Asking for comparisons between E6/P6 & 5e.

[Kol Korran]

Hey all. I'm looking for opinions ans advice from people who played both the E6/P6 game subset of d&d 3.5/pathfinder, and d&d 5e, at least to levels 12 or above.

While not currently playing, I am very slowly working on a campaign idea, and am contemplating which system to use. For the needs of the thread, the focuses on a frontier, bordering on savage lands of monsters, with various mysteries and plots, but all relating to the same region. A sort of a mixture of wild west/ exploration of frontiers/ culture clashes & exploring mysteries. The game is set in Eberron's past (about 150 years prior tonthe current time line, around the region to become Droaam in the current time), but for the moat part this bears little on the thread.

I am mostly familiar witu Pathfinder, but the rapid power scale, which would have changed the nature of the game, threats and abilities, got me thinking more of an E6/ P6 game- More gritty, the threat level doesn't change radically, more mundane challenges remain challenging, and exploration, both of the region & it's mysteries are not easily circumvented by magic.

But on various occasions on this forum, I read people proclaiming that 5e gives a similar experience, only over more levels. The power raise is far less steep, and that even in high level, a large grouo of low level foes, or with the right tactics can be a serious threat.

5e intrigues me for another reason- At the ages of our group, we have little time to play, and as a DM little time to prep. My only experience with 5e is reading the PHB, and some short PbP games. Yet from the little I saw, the design principles are simple, and there is considerably less hassle in book keeping, cross referencing, add on effecta and so on. On the one hand it makes the GMs job easier, on the other hand- some of my players like to fiddle and "work the numbers", so this may appeal less to them.

What I'm looking for in the system for my game? I guess the following:
1. Simple design principles: I have little time to prep, but I do like making thematic adjustments to exiating material (changing monsters, items, and so on). I'd like a system where doing so is simple and easy, but with sufficient structure within the system's rules to not be entirely ad-hoc. (For example, if I have gnolls as major recurring enemies, I'd like to be able to make gnoll rangers, barbarians, shamans, and so on, or to add specialized equipment, with little prep time).

2. More old fashioned adventuring where wilderness travel is a challenge. No "easy solve it" spells for the most part. The high level of challenge I'm looking for is "defeat the great dragon of the mountains/ gather an alliance to fight the monstrous horde/ stop the ritual to free an old horror" and not "fight the outsider monarch on it's own demiplane/ defeat a demon lord/ push the extraplanar invasion back". Major regional threats, not world altering catastrophes.

3. "Enough" numbers to also prove a mechanical challenge. My players like that to a degree. I know that "enough" is variable by taste, but perhaos you can give examples for the systems?

4. A system that does "wilderness exploration & travel" & "exploring mysteries" fairly well. (The former is important, the second less so- I can work it out).

5. Ideally, an internet rules repository, like th PFSRD (The main rwason I like pathfinder, from the GMs POV)- one that is full enough, clear, and well interconnected by links. It makes preping a whole lot easier. I didn't quite find something good for 5e...

I'd appreciate any views, opinions, examples and comparisons on the two systems in regard to my needs. (And anything else worthy of note that you think I should know).

Thanka in advance,
Kol.

[Yora]

I think for these purposes there is probably very little difference between the two options. A good wilderness travel system you would need to make yourself either way. (Though if this part is of interest to your group, the 5th ed. ranger is a bad thing to have in the campaign. A 1st level ranger means you no longer have to interact with the wilderness anymore.)

The big difference that E6 makes is how it limits the capabilities of magic in the setting. Even if a 6th level Pathfinder fighter were to feel similar to a 15th level 5th ed. fighter, having 6th level spellcasters in the party and as antagonists will always be completely different than 15th level soellcasters.
E6 also has the effect that a 6th level party can never think "we need to get help from someone much more powerful than us to deal with this".

So what I did is actually setting up my next campaign for 5th edition E6.

[Quertus]

So, being me, I'll claim that 2e meets most of those criteria rather well.

I've found 2e very easy to prep, easy to modify with rules that accommodate such changes much better than the CR system, and much more focused on exploration/survival. You level so much more slowly that is easy to not have to worry about high-level abilities. Between kits, Skills & Powers, and straight up rules for custom classes, there's no shortage of ways to opt in to crunch in character creation.

The only thing you're really lacking is an internet repository of information.

[MeimuHakurei]

On the surface level, E6 and 5e seem similar in attempting to tone down the fantastic elements of the game somewhat, but there's still fundamental design differences:

-Boss Monsters

In 5th Edition, it's much harder for there to be civilization-threatening beasts due to the nature of bounded accuracy allowing large amount of militiamen to bring down even high-level monsters. E6 still enables a large suite of defensive abilities for the major campaign threats - since the setting still allows high CR monsters by design - so a dragon could plausibly bring down an entire city by itself. Note that such kinds of monsters may not be desirable for all game styles.

-Spells

It's correct that many spells were reduced in power for 5th edition, but many pivotal elements like polymorphing, scrying and teleporting still exist in higher levels, which notably impact the plot if acquired. E6 on the other hand caps out at 3rd level spells, meaning that those magical gamechangers won't ever appear.

-Lethality

Simply put, because Hit Points continue to scale up and with the way 5e altered rules for death & dying, it is much more forgiving about natural hazards and difficult encounters than E6 is.

So yeah, just because 5e tones down 3.5 just like E6 does doesn't mean that it's "E6 stretched out over 20 levels" since several design goals of E6 are not met by 5e and vice-versa.

[Kol Korran]

@ All responders: Thank you for your replies. Due to RL obligations and time constraints my responses are delayed most times. My apologies.


I think for these purposes there is probably very little difference between the two options. A good wilderness travel system you would need to make yourself either way. (Though if this part is of interest to your group, the 5th ed. ranger is a bad thing to have in the campaign. A 1st level ranger means you no longer have to interact with the wilderness anymore.)

The big difference that E6 makes is how it limits the capabilities of magic in the setting. Even if a 6th level Pathfinder fighter were to feel similar to a 15th level 5th ed. fighter, having 6th level spellcasters in the party and as antagonists will always be completely different than 15th level soellcasters.
E6 also has the effect that a 6th level party can never think "we need to get help from someone much more powerful than us to deal with this".

So what I did is actually setting up my next campaign for 5th edition E6.
Thanks for the reponse! I emphasized some of the things that intrigued me. In my limited experience I didn't go over the ranger, but yeah... I see what you mean. Between your analysis and that of MeimuHakurei, I think I'll need to look over the spells in 5e, if I'll be using it as is. From a brief look though, they seemed a lot LESS game breaking (Teleportion Circlesm, and it's casting time for example, gretly modifies and limit the spell).
I appreciate the third bolded observation. This is a major component of the game theme. In light of it, I would greatly favor E6 over 5e.

Thanks again!


So, being me, I'll claim that 2e meets most of those criteria rather well.

I've found 2e very easy to prep, easy to modify with rules that accommodate such changes much better than the CR system, and much more focused on exploration/survival. You level so much more slowly that is easy to not have to worry about high-level abilities. Between kits, Skills & Powers, and straight up rules for custom classes, there's no shortage of ways to opt in to crunch in character creation.

The only thing you're really lacking is an internet repository of information.
I've played 2e a long time ago. While it may indeed accomodate the requested wishes of the thread, our group dislikes the system. But thank you!



On the surface level, E6 and 5e seem similar in attempting to tone down the fantastic elements of the game somewhat, but there's still fundamental design differences:

-Boss Monsters

In 5th Edition, it's much harder for there to be civilization-threatening beasts due to the nature of bounded accuracy allowing large amount of militiamen to bring down even high-level monsters. E6 still enables a large suite of defensive abilities for the major campaign threats - since the setting still allows high CR monsters by design - so a dragon could plausibly bring down an entire city by itself. Note that such kinds of monsters may not be desirable for all game styles.

-Spells

It's correct that many spells were reduced in power for 5th edition, but many pivotal elements like polymorphing, scrying and teleporting still exist in higher levels, which notably impact the plot if acquired. E6 on the other hand caps out at 3rd level spells, meaning that those magical gamechangers won't ever appear.

-Lethality

Simply put, because Hit Points continue to scale up and with the way 5e altered rules for death & dying, it is much more forgiving about natural hazards and difficult encounters than E6 is.

So yeah, just because 5e tones down 3.5 just like E6 does doesn't mean that it's "E6 stretched out over 20 levels" since several design goals of E6 are not met by 5e and vice-versa.

Thank you for the analysis. I looked over some sample monsters in 5e. I did like the simplicity of design, but noticed the same issues you described. I'm... not yet certain what I think of this... I'll need to mull it over.

As to spells, as I mentioned under my response to Yora, I looked over some classic spells, and got the impression that compared to 3.5e, they are vastly diminshed (For example teleportation circle). I'll need to go through the spell list more, to see how big of an issue it is.

About Lethality- I read the 5e rules for death and dying. How does it make it more forgivign about natural hazards? I have very little expeirence in the system, and haven't yet red how they deal with pits, falls, weather, extreme temperatures and so on...

thank you all! :smallsmile:

[Yora]

Natural hazards usually cause exhaustion, which functions independently from hit points. There are six levels of exhaustion that cause increasing penalties of characters' effectiveness until at the sixth level they drop dead.

I've seen various people disliking the mechanic, but I got the impression that this was mostly in respect to combat abilities and spells causing exhaustion during encounters.
I think for struggling to survive against the elements it looks really neat.

As spells go, a big new change is concentration. Lots of spells require concentration and you can always have only one such spell active at a time. When you cast another concentration spell, you automatically lose the previous one. And you can also lose it when you get injured.
Whether a spell requires concentration or not has a huge impact on its usefulness.

[Psikerlord]

In terms of a possible system that might fit, you might consider Low Fantasy Gaming Deluxe. Re your list of wants:

1. It has simple rules but decent character customisation depth. 12th level max.
2. Wilderness travel is a challenge in the written adventures, partly because the default setting is "points of light" with untamed wilderness in between, and partly because random encounters are not level based, but rather geography based (note there is a Party Retreat rule). Easy solve it spells have been removed (eg: no Purify food and water, no teleport, no detect lies, no raise dead). The level 12 cap is consistent with your target endgame.
3. I'd call the system medium crunch.
4. LFG Deluxe has expanded wilderness travel rules including weather, getting lost, disease, overland/underground/water/air travel event tables, in addition to random encounter tables by geography.
5. There's no internet rules repository, but the Original LFG PDF is free, and is 99% OGL.

[Great Dragon]

Another thing to watch out for in 5e is Material Components and Foci.

For gritty (Short Rest = 8 hours, Long Rest = a week, and Slow Healing) Games, stricktly enforcing Consumption of Material Components will make spells more difficult to bypass with a focus. Use of a Focus for Spellcasting might need DM approval.

The biggest spell that is referred to is the Druid spell Goodberry. Making the mistletoe be consumed (and cannot be bypassed by a Focus) makes Wilderness Adventures much more challenging. Especially if they are in a Region where mistletoe is rare.

Also, as pointed out, Rangers tend to ignore problems, especially when combined with the Outlander Background. Restrictions on being usable only in their Favored Terrain can limit this.