficult end-game fight. Players are less likely to be shut down or forced to reroll because of a single bad roll. Staging and sequencing encounters in a story arc is easy, and it's easier to give an "epic" feel to, say, slaying an adult green dragon (or young adult, if need be).

Whoop. Just nodded off. I'll respond to 2-5 later.

Excellent commentary, and I absolutely agree with the "epic" feel. While my group has never gotten to level 6, every monster remains dangerous enough that you can't just brush them off as nuisances. If I can delve deeper, though: with a dozen players, surely some of them are better optimizers than others. Is this an issue at your table? Is the gap between the classes and the builds still noticeable and/or problematic?


1: The real kicker is actually how it makes my job as a DM easier. It’s far faster to make a level 6 spellcaster, even with a bunch of extra feats, than a level 17 one. I might spend an hour or even longer on a wizards’ technical data in my earlier campaign. Now it takes about ten minutes, and I know most of the spells well enough I don’t have to look them up all the time. I don’t need to cook up all sorts of defences for the plot against readily available abilities. And I can take all that time and put into something productive, making me much happier with the end product.

2: I haven’t really found anything to dislike yet, but my first E6 campaign is barely three months old, so there’s time yet.

3: We’re doing a heavily story-driven campaign, where the PC family is trying to return to power in a Rome-esque city after a PR disaster ten years ago. Keeping powerful magic in check makes it far better able to capture the mood we’re looking for, and footing an army many thousands strong may actually make sense from a crunchy perspective as well as a fluffy one.

4: I’d refuse outright.

5: None right now, but maybe I’ll have some later.

I respect your refusal, just a thought. The ease of play aspect is definitely one I consider very, very valuable (I primarily DM). You said you've got more time - what do you find yourself investing that time in instead? The setting? The plot?


1. Best thing about E6 is lack of high level magic and powerful monsters never becomming mundane critters.

2. Bad thing would probably be that it still suffers from many of the inherent problems of 3rd Edition, like way too many rules for minor things.

3. E6 works well for all stories in which the protagonists are limited to what humans are capable of. They are exceptional and at the very top, but apart from magical effects, they still have to obey basic laws of physics. You can't fatally damage a stone golem by stabbing its toe with a dagger.
In turn, E6 doesn't work for stories where the protagonists are essentially superheroes or even superhuman beings.

4. Summed up, E6 is an RPG system for alternative worlds where there are also other humanoid species and some basic magical effects. Like in probably 95% of all fantasy fiction.

Do you feel that the limitations of the rules inform the limitations of the setting? For example: One of the stories that E6 doesn't inherently do very well with is the plane-hopping campaign. Obviously, you can still find a way for your characters to get to Sigil without Plane Shift, you can still traipse through the Abyss (and it's even scarier than it would be normally), but the barrier to entry is very high. This can cut both ways, though - being trapped in the Abyss at level 6 strikes me as being one hell of a campaign, trying to avoid (whether through stealth, reason, or persuasion) demons you know could kill you with a passing thought. Actually, never mind, E6 totally does plane-hopping campaigns well, just in a different way.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I was being slightly facetious about the 70%. Feats often come in elaborate chains that require a very large chunk of your finite resources to invest in in regular level 20 D&D. E6 lets you make that reserve-feat caster that never runs out of steam, or that versatile, trick-shot fighter. But there's a downside to having so many feats - it opens up a few methods of abuse. How many times can I take psionic feats with Psionic Body before it becomes over the top? Is it an unfair advantage for a psion to have more hit points than the barbarian? In E6, due to the lack of efficient magical healing and low totals in general, hit point damage is a serious threat. But if you invest a majority of your resources into being hard to kill via HP damage (even if they are theoretically infinite), isn't it fair that your psion be hardier than the barbarian?

This wasn't addressed to me, but I'm going to address it anyway.

In my game, I have a Halfling Psion who has, in fact, taken Psionic Body, and intends to take a lot of Psionic feats that will end in repeated instances of Psionic Talent (for longevity) once he's done with everything else. I also have three Barbarians (all multiclassed, but primarily Barbarian), and one Warblade, plus a few other martial-focused characters (but we'll focus on the d12 ones). The Psion and one of the Barbarians just reached level 6 (the Psion took longer because the player has missed a few games, and the Barbarian because I use standard LA rules in my game, and he was a Goliath). The other two Barbarians are level 5 (one is an inactive player, and the other just joined, and I never enter people in at level 6). The Warblade has been 6 for some time.

At level 6 (+0 feats), the Halfling Psion, CON 12, currently has 32 hit points (10 from Psionic Body).
At level 6 (+0 feats), the Goliath Barbarian, CON 16, currently has 75 hit points.
At level 6 (+2 feats), the Human Warblade, CON 16, currently has 73 hit points.
At level 5, the Human Barbarian, CON 14, currently has 47 hit points.
At level 5, the Dwarf Barbarian, CON 20, currently has 63 hit points.

The Psion needs eight feats to surpass the lower 5th-level Barbarian's hit point total, by which point she will likely have reached 6th (and gain either a d10 or d12 +2; likely a second level of Fighter in spite of easy feat access, as the player wants a melee character that doesn't have special abilities of any sort). If that happens, by all means, he should be allowed that benefit.


Excellent commentary, and I absolutely agree with the "epic" feel. While my group has never gotten to level 6, every monster remains dangerous enough that you can't just brush them off as nuisances. If I can delve deeper, though: with a dozen players, surely some of them are better optimizers than others. Is this an issue at your table? Is the gap between the classes and the builds still noticeable and/or problematic?

In a word: no. Far from worrying about optimization at my table, I embraced it. Being proactive as a DM certainly helped, and being one of, if not the best 3.5 optimizer at the table surely didn't hurt: at character creation for every single person, I asked the player what they wanted their characters to be able to do (not what class they wanted to be, but what type of abilities they'd like to have). Each person I spoke to, I spoke to privately, without mention of the party dynamic, so no player felt compelled to conform to the needs of the group (no "we need a healer" bullocks... Until the group managed to sneak one in anyway). I then helped them build entry-level characters best suited to the range of abilities they requested, and have periodically helped them advance their characters by suggesting feats, skill tricks, class features and abilities that both help them advance their character concept and are mechanically sound. The only two people I haven't helped are the two best optimizers at my table; although I have discussed character options and strategy with both of them, and have given occasional pointers or references to material they haven't checked yet, they have pretty much built their characters on their own. I also have a binder with a copy of every player's character sheet on hand, so I know that every character is completely on the level, I know the relative power levels of every character--and, most importantly, I know what to suggest next, if any player needs it.

I have been reaping the benefits of this proactiveness on every front ever since: all characters in my game are of reasonably even power levels, and whenever a player feels like they are lagging behind or running in place, I already know precisely what to suggest to help them change things. Even with a group as large as mine, every character feels unique and fights in their own peculiar way (I have had people bring identical concepts to me and was able to frame all of them in unique ways. Two examples come to mind: the first, at character creation, when I had two people independently tell me they wanted shadow-themed assassin-type characters... And I fixed one up with a Shadow Hand Swordsage/Rogue and the other with a Shadowcaster; the second came with differentiating all of the Barbarians and sword-slingers in my game, many of whom joined at different times), and every player both has their character concept fulfilled and contributes to the group with their unique range of talents. Each character is built strong enough to survive a few mistakes here and there, so while my games are somewhat on the more difficult end, strategy-wise, nobody is likely to die due to one lousy mistake. I know everybody's exact power level, strengths and weaknesses enough to be able to eyeball the exact difficulty necessary to challenge such a group (normally a daunting task, as any semblance of CR balance gets thrown out the window by about the seventh or eighth player, not to mention the twelve I have), and can focus instead on providing a more thought-provoking encounter, with richer strategy and unique challenges (even if the players can brute-force much of it through sheer numbers). Finally, helping them build their characters and explore the plethora the options available to them, showing them what can be done with certain interactions, and just being there to offer pointers when needed has let me witness most of my players putting all the pieces together, and seeing what happens when everything finally clicks together: most of my players (not all, but most) have turned in a wealth of back-up characters (dozens among them), discussed new and different character ideas with much enthusiasm, and led to a rash of book-diving that has led everyone to (almost) total self-assurance and independence in their character building. I have felt the after-effects of this in spades: I have a dozen people at the table, with a waiting list to get in (all word-of-mouth), I have players who have left the island who wish to keep playing despite all the difficulties of Skyping into a live table session, and finally, I have one of my own players DMing their own game in 3.5 (who normally plays more free-form or uses alternate systems), which has led to me finally being able to explore some character concepts of my own. I'm in love with my group right now, and I have enough ideas (and player support) to run this game for another decade, if I so choose. :smallbiggrin:


Do you feel that the limitations of the rules inform the limitations of the setting? For example: One of the stories that E6 doesn't inherently do very well with is the plane-hopping campaign. Obviously, you can still find a way for your characters to get to Sigil without Plane Shift, you can still traipse through the Abyss (and it's even scarier than it would be normally), but the barrier to entry is very high. This can cut both ways, though - being trapped in the Abyss at level 6 strikes me as being one hell of a campaign, trying to avoid (whether through stealth, reason, or persuasion) demons you know could kill you with a passing thought. Actually, never mind, E6 totally does plane-hopping campaigns well, just in a different way.

This is something I am looking to do some years down the line: the general, overarching story (in the broadest strokes) is about five acts, and this is probably going to immediately follow the end of Act III, if the campaign should get that far (EDIT: presently, I would describe them as being about halfway through Act I, perhaps a little more; they would be further, if not for the fact that my group is basically full of completionists! :smalltongue:). Basically, I am not even thinking about throwing my players into Baator without fifteen or more feats to back them up--although some lesser extra planar elements will take place throughout all five acts (well, the first four, specifically; the fifth act deals in other affairs, after the smoke has cleared elsewhere). Thus, I can't comment on this right now, but get back to me in 2014, and we'll talk. :smallbiggrin:

[Soranar]

1. What do you like the most about E6? What compels you about it? Why give up 70% of your potential (read: theoretical) character development?

-It makes a lot of irrelevant tactics relevant again (since they never become obsolete).

2. What do you dislike about E6? What problems do you see with it? What do you miss most about those other 14 levels?

-Problems: not all classes benefit as much from bonus feats, certain encounters become highly problematic or downright impossible to beat (due to low saving throws or a bad party composition)

3. What kinds of stories/settings/characters do you feel best mesh with E6? What kinds do not?

-gritty adventures work well, epic classes where a handful destroy thousands , not so much (and forget about challenging Gods and the like)

4. If you had to distill the philosophy of E6 down to a single sentence, what would that sentence be? For example, mine would be: "Every encounter matters and every character counts."

-Kobolds, run for your lives!

[OzzyKP]

Initial disclaimer: If you don't know what E6 is, this is your go-to source (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html).

1. What do you like the most about E6? What compels you about it? Why give up 70% of your potential (read: theoretical) character development?

This thread is my first encounter with E6 (I'm fairly new to D&D overall) and I like the idea of it. I like that, albeit a fantasy game, 6th level characters are more grounded in reality then higher levels. The whole "Gandalf was a 5th level wizard" thing makes sense to me. While I have extremely limited exposure to D&D, I imagine I'd lose interest the more advanced and out there a game got. I can wrap my head around fighting raiders or orcs or pirates or something, but when you get to the point of going to different planes and fighting gods and elemental creatures... meh, just loses its connection with me. I imagine (though correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm new) that basic puzzle solving type encounters become fewer as you get higher up. Tricks that might work on a small party of goblins at a low level might not work against some demon lord.

For a newbie like myself trying to visualize what I'm going to do with my character up through level three is a challenge enough, but imagining all the abilities and spells and modifiers and such for a level 10 or 15 level character is just beyond me. Spell casting overall is kind of overwhelming for me personally, I stick to martial characters because they are simpler.

[Talionis]

2. There're so many prestige classes and base classes with abilities that would not over powered which are just unreachable in E6. Then it requires long discussions with worried DMs to figure out what can be a Epic level feat and what can't.

[ericgrau]

Some of the weirdness of level based RPGs (as opposed to stat based) is reduced. "I killed more things, so I am better at basketweaving than you could possibly comprehend"

In one campaign I was in planar travel required a prestige class and depended on having some kind of weaving skill to handle the threads of the multiverse. Our plane shifter used basketweaving, making him so good at weaving baskets out of the astral threads he could scoop up a small house and send it into another plane of existence.

[metabolicjosh]

I like how you can make truly unique characters!
Like my Guy Death. He is the only dude who can raise the dead! In E6

http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=441697

[hymer]

You said you've got more time - what do you find yourself investing that time in instead? The setting? The plot?

In this case, with a new campaign world, the extra time has been largely spent on setting. Just setting up the political system and establishing the important families has taken a lot of thought.
But when there's three days to the next session, the time and energy in surplus gets shifted to something more urgent. The first actual fight the PCs got in was carefully detailed with a grid paper made in advance, plenty of little things to discover as the battle progressed, differences in footing in different places, careful considerations of how the enemies would react to this and that. Very pleasing to get to do that.
Of course, the PCs being lvl 2 had the considerable misfortune to get mauled by the first lone sahuagin they met, and barely got it down. They had to retreat right after that, a great shame.
But still, bad dice happen, and knowing I was ready with a fight that shold entertain the players and challenge them with a tactically interesting situation was hugely satisfactory.

[Yora]

Oh, and #1 again:

The best thing about giving up 70% of potential player character development is giving up 70% of potential non-player character development!
I very rarely play any campaigns that reach 7th level, so playing E6 or not does not make a difference for character builds. But it completely changes the setting. Not only can you not learn 4th and higher level spells, there are also no wands and scrolls of 4th level and higher spells and nobody in the world can raise dead, teleport, do planar bindings, contact other planes, and many other things using spells. The DM can offer rituals that have similar effects, but the default assumption is no and doing a ritual would probably consume a lot of resources and time.

That is the very most important thing about E6.

[Mithril Leaf]

I dislike that all options higher than 6th level are off the table. I think a capstone feat that let you trade your third level slots for the ability to cast a single 4th level spell (not a slot, a single spell) or maybe something that allowed a (full) binder to bind a single vestige of the next level would work. A little bit more freedom with capstone stuff. It's a fun concept, although the anthromorphic bat mystra worshipping wildshape mystic ranger is a bit crazy.

The other thing I don't like about it is the item caps. I'd personally consider something like caster level and spell cast or 10k cost limit, whichever is lower for making items. For scrolls, that doesn't work of course.

[metabolicjosh]

E6 is fun because you must really work for the archetype you want. And when you get there it is that much more satisfying.

[hymer]

@ metabolicjosh: Could you elaborate on that? Maybe give an example?