E2: Workable?

[137beth]

So, E6 is touted for expanding upon the heroic tier (roughly levels 6-10, since E6 characters get around the power of 8th level characters). But what if we want a lower power level? A lot of iconic monsters have challenge ratings under six. There are also a ton of stats for animals and vermin that are rarely used past level three. So what would people think of an E2/P2 game?

Most classes get several of their iconic powers by second level: the monk and rogue both get evasion at 2nd level, while starting with sneak attack and flurry of blows, respectively. The 2nd level ranger gets its iconic combat style. The paladin gets most of its most iconic abilities (detect/smite evil, aura, divine grace and lay on hands). The bard can cast 1st level spells (assuming a high charisma, which is perfectly attainable with 32-point buy) and has three songs. The wizard and sorcerer can each cast 4 first-level spells per day (if the wizard specializes), and have their familiars (I think that an E2 game should probably follow pathfinder's lead and make cantrips at-will). If you start with 32 point buy to help MAD classes, and make cantrips at-will, the only core class which seems to present a serious balance issue is the ever-powerful druid, as an animal companion at second level could pretty much fill the role of a frontliner.
As with E6, a lot of feats should be made available, it shouldn't be too hard to homebrew-as-you-go feats for an E2 game.
I feel like E1 wouldn't work too well, since a lot of classes aren't very well defined/separated at first level. Also, I'd like multi-classing to at least be an option, if only for one level. E2 seems like a nice point. With extra feats, and particularly feats written for an E2 game, power should level off at what would be around level 4ish in a normal game.
So what do people think?


(I should probably note that I have never played E6/P6. I enjoy both low-powered and very-high-powered games--I have enjoyed playing in the ECL 30-40 range, and playing from level 1, and in other systems which are intended for low power ranges...it's those middle levels that I have the least experience with missed the most of:smalltongue:)

EDIT: This was just an idea that randomly popped into my head a few hours ago...

[BowStreetRunner]

One element of E6 you should take into account is the power curve with regard to the different tier classes. Wizards start out squishy and grow exponentially more powerful. Fighters start out relatively strong but tend to fade out at high levels. The original design of E6 was intended to catch all of the classes at a point of relative balance. Too much higher and the spellcasters dominate again. Too much lower and the martial characters trump all.

[ArcturusV]

I'd use 3 as a cut off point. 2nd level magic for pure casters other than Sorcerer Progression. Sorcerers get a lot more spells of first level. First level spells still being effective presuming you're not throwing 7-8 HD enemies at people.

Might be a good point to work with. Fighters and such will be just robust enough not to be subjected to Lucky Crits knocking them into negatives with a single tap.

[Flickerdart]

The thing about E6 is that characters remain capable of fighting stronger monsters - they can't take more than a few hits, but they can still get in deep if they've thought things through beforehand. Even if they've got no extra feats, a 6th level party can reliably take on a 10th level threat and expect to come out on top if they've their wits about them.

At level 2, fighting a CR6 creature? Dead. Even the tankiest barbarian has maybe 20 Constitution, which gives him 31 hit points on average. That's three hits from a Gray Render Zombie (which has 133 HP, decent AC and DR) or one and a half rounds with an Ettin. A Digester's AoE puts this guy at half health (let's not kid ourselves about the kind of Reflex save bonus a 2nd level Barbarian has). The typical character with a d8 hit die and maybe 14 Con has less than half of this barbarian's HP, and dies in one hit from any of these things.

Level twos simply can't fight the same range of things that level sixes can. You can't go down, either - while sixes have the resources to take on groups of weaker enemies, sending anything in groups against twos buries them in a sea of lucky 20s, because they're still in the range where that's a threat. Advancing monsters? Not possible either.

Finally, WotC's unreasonable love of daily uses rears its ugly head. If you want to play a fearsome berserker, you can...once a day. A valiant warrior poet? Twice a day. A seeker of arcane mysteries? You can play your character as you envision him four whole times per day before you have a commoner with a rat.

It's an interesting optimization challenge, sure, but it's one people are going to be solving with Color Sprays and scythes at the low end, and laddering up with Domain Wizard at the high.

If you want a game with a low power level, play a low-level game. But freezing people at those levels means they are going to progress by ramping up their optimization rather than the normal way, and that gets ugly fast.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

So, it could work. High tier casters are just fine at level 2.

Possible issues.

Mundane classes are too alike. At +5 feats two levels won't differentiate enough between classes.

Low HP, a E6 melee has say 14-18 less hp about 25% less than a normal level 8 which makes it fine for him to take a hit or two from most CR 8s. A lot of CR 4's will just squish an E2 melee. Triple max hp at level 1 would go a long way to fixing this.

Not really a "problem" but iconic low CR monsters remain threatening in E6 already.

[Fouredged Sword]

I would apply the Armor as DR and Vitality Point system. This would go a long way to making fighters and barbarians a lot less squishy at low levels. Rocking DR 4/- at second level is a big deal. Getting vitality points on top of your con score of wound points makes hurting characters to death a lot harder.

Plus with a good con score (+3), a good fort save (+3), great fortitude (+3), and a +1 cloak, you are looking at passing the save VS death 75% of the time. Much less instantly lethal for a world without resurrection magic.

Then maybe the spell point system to give casters a bit of a boost. Give them a feat that grants more spell points each day and be free with pearls of power.

There are problems though...

BAB is near meaningless. The cleric is a little god, and saves are everything. Monk would be a hard cookie to beat.

[Kaeso]

I guess E2 could be workable depending on the "power level" you want to play at. The logic behind E6 is that most of us normal humans are stuck at around level 1 or 2. Levels 3 or 4 are extraordinary like the neighbours son who can fold himself into a pretzel or that guy in class who runs far faster than everyone else, or a professor. Level 5 could be considered olympic level and level 6 is legendary. Men in our "real world" who would be considered level 6 are men like Homer, Napoleon, Louis Cyr etc. If somebody was good enough at something to be written down in the history books, chances are he was level 5 or 6 by DnD logic.

That said, E2 could be workable, as long as you keep in mind that those guys aren't dungeon crawling heroes. They're just a bunch of guys who picked up a sword and are now swinging it around desperately. They may be very good at it, but they're not much stronger than your average town guard. A campaign on that power level could be interesting, if DM'd right.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Flickerdart
Level twos simply can't fight the same range of things that level sixes can.

...Pretty much by definition, but I think the OP had something else in mind:


Originally Posted by 137ben
There are also a ton of stats for animals and vermin that are rarely used past level three.

There are a lot of very low-level creatures which can be fun and interesting opponents in their own right, which most groups all too quickly leave behind. A single taer becomes a memorable encounter; and something creepy and CR2, like a bloodsilk spider, could be the centerpiece of a campaign segment rather than a mild diversion on the way to a plot point.

This approach could work well for a wilderness campaign, one that focused more on surviving a difficult journey by grit and ingenuity, rather than stopping a generic orc horde or whatnot. I might go for E3 instead of E2, simply because that feels more complete to me, a bit of an homage to the first-edition three-level approach. That's what I started with, so three levels would feel like old times.

:smalltongue:

[JusticeZero]

Another thing you can do is E1 with an expanded class abilities. (Everyone is level 1, but you get level 2, maybe even 3, class specials.."
ANy way you slice it, it will be a very low powered, lethal game with a high body count. That is exactly what many people enjoy, so I wont say that is a bad thing per se. But it's not something i'm a fan of.

[Flickerdart]

...Pretty much by definition, but I think the OP had something else in mind:



There are a lot of very low-level creatures which can be fun and interesting opponents in their own right, which most groups all too quickly leave behind.

So just use more of them, or advance them. It's not like monsters suddenly become unusable once you level past 2.

[137beth]

I'd use 3 as a cut off point. 2nd level magic for pure casters other than Sorcerer Progression. Sorcerers get a lot more spells of first level. First level spells still being effective presuming you're not throwing 7-8 HD enemies at people.

Might be a good point to work with. Fighters and such will be just robust enough not to be subjected to Lucky Crits knocking them into negatives with a single tap.
Yea, now that I think about it, 3rd level might make some more sense...


Level twos simply can't fight the same range of things that level sixes can.
Level sixes simply can't fight the same range of things that level 40s can. Duh.

Finally, WotC's unreasonable love of daily uses rears its ugly head. If you want to play a fearsome berserker, you can...once a day. A valiant warrior poet? Twice a day. A seeker of arcane mysteries? You can play your character as you envision him four whole times per day before you have a commoner with a rat.

That's why cantrips are at will. An E2/E3 game should probably give additional uses to some of the other abilities too (rage, for instance).

If you want a game with a low power level, play a low-level game.
And then the players level up...

But freezing people at those levels means they are going to progress by ramping up their optimization rather than the normal way, and that gets ugly fast.

Okay, now I'm curious. What makes you think that that phenomenon would be any different from an E6 game:smallconfused: I thought the point of capping at a low level, but giving extra feats, was that players could continue to advance without their power skyrocketing.

Mundane classes are too alike. At +5 feats two levels won't differentiate enough between classes.
That could be an issue. Class-specific feats should take care of it, though.


I would apply the Armor as DR and Vitality Point system. This would go a long way to making fighters and barbarians a lot less squishy at low levels. Rocking DR 4/- at second level is a big deal. Getting vitality points on top of your con score of wound points makes hurting characters to death a lot harder.
That should help the mortality issue. A lot. Thanks.


Another thing you can do is E1 with an expanded class abilities. (Everyone is level 1, but you get level 2, maybe even 3, class specials.."
I'm not sure I'd like that, due to the extraordinarily low hp everyone would get, everyone would die too fast.

I'm starting to think E3 might be better overall--more diversity of classes, a bit wider range of appropriate challenges, and less insta-kills.

E3 would probably also work a lot better with classes designed for three-level play, possibly something in the vain of Gnorman's E6 compendium. Of course that's nothing new, normal 3.5 works a lot better with homebrew fixes for all (or almost all) the base classes. The difference is that there are already a lot of available fixes and alternatives for 20-level classes, and not much for 3-level ones.
Hmm, 3-level classes shouldn't be too hard to make. Maybe I'll start something...
(Also, flickerdart, I'm getting the a vibe that you just don't like the idea of house rules or homebrew...)

[Gavinfoxx]

Seeing as how the game starts at level 3 so you don't die to a lucky crit... no, no it is not workable in the least.

You could always be level 3 as far as hit dice go, and just start gestalting more and more classes and adding more and more feats and useful templates, perhaps?

[Emperor Tippy]

E4 is probably a far better choice if you want weaker D&D.

E2 is pretty much way too weak.

Best build would be Elan Psion with two flaws, Psionic Body, Elan Resilience (Enhanced), Hidden Power (Touch of Health), and Psionic Talent. Spend future feats on Earth Sense and Earth Power before pretty much just taking Psionic Talent constantly.

Every Psionic talent gets you n+1 additional PP (where n is the number of Psionic Talent feats that you already have) and +2 HP.

As an immediate action you can sped PP to reduce damage you take at a rate of 1 PP per 4 points of damage, and you can cast a 3 PP vigor for an additional 15 temp HP.


Now take Linked Power and Metapower: Linked Mind Thrust.

Every manifestation of Mind Thrust will (for no extra PP cost) trigger an augmented Synchronicity so that you get another full round of actions.

Metapower: Linked Synchronicity + Touch of Health is also nice.

---
Elan Psions dominate E6 for a reason.

Metapower Linked Mind Thrust + Bestow Power will let you manifest a non augmented Mind Thrust every round for no real PP cost.

Throw in Metapower Linked Bestow Power + Bestow Power + Earth Power and for 3 PP you gain 4 PP. You can refill your PP pool out of combat.

All kinds of fun.

[Gavinfoxx]

Could you do the same with an Elan Spell to Power Erudite?

[JusticeZero]

The idea that E1-2 is "too weak" is entirely a value judgement. Those levels are very lethal. As noted, SOME PEOPLE LIKE THAT. Also, you can boost class level features by feat or fiat.
Extra rounds of rage, more rage powers, etc are already addressable through feats, like Extra Rage (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/extra-rage---final).

[Gavinfoxx]

Well, I guess everyone takes a few toughness type feats and diehard and the like, I suppose, and maxes con if they want their characters to live, not die randomly, and also if they want to not have four backup characters traveling with the adventuring party at all times!

Seriously. Low level games are way too swingy to spend any effort on the characters, if you will go up against anything with that could ever possibly deal over 20 damage on a crit, ever (like a completely normal orc, for example)!

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by JusticeZero
The idea that E1-2 is "too weak" is entirely a value judgement. Those levels are very lethal.

Very much agreed, and I think this could make for an interesting, enjoyable campaign. I'd definitely give it a try, especially an E3 version.

[Emperor Tippy]

Could you do the same with an Elan Spell to Power Erudite?

Yes, although you should ask your DM whether the power manifested by Linked Power counts as one of your Unique powers for the day, because if it does then you only have one real option in E2 and maybe 3-4 options in E6. Which kinda negates one of the Erudites biggest advantages.

[JusticeZero]

After some thought, I have to contradict myself and say that an E1 game will not be as lethal as thought. Death's Door is a flat pool of HP. The numbers people are throwing around in low levels are simply not very large. People will be DROPPING often, only to have the party stabilize them and pull them out of danger.

[Gavinfoxx]

After some thought, I have to contradict myself and say that an E1 game will not be as lethal as thought. Death's Door is a flat pool of HP. The numbers people are throwing around in low levels are simply not very large. People will be DROPPING often, only to have the party stabilize them and pull them out of danger.

Go look up how much damage a CR 1/2 Orc can do on a crit. Go, look it up...

[137beth]

Go look up how much damage a CR 1/2 Orc can do on a crit. Go, look it up...

Less than 14, which is the amount needed to kill a 10 con character with a d4 HD at level 1.

[ArcturusV]

You sure about that? Orc by MM block, nothing changed, deals 2d4+4 damage with a Falchion. A crit means it can deal 24 damage in a single strike.

Yes, that would be incredibly unlucky, but it can. And at level 1 that will kill anyone short of a Barbarian with high Con, possibly Raging (19 HP is basically the best case scenario in that case. Leaving it at -5 HP and bleeding out. And even then it's going to knock them into unconscious and bleeding with very little breathing room to stabilize. Course, the moment the rage ends, he'll be dying again even if he was stabilized due to losing the hit point he gained from Raging.

[Flickerdart]

It isn't terribly important if one hit from an orc can kill you or just knock you out. Your average orc deals 10.35 damage on a hit (factoring in criticals), which is enough to drop or disable anyone with a d6 or d4 hit die (since these guys tend not to max their CON) and most people with a d8 hit die (unless they put over 14 into CON which is rare). Every encounter becomes a TPK or an overwhelming victory, because now there is no margin for retreat, meaning that strategic complexity is suddenly curtailed because you can't come back with a better plan anymore.

[Kudaku]

Whatever you do I'd strongly suggest trying to keep it to E-even number. E3 heavily favors wizards over sorcerers, for instance.

Personally I think E4 might be the sweet spot if you find E6 too "powerful". E2 is, as others have mentioned, very swingy. Wizards and sorcerers are getting useful spells and aren't quite as limited by spell slots, fighters are looking at a decent HP pool etc.

Thing is that people often play Ex because they want that "gritty feel", but low level D&D isn't really gritty - it's just lethal. x3 Criticals means that pretty much any level 2 character is two unlucky rolls away from a dirt nap. Be prepared to go through characters fairly often if you want to keep the game at E2 for extended amount of times.

[Gavinfoxx]

Less than 14, which is the amount needed to kill a 10 con character with a d4 HD at level 1.

Nope, redo your math...


You sure about that? Orc by MM block, nothing changed, deals 2d4+4 damage with a Falchion. A crit means it can deal 24 damage in a single strike.

Yes, that would be incredibly unlucky, but it can. And at level 1 that will kill anyone short of a Barbarian with high Con, possibly Raging (19 HP is basically the best case scenario in that case. Leaving it at -5 HP and bleeding out. And even then it's going to knock them into unconscious and bleeding with very little breathing room to stabilize. Course, the moment the rage ends, he'll be dying again even if he was stabilized due to losing the hit point he gained from Raging.

Or just read this -- Arcturus has the right of it... that's why the game starts at level 3...

[137beth]

Nope, redo your math...



Or just read this -- Arcturus has the right of it... that's why the game starts at level 3...

I was not counting critical hits. This was intentional, just like you were intentionally not counting the possibility of a miss, or the possibility of dealing less than max damage.


It isn't terribly important if one hit from an orc can kill you or just knock you out. Your average orc deals 10.35 damage on a hit (factoring in criticals), which is enough to drop or disable anyone with a d6 or d4 hit die (since these guys tend not to max their CON) and most people with a d8 hit die (unless they put over 14 into CON which is rare). Every encounter becomes a TPK or an overwhelming victory, because now there is no margin for retreat, meaning that strategic complexity is suddenly curtailed because you can't come back with a better plan anymore.
Or you just grab your unconscious ally and run...
Fun facts:
1. I can hit you on the head with a hammer hard enough to at least knock you unconscious.
2. I am a lot weaker than the average orc.
3. A level 1-2 commoner is not much less durable than a level 1-2 wizard.
So if an orc didn't have the possibility (not garenteed, just the possibility) of knocking you unconscious in 1 hit, it would not be particularly realistic/gritty.
EDIT: I think of a critical hit as hitting a weak spot on someone's body. A critical hit with a spear might be stabbing you in the heart or neck. If you can survive that, you aren't in a low-power world like E2.

[Flickerdart]

1. I can hit you on the head with a hammer hard enough to at least knock you unconscious.
Knocking people out is a lot harder than Hollywood makes it seem.

[137beth]

Knocking people out is a lot harder than Hollywood makes it seem.

Who said anything about hollywood:smallconfused:

The thing which appears to be missing from E2 is that the variance of "what it takes to knock someone out" is a lot bigger in real life than it is in-game. Yes, hitting someone on the head with a hammer could knock them unconscious. It won't always do it, though. On the other hand, it might give them a long-term issue, which it won't do in-game.

EDIT: Also, the fact that you responded to one sentence in my post with a largely irrelevant comment while ignoring the main points I raised is a decent indicator than you don't have any substantial response:smallsigh:

[Flickerdart]

Given that the central evidence around which your point pivots is the claim you can easily knock people out in one blow, that's not irrelevant at all. Try again.

[137beth]

Given that the central evidence around which your point pivots is the claim you can easily knock people out in one blow, that's not irrelevant at all. Try again.
And how are movies connected to this:smallconfused: Maybe I just haven't seen enough movies to understand you, but I can't really see how hollywood is connected to...anything.

(Oh, and that isn't even accurate,the central evidence around which I base my claims is that cutting/stabbing someone in the neck can kill them, which you failed to address in any capacity whatsoever).

[Flickerdart]

Hitting someone in the neck is a critical hit, not a regular hit by any stretch of the imagination. And even then, not every blow to the neck will be lethal, and of the lethal blows, not every one will be immediately lethal.

[Logic]

If you want to rework the E6 scenario for lower level play, E4 is a much better place to stop than level 2.

My reasons are:
Full BAB=4, Medium BAB=3, Poor BAB=2
Ability score bonus at level 4,
Good saving throws are probably at +4, others are +1 (Barring any multiclassing shenanigans)
Primary casters have access to second level spells.

Plus look at the monsters in the range for the E4 party to fight that happen to be DEATHTRAPS to a 2nd level party:
Aboleth CR7
Bulette CR7
Chaos Beast CR7
Dire Cat CR8
Efrreti CR8
Hill Giant CR7
Mummy CR5 (low end, but Mummy Rot is DEVASTATING)
Succubus CR7
T-Rex CR8


EDIT:

The thing which appears to be missing from E2 is that the variance of "what it takes to knock someone out" is a lot bigger in real life than it is in-game. Yes, hitting someone on the head with a hammer could knock them unconscious. It won't always do it, though. On the other hand, it might give them a long-term issue, which it won't do in-game.

The problem with this line of thinking is that if you translate the rules of D&D to a literal interpretation of the events happening, we all just take turns clubbing each other over the head until someone can no longer do it.

The rules are an approximation of a swordfight*, and hit points are an abstract way of depicting that you dodge, and parry, and set up your opponent for a lethal strike. HP represent some level of knowing to dodge, to roll with a hit, and show that fatigue is just as much a problem in a swordfight as the pointy end of your foe's sword.


*Or shooting contest, or whatever else you can think of.

[137beth]

Hitting someone in the neck is a critical hit, not a regular hit by any stretch of the imagination.
Well what do you know, an orc can only one-hit-kill someone on a critical hit!

And even then, not every blow to the neck will be lethal, and of the lethal blows, not every one will be immediately lethal.
And not every critical hit is an instant kill in E2, either.

[Flickerdart]

Well what do you know, an orc can only one-hit-kill someone on a critical hit!
Wrong. An average commoner has 2 HP, so an orc kills them on max damage without a crit.

[Gavinfoxx]

I was not counting critical hits. This was intentional, just like you were intentionally not counting the possibility of a miss, or the possibility of dealing less than max damage.

Uh, I was asking how much damage a MM Orc can do on a crit.. There is only one answer to that question, which you seem to ignore as if that never happens. The thing is, before level 3, crits that take you from full to -10 or beyond... which is a problem if you are supposed to invest much any energy into these characters!

[137beth]

Uh, I was asking how much damage a MM Orc can do on a crit.. There is only one answer to that question, which you seem to ignore as if that never happens. The thing is, before level 3, crits that take you from full to -10 or beyond... which is a problem if you are supposed to invest much any energy into these characters!

Yea, and I somehow missed the word "crit" in your post, so I responded as if you hadn't written it:smallredface:
But yes, crits can have the possibility of doing instant-kills (not garenteed, even after you confirm your crit, it depends on the damage roll). Oddly enough, "crits" (hitting on the neck or other weak-point) can still kill someone quickly in real life, or in any "realistic" fiction, and I can still get invested in the characters. It just means people are more hesitant about charging into battle if they know that a lucky attack roll (natural 20) plus a lucky confirmation roll plus a lucky damage roll could kill them right away. That's sorta the point.

[Augmental]

and I can still get invested in the characters.

But would you still write out a long backstory, go into detail on their appearance, etc. for every character, knowing that there's a decent chance that all that work could be undone by one unlucky roll?

[Raineh Daze]

1/20 of attacks, minimum, will threaten crits. At this level, confirming it is kind of likely, especially if you don't have plate yet. So the damage gets multiplied. Even with maximum health and con, you're not going to survive many fights before sheer bad luck ends you. :smallconfused:

[ArcturusV]

I suppose it comes down to a bit of Game Theory, and how typical people get out of situations.

Say there is a situation where a Fighter is the last man standing, and needs to win a battle for whatever reason, plot relevance, etc.

Anyway, point being, you can look at the outcomes in various ways, and with most people, can figure out the correct results.

Say it's a level 2 Fighter against a band of 8 Kobolds (Which if I remember off the top of my head should, by CR calc, be an even fight). Now, if the Fighter's Player is a smart player, he realizes the odds are fairly stacked against him. Action Economy, the fact that Critical Hits favor the side with more attackers, etc.

Versus another situation where said level 2 Fighter is against two Orcs.

Now... If the Fighter is going to go down to the Kobolds, it's likely to be the result of lucky dice rolls and critical hits. But the player kind of expects that. When you're getting 8-1 attacks against you, it's a lot more likely someone in the 8 is going to roll good than you are. If the Fighter dies? Well, he's bummed. But he kinda expected it. Might think about how he would have done that differently, found choke points, ran away. It's a lesson for next time, his next character will be better.

If the Fighter wins against the Kobolds? He knows it was a hard fight, he had a serious chance of losing it. Luck was on his side, but it had to be coupled with good planning. Feels amazing about it, and is pumped to continue on the adventures of Fighter McBadass.

Now the Orc fighting fighter? The odds aren't against him. It's only 2-1. He's probably going to lose still, it's a serious threat. But Luck is a much better factor. If he goes down because some lucky Crit inflicts 90% (Or more) of his HP in a single strike, how's that player feeling? Like the whole thing was BS. He lost BECAUSE of random luck that he had no way of planning for or preventing. It's a much bigger nerd rage enducer than the Kobold fight, and worst yet, he blames the Luck for the entire loss, overlooking things he might have done differently to win, learns nothing, and will make the same mistake later.

Orcs fighting the Fighter and he wins? He often feels like he didn't learn anything either. The battle didn't feel "Tactical". He wasn't a badass. He just stood there, traded shots, and lucked out and dropped the Orcs before they lucked out and carved him like a thanksgiving turkey. He'll have complaints about "Rocket Tag" and such, and about how the fight more or less boiled down to whoever landed a solid hit first and lucked out on the D20 roll and/or Initiative Check.

So it's just a bit of game theory. It's why I tend to try to avoid fights like that where, at low levels, it feels like it boiled down to just whoever wins Initiative or gets a lucky 20. Hard to do. But not impossible. E2 however would be entirely like that. Not counting possible cheese, every fight you have to worry about how "Random Luck" might ruin someone's day or how fights always feel like "Rocket Tag". Since you'll never get stronger than that, the tricks you use to avoid those things will end up feeling old, played, and no longer pose an interest after a while. You're also preventing players from fulfilling concepts they might otherwise like. Sometimes the guy playing the Fighter really does want to just Hulk Out, wade into battle, and smash mooks to pieces, feeling like a Badass warrior without having to worry about some random 1/2 CR critter instagibbing him. You're robbing him of the chance to ever do that.

E3? E4? Least you get a little extra padding so that a Lucky Crit doesn't automatically drop you into bleeding out. It can still have those problems, but not as much. E6? I can't imagine that's a problem at all.

[Fyermind]

Most RPGs have some sort of plot armor. Plot armor dictates that bad things will happen, but you won't die unless you do something really stupid or literally ask for it OOC.

D&D doesn't. Instead D&D makes adventurers fairly hard to kill in concept and makes bringing dead ones back an eventuality rather than a possibility. The thing is, in e2 this won't happen. Without some sort of plot armor, you wouldn't be stars of your own story.

Sure you might be, but you also would be quite likely to die inconsequentially right at the beginning if you ever fight anyone. Attacks aren't accurate enough for it to really even be rocket tag. I'd suggest playing a d20 variant like Thieves World if you are looking for the gritty feel.

[137beth]

1/20 of attacks, minimum, will threaten crits. At this level, confirming it is kind of likely, especially if you don't have plate yet. So the damage gets multiplied. Even with maximum health and con, you're not going to survive many fights before sheer bad luck ends you. :smallconfused:
Well then, I guess people in an E2 world wouldn't hastily rush into a bunch of combats without thinking about it:smalltongue:

[Just to Browse]

Well then, I guess people in an E2 world wouldn't hastily rush into a bunch of combats without thinking about it:smalltongue:

You mean people in an E2 world would never fight ever. Because dying randomly to 1/20 rolls from equivalent-CR opponent means you don't want to even leave your house to attack the wolves raiding your sheep.

I think it's a scenario that isn't useful for modeling anything remotely cool and it makes your initial ability score roll more important than ever (ew), and makes plate armor and touch attacks overpowered as crap, but if you can think of cool things for a setting like that and you're fine with the problems it brings up, then go ahead. Ain't nobody going to stop you.

At least fewer builds get borked with it. And toughness becomes remotely worthwhile.

[Tavar]

I'd point out that picking someone up and carrying them away is pretty much impossible, assuming medium sized creatures. Oh, you can do it, but it's going to destroy your movement speed, which is, you know, what you're going to be using in order to get away.

[Bakkan]

You mean people in an E2 world would never fight ever. Because dying randomly to 1/20 rolls from equivalent-CR opponent means you don't want to even leave your house to attack the wolves raiding your sheep.


But to not deal with the wolf means not eating come slaughtering season. Which is why people hunt wolves in groups. Because if there are 15 guys facing a single wolf, it's probable that at least 3 or 4 of them will beat the wolf's initiative and will be able to chuck their spears at him before he gets a chance to rip someone's throat out.

An E2 game would necessitate planning, strategy, and tactics, as well as (probably) hirelings, guard animals, and so forth. If every attack has a 1/20 chance of killing you outright, your best bet is to stack the odds so far in your favor that they never get a chance to attack in the first place.

I would be interested in playing a game like this, and I think it's a good idea.

[awa]

I would say that some people like massive lethality in there games and well it's not my thing it's not anyone's place to say it's wrong.

That said while an orc is gonna drop people left and right its also an outlier
goblins, kobolds, dire rats are all going to do d6 dam or less on an average hit.

edit in the real world combat is pretty lethal but it has not stopped us from fighting. So i disagree with the idea that no one would ever fight in an e2 world.

[Flickerdart]

I would say that some people like massive lethality in there games and well it's not my thing it's not anyone's place to say it's wrong.

That said while an orc is gonna drop people left and right its also an outlier
goblins, kobolds, dire rats are all going to do d6 dam or less on an average hit.
Goblins and dire rats are CR 1/3 creatures. Kobolds are CR 1/4 creatures. That means you're supposed to fight more of them at a time than CR 1/2 Orcs. And more enemies means the action economy is not on your side, and you never want the action economy not to be on your side because it means the goblins can gang up on one PC at a time and take them down pretty reliably and there's not much you can do about it.

[Silva Stormrage]

Easy Metamgiced Fel drained Cold Snap becomes a LOT more dangerous.

I would say that its not a great idea but I like mid levels XD.

[tiercel]

People worry about the orc's offense vs low level characters, but the bog-standard orc is not exactly representative of low-CR critters.

Consider, at CR 1/2:
Orc: +4 to hit, 2d4+4(18-20/x2).

Let's compare some Core CR 1 critters:
Small air elemental: +5, 1d4, whirlwind
Small animated object: +1, 1d4
Camel: +0, 1d4+2
Darkmantle: +5, 1d4+4+improved grab+constrict
Lemure devil: +2, 1d4
Riding dog: +3, 1d6+3+trip
Duergar (warrior): +2, 1d8+1(/x3), enlarge/invis self
Small earth elemental: +5, d6+4 (+6, d6+5 vs earthbound opponent)
Drow elf (warrior): +3, d6+1(18-20/x2) // +2 ranged, 1d4+drow poison, (Sp)
Small fire elemental: +3, d4+d4fire+burn

Offensively, the orc compares favorably or at least comparably to many CR 1 creatures (I've just grabbed the first 10 CR 1 critters from the SRD). The main difference is that the CR 1s are generally harder to kill (high movement, hardness, higher hp, stealth, DR, etc).

That doesn't mean orcs aren't a problem for low-level campaigns or even an E(low-number) campaign, but they aren't representative of offense for their CR. (Why the heck do orcs have falchions, anyway?)

[ArcturusV]

Well, it also suggests they may be using Great Axes instead.

And I guess mostly to fit some "barbarian" type of feel. Though not Barbaric by being less advanced, no, by choice of embracing savagery in their culture. Also note by MM, these 1/2 CR monsters have +1 magic weapons (Javelins), which is probably the odder bit of equipment to focus on.

[Flickerdart]

Orcs might be at the high-end, but there are a whole bunch of critters with 1d10 weapons (dwarves, anything that uses heavy crossbows), and even 3d6 (half-giants) in that CR range.

[JusticeZero]

Those can be changed.. Drop the variance on weapons as a whole if outliers are too scary.

[awa]

Goblins and dire rats are CR 1/3 creatures. Kobolds are CR 1/4 creatures. That means you're supposed to fight more of them at a time than CR 1/2 Orcs. And more enemies means the action economy is not on your side, and you never want the action economy not to be on your side because it means the goblins can gang up on one PC at a time and take them down pretty reliably and there's not much you can do about it.

The math does not support that statement all

4 kobolds grants 75 xp
3 goblins/ dire rats grant 75 xp
2 orcs grant 75xp

orcs are more accurate but we are gonna ignore that right now 2 hits from an orc deals 4d4+8 for an average of 18 damge a guaranteed knock out

3 hits from a goblin deal 3d6 10.5 damge the dire rats deal 3d4 for an average of 7.5

4 hits from a kobold do 4d6-4 an average of 10

so even ignoring the fact that goblins and kobolds are less accurate then orcs and its harder to get 4 guys all attacking the same target when he has allies then it is to get 2 the goblins and kobolds are still less instantly deadly then the orcs.

xp calculations done with http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20encountercalculator/

[Kudaku]

I think you're getting a little bit too caught up in the orc warrior. Let's break him down a bit:

He's a 1st level warrior with 17 strength, meaning his to hit bonus is +4, and his damage with a falchion is 2d4+4. For some reason his feat is Alertness according to the SRD.

Since warriors are fairly common, let's consider another race - the human.

A 1st level human warrior (think mercenary or bandit) with 15 strength will have a to hit bonus of +4 (+1 from Weapon Focus, his other feat involves basket weaving for tradition's sake). Let's say he has a greatsword. That means he's doing 2d6+3 damage.
This (not counting crits) averages out to:
5+4 = 9 damage per swing for the orc. He has a max damage of 12, and a crit damage of 24.
7+3 = 10 damage per swing for the human. He has a max damage of 15, and a crit damage of 30.

The human fighter is on average doing more damage, though the orc will crit more often due to the 18-20 crit range.

Now let's consider a second level rogue. He's an unusually healthy rogue and has 14 con, giving him +4 hit points. At first level he gained 6 hit points, and at second level he rolled a 4. He has 14 hit points total.

What both of these have in common is that orcs and humans normally feature prominently in a fantasy campaign, and they both have the potential to kill a typical 2nd level character in a single (un)lucky blow.

[awa]

the default human warrior has 12-13 str so does 2d6+1 not 2d6+3

so the actual average damge for a basic human warrior is 8
and has a hit bonus of +3 (1 bab, 1 weapon focus, 1 str) also less then the orc

(also orcs actually have an attack bonus of +4 not +5

[Kudaku]

the default human warrior has 12-13 str so does 2d6+1 not 2d6+3

so the actual average damge for a basic human warrior is 8

Which was why I specified 15 strength instead of 13, 15 is the highest number of the NPC elite array :smallsmile:

[awa]

"The elite array is most appropriate for monsters who add levels in a player character class."
if you put that on a warrior you should increase the cr.

Yes there are some monster that can one shot a low level pc making combat extremely dangerous we all knew that just don't use them/build them like that and your fine.

The fact that you can build a custom monster capable of killing a low level pc means nothing.

edit whats the point of comparing an average orc warrior with an exceptional human one.

[Raineh Daze]

edit in the real world combat is pretty lethal but it has not stopped us from fighting. So i disagree with the idea that no one would ever fight in an e2 world.

Real-world math also caps out at level 5. That's +1 to an attribute, another feat, extra skill with wielding a weapon, maybe a handy trick or two, and extra durability. The world's historical elite warriors aren't the sort of things to die like flies.

[Just to Browse]

But to not deal with the wolf means not eating come slaughtering season. Which is why people hunt wolves in groups. Because if there are 15 guys facing a single wolf, it's probable that at least 3 or 4 of them will beat the wolf's initiative and will be able to chuck their spears at him before he gets a chance to rip someone's throat out.

An E2 game would necessitate planning, strategy, and tactics, as well as (probably) hirelings, guard animals, and so forth. If every attack has a 1/20 chance of killing you outright, your best bet is to stack the odds so far in your favor that they never get a chance to attack in the first place.

I would be interested in playing a game like this, and I think it's a good idea.

"I would like to make a request to the strongest adeventurers in the kingdom!"
"What is it?"
"There are wolves attacking my sheep and we need to drive them off."
"Sorry, there are only four of us. We can't hope to fight a pack of wolves. You'll have more luck rounding 10 random commoners and chucking spears at them. Actually we're almost entirely indistinguishable from commoners so we'll help you."

I don't know about you, but that just sounds kind of boring. For players to succeed regularly they need to optimize like hell or write up 1-3 characters per session. Those things can totally be OK by you, but it really really kills the hero dynamic.

[Kudaku]

"The elite array is most appropriate for monsters who add levels in a player character class."
if you put that on a warrior you should increase the cr.

Yes there are some monster that can one shot a low level pc making combat extremely dangerous we all knew that just don't use them/build them like that and your fine.

The fact that you can build a custom monster capable of killing a low level pc means nothing.

edit whats the point of comparing an average orc warrior with an exceptional human one.

Did I at any point mention CR? Or for that matter, do you really consider a 1st level human warrior with the elite stats "a custom monster"? We're not exactly talking beholder mage level of optimization here...

I said that people were getting caught up on the orc for a reason -my point was to illustrate that E2 is a short-sighted place to put the level cap, since level 2 characters are fragile in general, not just against an outlier like the THF orc - low level D&D is frequently referred to as "rocket tag" for a reason.

I used a 1st level warrior with the elite stats because I see that as A: One of the most common classes you'll encounter in a EL2 world and B: I personally consider Elite stats is appropriate for a henchman or a foil - someone above a mook but not an actual nemesis or boss.

Said henchman would indeed be CR 1, not 1/2. Which means two of them would be an appropriate encounter for a ECL 2 party. See what I'm getting at...?

Edit: Oh, good catch on the orc attack bonus- didn't see your edit till now. Said typo has been fixed.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Whatever levels you choose, I'd recommend the shapeshift druid over the vanilla one.

To me, at least, a wild shape-like ability is more iconic to druids than an animal companion anyways. Maybe a feat chain to gain access to the flight form?

[awa]

Really? When I think of a nature guy i almost always picture him with some kind of an animal buddy.

[Bakkan]

"I would like to make a request to the strongest adeventurers in the kingdom!"
"What is it?"
"There are wolves attacking my sheep and we need to drive them off."
"Sorry, there are only four of us. We can't hope to fight a pack of wolves. You'll have more luck rounding 10 random commoners and chucking spears at them. Actually we're almost entirely indistinguishable from commoners so we'll help you."

I don't know about you, but that just sounds kind of boring. For players to succeed regularly they need to optimize like hell or write up 1-3 characters per session. Those things can totally be OK by you, but it really really kills the hero dynamic.

You're quite right. I don't think E2 would be appropriatefor playing "heros" in the classic sense. It would be a low-powered, lethal game where the characers are a lot more like normal people than the heros of legend. I find it potentially interesting precisely because it would make death significantly more likely, and the only way to live long enough to become known for your heroic deeds is by being clever. Long-term success or failure would depend more on the player's abilities rather than the character's. I like that idea.

[awa]

Wolves aren’t that tough a group of level 2 pcs with extra feats and good gear (assuming were using a system similar to an e6 system) could win fairly easily if there smart and careful

A fighter with mw banded mail, a tower shield, dex of 14, and shield Specialization has an ac of 23 the wolves need a nat 20 to hit deals d6+1 dam (average dam 4.5) so assume our fighter has average hp and a 14 con (19.5 hp) the wolf needs to hit 5 times on average to win.
He has weapon focus, mw weapon and let’s say a 16 str so he hits on a 9 deals d8+3 (average dam 7.5) so an average of two hits to drop a wolf.

So wolves being an impossible fight for a 4 man band is false particularly when you take into account the fact that the wolves will likely break and run once they lose a few of their number.

Now the party needs to be smart if they let the wolves swamp the wizard and rogue this will get ugly fast but if they stay behind their tank with the cleric using he’s healing spells and acting as a back up tank then this should be a fairly easy fight.

A more optimized fighter say using incarnium feats or armed with some magic items would be able to do it even easier.

[NichG]

Actually, awa brings up something important for an E2 (or any higher lethality game).

Forces rarely fight to the last man the way that they're sometimes run in D&D (which to be fair is because actually getting away is pretty difficult in D&D if the other side wants to give chase, at least under the featureless plains sorts of conditions).

This probably means in practice that e.g. in the lone fighter against 8 kobolds example he doesn't have to stand up to 8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1 attacks before the fight ends. He probably just needs to stand up to 8+7+6 attacks, and after the kobolds have lost 3 of their number they'll try to flee.

(This makes the 2 orcs example even more dangerous in a relative terms, because they may effectively stand and fight until 50% losses compared to the kobolds ~38% losses)

Anyhow, I think E2 could work but at that point I start to question whether there's enough content that is being retained to make the game interesting to play. The entire game becomes about feats basically (at least in E6 there's a ramp-up to that point that might take 25% of the campaign, and you have ~3 tiers of abilities to play with as spellcasters or Tome of Battle characters instead of just 1). So at that point I'd probably switch systems to something where there's a bigger low-power zone and a more gradual progression and do the equivalent of E-something in that system instead.

[undead hero]

E2 E6 EWhatever... Totally throwing Tucker's Kobolds at them....

[undead hero]

Really? When I think of a nature guy i almost always picture him with some kind of an animal buddy.

Ranger?

Shape Shifting Druid is fantastic for confusing your party tho.

[Flickerdart]

Conceptually, it makes sense that the Ranger is the one who has an animal, while the Druid is his own animal. The Druid is so close to nature that he is literally one with it, while the Ranger masters nature instead of harmonizing with it.