E6/Ry20: The game inside D&D

[Kiero]

This is something originating on ENWorld (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=200045) that I thought was pretty damned nifty. See the link for the full details, I won't quote all of it, just the intro:


What is E6?

Earlier this year EN World engaged in a great discussion (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=187713&highlight=quartiles) where it was put forward that D&D has four distinct quartiles of play, each of which suited some groups better than others:

Levels 1-5: Gritty fantasy
Levels 6-10: Heroic fantasy
Levels 11-15: Wuxia
Levels 16-20: Superheroes

E6 is a game about those first 2 quartiles, and as a result, it has fewer rules, a low-magic flavor, and it is quick and easy to prepare. I have playtested the system extensively with my crew, and it works as intended. Previous discussion indicated that this approach has some appeal for others, so I've revised it here.

E6 was inspired by the article “Gandalf was a Fifth-Level Magic User” from Dragon magazine issue #5.

Features of E6:
Fast play
Low magic
Easy to prepare
It’s still D&D and everyone knows how to play.

E6’s Rule Change:

Character progression from level 1 to level 6 is as per D&D. Upon attaining 6th level, for each 5000 experience a character gains, they earn a new feat.
Feats with unattainable prerequisites under this system remain unattainable.

Recognising that the "sweet spot" for many people is in the level 6-10 range, it essentially caps most of advancement right there. In the original mod, progression stops after level 6 (no more BAB, no more HD, no more spells, etc), with the exception of Feats.

Avoids all the complexities and mood-breaking of high-level play. I like it, and I don't even play D&D. Were I ever to run a game, I think I'd go with this mod, start everyone at 6th level (dispensing with XP, levelling up every so often), and go with base classes from the PHB only. Maybe all-human too, for that full-on sword and sorcery feel.

Whaddyas reckon?

[Matthew]

Heh, I'm a 1-5 man who dabbles in levels 6-10, myself, but yeah it's interesting that they have identified those four quarters. Problem is always going to be balancing this stuff against high powered monsters and magic. [i.e. how does adding an extra Feat affect the EL of the Party?]

[Kiero]

Heh, I'm a 1-5 man who dabbles in levels 6-10, myself, but yeah it's interesting that they have identified those four quarters. Problem is always going to be balancing this stuff against high powered monsters and magic. [i.e. how does adding an extra Feat affect the EL of the Party?]

I think the idea is high-powered monsters are tough - it isn't "balanced" against them. Thus when the PCs are trying to stop that cult from summoning some ancient demon it's in their interests to succeed. Because they can't just kill the demon when it comes regardless.

[Miles Invictus]

Problem is always going to be balancing this stuff against high powered monsters and magic. [i.e. how does adding an extra Feat affect the EL of the Party?]

I'll bet it has only a minor effect on balance, because only a handful of feats stack. The extra feats give your characters versatility, not power.

[Emperor Tippy]

Meh. I wouldn't play it. A mage's most powerful spell shouldn't be on the level of fireball. No matter the magic level of the world.

As for heroic fantasy capping at level 10, what are they smoking?

It just doesn't work. And for Gandalf being level 5, he was a demigod.

[PinkysBrain]

Why even both with the feats? Just cap the progression and be done with it.

[MandibleBones]

Could be fun - I'd play, and find ways to survive it too. I can still be a swashbuckling action hero at level 6.

[Tallis]

Why even both with the feats? Just cap the progression and be done with it.

Because a lot of people, myself included, like the feeling of improvement and learning new things.
This looks like an interesting system to me, I'd love to try it. I'm pretty sure my group would hate it though. They'd been stuck in low level campaigns for a long time before they started playing with me and they like the opportunity for high level play.

[Ulzgoroth]

As for heroic fantasy capping at level 10, what are they smoking?
Probably the idea that, in just about all the 'heroic fantasy' I've ever read, the characters mostly walked or rode, rather than flying and teleporting everywhere?

I don't object to flying and teleporting everywhere, but it isn't necessarily what people mean by 'heroic fantasy'.

[Emperor Tippy]

No. Even if you remove teleportation and flying I still can't find any heroic fantasy hero who can be modeled at level 10.

And a very large part of heroic fantasy does have people porting around. It also very often has single mages who can decimate entire nations.

Fighting and killing the thousand year old dragon si a great part of Heroic Fantasy. Please show me how you do it with 4 ECL 10 characters.

[MeklorIlavator]

No. Even if you remove teleportation and flying I still can't find any heroic fantasy hero who can be modeled at level 10.

And a very large part of heroic fantasy does have people porting around. It also very often has single mages who can decimate entire nations.

Fighting and killing the thousand year old dragon si a great part of Heroic Fantasy. Please show me how you do it with 4 ECL 10 characters.
Shivering Touch? Maybe 4 characters all using stuff from the draconomicon. Or the party of cheese(4 artificers, or a combo of Druids/Clerics/and Wizards).

That's the only way I can really think of doing it, without taking about 20 or characters, and deeming most "acceptable losses".

[Solo]

Shivering Touch?.

Sudden Maximized Shivering Touch...

[Ulzgoroth]

Um, are we not perhaps committing the Balor fallacy? (Without intending to comment on how a Balor and a Balrog measure up with each other! I don't have that lore...)

That is, a 1000 year old D&D standard dragon is not less than CR 19, and I presume would munch the level 10s like popcorn. That doesn't mean that the 1000 year old dragon in whichever story, if you statted it out, would necessarily be anywhere near as powerful as a white Wyrm, or might be incompatible with the D&D system altogether.

I only speculate on the statting out, I admit, but it seems entirely possible.

[Matthew]

I'll bet it has only a minor effect on balance, because only a handful of feats stack. The extra feats give your characters versatility, not power.
Dunno about that, Feats can have a huge impact on Power Levels [Leap Attack + Bull Rush + Shock Trooper for a start].
all the same, I get what you mean. It seems like they ought to get Skill Points as well to me.

[Zaeron]

Dunno about that, Feats can have a huge impact on Power Levels [Leap Attack + Bull Rush + Shock Trooper for a start].
all the same, I get what you mean. It seems like they ought to get Skill Points as well to me.

You could just as easily allow someone to take a level worth of skill points instead of a feat. And I bet feats like Skill Focus and the +2 to two skills feats would be used a lot more in settings where feats were a lot more common and everything else.. much less so. Especially when skills cap at 9 ranks. +3 or +2 is a lot bigger difference with nine ranks than say, 15 or 20.

[GryffonDurime]

See, now, to me...it's restrictive. I'd say level 10 would be a more reasonable cap--5th level spells are suitably impressive for mages. I would probably create some new feats for such a system--stackable bonuses to BAB for those with the full +10 (but no new iterative attacks) and the like.

I do see one large benefit to this system--it would certainly encourage more multiclassing. Loosing 9th level spells is mortifying to a potential mage, but when the maximum is 5th level anyway...there's a bit more wiggle room.

One thing I've always considered a funny contest is the battle between a level and a feat. You get fewer feats than levels, barring bonus feats, but levels are a good deal stronger.

That's why bonus feat levels are typically less potent than a feat: class features are exclusive fears with a very strict chain and side effects both good and not-so-good.

[Matthew]

You could just as easily allow someone to take a level worth of skill points instead of a feat. And I bet feats like Skill Focus and the +2 to two skills feats would be used a lot more in settings where feats were a lot more common and everything else.. much less so. Especially when skills cap at 9 ranks. +3 or +2 is a lot bigger difference with nine ranks than say, 15 or 20.
Actually, thinking about it you could just take that Feat that gives you 5 Skill Points (Open Minded?). Ah well, whatever. You need skill Points for some Feats, you see, and Cross Class Skills might actually get some love...

[SoulCatcher78]

If you cap the levels, you'd almost have to cap the monster CR as well. There'd be no point in a world where you can't beat the BBEG (well, unless your playing CoC). I think it would be fun (at least for a while) to see people depend on skills/feats rather than that always available magic item or wish spell. It would probably resemble something like the Black Company novels as far as PCs went...a lot more dark and gritty than flash.

[Diggorian]

I dont see the appeal of this E6 myself.

Although I do prefer to play in the 1-10 lvl range, why not just end the campaign at level 10?

[Matthew]

I would tend to agree there Diggorian. The only reason I can see to continue advancing past Level 10 is to be able to deploy different Monsters. If this E6 isn't an attempt to allow for that at an overall lower power level, i don't really see the point either.

[LoopyZebra]

I would be willing to play it if need be, but I wouldn't run it.

One thing I didn't see addressed in the system: how does WBL work with a system where you can only get to level 6, but your character keeps advancing?

[Kiero]

See, now, to me...it's restrictive.

That's the whole point. It's to cut out the boring crap that comes from the higher levels, such as repetitive tactics.

And stuff being unbeatable is a feature, not a bug. Gods and demons are something to fear. Some monsters you just have to find a way around, rather than just fighting them. Better yet, use some sneaky tactics to even the odds.


It seems like they ought to get Skill Points as well to me.

There's discussion in that thread, or maybe the one on RPGnet about that. Fix was that rarely-used "Skill Focus: blah" Feat. Possibly allowing it to stack, since you've got Ability Feats already, that's the same. Thus you still need only Feats.

[Zel]

I personally feel that fireball SHOULD be about the most powerful spell an arcanist is able to cast. Let's face it, the high level wizard/sorcerer spells are clearly overpowered, and have great potential to change the paradigm of a swords/sorcery campaign world that has functioned very smoothly until the higher levels.

Maybe it's because I'm more of a physically motivated person in reality, but I have little desire to roleplay the frail nerd archetype who has mastered the ability to bend reality to his/her will through arcane spellcasting. Time stop, boooooring! Battle is fast, not 10 minutes of arguing about rules.

Ok, now who wants to arm-wrestle?! :smallfurious:

[Tengu]

I don't like it. Seems to be a child of the "lolx grim and gritty low-wealth low-magic is the only good way to play!!1one" trend. If you really want to play in such a setting, don't play DND.

Well, I'd say that if you really want to play ANY setting, there are better games than DND for it, but I've said that hundreds of times already.

[Kiero]

I don't like it. Seems to be a child of the "lolx grim and gritty low-wealth low-magic is the only good way to play!!1one" trend. If you really want to play in such a setting, don't play DND.

Only 24 posts to get to that old chestnut "It's not D&D"! No one has a monopoly on defining what constitutes D&D, not even you.

[Tengu]

No, but I can have my own opinion.

DND does a mediocre job at reflecting a heroic high-fantasy world, with monsters, powerful wizards and, unless you're using ToB, ordinary fighters being completely useless when it comes to fighting the mentioned monsters.

DND does a bad job at: everything else.

[Kiero]

DND does a mediocre job at reflecting a heroic high-fantasy world, with monsters, powerful wizards and, unless you're using ToB, ordinary fighters being completely useless when it comes to fighting the mentioned monsters.

Given this is a pretty simple fix that works, I'd say you're wrong.

[Tengu]

No. A well-played wizard is still more powerful than a fighter at level 5-6.
And how is "nobody can defeat a monster" a fix to the "a fighter cannot defeat a monster" situation?

[Morty]

I don't like it. Seems to be a child of the "lolx grim and gritty low-wealth low-magic is the only good way to play!!1one" trend. If you really want to play in such a setting, don't play DND.

Why? This fix seems to provide low-magic while still being D&D. And some people can prefer to play low-magic and low-wealth systems without being WFRP fanboys.


No. A well-played wizard is still more powerful than a fighter at level 5-6.

Huge exagerration.

But I wouldn't play that anyway. I prefer low-magic, non-heroic games, but for that I can just play campaigns in 1-10 range.

[banjo1985]

Ooh I find it an interesting concept, but I'd personally add to the crowd saying that a Lvl 10 cap could be more entertaining. Ipersonally regard D&D as losing its shine about Lvl 12 or so, so this would be a great thing to play from my perspective.

No-one stipulates that the BBEG must be a lvl 28 world threatening badass, a lvl12 world threatening badass would serve exactly teh same purpose with a level cap

[Dan_Hemmens]

Only 24 posts to get to that old chestnut "It's not D&D"! No one has a monopoly on defining what constitutes D&D, not even you.

Surely in this case it definitively *isn't* D&D. It's "E6" which is a different game using the D20 system. It's no more D&D than Conan D20.

That said, put me down as another one who doesn't think that 6th level characters in D&D really constitute "heroic fantasy". Then again, I'd argue that "heroic fantasy" isn't a question of power so much as style.

In D&D there's pretty much no way to create a character who can slay a dragon, but still have to worry about fighting a half-dozen bandits. That, to my mind, is what heroic fantasy is. It's highly competent people who do utterly remarkable things.

Unfortunately it runs into the RPG "power" problem. Roleplayers find it hard to believe that somebody who killed a dragon could be killed by an ordinary man. They're too inclined to think in terms of:

You > Dragon > That guy.

[Tengu]

Unfortunately it runs into the RPG "power" problem. Roleplayers find it hard to believe that somebody who killed a dragon could be killed by an ordinary man. They're too inclined to think in terms of:

You > Dragon > That guy.

You just need to play a different game. Skill-based RPGs tend to have more, let's say, realistic heroes without an objectively measurable level of power.

[Ulzgoroth]

Well, I think a sizable chunk of that is that with fictional characters, they usually get an awful lot of favorable rolls for their major deeds...multiple critical hits, poor attack rolls for the enemy, and lucky saves against the dragon, as it were. Characters for whom the great dragon is something like a routine challenge are less often seen in fantasy, and when they do appear, they can be expected to have bigger problems than said dragons.

People generally don't want to play a game where they've got a better than even chance of dying in every encounter. A D&D encounter with a force as powerful as the party is considered incredibly difficult, and rarely occurs, because in a fair fight people die. The typical D&D encounter is with a creature approximately as dangerous as a single party member. People die if they mess up badly or have very bad luck. Fictional heroes only avoid dying because they have exceptional luck.

[Kiero]

Fictional heroes only avoid dying because they have exceptional luck.

That's not the only means by which they win out. Some because they fight dirty, plan ahead or have surprises they can spring.

[Ulzgoroth]

That's not the only means by which they win out. Some because they fight dirty, plan ahead or have surprises they can spring.
To be sure. But generally when it comes to 'boss fights' it takes whatever tricks they can come up with and incredible luck to pull through. If planning or trickery makes a foe trivial, it was probably a mook already.

[WhammeWhamme]

Meh. I wouldn't play it. A mage's most powerful spell shouldn't be on the level of fireball. No matter the magic level of the world.

As for heroic fantasy capping at level 10, what are they smoking?

It just doesn't work. And for Gandalf being level 5, he was a demigod.

Tippy, this is perhaps the singlest best endorsement I have ever seen of a new set of rules.

Edit:

Anyway, one thing no one seems to have commented on (if this is the same set of rules) is the idea of dialling down your Point's Buy in exchange for Level Adjustment.

Specifically, instead of LA +4, you have straight 8's in a game where everyone else has 32 point buy.

Optimiser's thoughts?

[ChrisMcDee]

As someone who has no interest in DMing a party of characters above level 10 (doesn't mean there's no 10+ stuff in the world) this sounds cool.

It'd be great if there was a book filled with extra stuff for low level campaigns. 10 level class builds, more spells, feats, monsters. I always feel a little ripped off buying a book and knowing I'll never be playing game with a high enough power level to use a lot of the stuff.

[PinkysBrain]

You > Dragon > That guy.
In a story telling system this might not be how it works, you can slay the dragon by luckily diving between a crack in the rocks and sticking your sword up when he flies closely overhead with his belly exposed. Which is the equivalent of rolling double 20s ... when combat is decided by dice you can't count on double 20s though.

In a system where a great hero has to worry about a small mob of low lives a dragon could most likely be slayed by a bunch of commoners with bows ... and the whole internal consistency of them needing you to do it for them goes away.

[Dan_Hemmens]

In a system where a great hero has to worry about a small mob of low lives a dragon could most likely be slayed by a bunch of commoners with bows ... and the whole internal consistency of them needing you to do it for them goes away.

That's sort of the issue. Roleplayers, or a lot of roleplayers, insist on "internal consistency". The problem is that a lot of the time "internal consistency" really means "gross oversimplification."

It's very hard to create a set of game mechanics in which a single hero can defeat a dragon, a single dragon can defeat a mob of townspeople, and a mob of townspeople can defeat a single hero.

Hard, but not necessarily impossible. As others have pointed out, skills-based systems can do it, and a purely descriptive system can do it easy.

[PinkysBrain]

Hard, but not necessarily impossible. As others have pointed out, skills-based systems can do it
Give me a concrete example (if you don't want to, just give me a rules set with statted dragons which you believe validates your statement and I'll try to make some reasonable characters/commoners and crunch the numbers ... although it might take some time).

[Emperor Tippy]

Tippy, this is perhaps the singlest best endorsement I have ever seen of a new set of rules.

Insults are fun, aren't they?

Especially when they make absolutely no sense.

I said a wizards most powerful spell shouldn't be fireball. It shouldn't. Look through most fantasy, almost all wizards are far above the fireball level of power.

I would agree that you can do heroic fantasy with a cap at level 15 without much problem. I would remove 8th level spells and give the wizard a different capstone.

You can even make a valid argument for heroic fantasy being doable at level 10. But it just doesn't work at level 5.

[Maelstrom]

2 words.

Iron.
Heroes.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Give me a concrete example (if you don't want to, just give me a rules set with statted dragons which you believe validates your statement and I'll try to make some reasonable characters/commoners and crunch the numbers ... although it might take some time).

Simplest options: Wushu, Over the Edge.

Slightly trickier: I'd bet Burning Wheel could make a stab at it. Riddle of Steel probably could as well as long as you could get your Spiritual Traits into play.

[Vyker]

Y'know, I just don't see the point of capping at six.

Okay. I agree with a previously-made opinion that there's a "sweet spot" of sorts somewhere in the 8-12 area. But this just... eh. It seems like a lazy halfbreed solution to a problem you really only suffer if you bring it on yourself.

While this does "save" your gaming group from the "horrors" of high level play, it doesn't really add anything in, either. I mean, why not just play D&D as normal, and when your group feels that the power level is hitting some upper limit, start afresh? Or just stop leveling. Or whatever.

But what is the difference between that "table agreement" and this E6 vibe? What is E6 doing to enhance the play it doesn't forbid outright?

D&D is sorta built around the idea of "kick in the door to kill the monster to loot the treasure so you can kick in bigger doors, kill bigger monsters, and loot shinier treasure." If that's not your thing (growing in power in direct relation to your accomplishments, that is, not necessarily kicking in doors -- all you socialites and stealthies can play too!), it's not necessarily a bad idea to start looking for the game that'll give you what you want.

I mean, would you play Monopoly if you really wanted to play Risk? "My tenats storm Boardwalk and burn down your motels! I gain a zoning bonus!"

I play a wide variety of games. None of them are inherently superior to one another, but all of them are more inclined towards a certain playstyle. Heck, for gritty low-magic/low-level fantasy, I could roll with Warhammer, Conan, Riddle of Steel, or Pendragon. That's four very awesome options, just off the top of my head.

The problem I see with E6 is that it's no different from a D&D campaign that never hits level seven. It doesn't enhance the elements it's theoretically focusing on, i.e., the low-magic/low-level fantasy stuff. I don't like games that talk about what I can't do. I like games that talk about what I can do. Saying, "You can never reach level seven" makes my character feel like a poor, weak hobo. Saying "You have acquired the fabled tigerblade of Calvin the Bold" makes my character feel awesome, even if it's only a +1 sword.

So to me, this E6 system takes away things I like, and adds in nothing which wasn't already there.

--


It's very hard to create a set of game mechanics in which a single hero can defeat a dragon, a single dragon can defeat a mob of townspeople, and a mob of townspeople can defeat a single hero.

Well, I looked through my ol' gaming stuff, and I found one, buried amidst forgotten tomes and cobwebs the size of Dobermans, that does a modestly decent job. It's some no-dice system called "Rock/Paper/Scissors."

Hehehe... I jest, I jest. I actually agree with the point. Folks like "Tucker's Kobolds" can kill the dragon-slaying heroes because they're played well, not because they're mechanically capable. And balancing, mechanically, the hero vs. dragon vs. mob vs. hero is incredibly hard in a D&D-style system.

D&D is many things to many people. And it can make a pretty decent stab at trying to be most anything (your mileage may vary). But barring extreme house-ruling, most D&D games share some fundamental mechanics, and those mechanics lend themselves better towards some things than others. Unfortunately, the D&D system tends to lend itself towards a linear power progression. If you can beat the dragon, you can beat the mob. The mob is just XP on a stick.

Yes, Tucker's Kobolds can beat you, but again, for emphasis and clarity, they win due to being played above and beyond rather than through baseline mechanics.

For a game where Tucker's Kobolds are the norm rather than DM dependent, check out stuff like Shadowrun. Your grizzled veteran can be shot dead by any newbie with a gun (or any gaggle of goons with guns), but that grizzled veteran can also do some pretty incredible things that mob/newbie could never dream of.

There's a lot of systems out there. Find the one that fits your game.

[Morty]

D&D is sorta built around the idea of "kick in the door to kill the monster to loot the treasure so you can kick in bigger doors, kill bigger monsters, and loot shinier treasure." If that's not your thing (growing in power in direct relation to your accomplishments, that is, not necessarily kicking in doors -- all you socialites and stealthies can play too!), it's not necessarily a bad idea to start looking for the game that'll give you what you want.


I have to disagree. D&D was designed for that sort of thing, but now people are running completely different types of adventures in D&D and they're fine. Heck, Eberron is made for intrigues, investigations etc. Eberron is load of garbage, but it's legitimate WoTC setting.

[asqwasqw]

I mean, would you play Monopoly if you really wanted to play Risk? "My tenats storm Boardwalk and burn down your motels! I gain a zoning bonus!"


Heh, single best thing I read today. I feel an urge to play monopoly now.

I just really don't see the point of this system. It's the same game, with added restrictions that don't make sense. Why have the restrictions at all then?

[Indon]

It's a solid, simple implementation of a sustainable low/mid-level campaign world.

Really, what else is there to say about it?

...aside from the fact that Gandalf isn't consistently stattable; he was a plot device.

Edit: And the fact that Riskopoly would be an absolutely awesome game. I am at this very moment tempted to try and hammer out a ruleset.

[Kiero]

Some background to the various elements, with a guide to them:


Folks might also save themselves a bit of work or wondering, if they look at the original thread where the whole thing evolved...

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=99034

For example:
Post #29 rycanada specifically is looking to _keep_ skills capped at 9 skill ranks.

Post #68 mentions that he doesn't add more class levels to critters once they're CR6. And that something like a CR 10 critter isn't just an "encounter" but an event.

Post #81 mentions that the rest of the world is playing by the same rules, meaning you're not going to have a lot of stat/skill inflated NPCs running around and smacking the heck of the PCs.

Post #85 talks about PRCs

Post #103 is his idea regarding Raise Dead / Negative levels

Post #107-112 talk about his approach to dealing with Magic Items

Post #125 mentions a bit about typical ACs and DCs depending on the level

Post #136 is a link to a file for best-guessing NPCs and Monsters (need to be a member of Enworld to download it)

Post #138 mentions the 4 styles/levels/powers/whatever of gameplay based on levels

Posts #142 aqnd 143 mention a couple of tidbits about what he allows feats to do

Post #152 mentions he's tempted to cap Base Saves at +5

Post #154 talks about people's concerns regarding Fighters

Post #158 and 159 talk about the Sorcerer/Wizard difference

Post #160 and 161 talk about the flip side of capping Base Saves at +5

Post #193 and 194 is a Skill Point thing

[asqwasqw]

Yeah, but what is the difference between this and just capping the level at 6? Why cap it at 6? Why not a different level? While I understand that you aren't forcing me to play, I just don't see what is so special about this.

[Matthew]

Heh, single best thing I read today. I feel an urge to play monopoly now.

I just really don't see the point of this system. It's the same game, with added restrictions that don't make sense. Why have the restrictions at all then?
Well, because D&D is a modular game and is perfectly capable of supporting a wide variety of playing styles and tastes. Altering the rules to suit your game is half the fun, whether they are minor or sweeping changes.

[asqwasqw]

Well, because D&D is a modular game and is perfectly capable of supporting a wide variety of playing styles and tastes. Altering the rules to suit your game is half the fun, whether they are minor or sweeping changes.

I just don't see what is so special about capping it at level 6. Why 6? Is it the perfect balance?

[Indon]

Yeah, but what is the difference between this and just capping the level at 6? Why cap it at 6? Why not a different level? While I understand that you aren't forcing me to play, I just don't see what is so special about this.

6 is a good point where the players start to become highly potent compared to NPC's. (Edit: Or, in other words, it's the very start of the "heroic fantasy" range; the game is no longer particularly "gritty")

The feat gain is a way to provide a limited, slower-scaling power increase so that instead of saying, "No, you can gain nothing," you say, "You can gain stuff, just not as much."

Mind that in addition to the feats, the players' wealth would also continue to scale. (edit: Though, of course, a world in which CL's probably don't get higher than 10 has limited powerful magic items).

[Matthew]

I just don't see what is so special about capping it at level 6. Why 6? Is it the perfect balance?

Pretty much what Indon is saying. This is not particularly new mind, the old (A)D&D Character Point System allowed for a very similar mechanic. All my (A)D&D games more or less cap out at levels 6-9, with the majority at level 6 and 7 due to the (A)D&D Experience Point System.

I don't play long term campaigns with D&D 3.x, so this is not really an issue for me beyond the methodology. It's not like you play this version and only this version, it's just one type of play, where you want to play at level 6, but you don't want to get much better.

[Jasdoif]

I just don't see what is so special about capping it at level 6. Why 6? Is it the perfect balance?Well, 6 is a perfect number....

[Diggorian]

I don't play long term campaigns with D&D 3.x, so this is not really an issue for me beyond the methodology. It's not like you play this version and only this version, it's just one type of play, where you want to play at level 6, but you don't want to get much better.

A goal I've been aspiring to is to make a campaign unfold as gradually as 2nd Ed. used to make things without altering the leveling system. Trying to get the best of both worlds with 3.x.

I've gotten pretty good results by limiting CR in a status quo manner (high CR = higher rarity, you gotta find em) and filling out most of the game session with entertaining roleplay that garners lower XP awards.

By level 6, PC's are famous and government sanctioned, if not members of government themselves, in my style. Challenges of their level are fewer in between letting PC ... actually ... age. :smallwink:

[CatPeeler]

Yeah, but what is the difference between this and just capping the level at 6? Why cap it at 6? Why not a different level? While I understand that you aren't forcing me to play, I just don't see what is so special about this.

By capping it at level 6, only builds with full BAB will have an iterative attack. That's a pretty darn good reason.

As far as I'm concerned, E6 is the most exciting idea for D&D I've heard in a loooooong time.

[Leon]

No. Even if you remove teleportation and flying I still can't find any heroic fantasy hero who can be modeled at level 10.


Because Fantastic Hero's dont have to follow set guidelines in character creation or have set limits on what they can or cannot do

[AtomicKitKat]

It's very hard to create a set of game mechanics in which a single hero can defeat a dragon, a single dragon can defeat a mob of townspeople, and a mob of townspeople can defeat a single hero.

Remove HP from class levels. Now everyone is fairly vulnerable to death from a single blow(which also sort of helps balance out the Wizards). Or go back to the AD&D style of HP, where you get only fixed HP(and none from Con) above a certain level(You still get Con to HP below like Level 9).

Does not apply to monster racial HD of course, so you still need incredible luck, tactics, and planning to take down that Ancient Wyrm(well, probably dial it down so that the very biggest things cap out at around 20 HD).

[Indon]

Remove HP from class levels. Now everyone is fairly vulnerable to death from a single blow(which also sort of helps balance out the Wizards). Or go back to the AD&D style of HP, where you get only fixed HP(and none from Con) above a certain level(You still get Con to HP below like Level 9).

Does not apply to monster racial HD of course, so you still need incredible luck, tactics, and planning to take down that Ancient Wyrm(well, probably dial it down so that the very biggest things cap out at around 20 HD).

E6 can actually provide slowly-scaling HP increases, courtesy of the Toughness feat (which, eventually, might actually be taken in such a game!).

[Bosh]

Well I think that if you're tired of D&D (as I am, am going to start a Fate campaign soon) its more fun to try out a whole other system than try to force D&D into something its not meant to be.

That said, if I played E6 what I would do is instead having people gain feats after hitting 6th level, I'd have them start getting gestaltized so that after 12 levels worth of experience they'd be a 6/6 gestalt and after 18 levels of experience they'd be a 6/6/6 super-gestalt.

[Kiero]

Well I think that if you're tired of D&D (as I am, am going to start a Fate campaign soon) its more fun to try out a whole other system than try to force D&D into something its not meant to be.

I feel the need to quote Matthew on this:


Well, because D&D is a modular game and is perfectly capable of supporting a wide variety of playing styles and tastes. Altering the rules to suit your game is half the fun, whether they are minor or sweeping changes.

[Tengu]

Why make severe changes to the rules of DND and create something that will do a half-assed way of representing a setting, when you can run another game which was made with this setting in mind and will represent it much better?

The "DND is good for everything" mindset is absolutely false and hurts other, oftenly better games, since too many people don't bother with exploring RPGs other than d20.

Look at Deadlands for example. The original game has a very interesting and climatic mechanic, with cards, poker chips and stuff. The d20 version is DND in Weird West.

[Kiero]

Sorry, where's the "severe changes"? I see a few little fixes.

[Matthew]

Well, that's one interpretation, but it's hardly definitive.

D&D is built to be adaptable. If you don't like how your adaptions turn out that doesn't mean that the game system cannot support what you want to do with it. Many 'none' D&D fantasy games are actually just modified versions of D&D. It's not a square peg in a round hole business, it's just a peg and a hole. That's not to say it can suffice for everything equally, just that D&D/D20 is a Toolbox and you are free to build with it whatever you like.

However, if you cannot be bothered to adapt the rules (and lets face it, not everyone wants to or has the time) you may be better off buying a new system and playing it out of the box (just make sure the system does what you want it to and you have the time to become familiar with it).

[Neek]

I just don't see what is so special about capping it at level 6. Why 6? Is it the perfect balance?

There's a better explanation, but no one's really said it yet. Levels 1-5 represent the realistic range of levels in D&D. Level 1 represents the majority of us, 4-5 represents the outliers, the geniuses and maestros and the near-superhuman Olympic winners. Level six is just a step above that, so it means no matter what, you're playing better than just about everyone else.

[banjo1985]

Why make severe changes to the rules of DND and create something that will do a half-assed way of representing a setting, when you can run another game which was made with this setting in mind and will represent it much better?

The "DND is good for everything" mindset is absolutely false and hurts other, oftenly better games, since too many people don't bother with exploring RPGs other than d20.

Look at Deadlands for example. The original game has a very interesting and climatic mechanic, with cards, poker chips and stuff. The d20 version is DND in Weird West.

True to an extent. D&D is adaptable, and can work in a number of settings, but it does take a hell of a lot of work. Personally I think this E6 thing has legs, but its true that there are a hell of a lot of other systems out there that are more adaptable and better for low power gaming, namely World of Darkness and Call of Cthulhu.

Oh and the original Deadlands rocked, poker chips and playing cards for initiative, I was in heaven! The new Savage worlds version blows unfortunately.

[Rolzup]

Why make severe changes to the rules of DND and create something that will do a half-assed way of representing a setting, when you can run another game which was made with this setting in mind and will represent it much better?


Thing is, the changes aren't severe. Not at all. It's in no way different from playing a campaign up to level six, with the addition of extra feats.

And that's the appeal. Yes, you could play Warhammer. That's the discussion we're having in my group right now, as the campaign (and the GM) works better on a lower...ah, scale, shall we say?

E6 seems a much better option to me, though, because I don't have to learn or buy a new set of rules. I'm 36, I've got a 3 year old son and another baby on the way. I don't retain rule systems as quickly or easily as I used to, as my brain is probably 50% mush by now.

(Toddlers have skulls made of concrete. You can only take so many headbutts before the brain damage sets in.)

Plus, I *like* d20. I don't really see any need to change. As a player, and especially as a DM, E6 seems entirely perfect to me.

[Tengu]

In my previous post, I didn't have E6 in mind, but other houserules that are supposed to give DND a certain feel. E6 is different, being a very small rule change, but it's also too simple to really make DND feel like a gritty game.

[Matthew]

I don't really see much of a difference between House Ruling a bunch of things onto D&D and picking up a different system (except for the type of work involved). There are some fundamentally different systems, but the vast majority follow the same sort of formula, whether you use levels or not.

[rycanada]

Wow! Lively debate you folks have over here. J

I came up with E6 about 2 years ago, and before I pop back over to EN World I thought I'd post my 2 cents.

First off, if your initial reaction to E6 is strong objection - rock on, no worries, and cheers! Sounds like you've got a pretty clear idea of what games you're looking for, and if E6 has zero appeal, you know where your time is best spent. Obviously, if D&D can't cater to everybody's tastes, E6 sure won't either.

To those with some interest, but some concerns, one thing I'd emphasize is that E6 didn't come out of a vacuum, nor is it a "hey, here's a great system that I've never playtested."

When I first had the concept my very first step was pitching it to my players. Some thought it was a great idea, and the rest were willing to give it a try, so I gave it a shot. Turned out that it worked really well for our tastes, and we've done lots of playing inside E6 now. Of course, back then it was a lot more convoluted than it is now: there were intricate quasi-gestalt rules and several other little things that weren’t so much about the cap as they were about my group’s thoughts on D&D class balance. Over time, we found that the only rules we were really using (on both sides of the screen) were the feat rules, and that was producing a great play experience. So when I returned to E6 just recently, that’s how I wrote it up: As it was actually played.

Sometime in the next couple of weeks I'm going to be starting a regular game, and at least in my local (Toronto) gaming scene there's lots of interest in it. If you're still interested in seeing how this all fits together, come by on EN World and post to the current "home base" thread:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=200045

And again, if E6 is listed on your “Turn Offs” – then cheers, and good gaming!

[Dan_Hemmens]

I don't really see much of a difference between House Ruling a bunch of things onto D&D and picking up a different system (except for the type of work involved). There are some fundamentally different systems, but the vast majority follow the same sort of formula, whether you use levels or not.

Just out of interest, what do you define as "the same sort of formula"?

[Indon]

In my previous post, I didn't have E6 in mind, but other houserules that are supposed to give DND a certain feel. E6 is different, being a very small rule change, but it's also too simple to really make DND feel like a gritty game.

E6 is more for light-heroism, it seems to me. A grittier system would be through introducing, say, a vitality system (in which almost any critical hit can be lethal) or a damage save system (in which even a bad roll poses a great danger). Both are, much like E6, single, simple rule changes which cause substancial campaign differences.

[Dan_Hemmens]

E6 is more for light-heroism, it seems to me. A grittier system would be through introducing, say, a vitality system (in which almost any critical hit can be lethal) or a damage save system (in which even a bad roll poses a great danger). Both are, much like E6, single, simple rule changes which cause substancial campaign differences.

The problem is, of course, that a vitality system isn't very heroic, which why they ditched it in SW Saga.

[PinkysBrain]

Simplest options: Wushu, Over the Edge.Getting killed by half a dozen mooks hardly seems likely in that game.

As far as riddle of steel goes ... AFAICS spiritual traits could help you a bit against a huge fire breathing dragon, but in the end bonus dice aren't going to make that big a difference as to put a stand up fight with a dragon on the same level as a stand up fight against some mooks. You might get surprised by half a dozen bandits, but rarely by a dragon ... or at least not without some way readily available to flee or turn the tide. It's not the skills which are relevant here, but the player ingenuity and GM storytelling. If he doesn't give you the opportunity to plan and find some trick solution you are screwed.

Burning wheel sounds interesting since it's the crunchiest of the lot. My guess is that a party of dragon slayers would have to worry about half a dozen brigands mostly because of the lethality of combat when the rolls aren't going your way rather than anything else ... but I'll try to take a deeper look.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Getting killed by half a dozen mooks hardly seems likely in that game.

Wushu? You won't get killed, but you can get the bejeezus beaten out of you. It's just that you get to describe it yourself. Which is a plus in my book.


As far as riddle of steel goes ... AFAICS spiritual traits could help you a bit against a huge fire breathing dragon, but in the end bonus dice aren't going to make that big a difference as to put a stand up fight with a dragon on the same level as a stand up fight against some mooks. You might get surprised by half a dozen bandits, but rarely by a dragon ... or at least not without some way readily available to flee or turn the tide. It's not the skills which are relevant here, but the player ingenuity and GM storytelling. If he doesn't give you the opportunity to plan and find some trick solution you are screwed.

Quite so, but that's sort of the point.

In TRoS you have to pick and choose your battles. There's no actual stats for dragons in the core book (best I can remember), but the point is that most things will go down to a good sword thrust.


Burning wheel sounds interesting since it's the crunchiest of the lot. My guess is that a party of dragon slayers would have to worry about half a dozen brigands mostly because of the lethality of combat when the rolls aren't going your way rather than anything else ... but I'll try to take a deeper look.

Combat in BW isn't actually that lethal, it's just bloody. You're very unlikely to actually *die*.

The big thing about both Burning Wheel and The Riddle of Steel is that they have mechanisms which allow your characters to perform *better* when they're doing significant things. Default D&D doesn't (I'm not sure about E6). You fight equally well against a random mob as you do against a dragon.

[Anxe]

Why even bother with caps? It's taken my player 5 years to reach 9th and 10th level. Although I agree that if you're gonna do a cap, 6th is the way to go. All the classes are at about the same power level right there and it's just high enough to have a level in some prestige classes. You can get leadership then too!

[Anxe]

No. Even if you remove teleportation and flying I still can't find any heroic fantasy hero who can be modeled at level 10.

And a very large part of heroic fantasy does have people porting around. It also very often has single mages who can decimate entire nations.

Fighting and killing the thousand year old dragon si a great part of Heroic Fantasy. Please show me how you do it with 4 ECL 10 characters.You could go the Bard way by having the Crack in the Armor feat and a Arrow of Greater Dragon Slaying.

[Kiero]

Wushu? You won't get killed, but you can get the bejeezus beaten out of you. It's just that you get to describe it yourself. Which is a plus in my book.

Depends on the genre really, sometimes death is an appropriate consequence of losing all your Chi. Plus if that happens you don't get to narrate your fate, someone else does since at that point you run out of plot immunity.

Incidentally, mooks can be dangerous if the Yin toll is high enough and you're not watching it. It's even possible for the GM to set up mooks who will wipe out the players before they take out the mooks. A toll of 3 or more will tend to do that.

[GolemsVoice]

Meh. I don't like the system much, because as much as I like playing a character frome the cradle, I also want to advance in levels, seeing tougher monsters and stranger places than before. Most of those low-level games, where the cover suggests easy combat and realistic feeling, we ended up feeling powerless and demotivated.
Furthermore, most classes become very versatile only late in game. Imagine for example the rogue. At level 1-5, you will have a crossbow, and a dagger. For a halfling, this would be 1d6 damage for the crossbow and 1d4 for the dagger. Wow. And what can you do every round? 1d4 points of damage. Even wizards get spells, and warriors get to swing theri big axes. But without pretty magic, and theri abilities from later on in the game, some classes are stuck in a very weak phase.

[Emperor Tippy]

You could go the Bard way by having the Crack in the Armor feat and a Arrow of Greater Dragon Slaying.

An arrow of greater dragon slaying can't be made if the world caps leveling at 6th level.

[Matthew]

Just out of interest, what do you define as "the same sort of formula"?
Well, I have to be careful about what I'm saying, because it may be that what I consider 'most systems' are not really in the majority. However, what I have in mind is "Make character, face a challenge, character gets better, face a tougher challenge".

By no means do all Roleplaying games follow this formula, but I would hazard to say a significant proportion do (Such as: D20, War Hammer, Paladium, Gurps, Star Wars D6, Middle Earth Roleplaying, Rolemaster, Harn, Castles and Crusades, Shadow Run, Werewolf, Vampire, etc...).

[Erom]

When considering the question I see a lot of people asking, that is, "Why modify DnD to play like another game, why not just play the other game?", there is one powerful reason to mod DnD that people have been overlooking: DnD for everything is the default because people know DnD, people play DnD, they already own the books and are familiar with the rules. When you don't have a FLGS, getting a role-playing group together at all can be painfully difficult- when you want to play an unfamiliar game, it can become impossible. I know if I told my group "We're playing E6, it's a small change to the DnD ruleset." everyone would be fine with it. If I said "Hey all, let's play Gurps!" I'd get a refusal and a request for someone else to DM.

[Starsinger]

Why make severe changes to the rules of DND and create something that will do a half-assed way of representing a setting, when you can run another game which was made with this setting in mind and will represent it much better?

The "DND is good for everything" mindset is absolutely false and hurts other, oftenly better games, since too many people don't bother with exploring RPGs other than d20.


On the left hand (or right, take your pick) of this argument, money. Why go out there and buy X system if you can't afford it, when you can make do with d20?

But on the other hand, there are some things which D&D can't replicate well. Take Final Fantasy. There are several Final Fantasy d20 things out there, and ... i say... 80% of them suck... maybe more. Then there are new systems which work much better, like Returners.

So yeah, putting both hands together, you get that D&D can replicate some things, especially if you can't afford to go out and get different systems because you want to play a Cowboy game or something. But on the other hand, there are some things which D&D replicates so terribly, you're better off finding another system.

[Dervag]

No. Even if you remove teleportation and flying I still can't find any heroic fantasy hero who can be modeled at level 10.

And a very large part of heroic fantasy does have people porting around. It also very often has single mages who can decimate entire nations.

Fighting and killing the thousand year old dragon si a great part of Heroic Fantasy. Please show me how you do it with 4 ECL 10 characters.By recalibrating the dragon?

Seriously, it worked great in first and second edition. A party of four tenth level characters could certainly take on a dragon, though they might well be risking their necks to do so.


You just need to play a different game. Skill-based RPGs tend to have more, let's say, realistic heroes without an objectively measurable level of power.Yes. The downside is that you can't take on anything superhuman (like a dragon) without some very heavy artillery on your side. So much for St. George slaying the dragon with a lance.


In a story telling system this might not be how it works, you can slay the dragon by luckily diving between a crack in the rocks and sticking your sword up when he flies closely overhead with his belly exposed. Which is the equivalent of rolling double 20s ... when combat is decided by dice you can't count on double 20s though.

In a system where a great hero has to worry about a small mob of low lives a dragon could most likely be slayed by a bunch of commoners with bows ... and the whole internal consistency of them needing you to do it for them goes away.Except, of course, that if a horde of commoners with bows go up against a dragon there's a good chance that the dragon will see them and run away, or that most of the commoners will get fried before bringing the dragon down.

Nobody is going to accept 75% casualties as the alternative to paying a reward.


I said a wizards most powerful spell shouldn't be fireball. It shouldn't. Look through most fantasy, almost all wizards are far above the fireball level of power.Yes, but they can't or don't use that high power level every day to blast through small problems.

Gandalf can kill a Balrog. That being the case, why can't he obliterate hordes of orcs and blast through Moria with ease?

Because while his power may be greater than that of a D&D wizard in some ways, it is also less in other ways. D&D magic works very like technology. Its effects are replicable, consistent, and you can use them very frequently to solve almost any imaginable problem. Having a high-level wizard is as good a way to blast through a swarm of soldiers with swords as having an assault rifle is. If not better.

But magic in heroic fantasy doesn't have to work like technology. The wizard doesn't have to be able to disintegrate a half-dozen bandits with a gesture to be able to confront monsters and perils, as Mr. Hemmens correctly points out.

You can, in fact, have heroes who do what no normal person can do at fifth or sixth level in D&D, with the proviso that fifth or sixth level is not normal in that campaign setting.


Why make severe changes to the rules of DND and create something that will do a half-assed way of representing a setting, when you can run another game which was made with this setting in mind and will represent it much better?Because D&D is familiar. By going for a modified version of D&D, you reduce the risk that your players start trying out a new system, decide it sucks after two sessions, and give up on what was a very promising campaign concept.

[Jannex]

While I can certainly see the allure of not having to watch the party wizard stomp all over every encounter, or render all of a rogue's skills irrelevant by pulling out a spell that does the same thing ten times better, I have some reservations, personally. I think this is largely due to the fact that I didn't start out playing D&D; in fact, I didn't play my first D&D game until I had already been roleplaying for a few years. The result of this is that I have a rather different attitude than many D&Ders toward a fundamental component of the game:

Experience points.

In the games I started out playing (largely White Wolf), advancement works rather differently than in D&D--as most people here probably already know. Rather than accumulating XP for several sessions without any discernible effect, and then having several traits advance all at once when you level up, I got used to getting XP every session that I could (potentially) do something with right away, and see an immediate, discernible effect on my character. Often I'd choose to save up anyway for something more expensive, but the option was there to advance something after every session, however minor. It fed into my instant-gratification impulse rather nicely.

When I started playing D&D, that instant gratification wasn't there. I'd have to wait several sessions with no improvement at all, which would lead to me looking forward very intently to the next opportunity to level. I might not be able to have the one thing I wanted right away (more skill points, a feat, whatever), but in a couple of sessions I could have all sorts of things, so I learned to be mostly content. It wouldn't matter especially if my next level was 2nd or 16th; it just meant an opportunity to advance. This variant would seem to shoot down that incentive. Once you hit sixth level, you still have to wait for a return on your XP, but the payoff is a lot smaller. I think that I, personally, would feel frustrated with it. If others enjoy it, though, great!

(As an aside, a while back my old D&D group experimented with a variant XP system for D&D, "Buy the Numbers," that allowed you to do exactly what I was used to: spend XP on specific traits, rather than levelling up. I actually found it quite satisfying, though it was a bit numerically cumbersome and had some balance issues. It allowed me to customize my character a lot more than standard D&D permits, mixing-and-matching and focusing on the things I felt were most important to the character. I guess it really played to my preferences. Is anyone else familiar with that variant?)

[Tengu]

But on the other hand, there are some things which D&D can't replicate well. Take Final Fantasy. There are several Final Fantasy d20 things out there, and ... i say... 80% of them suck... maybe more. Then there are new systems which work much better, like Returners.


Or this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44150)! Sorry for the shameless self-promotion.



Because D&D is familiar. By going for a modified version of D&D, you reduce the risk that your players start trying out a new system, decide it sucks after two sessions, and give up on what was a very promising campaign concept.

That's a good point, but I think that deciding that a system is good or bad after reading the rules, and without playtesting it before is within the capabilities of most GMs/DMs.

Also, I personally prefer discovering new stuff. Familiar gets boring after a while.

[Aquillion]

Gandalf can kill a Balrog. That being the case, why can't he obliterate hordes of orcs and blast through Moria with ease?

Because while his power may be greater than that of a D&D wizard in some ways, it is also less in other ways. D&D magic works very like technology. Its effects are replicable, consistent, and you can use them very frequently to solve almost any imaginable problem. Having a high-level wizard is as good a way to blast through a swarm of soldiers with swords as having an assault rifle is. If not better.Gandalf was very specifically limited by his situation. For instance, when the fellowship is trying to avoid going through Moria, Gandalf is eventually forced to save them all through what we'd consider an extremely minor use of magic: He starts a fire so they don't freeze to death. Hardly difficult for any wizard worth their salt, in any system.

But he warns them that by using magic (even in that 'minor' way) he's just written "Gandalf is here" in letters of fire a mile high for everyone to see. To a great extent, most of the other problems they encounter throughout the first book are because he was forced to do that.

Balrogs, say, don't come out to personally kill every wandering adventurer; they're Maiar, which means they basically rank as demigods in the LotR mythos in the same way Gandalf and Sauron do (Tolkien notes that only seven of them exist, at most, and that they are more powerful than dragons.) It came out because it sensed that Gandalf was there.

[AtomicKitKat]

E6 can actually provide slowly-scaling HP increases, courtesy of the Toughness feat (which, eventually, might actually be taken in such a game!).

In such a game, Toughness would certainly be actually worth a Feat slot.

I do think that the 1 HD+racial HD, ever, change has potential. Just make it so your biggest HD is the one that is always used(ie, if you spent some time as a Barbarian, you should have 12+Con+Toughness HP always) How that should interact with Half-Dragon, I'm still pondering. Maybe d12 scales up to "d14"(ie, you will always have 2 more HP than someone of the same Con/Class/Feat choices.) Saves, and DCs for such, would be tricky and require more thinking.

[Skjaldbakka]

Tolkien notes that only seven of them exist, at most, and that they are more powerful than dragons

Not technically true- unless you mean during the time of the LotRs, and even then you have Sauron, Gandalf, Saruman, Rhadagast, two other Istari I don't remember the names of, and the Balrog (which there could very well be more of). Shelob is the child/spawn of Ungoliant, and thus she might count as a Maiar as well.

[Pauwel]

Oh noes! The average adventuring party can easily reach the peak of human achievement in a couple of months! The grittiness!

Sorry, but I just don't think this works. The result is that advancement will start out incredibly fast and then go to a screeching halt at level 6. Magic is just as flashy and obvious as before, not subtle as it should be in dark, gritty fantasy. Advancement is as fast as ever, hit points are still unrealistic and the characters still get to enjoy the Flaming +2 Longswords of High Fantasy-ness.

This change alone just isn't going to do it. To model good, effective and gritty fantasy with DnD you'd have to make so many changes it just wouldn't be worth it. If you don't mind playing half-assed grittiness that isn't really gritty, go ahead. But if I were to play gritty games, I'd play it properly and just use a different system.

[Kiero]

Sorry, but I just don't think this works.

And yet it has done exactly that, several times. This isn't some theoretical mod that hasn't been playtested.

[rycanada]

And yet it has done exactly that, several times. This isn't some theoretical mod that hasn't been playtested.

I'm not even the only one to come up with it - just the only one to have posted about it. A guy on RPG.net played in a campaign that did the exact same thing, and he had good experiences there too. Maybe it needs a better marketing pitch, but it really has worked in practise.

[Indon]

The big thing about both Burning Wheel and The Riddle of Steel is that they have mechanisms which allow your characters to perform *better* when they're doing significant things. Default D&D doesn't (I'm not sure about E6). You fight equally well against a random mob as you do against a dragon.

While Hero Points =/= Stunt system (not having played the RPGs you mention I presume that's what you refer to), the effect is similar; i.e. you do better during points of high tension in the game.

Edit: And, uh, hero points/action points or whatever is another variant D20 rule.

[rycanada]

Edit: And, uh, hero points/action points or whatever is another variant D20 rule.

And you can find some heavily playtested action point rules in the E6 thread on EN World!

[0oo0]

To me, it seems like an interesting idea. I would agree that it doesn't add much to the system, but it seems to hold its own for what it is.

Personally, the campaigns I play in never last long enough for this to be an issue. I like to continue advancing and trying out new things, but could also have fun with a well established character who doesn't change much in terms of stats/abilities, but continues to develop as a character.

I agree that DnD can be modded to fit almost any game/story style, but I feel it isn't always the best. While familiar to a large number of people, its rules and system may not always be the best at capturing a certain feel. I don't mind playing D20 versions of almost any setting, I just dislike it when people default reaction to reading a new game that has an interesting feel is to simply mod DnD to fit the setting, not try the game itself. (the exampling I'm thinking about here is Dead Inside).

[Matthew]

Sure, I would agree that the opposite extreme [i.e. never playing anything but D&D because it can be modded] is just as silly as the other [D&D cannot model anything other than X, and you shouldn't waste your time trying to modify it to do so].

I have to say that even though I am not against E6, I am not particularly in favour of it either.

[Tengu]

Actually, after watching Bleach it occurred to me that, unlike most anime, it would actually work pretty well in a D20 setting. From what I know someone here on the boards even is doing this. So there's one non-standard setting.

But gritty and DND do not mesh well with each other at all.

[Matthew]

First define 'gritty', then define 'D&D' ...only joking (unless you have some agreeable definitons of course!), but in my opinion that is a very subjective statement. I would say getting your Level 1 Character one shotted by an Orc with a falchion was reasonably gritty, for instance.

[Tengu]

Seeing as level 1 characters have very limited options, though, it's safe to assume that player characters in DND are meant to advance further than level 1, where the mentioned orc won't be such a threat anymore.

[Matthew]

He could potentially one shot any Character with 24 HP or less... but, yeah, I am just being a git...

Default D&D 3.5 does not lend itself well to a 'gritty' style of play once you get past level 3 or so.

[Reinforcements]

D&D occupies something of an uncomfortable position as the far-and-away most popular pen-and-paper RPG. There's definitely a catch-22 in there - people don't play other games because D&D is all they know, and D&D is all they know because few people play other games. Of course, how much modification you can do before you should just be playing something else is highly subjective, so even though the answer to the problem IS: "If you don't like D&D you should play something else," it's not necessarily easy to determine where the line is. For myself, I think the ideal game is somewhere between D&D and The Shadows of Yesterday.

As for E6... enh. While I can appreciate the draw of super simple fixes, it doesn't seem like the whole 'get extra feats' thing is very well considered. I think you should either try to find a more significant benefit or just stop getting experience altogether. I also only see this really working in very strongly narrative-driven games, since I would need a good incentive to keep playing if the gaining of abilities were removed. Either that or the DM would have to be frikkin' fantastic (that is, the dungeons, battles and such are so engaging that I don't need any other incentives to play).

[Aquillion]

Not technically true- unless you mean during the time of the LotRs, and even then you have Sauron, Gandalf, Saruman, Rhadagast, two other Istari I don't remember the names of, and the Balrog (which there could very well be more of). Shelob is the child/spawn of Ungoliant, and thus she might count as a Maiar as well.I meant at most seven Balrogs total, not at most seven Maiar. From Wikipedia, Christopher Tolkien is quoted as saying about his father: "In the margin my father wrote: 'There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed.'" There were originally going to be more, but once he decided that they were fallen Maiar, he thought they should be limited in number.

And while you could certainly hack it into supporting it in some fashion or another, I don't think D&D is really suitable for gritty, as far as game-systems go. Grittiness almost requires a degree of detailed damage, or at least some form of wound penalties. D&D's damage system is also absurdly forgiving (once you've stopped bleeding to death on the spot, say, no existing wound can ever kill you, or even cause that much trouble for you.) Workarounds exist, but given how much of the system is already ugly kludge (death from massive damage, anyone? Plus, every normal bleeding wound kills you in at most 9 rounds--54 seconds, the time to go from -1 to -9 hp. It is not possible to have a non-magical wound that will take more than 54 seconds to kill you; in that time, you will either completely and permanently stabilize, or die.) To make D&D's damage system both gritty and functional, you'd have to almost rewrite it from the ground up, and that would affect almost everything else, too...

[Matthew]

Nah, it's not that hard to mod damage penalties onto D&D. The whole -10 mechanic works almost entirely seperately from the rest of the system (indeed, as an (A)D&D mechanic it is optional). A lot depends on how you interpret HP Damage.

Of course, if you want to retain that 'gritty' feel, then cap Hit Points at whatever you feel suitably gritty or else use much lower Massive Damage thresholds. The whole CR/WBL thing will be out the window, but that's rather implied in the 'gritty' factor (Of course, you could cap Monster Racial Hit Die as well...). Thoughtbot was working on a campaign that used an approach like this.

[Bosh]

Well depending on how much a heavily modded version of D&D counts as D&D then yes you can mod D&D into playing just about everything (would Conan D&D count as moded D&D? What about Mutants and Masterminds?). But that's like saying you can edit human D&D to make humans do anything any other animal can do, but after a certain point are what you're left with human anymore in any meaningful sense.

I DMed two quasi-historical games, one with modded D&D and one with modded Conan d20. They worked fairly well, but in both cases the rules I ended up with weren't really ideal.

I think the main thing is that if you look at RPGs as lending themselves into some combination of Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory) then D&D is HEAVILY in the gamist corner and trying to mod D&D enough to make it a realistic simulation of medieval combat is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more trouble than its worth.

Currently I'm getting ready to start playing a Spirit of the Century campaign and the way the gameplay flows is just completely different from D&D (not necessarily better, just very different) and it makes the players focus a lot more on the story than on stats and tactics. I don't think it'd be possible to mod D&D enough to give it the same gameplay kind of feel while leaving the game recognizably D&D.

[Bosh]

Also some other reasons I'd prefer non-D&D to heavily modded D&D is that people have to learn two game systems (the default one and my modded one) and keeping track of the differences between the two confuse people. Also when any of my mods pop up to make a character less powerful (for example in my Conan d20 I kept the armor as DR rule but made heavy armor give across the board penalties to AC/"Defensive Value" instead of having max dex) they whine and whine since its obvious to them that their GM specifically did something to make their character weaker than in RAW (which is often the case, since most people who've spent a lot of time looking at the RAW admit that some classes/builds/spells/whatever badly need to be made weaker). I find it leads to more gaming peace to find a game system that's balanced more or less how I want and when players ask a question I can point to the textbook and tell them to play by the RAW then to tell a whiny druid player that yes, I nerfed his class hard because I thought it was too powerful despite it being Core.

[Kiero]

I think the main thing is that if you look at RPGs as lending themselves into some combination of Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory) then D&D is HEAVILY in the gamist corner and trying to mod D&D enough to make it a realistic simulation of medieval combat is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more trouble than its worth.

Oh dear. I think we were doing just fine without GNS theory in this thread.

[Bosh]

Oh dear. I think we were doing just fine without GNS theory in this thread.

Well GNS theory a a bit very but D&D has strong wargame roots and even if you don't hold with GNS those roots really shine through in D&D in a lot of areas. I like the gameyness (I'm geeky enough to enjoy leafing through a half-dozen books for the feats that make my character just what I want him to be) but sometimes and I want something else, and that something else is hard to get by just modding D&D.

[Kiero]

Well GNS theory a a bit very but D&D has strong wargame roots and even if you don't hold with GNS those roots really shine through in D&D in a lot of areas. I like the gameyness (I'm geeky enough to enjoy leafing through a half-dozen books for the feats that make my character just what I want him to be) but sometimes and I want something else, and that something else is hard to get by just modding D&D.

At the risk of sparking off the usual kinds of discussions, I think the premise that any particular rulesset is by it's nature one of the three types is flawed. As is the idea that they can support one, and only one Creative Agenda. Never mind that Sim is pretty poorly-conceived and seems to be a bucket for everything that doesn't fit in Nar or Gam.

[Matthew]

Indeed, anecdotal failure to mod D&D to suitably represent X doesn't say much about D&D's capacity to model X, it just says Y attempt failed.

It's kind of like me saying 'my mod for D&D works totally perfectly at creating a gritty quasi historical game, therefore D&D can do anything'.

When does it stop being D&D and become something else? Well, that's the real question and it's very hard to gauge.

[Dan_Hemmens]

At the risk of sparking off the usual kinds of discussions, I think the premise that any particular rulesset is by it's nature one of the three types is flawed. As is the idea that they can support one, and only one Creative Agenda. Never mind that Sim is pretty poorly-conceived and seems to be a bucket for everything that doesn't fit in Nar or Gam.

Not to mention that Nar seems to mean more or less "games which Ron Edwards enjoys"...

That said, I do think that systems support particular playstyles, because by their nature they support some decisions and not others.

You can modify them, of course, but modifications can only go so far before you might as well just find yourself a different game. Everybody draws the line in a different place, but most people draw it eventually.

[Kiero]

Not to mention that Nar seems to mean more or less "games which Ron Edwards enjoys"...

Aye. :smallwink:


That said, I do think that systems support particular playstyles, because by their nature they support some decisions and not others.

You can modify them, of course, but modifications can only go so far before you might as well just find yourself a different game. Everybody draws the line in a different place, but most people draw it eventually.

I don't disagree with you on either point; I think what is covered in the rules has a tendency to support certain styles of play. Not to say of course that is therefore all they can do, or that you can't possibly manage anything outside of that.

Same goes on modifications, there does tend to be leeway on how much you can modify, and that point at which you hit diminishing returns for your effort varies.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I don't disagree with you on either point; I think what is covered in the rules has a tendency to support certain styles of play. Not to say of course that is therefore all they can do, or that you can't possibly manage anything outside of that.

To clarify, I don't necessarily mean "styles of play" in the GNS creative agenda sense, I mean "styles of play" in a "this is the way the game works" way.

For example, I wouldn't want to run a game of swashbuckling adventure or martial-arts action in D&D, because the game isn't really set up for it. Sure you *could* play a game in which everybody is a Rogue-With-A-Rapier or a Monk, but the characters would wind up feeling kind of samey because the system expects characters to be radically different (Fighters, Wizards, Rogues) not variations on a theme.


Same goes on modifications, there does tend to be leeway on how much you can modify, and that point at which you hit diminishing returns for your effort varies.

Oh absolutely. I just find that, for me, diminishing returns kicks in really early.

[Pauwel]

And yet it has done exactly that, several times. This isn't some theoretical mod that hasn't been playtested.

How does it address the issues I mentioned, then?

[Kiero]

It's funny seeing some of the objections about not having access to all the higher-level stuff, yet a common complaint I hear about starting at 1st level is that you never get to high levels. Seems a common occurence that a game starts out with all this energy and high ideals about reaching epic play, yet most peter out before you hit 10th level.

[Vyker]

It's funny seeing some of the objections about not having access to all the higher-level stuff, yet a common complaint I hear about starting at 1st level is that you never get to high levels. Seems a common occurence that a game starts out with all this energy and high ideals about reaching epic play, yet most peter out before you hit 10th level.

That's actually one of the major reasons I don't really see a point to E6. If you never reach level six anyway, why do you need to toss out stuff you never use?

If low-level play is your game, I don't see how this system enhances or improves that game short of locking you into it. Forever. I dunno. I'd like to think that if low-level play is what you're after, there'd be more here which draws those aspects you enjoy to the foreground and pushes away those that you despise.

As I've said before, what, exactly, is the difference between a fifth-level cleric in E6 and a fifth-level cleric in normal D&D?

Or, to phrase it differently, using the nerfbat on Lvl7+ is only the first step. What do you do now to make levels one through six more of what you're looking for rather than the same ol' D&D with the "bonus" of a sudden stop only a few levels in?

[Dan_Hemmens]

I've not looked closely at E6, but I'd guess that the answer is:

Because the default assumptions of the world are different. Being fifth level in a world where 15th level characters exist makes you meaningless. Being fifth level in a world where nobody exists who is significantly more powerful than you changes the emphasis totally.

This, I think, is why they call it "Epic Six": the idea is that sixth level characters are the "epic heroes" of their worlds.

[Kiero]

I've not looked closely at E6, but I'd guess that the answer is:

Because the default assumptions of the world are different. Being fifth level in a world where 15th level characters exist makes you meaningless. Being fifth level in a world where nobody exists who is significantly more powerful than you changes the emphasis totally.

This, I think, is why they call it "Epic Six": the idea is that sixth level characters are the "epic heroes" of their worlds.

Bingo! This isn't a case where the PCs get nerfed and everyone else remains as is. 6th is the maximum level for everyone in the setting.

[Matthew]

I wonder if the point at which a modded game of D&D stops being D&D is the point when Wizards don't try to sue you or fail to succeed with their suit...?

Anyway, yeah, as above. The point is that the setting is built for Sixth Level Characters (actually, in many ways, most Campaign Worlds are actually built for Sixth Level Characters and start to break when facing Player Characters of Levels 11+)

[Dan_Hemmens]

Bingo! This isn't a case where the PCs get nerfed and everyone else remains as is. 6th is the maximum level for everyone in the setting.

How do they deal with monsters? Are there ways to make - say - Dragons vulnerable to a sixth level party?

[Kiero]

How do they deal with monsters? Are there ways to make - say - Dragons vulnerable to a sixth level party?

If I remember discussions elsewhere, there's nothing in the world higher than CL10. Which become tough, occasions fights for the PCs, where they're expected to use better tactics and other methods to overcome.

[Draz74]

How do they deal with monsters? Are there ways to make - say - Dragons vulnerable to a sixth level party?

Maybe Dragons don't get any bigger than Large? So an "ancient" dragon in this game would have the same stats as a "juvenille" dragon in Grayhawk?

[Reinforcements]

Bingo! This isn't a case where the PCs get nerfed and everyone else remains as is. 6th is the maximum level for everyone in the setting.
Okay... but you still don't need E6 to do that. If you're designing a world you can do whatever the hell you want. If you don't want to make anyone higher than level 6, you don't have to. Again, all you're doing is removing part of the game without changing the parts you leave. You can of course create a world where the maximum level is 6, but E6 isn't necessary and doesn't help you do it.

[Indon]

How do they deal with monsters? Are there ways to make - say - Dragons vulnerable to a sixth level party?

A 6'th level party, probably not.

A 6'th level party that has raised a small army, perhaps!

Edit: My point is, if you did introduce high-HD monsters, however rarely, in such a world, it would take cleverness and/or logistics to help kill it.

[Dan_Hemmens]

If I remember discussions elsewhere, there's nothing in the world higher than CL10. Which become tough, occasions fights for the PCs, where they're expected to use better tactics and other methods to overcome.

Is that just an arbitrary cutoff (as in "nothing higher than CR10 exists", or has somebody compiled a list of "CR10" versions of - say - Balors and Adult Red Dragons.

It just strikes me that part of the appeal of E6 seems to be getting rid of the need to reach ludicrous levels of power before being able to take on "epic" opponents.

[Bosh]

At the risk of sparking off the usual kinds of discussions, I think the premise that any particular rulesset is by it's nature one of the three types is flawed. As is the idea that they can support one, and only one Creative Agenda. Never mind that Sim is pretty poorly-conceived and seems to be a bucket for everything that doesn't fit in Nar or Gam.
Well GNS is a bit reductionist, but its not all wrong. Certain games tend to support certain kinds of play better than others. D&D tends to support gamist play better than narratavist/simulationist play compared to other games on the market. Trying to make the non-magical part of D&D accurately simulate medieval combat is just asking for a headache no matter how much you mod it, that's simply not what D&D is all about. While you can (and I have) play a D&D campaign with a more narrative bent, the bulk of D&D rules are based on competitive battles with lots of number crunching.

Similarly although you can definately powergame in Spirit of the Century, you'd have to be insane to play those rules and expect anything remotely resembling a realistic game. The rules work best for over the top cinematic/pulp action style games. I'd much rather use them for an Indian Jones campiagn than, say, d20 modern.


Indeed, anecdotal failure to mod D&D to suitably represent X doesn't say much about D&D's capacity to model X, it just says Y attempt failed.
Well D&D can be twisted to represent just about anything. I just don't think that a heavily modded version of D&D is the best kind of ruleset for certain kinds of gaming. There's a big difference betwen possible and optimal.

[Kiero]

Well GNS is a bit reductionist, but its not all wrong.

While I agree with the premise of System Matters, I think GNS is largely useless. Primarily because it's basically a categorisation of "what Ron likes" (ie Nar), "what Ron doesn't like" (ie Gam) and "stuff Ron couldn't be bothered to give proper consideration because it doesn't help advance his argument about how the stuff he likes is better than the stuff he doesn't" (ie Sim).


Certain games tend to support certain kinds of play better than others. D&D tends to support gamist play better than narratavist/simulationist play compared to other games on the market. Trying to make the non-magical part of D&D accurately simulate medieval combat is just asking for a headache no matter how much you mod it, that's simply not what D&D is all about. While you can (and I have) play a D&D campaign with a more narrative bent, the bulk of D&D rules are based on competitive battles with lots of number crunching.

Similarly although you can definately powergame in Spirit of the Century, you'd have to be insane to play those rules and expect anything remotely resembling a realistic game. The rules work best for over the top cinematic/pulp action style games. I'd much rather use them for an Indian Jones campiagn than, say, d20 modern.

That speaks more to your personal preferences than the viability of any system for any particular purpose.

[Dan_Hemmens]

While I agree with the premise of System Matters, I think GNS is largely useless. Primarily because it's basically a categorisation of "what Ron likes" (ie Nar), "what Ron doesn't like" (ie Gam) and "stuff Ron couldn't be bothered to give proper consideration because it doesn't help advance his argument about how the stuff he likes is better than the stuff he doesn't" (ie Sim).

I'd say it's more like a categorisation of "what Ron likes" (Nar), "what Ron doesn't like" (White Wolf) and "D&D" (Gam) and "Everything else" (Sim).

And Bosh: chances are your "narrative driven" D&D game wasn't "narrativist" at all. Unless the central conflict of the game was the discussion of a Theme which was resolved without Force and which was not Inherent In The Situation.


That speaks more to your personal preferences than the viability of any system for any particular purpose.

Actually, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Can D&D do swashbuckling? Of course it can. Lots of people run D&D-based swashbuckling games perfectly well.

Can D&D do swashbuckling as I would wish it to be done. Absolutely not, the game comes with too many ingrained assumptions.

There are fairly strict limits on what D&D can do, but most of those limits are to do with playstyle not "creative agenda" or "genre". If you want a game in which, say, there is very little focus on out-of-character strategic decisions and resource management, you really don't want to use D&D. While you *could* houserule D&D to eliminate levels, classes, Feats, hit-points, variable weapon damage, Ability scores, and all the other bits of number-crunching, it's probably better to just use something else.

[Matthew]

Well D&D can be twisted to represent just about anything. I just don't think that a heavily modded version of D&D is the best kind of ruleset for certain kinds of gaming. There's a big difference betwen possible and optimal.
What's the difference between a heavily modded D&D ruleset and another ruleset, though? How much change can you tolerate before saying 'it's not D&D anymore'? Possible and optimal are not mutually exclusive terms.

[Bosh]

Can D&D do swashbuckling as I would wish it to be done. Absolutely not, the game comes with too many ingrained assumptions.
Exactly. That's all I've been saying.

As far as GNS goes, it is often used by pretentious twits in order to dismiss games as "not narrativist." I know someone in my old gaming group who did just this. However it doesn't have to be that way. Basically:

1. A gamist game should adjudicate actions according to what's balanced, so combat is mostly a tactical exercise.
2. A simulationist game should adjudicate actions according to what's "realistic." This gets fuzzier in fantasy but you can use your source fantasy as a guideline as to what's realistic for that brand of fantasy. This way combat is made to match what combat is "really" like as closely as possible.
3. A narrativist game should adjudicate actions according to what's most cinematic. Thais way combat is as much like a movie fight scene as possible.

For me narrativist doesn't = what I like and gamist doesn't = what I don't like. I like mucking about with feats to create kick-ass builds as much as anyone and the two campaigns I GMed were fiercely narrativist and the game I'm playing in next will be definately narrativist. My main beef with D&D isn't that its gamist, its that it doesn't do a particularly good job of being gamist due to massive imbalances in the rules. Of course D&D (and every game) has lots of simulationist and narrativist elements but its mostly gamist.

[Vyker]

As I've said before, what, exactly, is the difference between a fifth-level cleric in E6 and a fifth-level cleric in normal D&D?


I've not looked closely at E6, but I'd guess that the answer is:

Because the default assumptions of the world are different. Being fifth level in a world where 15th level characters exist makes you meaningless. Being fifth level in a world where nobody exists who is significantly more powerful than you changes the emphasis totally.

This, I think, is why they call it "Epic Six": the idea is that sixth level characters are the "epic heroes" of their worlds.


Bingo! This isn't a case where the PCs get nerfed and everyone else remains as is. 6th is the maximum level for everyone in the setting.

Errr... no. That wasn't a heady, deep philisophical question about comparitive value. I meant the question very, very literally. As far as I've seen from E6, the fifth-level clerics are so identical as to be interchangable between systems.

Sure. A few sessions down the line, one of those clerics is going to stop leveling while the other goes on to godlike power. But that's tomorrow. How are they different today?

In other words, E6 only stops being D&D and starts being E6 once you've hit what would otherwise be the XP barrier to level seven. Until then, it's just vanilla D&D. So, having taken the nerfbat to the high levels, where are mechanical (not fluff!) alterations which enhances lower level play?

[Kiero]

1. A gamist game should adjudicate actions according to what's balanced, so combat is mostly a tactical exercise.
2. A simulationist game should adjudicate actions according to what's "realistic." This gets fuzzier in fantasy but you can use your source fantasy as a guideline as to what's realistic for that brand of fantasy. This way combat is made to match what combat is "really" like as closely as possible.
3. A narrativist game should adjudicate actions according to what's most cinematic. Thais way combat is as much like a movie fight scene as possible.

Pretty much none of those line up with Ron's own definitions of the agendas. Narrativist games are about themes and stuff, not being cinematic, for example.


For me narrativist doesn't = what I like and gamist doesn't = what I don't like.

Yet it's pretty easy to read Ron's own definitions as exactly that. Which is what matters really, since he went to the trouble of defining them. If you're using personalised definitions of the agendas, then we're not really talking about the same thing.

Dan: Again not really in great disagreement with you. I wouldn't personally use D&D for a swashbuckling game either, and as we were discussing before I think people reach that "not worth further houseruling, just use something else" point at different stages.

[Dausuul]

Errr... no. That wasn't a heady, deep philisophical question about comparitive value. I meant the question very, very literally. As far as I've seen from E6, the fifth-level clerics are so identical as to be interchangable between systems.

Sure. A few sessions down the line, one of those clerics is going to stop leveling while the other goes on to godlike power. But that's tomorrow. How are they different today?

In other words, E6 only stops being D&D and starts being E6 once you've hit what would otherwise be the XP barrier to level seven. Until then, it's just vanilla D&D. So, having taken the nerfbat to the high levels, where are mechanical (not fluff!) alterations which enhances lower level play?

Well, if you want mechanical alterations, start with those tables in the DMG about what NPCs you find in a city of a given size. :smallbiggrin:

From what I'm seeing, E6 is mechanically pretty much the same as regular D&D--it's just that the underlying paradigm is totally different. You said "a few sessions down the line, one of those clerics is going to stop leveling while the other goes on to godlike power." That kind of misses the point. The E6 cleric has godlike power in the context of his world. He can survive wounds that would kill five ordinary men. He can take on dozens of orcs singlehanded and emerge victorious. He can speak with the dead, cure the deadliest plagues, perform miracles of healing.

Now, were I going to run this (and I might, it's an interesting approach), I would make a couple of mechanical tweaks. I'd cut XP awards way down, hand out a whole bunch more skill points to give the characters more flexibility, and maybe retool the monsters so that CR 10 dragons would be respectably large.

But the core of the system is D&D. That's why it's being called "the game inside D&D." It's not about mechanical changes, it's about a change in perspective.

[Tengu]

From what I'm seeing, E6 is mechanically pretty much the same as regular D&D--it's just that the underlying paradigm is totally different. You said "a few sessions down the line, one of those clerics is going to stop leveling while the other goes on to godlike power." That kind of misses the point. The E6 cleric has godlike power in the context of his world. He can survive wounds that would kill five ordinary men. He can take on dozens of orcs singlehanded and emerge victorious. He can speak with the dead, cure the deadliest plagues, perform miracles of healing.


Fluff. Mechanically he's no different from an ordinary DND fifth level cleric.

[Dausuul]

Fluff. Mechanically he's no different from an ordinary DND fifth level cleric.

Yeah. So what? Mechanics by themselves are just a bunch of numbers.

[Kiero]

Yeah. So what? Mechanics by themselves are just a bunch of numbers.

Meaningless numbers lacking in context, since that's what "fluff" provides. The fact that said 5th level cleric is close to the pinnacle of what there is in E6, and an "ordinary" 5th level cleric is nowhere near is hardly trivial.

[Matthew]

Agreed.

I would probably do something similar to Dausuul if I was seeking to depower D&D 3.x in a similar way to E6. I would cut the rate of advancement down to something more appropriate than 1 Session = 1 Level and grant more Feats per level to Player Characters. Then I would retool any Monsters I really wanted to include, but would just be too powerful.

Job done.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Errr... no. That wasn't a heady, deep philisophical question about comparitive value. I meant the question very, very literally. As far as I've seen from E6, the fifth-level clerics are so identical as to be interchangable between systems.

Think of it as the difference between a Fireball and a Lightning bolt. Against a single target with no resistances, they are functionally identical, they both do [Your Level] D6 damage up to a maximum of 10D6.

The difference comes in when you actually put the two in *context*. Fire damage won't do you any good against fire elementals, a lightning bolt won't bother a Flesh Golem.

Similarly, the difference between an E6 level five character and a D&D level five character is that the E6 character does at level six the sort of things that the D&D character does at level sixteen.

[qyuote]Sure. A few sessions down the line, one of those clerics is going to stop leveling while the other goes on to godlike power. But that's tomorrow. How are they different today?[/quote]

They're different because of their assumed importance in the setting.

This kind of ties back to the "Analysing Aragorn" discussion.

In E6, a sixth level character is Aragorn, and is the only man capable of taking on Sauron.

In D&D, a sixth level character is Some Rohirrim Guy who'll probably get squashed by a troll at Pelennor Fields.


In other words, E6 only stops being D&D and starts being E6 once you've hit what would otherwise be the XP barrier to level seven. Until then, it's just vanilla D&D. So, having taken the nerfbat to the high levels, where are mechanical (not fluff!) alterations which enhances lower level play?

This is only true if you assume that it is somehow mechanically impossible for a 15th level NPC to exist in the same world as a 5th level PC. It is manifestly untrue.

Can you honestly not see the difference between a world in which it is assumed that people can and regularly do reach levels 15-20, and a world in which it is impossible for anybody to go above level 6?

Upthread, somebody talks about D&D games which start at level one and peter out before they get to level ten (despite having originally planned to go all the way to twenty).

I humbly suggest that perhaps the *reason* these games peter out is because they essentially "put off" all the good stuff until higher levels.

[Jimp]

I was seeking to depower D&D 3.x in a similar way to E6. I would cut the rate of advancement down to something more appropriate than 1 Session = 1 Level and grant more Feats per level to Player Characters. Then I would retool any Monsters I really wanted to include, but would just be too powerful.


This is what my main IRL group does. We have never played past level 6 and have never really needed to. Usually we play around 3rd level. Our DM threw a stone golem at us recently but set up in such a way that with some quick thinking and strategy we were able to take it down. It was in no way easy, but very doable :smallbiggrin:

[Matthew]

Yes, it's certainly my preferred style and pace of play. I only run prewritten modules for D&D 3.x, so the Player Characters are always the appropriate level for the adventure at hand (even if that means having multiple versions of the same Character). Even so, I don't play much High Level stuff.

[horseboy]

Unfortunately it runs into the RPG "power" problem. Roleplayers find it hard to believe that somebody who killed a dragon could be killed by an ordinary man. They're too inclined to think in terms of:

You > Dragon > That guy.

I saw that happen in Rolemaster once. First attack of the combat, the fighter shoots the dragon with his bow. He open ends his crit roll three times. Smaugs him.

When they get back to town he shows them the skin where there's only the one hit to proove it. He has them make him a remarkable bow out of one of the horn. It's a thing of beauty, well enchanted really nice.

The bow's cristening outing, the orcs are attacking the city. He's up on the town walls drawing a bead. He fumbles, drops the bow over the side of the wall. It's okay, he's Kelb the Dragonslayer. He jumps down from the wall to pick up his bow. He's then cut to ribbons by three of the orcs.

But anyway, if you want gritty, low magic game styles, why not play Harn? It be a whole lot easier in the long run.

[Dragonblade275]

Well I think that if you're tired of D&D (as I am, am going to start a Fate campaign soon) its more fun to try out a whole other system than try to force D&D into something its not meant to be.

That said, if I played E6 what I would do is instead having people gain feats after hitting 6th level, I'd have them start getting gestaltized so that after 12 levels worth of experience they'd be a 6/6 gestalt and after 18 levels of experience they'd be a 6/6/6 super-gestalt.I actually like this idea of gestalting after 6th level. The triple gestalt option looks intersting, too. By that point, a character would likely be very well rounded. Almost a whole party all in one character!

[Dan_Hemmens]

I actually like this idea of gestalting after 6th level. The triple gestalt option looks intersting, too. By that point, a character would likely be very well rounded. Almost a whole party all in one character!

The problem with Gestalting is that you wind up having to override levels you've already taken, which strikes me as difficult to implement.

IF you're currently Wizard 6, and you then "Gestalt" to "Wizard/Fighter 1, Wizard 5" you essentially have to go back and work out what you got at Wizard 1, what you would have got as Wizard 1/Fighter 1 and apply all the changes.

It'll get particularly messy if you rolled your hit dice.

[Dausuul]

But anyway, if you want gritty, low magic game styles, why not play Harn? It be a whole lot easier in the long run.

Mostly because nobody knows Harn and everybody knows D&D. E6 offers a way to do gritty fantasy that, while far from ideal, doesn't require convincing other gamers to learn a new system.

[Vyker]

E6 offers a way to do gritty fantasy that, while far from ideal, doesn't require convincing other gamers to learn a new system.

The point I've been trying to get across is that E6 -- E6 by itself as a mechanic for gaming, not whatever homebrew world a particular campaign is set in -- is no more "gritty fantasy" than a normal D&D game that ends before seventh level.

Your classes behave identically, your rules have not changed. When Bob the Fighter (level five) is defending the town from the goblin tribe, how does the hypothetical presence of a level fifteen somewhere over the horizon who really couldn't care less about Bob, the town, or the goblins make the world somehow less gritty than if he was absent?

Those fifth level characters are no more powerful in this than they are in D&D, nor are D&D fifth level characters less powerful than their counterparts in E6. They can encounter, combat, and overcome the exact same obstacles.

The attitude that...

Similarly, the difference between an E6 level five character and a D&D level five character is that the E6 character does at level six the sort of things that the D&D character does at level sixteen.
...is not something I can find any support for in the rules.

The presumption being made here is that a DM in normal D&D is, for whatever reason, telling his players that they're too low level to do anything cool, so now they have to fight housecats. And the one time you get to do something cool? Opps, wait, a party of epic level NPCs swoop in and steal your thunder. Meanwhile, the E6 DM is saying that identical characters are somehow more capable of doing cool things, despite having the exact same mechanical capacity to achieve success. If that's been your experience, I humbly -- no, stridently, urgently, and with all possible zeal -- suggest that you get yourself a new DM who is capable of finding cool things for you to do no matter what level you are.

[Tengu]

Mostly because nobody knows Harn and everybody knows D&D. E6 offers a way to do gritty fantasy that, while far from ideal, doesn't require convincing other gamers to learn a new system.

Since when the "I know DND, I don't need other RPG systems" approach has actually been a good thing?

[Dausuul]

Since when the "I know DND, I don't need other RPG systems" approach has actually been a good thing?

Never said it was a good thing, but it's a fact of life in some gaming circles. If you want to run gritty fantasy, and you can't get the rest of your group to invest in a different game, E6 offers a solution.

Moreover, there's also the fact that switching to a new game system can be kinda expensive, especially if everyone in the group is used to having their own core books. And you don't know for sure if a new system does what you want until you've tried it. So I can see how some groups would rather stick with something they know and try to mod it to work the way they want it.


The point I've been trying to get across is that E6 -- E6 by itself as a mechanic for gaming, not whatever homebrew world a particular campaign is set in -- is no more "gritty fantasy" than a normal D&D game that ends before seventh level.

Your classes behave identically, your rules have not changed. When Bob the Fighter (level five) is defending the town from the goblin tribe, how does the hypothetical presence of a level fifteen somewhere over the horizon who really couldn't care less about Bob, the town, or the goblins make the world somehow less gritty than if he was absent?

And the point I'm trying to get across is that Bob the Fighter, level five, is not defending the town from a goblin tribe in E6. That's a job for his little bro, Nate the Paladin, level 1, who is going to have to come up with some clever ideas, because he's not tough enough to tackle the whole tribe in a head-on fight the way Bob could.

Bob doesn't have time, because he's out battling the evil overlord to save the world. He's doing it because in E6 he's one of the most bad-ass fighters in the world--it's up to him.

In normal D&D, you'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to justify why a 5th-level party would be going up against the evil overlord. What about all those high-level NPCs out there? Why aren't they stepping up? And if the evil overlord is powerful enough to threaten a world with those high-level NPCs in it, a 5th-level party has no chance of even touching him.

In normal D&D, Bob defends the town from goblins because that's all he's good for. In E6, Bob is a world-class hero. Again, it's not about the numbers, it's about the meaning you attach to them.

[Pauwel]

And the point I'm trying to get across is that Bob the Fighter, level five, is not defending the town from a goblin tribe in E6. That's a job for his little bro, Nate the Paladin, level 1, who is going to have to come up with some clever ideas, because he's not tough enough to tackle the whole tribe in a head-on fight the way Bob could.

Bob doesn't have time, because he's out battling the evil overlord to save the world. He's doing it because in E6 he's one of the most bad-ass fighters in the world--it's up to him.

In normal D&D, you'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to justify why a 5th-level party would be going up against the evil overlord. What about all those high-level NPCs out there? Why aren't they stepping up? And if the evil overlord is powerful enough to threaten a world with those high-level NPCs in it, a 5th-level party has no chance of even touching him.

In normal D&D, Bob defends the town from goblins because that's all he's good for. In E6, Bob is a world-class hero. Again, it's not about the numbers, it's about the meaning you attach to them.

And this makes the game more gritty... how, exactly?

[horseboy]

Never said it was a good thing, but it's a fact of life in some gaming circles. If you want to run gritty fantasy, and you can't get the rest of your group to invest in a different game, E6 offers a solution.

Moreover, there's also the fact that switching to a new game system can be kinda expensive, especially if everyone in the group is used to having their own core books. And you don't know for sure if a new system does what you want until you've tried it. So I can see how some groups would rather stick with something they know and try to mod it to work the way they want it.


What? If E6 gets picked up by WotC, you don't think they're going to charge you $30 for it? For $30 you can actually try something new and (surprise!) probably better.



And the point I'm trying to get across is that Bob the Fighter, level five, is not defending the town from a goblin tribe in E6. That's a job for his little bro, Nate the Paladin, level 1, who is going to have to come up with some clever ideas, because he's not tough enough to tackle the whole tribe in a head-on fight the way Bob could.

Bob doesn't have time, because he's out battling the evil overlord to save the world. He's doing it because in E6 he's one of the most bad-ass fighters in the world--it's up to him.

In normal D&D, you'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to justify why a 5th-level party would be going up against the evil overlord. What about all those high-level NPCs out there? Why aren't they stepping up? And if the evil overlord is powerful enough to threaten a world with those high-level NPCs in it, a 5th-level party has no chance of even touching him.

In normal D&D, Bob defends the town from goblins because that's all he's good for. In E6, Bob is a world-class hero. Again, it's not about the numbers, it's about the meaning you attach to them.

Yeah, you need a better DM.

[Dausuul]

And this makes the game more gritty... how, exactly?

Because in E6, even a world-class hero can still be taken down by a few dozen low-level thugs. That is the precise definition of "gritty" fantasy as opposed to "heroic." Gritty fantasy is where nobody's invincible and even mighty heroes can get killed by mooks.


What? If E6 gets picked up by WotC, you don't think they're going to charge you $30 for it? For $30 you can actually try something new and (surprise!) probably better.

...and why would I spend $30 on E6 when I've already got it for free? It's not like there's enough material there to fill a rulebook. You can sum up all of E6 in about three pages. That's the whole point. You don't have to shell out for a new game to use E6.


Yeah, you need a better DM.

I fail to see where you're getting this.

[horseboy]

...and why would I spend $30 on E6 when I've already got it for free? It's not like there's enough material there to fill a rulebook. You can sum up all of E6 in about three pages. That's the whole point. You don't have to shell out for a new game to use E6.


There's about three pages of useful material in the DMG, they sell that for $30. They'll do it because they know people will buy it.



I fail to see where you're getting this.

Why don't you have a BBEG at level 5? What are you doing? Just wondering around randomly with no real direction or common thread other than your characters in the campaign?

[Roderick_BR]

No. Even if you remove teleportation and flying I still can't find any heroic fantasy hero who can be modeled at level 10.
(...)
Dungeons & Dragons cartoon :smalltongue:

Yeah, yeah, I know they don't count because of the weapons.

[Dausuul]

There's about three pages of useful material in the DMG, they sell that for $30. They'll do it because they know people will buy it.

*shrug* If WotC manages to bloat E6 up to an entire sourcebook and sell it, more power to 'em. Doesn't mean I have to buy it. As it stands right now, E6 is free, and that's what makes it a possibly worthwhile idea.


Why don't you have a BBEG at level 5? What are you doing? Just wondering around randomly with no real direction or common thread other than your characters in the campaign?

Sure there's a BBEG at level 5. To wit, the chieftain of the goblin tribe that we're defending the town against.

Now, a BBEG who threatens the whole world? That's less common at level 5... because, like I said, if I'm presented with a world-threatening BBEG when I'm 5th level, my first question is going to be, "Why are we dealing with him instead of all those 15th-level NPC demigods out there?"

[AtomicKitKat]

Because in E6, even a world-class hero can still be taken down by a few dozen low-level thugs. That is the precise definition of "gritty" fantasy as opposed to "heroic." Gritty fantasy is where nobody's invincible and even mighty heroes can get killed by mooks.

Well, to be fair, Dian Wei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dian_Wei) from the 3 Kingdoms era was so badass he used 2 of his enemies as weapons when his weapons broke. Eventually, he died from his wounds, still swearing at his opponents. Quintessential Barbarian, that one.

[Tormsskull]

E6 seems pretty reasonable, though I haven't read anything more about it then what is presented in this thread. I'd agree with some of the others who suggested slowing down the advancement of the characters, as that seems more in line than reaching the level cap fast.

I think E6 would do a great job modeling more urban type adventures or Birthright type adventures where kings lead armies into battle and such. In normal D&D an army is easily defeated by a single powerful wizard. In E6, that's not going to happen.

I think the type of person who wouldn't enjoy E6 is the ones who typically start play at character level 6 or higher, or hack n slash players, but for a heavy role-playing campaign I think it would work well.

[Emperor Tippy]

I think the type of person who wouldn't enjoy E6 is the ones who typically start play at character level 6 or higher, or hack n slash players, but for a heavy role-playing campaign I think it would work well.

Roleplay and power have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Infact high level D&D only holds up if you pretty much ditch combat encounters entirely.

[Pauwel]

Because in E6, even a world-class hero can still be taken down by a few dozen low-level thugs. That is the precise definition of "gritty" fantasy as opposed to "heroic." Gritty fantasy is where nobody's invincible and even mighty heroes can get killed by mooks.

"A few dozen" is a lot of thugs. Not gritty at all.
A random peasant getting lucky and one-shotting a third level character with a kitchen knife, however, that's gritty.
Combat is dangerous, the gritty game reflects that. Serious injuries should be possible, death should always be apparent. Adventurers should fear for their lives, because that's what any normal person would do in their place (it's actually more correct to say that the players should fear for their characters' lives, but you know what I mean).
In E6, they wouldn't do this more than a normal 6th level game of D&D.


Roleplay and power have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Infact high level D&D only holds up if you pretty much ditch combat encounters entirely.

Quoted for truth.

[Tormsskull]

Roleplay and power have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Infact high level D&D only holds up if you pretty much ditch combat encounters entirely.

Well, the default method of obtaining more power is by defeating monsters and taking their stuff. If you don't roleplay (hack n slash) then you are going to be doing more defeating monsters and taking their stuff than you would in a heavy roleplaying campaign. While some DMs will give roleplay exp or story awards, I'd be willing to bet that characters in a hack n slash campaign level up much faster than characters in a heavy roleplay campaign.

What you say about high level play I can't really comment on. The highest characters that I have seen a group get to (when starting at level 1 that is) is level 9. And that took 2 years real time.

[Dan_Hemmens]

"A few dozen" is a lot of thugs. Not gritty at all.
A random peasant getting lucky and one-shotting a third level character with a kitchen knife, however, that's gritty.
Combat is dangerous, the gritty game reflects that. Serious injuries should be possible, death should always be apparent. Adventurers should fear for their lives, because that's what any normal person would do in their place (it's actually more correct to say that the players should fear for their characters' lives, but you know what I mean).
In E6, they wouldn't do this more than a normal 6th level game of D&D.


I think when people call E6 "gritty" they mean it in comparison to the totally gonzo "I can swan dive off a hundred foot cliff onto sharp rocks and walk away without taking a scratch" assumptions of high-level D&D.

I think the intent of E6 is for it to be "heroic" fantasy rather than "superhero" fantasy.

[Emperor Tippy]

Well, the default method of obtaining more power is by defeating monsters and taking their stuff.

Nope. Non-Combat encounters are suppsoed to make up a fair bit of the XP you get. Bluffing the guard, convincing the merchant to sell his goods in the capital, etc. With the merchant you may have to do something for him so he begins to listen (1 encounter, possibly combat), then convince him to move his business to the capital (a second encounter, non-combat), then guard his caravan coming to the capital (a third and perhaps force encounter, both combat), then you may have to help him find a location for his shop (a non-combat urban encounter). Now you need to convince the guy who sent you on the quest in the first place that he should pay you (a 6th encounter, non-combat).

That is a whole story arch/side quest that has gives you 6 encounters at least equal to your CR (enough to raise you half a level). You get to meet a new quest hook and potential ally (the merchant). You have lots of chances to RP in there.

All in all thats a good quest for a party of four adventurers anywhere between levels 3 and 7.


If you don't roleplay (hack n slash) then you are going to be doing more defeating monsters and taking their stuff than you would in a heavy roleplaying campaign. While some DMs will give roleplay exp or story awards, I'd be willing to bet that characters in a hack n slash campaign level up much faster than characters in a heavy roleplay campaign.

They are not mutually exclusive. You can RP just fine and spend all day bashing monsters heads in.


What you say about high level play I can't really comment on. The highest characters that I have seen a group get to (when starting at level 1 that is) is level 9. And that took 2 years real time.

At levels 15+ the PC's will dominate any combat encounter with little risk. You might as well just give them levels at that point if you continue to hack'n'slash your way around the world.

[Jayabalard]

Roleplay and power have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Absolutely correct... that's why people who like playing in a heavy roleplaying campaign are more likely to enjoy this than the people who like to start higher than level 6 or play hack'n'slash campaigns. Since roleplaying doesn't require high levels, or lots of fighting, the level cap isn't really much of a limitation.

[Tormsskull]

They are not mutually exclusive. You can RP just fine and spend all day bashing monsters heads in.


That depends on what you consider roleplaying. 1 combat with our group can take an hour to an hour and a half. During that combat session there might be a "Watch out for that guy!" or a "I help so and so" but that's not what I am referring to when I say roleplaying.

On the other hand, if the group is traveling to their next adventure spot and discussing their likes/dislikes/goals/fears/what they want to have for dinner that night, for an hour to an hour and a half, there is going to be a lot more roleplaying than there is in a combat.

Perhaps your experience is different.

[Dausuul]

That depends on what you consider roleplaying. 1 combat with our group can take an hour to an hour and a half. During that combat session there might be a "Watch out for that guy!" or a "I help so and so" but that's not what I am referring to when I say roleplaying.

That isn't roleplaying, true, but that's not how combat has to be.

Look at the lightsaber battles between Luke and Vader in "Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi." That's a whole lotta combat right there, but there's also a whole lotta roleplaying going on in the middle of it.

[Dan_Hemmens]

That isn't roleplaying, true, but that's not how combat has to be.

Look at the lightsaber battles between Luke and Vader in "Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi." That's a whole lotta combat right there, but there's also a whole lotta roleplaying going on in the middle of it.

Except, in D&D, it'd be a sucky combat that was over in two rounds and involved no roleplaying whatsoever.

"Vader makes a full attack. Does 214 points of damage. Luke dies."

[Dausuul]

Except, in D&D, it'd be a sucky combat that was over in two rounds and involved no roleplaying whatsoever.

"Vader makes a full attack. Does 214 points of damage. Luke dies."

I figure they're both swordsages, so they have a high AC and comparatively low attack bonuses.

In the first fight, Vader was several levels higher than Luke, but he clearly spent a lot of time maxing out his Combat Expertise or going full defense. He wanted to trap Luke rather than kill him, and I doubt you can attack for nonlethal damage with a lightsaber.

In the second fight, Luke tried a couple of attack maneuvers that missed, bull rushed Vader down a flight of stairs, and then went on full defense for a while, before diving out of sight. Then there was a while of Vader failing his Spot checks against Luke's Hide, followed by a series of Power Attacks from Luke and a crit that resulted in Vader being knocked down to exactly zero hit points.

...what? Stop looking at me like I'm too nerdy to live! Stop it!

[horseboy]

Sure there's a BBEG at level 5. To wit, the chieftain of the goblin tribe that we're defending the town against.

Now, a BBEG who threatens the whole world? That's less common at level 5... because, like I said, if I'm presented with a world-threatening BBEG when I'm 5th level, my first question is going to be, "Why are we dealing with him instead of all those 15th-level NPC demigods out there?"

Because it's not their story.

[Dausuul]

Because it's not their story.

Right. That's the out-of-game explanation. What's the in-game explanation? When my character goes up to a 15th-level NPC paladin, and shows him how the BBEG is going to take over the world if he's not stopped soon, what's the paladin's excuse for leaving it up to me and my 5th-level buddies to stop the bastard?

There are ways around this problem, of course. I should know, I've been finding ways around it as a DM for years. But doing so involves a bunch of elaborate plotting which could be better spent on devising a fun storyline for the PCs.

[horseboy]

Right. That's the out-of-game explanation. What's the in-game explanation? When my character goes up to a 15th-level NPC paladin, and shows him how the BBEG is going to take over the world if he's not stopped soon, what's the paladin's excuse for leaving it up to me and my 5th-level buddies to stop the bastard?

There are ways around this problem, of course. I should know, I've been finding ways around it as a DM for years. But doing so involves a bunch of elaborate plotting which could be better spent on devising a fun storyline for the PCs.

Because he's busy with his own BBEG. He can choose to either deal with the lvl 15 BBEG or the lvl 30 BBEG. Since you obvioulsy can't handle the lvl 30, he points you in the direction of a relic (gear run) that you might could use.

[Roog]

Right. That's the out-of-game explanation. What's the in-game explanation? When my character goes up to a 15th-level NPC paladin, and shows him how the BBEG is going to take over the world if he's not stopped soon, what's the paladin's excuse for leaving it up to me and my 5th-level buddies to stop the bastard?


Because he's busy with his own BBEG. He can choose to either deal with the lvl 15 BBEG or the lvl 30 BBEG. Since you obvioulsy can't handle the lvl 30, he points you in the direction of a relic (gear run) that you might could use.

Let the lvl 30 BBEG know about the lvl 15 BBEG; he's not going to happy that some pip-sqeek is about to take over the world.

[Vyker]

Using E6 to explain why your level five is fighting the world-devouring BBEG is applying a mechanical solution to what is ultimately a fluff problem, but it does not solve the problem. It simply redefines it. Now it's a level three guy looking for a level six hero to deal with the goblin tribe and wondering why the level six can't save the city from the marauding greenskins.

(Also, since the level cap is lower, do more people reach it? Is the "world class hero" a dime a dozen? The mind boggles...)

The perception that only high-level characters get to fight BBEG's worth fighting shows not a flaw in the system, but a flaw in the application.

Here's a few ways to get a BBEG into your low-level games in a high-level world:

- Make it inconspicous. Not all villians hang their hat in the Obsidian Tower, high atop the Festering Rift. Some of them keep their plans on the "down low" as it were. Especially the weaker ones. Say, the level three apothecary who just discovered that if he mixes this with a little bit of that and drops the whole concoction in the town well, he can transform his neighbors in an entirely new and horrid form of undead totally under his control.

- Integrate it. High level folks are around, involved, and impressive... but ultimately, there aren't enough of them, and they need some reliable folks to take care of a vital part of the plan for them. Obvious scenarios are battles spread over too large an area for even high-level characters to control. You could also make the high-level folks the patrons of the low-level guys, which offers plot hooks and plausibility in one convenient package ("Welcome to Ember Ridge Keep. Lord von Helbrecht is Castellan of the castle and responsible for all the surrounding lands. You'll be reporting to him. For now, we have a tower on the far side of Darkfire Pass which is in need of reinforcements after Sir Tannhaus and his retinue were skewered by marauding draconians. Help what's left of the garrison, defend the surrounding farmsteads, and don't be afraid to be proactive. The locals are always getting into one form of trouble or another...").

- "Because we're here, lad. Nobody else." Quite simply, the lowbies found it, it's their problem, they've gotta deal with it. Either the issue is time critical or nobody else is willing to help.

- Tell the high-level dudes to screw off. It's your game. You don't need to rub your players faces in the knowledge that there are higher level folks than them. Higher level people off camera have a hard time stealing the thunder of folks in the spotlight.

Quite honestly, the point I've been trying to make is that whatever is keeping you from low-level D&D in normal D&D isn't missing in E6. There's just an illusion of a solution. Why? Because nothing E6 does changes or emphasizes any aspect of low-level play. It only removes a "problem" that was never present in the first place unless -- unless! -- you put it there yourself.

What do I mean by that?

- E6 is not more dangerous, since you still have all the hp and saves and healbots you have in normal D&D. Perma-wounding isn't in play, nor is any other system to make your life more fragile. It's not "gritty," since you're just as vulnerable to the exact same mobs as you would be in D&D. Cliff-diving is still a perfectly harmless passtime.

- E6 is not "less magic," since you have the full allocation of full-caster and half-caster classes. Sure, they don't get the world-destroying spells, but everything below a certain point is still in full swing (and some stuff, like Restoration, even gets brought down from the higher levels). And I suspect that few low-level games are truly flooded with high lever casters swooping in to toss around just enough time stops and meteor showers to piss off anyone trying to cling to the joys of their magic missile.

- The class abilities lists are not foreshortened or altered. Many classes do not get certain traits, or only scratch the surface. So it's not drawing down the differences between high and low. It's not condensing the levels. It's just... chopping off everything, regardless of value. For some classes, say, Duskblades and Knights and monks and suchlikes, whose variety of abilities increases over time, their mechanics become much more one-sided, and never really reach certain abilities which were (for reasons mechanical or fluff or both) intended to be included. You're not making "a knight in six levels." You're making a sixth level knight and saying that the rest is arbitrarily cut off.

- Roleplaying is still entirely seperate from rollplaying, fluff is not crunch, and if you were having trouble in normal D&D, you're not going to avoid that here.

I like the idea of "low-level/low-magic gritty fantasy." It's a fun switch from fiery swords and dragon gods every now and then. But there's nothing that the E6 system does to provide that which is not offered by D&D, and a helluva lot that D&D offers which E6 randomly and arbitrarily just takes away.

Speaking of gritty low-level/low-magic fantasy, I'm gonna go write up that Ember Ridge Keep campaign. That sounded pretty damn fun.

[Dan_Hemmens]

- Roleplaying is still entirely seperate from rollplaying, fluff is not crunch, and if you were having trouble in normal D&D, you're not going to avoid that here.

That's wholly untrue. Your OOC knowledge of the game mechanics informs your ever IC decision. D&D characters charge into battle where WFRP characters would run like buggery.


I like the idea of "low-level/low-magic gritty fantasy." It's a fun switch from fiery swords and dragon gods every now and then. But there's nothing that the E6 system does to provide that which is not offered by D&D, and a helluva lot that D&D offers which E6 randomly and arbitrarily just takes away.

What you're missing is the fact that what *isn't* in a game system is just as important as what *is*.

A game system which offers massive power escalation and godlike levels of ability is different to one which does not.

Suggesting that E6 is no different to a D&D game in which the characters are all below sixth level is like suggesting that a D&D game with no magic in it is no different to a D&D game in which none of the PCs happen to be spellcasters. It's manifestly untrue.

The system defines what exists in the world. If 15th level characters exist, 6th level characters aren't important. They can only ever do the stuff that the higher level characters don't care about.

[Dausuul]

Using E6 to explain why your level five is fighting the world-devouring BBEG is applying a mechanical solution to what is ultimately a fluff problem, but it does not solve the problem. It simply redefines it. Now it's a level three guy looking for a level six hero to deal with the goblin tribe and wondering why the level six can't save the city from the marauding greenskins.

Because the level six guy is dealing with world-spanning problems.

The point is that in any given world, it's only reasonable to expect people to deal with problems on "their level," whatever that level may be. If there's a goblin tribe menacing a small town on the edge of the wilderness, nobody expects the king to send his mightiest champions to deal with it--or, at least, if the king doesn't send his mightiest champions to deal with it, it's not hard to give a reason why. If a lich with hordes of undead is threatening the entire kingdom, however, it's going to take a lot of justification to explain what the hell the champions are doing that's more important.

In normal D&D, the scale goes from 1 to 20 (disregarding epic), so world-spanning problems are logically the province of characters in the top quartile of that scale. You can of course come up with justifications for why those characters won't or can't help, but you will constantly have to keep up those justifications against the efforts of determined PCs to get the "big boys" on their side.

If you cut the scale down, so it's now 1 to 6, world-spanning problems are now the province of characters in the 5-6 bracket. If you don't like dealing with the weirdness that happens at level 15-20, but you want your PCs to deal with world-spanning problems, E6 does that for you.


(Also, since the level cap is lower, do more people reach it? Is the "world class hero" a dime a dozen? The mind boggles...)

That's why I'd cut the XP gain way down.


- Make it inconspicous. Not all villians hang their hat in the Obsidian Tower, high atop the Festering Rift. Some of them keep their plans on the "down low" as it were. Especially the weaker ones. Say, the level three apothecary who just discovered that if he mixes this with a little bit of that and drops the whole concoction in the town well, he can transform his neighbors in an entirely new and horrid form of undead totally under his control.

- Integrate it. High level folks are around, involved, and impressive... but ultimately, there aren't enough of them, and they need some reliable folks to take care of a vital part of the plan for them.

"Welcome to Ember Ridge Keep. Lord von Helbrecht is Castellan of the castle and responsible for all the surrounding lands. You'll be reporting to him. For now, we have a tower on the far side of Darkfire Pass which is in need of reinforcements after Sir Tannhaus and his retinue were skewered by marauding draconians. Help what's left of the garrison, defend the surrounding farmsteads, and don't be afraid to be proactive. The locals are always getting into one form of trouble or another..."

These are not scenarios of "the heroes versus the BBEG to save the world." These are standard low-level scenarios, the heroes versus a LBEG. Which is fine if that's what you want to run, but it doesn't address the question of "what if you want a world-spanning heroes-versus-BBEG without having to deal with the insanity that is level 15+?"


- "Because we're here, lad. Nobody else." Quite simply, the lowbies found it, it's their problem, they've gotta deal with it. Either the issue is time critical or nobody else is willing to help.

This does address the question, but it requires a very careful setup and puts strict limits on the possibilities. If the issue is time critical, it's damn hard to run an epic quest; sooner or later it will occur to the PCs that they could get the job done a lot faster by scoring a teleport off the local 9th-level wizard. If nobody else is willing to help, you'll have to work really hard to explain why when the PCs go out and get conclusive proof of the BBEG's machinations.


- Tell the high-level dudes to screw off. It's your game. You don't need to rub your players faces in the knowledge that there are higher level folks than them. Higher level people off camera have a hard time stealing the thunder of folks in the spotlight.

So what happens when the players say, "Hey, doesn't the king have a high-level super-wizard working for him? Where's that guy? What's he doing?"

In my experience, players faced with a save-the-world scenario will do what their characters would reasonably do in such a case. Namely, they will look for any and all sources of help they can lay their hands on. As DM, I don't have to rub my players' faces in the existence of high-level NPCs for those NPCs to be a problem. All I have to do is let it slip that such an NPC exists... somewhere.

If the PCs meet a high-level guy who isn't clearly on Team Evil, they'll try to recruit that guy. If they don't meet such a guy but have heard of one, they'll go looking for him and then try to recruit him. If they haven't heard of any and as far as they know none exist... well, then, that's E6 in a nutshell right there, isn't it?


- E6 is not more dangerous, since you still have all the hp and saves and healbots you have in normal D&D. Perma-wounding isn't in play, nor is any other system to make your life more fragile. It's not "gritty," since you're just as vulnerable to the exact same mobs as you would be in D&D. Cliff-diving is still a perfectly harmless passtime.

Huh? Cliff-diving in E6 is suicide. Care to explain to me how your 6th-level character is going to survive 20d6 falling damage? A barbarian with 20 Con could do it, but it's far from guaranteed. A barbarian with 16 Con might survive if he got lucky and had a cleric standing by to stabilize him afterward. Most characters would almost certainly die right there.

6th-level characters are not vulnerable to being killed by one peasant with a knife (unless they were already at low hit points), and there isn't perma-wounding. So no, E6 certainly isn't as gritty as it could be. But they are subject to being killed by peasants, falling off high places, and other such nuisances that real people have to worry about, and they aren't subject to being resurrected afterward.


- E6 is not "less magic," since you have the full allocation of full-caster and half-caster classes. Sure, they don't get the world-destroying spells, but everything below a certain point is still in full swing (and some stuff, like Restoration, even gets brought down from the higher levels).

But they don't, as you say, get the world-destroying spells. So it is, in fact, less magic. If every nation with technology past the Iron Age vanished from the face of the earth along with all their machines, would you say that the resulting world didn't have "less technology" just because all pre-industrial tech was unaffected?


- The class abilities lists are not foreshortened or altered. Many classes do not get certain traits, or only scratch the surface. So it's not drawing down the differences between high and low. It's not condensing the levels. It's just... chopping off everything, regardless of value. For some classes, say, Duskblades and Knights and monks and suchlikes, whose variety of abilities increases over time, their mechanics become much more one-sided, and never really reach certain abilities which were (for reasons mechanical or fluff or both) intended to be included. You're not making "a knight in six levels." You're making a sixth level knight and saying that the rest is arbitrarily cut off.

This is the one really legitimate complaint I've seen against E6 (within the scope of what E6 is supposed to do, at least), and it's the reason I'm probably not going to run it. The d20 mechanic tends to break down at low levels, and the lack of versatility that plagues D&D is most apparent when the characters can't make up for it with raw power.

[Kiero]

This is the one really legitimate complaint I've seen against E6 (within the scope of what E6 is supposed to do, at least), and it's the reason I'm probably not going to run it. The d20 mechanic tends to break down at low levels, and the lack of versatility that plagues D&D is most apparent when the characters can't make up for it with raw power.

Hang on a minute, where does D&D work then? Because the complaint I've seen a lot of is that it breaks down at high levels.

[Dausuul]

Hang on a minute, where does D&D work then? Because the complaint I've seen a lot of is that it breaks down at high levels.

In my experience, the D&D sweet spot is around 5th to 10th level.

Below 5th, characters are so limited in their options (mostly because D&D is ridiculously stingy with skill points, and so many tactical options require feats that you don't have yet) that they're dull to play, and the fighters can't hit anything because their attack bonuses are so low. Of course, nothing can hit them either, but it doesn't make for thrilling combats.

Above 10th, you start getting into the craziness of high-level magic. Which can be a lot of fun, actually, but you have to rule out a lot of combos and spells beforehand, and you have to radically change your expectations--as the OP pointed out, high-level D&D has more in common with superhero comics than it does with traditional fantasy. You also have to accept that some classes are going to need a lot of care and feeding or they'll become totally worthless.

[Tormsskull]

In my experience, the D&D sweet spot is around 5th to 10th level.

Below 5th, characters are so limited in their options (mostly because D&D is ridiculously stingy with skill points) that they're dull to play, and the fighters can't hit anything because their attack bonuses are so low. Of course, nothing can hit them either, but it doesn't make for thrilling combats.


Characters are only as dull to play as you make them. Fighters at level 1 tend to have a +4 or so on average to hit versus enemies that largely have armor classes in the range of 12-16. Add in teamwork (i.e. Flanking, Cleric's bless, Wizard's grease, etc), and that's a good rate of success IMO.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Characters are only as dull to play as you make them. Fighters at level 1 tend to have a +4 or so on average to hit versus enemies that largely have armor classes in the range of 12-16. Add in teamwork (i.e. Flanking, Cleric's bless, Wizard's grease, etc), and that's a good rate of success IMO.

+4 to hit vs AC 14 misses fifty percent of the time. Assuming you get an extra +3 to hit from other modifiers (which you frequently don't), you still miss thirty-five percent of the time.

That's fully one third of your turns which consist of "I attack the orc" (rolls) "I miss."

[Tormsskull]

That's fully one third of your turns which consist of "I attack the orc" (rolls) "I miss."

And that's a bad thing? I guess I am confused by what "exciting combat" consists of. Is it hitting every round or 90% or the time?

[Matthew]

Yeah, I have to agree. I don't see what the problem is with a 'Miss Chance', that's surely what the game is built on.

I would say the average Attack Bonus of a Fighter 1 is +4 (Maybe Base Attack Bonus 1, Strength 2, Weapon Focus 1).

The 'thrill of combat' comes from its unpredictability. I think a lot of that is being lost in 3.x, where the game has become less about hoping for survival and more about expecting it.

[Dan_Hemmens]

And that's a bad thing? I guess I am confused by what "exciting combat" consists of. Is it hitting every round or 90% or the time?

Pretty much.

Or, more precisely, exciting combat to me is combat in which every round is different from the last. A round in which I miss is a round which might as well not have happened.

I don't mind missing regularly, if hitting has a significant effect. I don't mind hitting having no significant effect if I don't miss regularly, but for me the monotony of:

"I miss."
"He misses."
"I hit, I do five points of damage."
"He misses."
"I miss."
"He hits, he does three hit points of damage"

Is frankly too much to bear.

[Matthew]

That does sound boring, but I can't say I see that happening very regularly. 5 Damage is a kill against an Orc Warrior 1 (or as good as). However, it does say a lot for the Character Level Damage Bonus (which may be a good idea - I am undecided).

Still, a 50/50 chance on both sides, averages a hit and a miss every round, given two combatants.

[Tormsskull]

The 'thrill of combat' comes from its unpredictability. I think a lot of that is being lost in 3.x, where the game has become less about hoping for survival and more about expecting it.

I agree 100%.




Or, more precisely, exciting combat to me is combat in which every round is different from the last. A round in which I miss is a round which might as well not have happened.


That seems too self-absorbed to me. If you missed this round, what about your allies? What about the enemies? To me the idea that it is possible to miss is so fundamental to a die-rolling game that I can't really comprehend the alternative.



I don't mind missing regularly, if hitting has a significant effect. I don't mind hitting having no significant effect if I don't miss regularly, but for me the monotony of:

"I miss."
"He misses."
"I hit, I do five points of damage."
"He misses."
"I miss."
"He hits, he does three hit points of damage"

Is frankly too much to bear.


First off, I'd suggest the DM livens those descriptions up a bit. Second off, I know that combat is rarely 1v1. It is usually your party versus the enemy party. In such cases it isn't so monotonus (to me at least) when your party members are taking their actions, and the enemies are taking their actions, in-between your 2 misses in a row.

[Kiero]

There's now a new thread on ENworld (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=200754), with all the updates in one place.

[Sulecrist]

Actually, I've been DMing something like this for about two years. It's eerily similar--I give skill points instead of Feats at the end (level standard for 5000), and additional feats occasionally for roleplay rewards (distributed fairly evenly and pretty rarely.)

It works. I had no idea there was an ENworld thing about it, though.

[Middle Snu]

- E6 is not more dangerous, since you still have all the hp and saves and healbots you have in normal D&D. Perma-wounding isn't in play, nor is any other system to make your life more fragile. It's not "gritty," since you're just as vulnerable to the exact same mobs as you would be in D&D. Cliff-diving is still a perfectly harmless passtime.


You're correct that E6 will not result in higher character death than normal D&D. But what you're missing is that the gritty feel has a lot to do with capabilities vs. fluff.

Fluff: An awesome hero. He's really, really good at fighting. In fact, he's among the best fighters around, although probably not the best fighter anywhere.

Capabilities
E6: He's a 5th level fighter, so he can probably take down a dozen thugs... unless they grapple him or get lucky. He can also jump off a 50-foot cliff, and is probably as good as an olympic jumper (25 foot jumps), and survive being poisoned.

Vanilla: He's a 16th level fighter, so he can fight a small army (say, 400?) and win. He can also jump off the Cliffs of Insanity and walk away every time, make jumps of 50 feet, and resist most poisons known to man.


In both frameworks, we have a "great hero." The difference is, the first is grittier.

[Pauwel]

You're correct that E6 will not result in higher character death than normal D&D. But what you're missing is that the gritty feel has a lot to do with capabilities vs. fluff.

Fluff: An awesome hero. He's really, really good at fighting. In fact, he's among the best fighters around, although probably not the best fighter anywhere.

Capabilities
E6: He's a 5th level fighter, so he can probably take down a dozen thugs... unless they grapple him or get lucky. He can also jump off a 50-foot cliff, and is probably as good as an olympic jumper (25 foot jumps), and survive being poisoned.

Vanilla: He's a 16th level fighter, so he can fight a small army (say, 400?) and win. He can also jump off the Cliffs of Insanity and walk away every time, make jumps of 50 feet, and resist most poisons known to man.


In both frameworks, we have a "great hero." The difference is, the first is grittier.

So it's grittier than D&D, the epitome of high fantasy-ness.
Does anything less gritty than regular D&D even exist?

(I'll probably regret asking that question.)

[Sulecrist]

So it's grittier than D&D, the epitome of high fantasy-ness.
Does anything less gritty than regular D&D even exist?

(I'll probably regret asking that question.)

Exalted!

(That's all I can think of.)

[Rachel Lorelei]

Yeah, Exalted is essentially as un-gritty as you get, theme- and scale-wise. it can still have gritty moments, though.

[Tengu]

So it's grittier than D&D, the epitome of high fantasy-ness.
Does anything less gritty than regular D&D even exist?

(I'll probably regret asking that question.)

World of Darkness? It's emo, but not gritty.

Risus.

Toon.

Wushu.

My FFRPG... wait, it's a bit grittier than vanilla DND.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Oh! Weapons of the Gods. It's fun, but not gritty at all.

[ChrisMcDee]

You're correct that E6 will not result in higher character death than normal D&D. But what you're missing is that the gritty feel has a lot to do with capabilities vs. fluff.

Fluff: An awesome hero. He's really, really good at fighting. In fact, he's among the best fighters around, although probably not the best fighter anywhere.

Capabilities
E6: He's a 5th level fighter, so he can probably take down a dozen thugs... unless they grapple him or get lucky. He can also jump off a 50-foot cliff, and is probably as good as an olympic jumper (25 foot jumps), and survive being poisoned.

Vanilla: He's a 16th level fighter, so he can fight a small army (say, 400?) and win. He can also jump off the Cliffs of Insanity and walk away every time, make jumps of 50 feet, and resist most poisons known to man.


In both frameworks, we have a "great hero." The difference is, the first is grittier.
Summed up very nicely! I think by reading that post you'll instantly know if this E6 stuff is for you.

[Golthur]

I don't mind E6. It's certainly a simpler fix than most others (including my own :smallwink:). I would, however, have to slow down advancement substantially if I were going to use it. Levels 1-3 tend to blow by very quickly, and if this is over half of your overall level advancement, well...

I might do something like this for advancement instead:

{table=head]
Character Level|Character Advancement

1|As per level 1

2|+1 feat

3|As per level 2

4|+1 feat

5|As per level 3

6|+1 feat

7|As per level 4

8|+1 feat

9|As per level 5

10|+1 feat

11|As per level 6

12|+1 feat

13|+1 feat

14+|etc.
[/table]

I'd also need to change the poor vs. middle BAB progression. There's not much difference between poor and middle at level 6. Likewise, I'd need to add feats to permit casters to gain more spells (either known or per day, and I might make them separate feats), otherwise their power level would stagnate.

But, it's certainly interesting.

[Kiero]

World of Darkness? It's emo, but not gritty.

Risus.

Toon.

Wushu.

My FFRPG... wait, it's a bit grittier than vanilla DND.

Risus and Wushu both have no "default" level of grittiness.

Gritty: Unknown Armies, WFRP, Riddle of Steel, Twilight 2000, Millenium's End, Runequest, off the top of my head.

[Jimp]

What would everyone think of a new feat for E6 for when you hit the level cap that gives you extra attack damage. Something along the lines of "You gain +2 on damage rolls from one type of source: melee, ranged attack, spells. Can take multiple times, taking either a bonus on a different source or an additional +2 bonus on an existing source, to a maximum +10 from this feat".
Would this cause any balance issues? Also, while this is a more homebrew appropriate question, I posted here since this is THE E6 thread.

[Middle Snu]

What would everyone think of a new feat for E6 for when you hit the level cap that gives you extra attack damage. Something along the lines of "You gain +2 on damage rolls from one type of source: melee, ranged attack, spells. Can take multiple times, taking either a bonus on a different source or an additional +2 bonus on an existing source, to a maximum +10 from this feat".
Would this cause any balance issues? Also, while this is a more homebrew appropriate question, I posted here since this is THE E6 thread.

The main problem with this is that it helps the 6th-level fighters (iterative attack) and TWFers more than the wizards. A wizard will typically cast only one spell per round.

[Jimp]

The main problem with this is that it helps the 6th-level fighters (iterative attack) and TWFers more than the wizards. A wizard will typically cast only one spell per round.

That was my main intention. It's an option for blasters alright, but save or suck/support spellcasters would need DC buffs more, which can be found in the form of Spell Focus

[horseboy]

Risus and Wushu both have no "default" level of grittiness.

Gritty: Unknown Armies, WFRP, Riddle of Steel, Twilight 2000, Millenium's End, Runequest, off the top of my head.

Rolemaster
Harn
Traveler

[Rachel Lorelei]

Traveler isn't gritty?

Isn't that the game where you can die in character creation?

[MrNexx]

See, now, to me...it's restrictive. I'd say level 10 would be a more reasonable cap--5th level spells are suitably impressive for mages. I would probably create some new feats for such a system--stackable bonuses to BAB for those with the full +10 (but no new iterative attacks) and the like.

Actually, that's a nice bit about the system... once you've got the basic idea, you can say "Well, I like the higher level magic, so I'm going to set my cap at 10th, instead of 6th" without really messing with anything. I rather like the concept, myself... I tend to get burned out on higher-level games as they turn into "break defenses first" contests.

However, Emperor Tippy, I think it would be interesting to see how you define "Heroic Fantasy"; I'm thinking back to the last Realms novels I read (the Last Mythal trilogy), and find a hard time fitting that anywhere but superheroes/wuxia. I agree, destroying a powerful dragon is often part of heroic fantasy, but it's rarely a matter of the group going in with unenchanted steel and a slim spellbook... they've got the MacGuffin, which gives them the edge over such a powerful beast.

[Kiero]

Traveler isn't gritty?

Isn't that the game where you can die in character creation?

Uh, I think he was adding them to my list of gritty.

[Kiero]

Glancing over Unearthed Arcana, I wonder what would happen with E6 if you used the generic classes instead of the standard set?

[Matthew]

Here is an idea I have been kicking about in light of interest in a 'low powered' 3.x Game. Some may recall that in previous Editions Hit Dice only went up to Level 9 or so and a fixed allotment of Hit Points (not affected by Constitution) was gained every level thereafter.

In my House Ruled (A)D&D Game this begins at Level 7:

Hit Die:
1D4 - +1 HP per Level
1D6/1D8 - +2 HP per Level
1D10/1D12 - +3 HP per Level

Just a thought.

[Kiero]

I was thinking something like that where you only gain HD+Con for the first three levels, then fixed amounts.

If I didn't just go with everyone having Str+Con hit points, maybe plus your base starting HD. So a Fighter with 15 Str and 14 Con would have 39 hit points, which would only change if their Str or Con did.

[Matthew]

That comes out of your preference for beginning at a higher level, I would imagine? I never quite understood that. It sounds to me as though you would rather do without levels, is that a fair observation?

[Kiero]

That comes out of your preference for beginning at a higher level, I would imagine? I never quite understood that. It sounds to me as though you would rather do without levels, is that a fair observation?

Ideally, yes, though I can see how they can work in building modular characters. But my strongest preference is for characters who start out competent (though not superheroes), but don't really change much from there in terms of raw power.

I really don't like some of the absurdities that arise from level-escalating hit points, like the fighter who could survive falling from a spelljammer, to endure burning up on re-entry and a fall at terminal velocity, and still be in good shape to fight a dragon (2e in this instance).

I much prefer the fixed life/health/wounds systems I've seen in other games, like Unisystem for example, where it's a property based on your scores and doesn't change unless they do.