Would you buy a game based around E6?

[Blackhawk748]

Just sort of spitballing a half-formed idea in my head and it got me curious. Wendy's (yes, the restaurant) released their own TTRPG (yes, really) for free and its actually...not half bad. Its certainly interesting and they clearly put actual effort into it for what is pretty much just a marketing stunt, but the classes go to only 5 levels. This got me to thinking of if someone released a gamebook inspired by E6 in which the classes only go to level 6 and probably an accompanying setting for it.

Then I asked the question of would anyone buy it? And I'm honestly not sure.

I know a fair amount of this would be based off of the setting or the overall quality, but just think of the idea on its own. Would you be willing to buy something like that?

[exelsisxax]

No. That's bad game design and would result in a bad game.

[JNAProductions]

No. That's bad game design and would result in a bad game.

Why do you say that? I completely understand you saying "That's not something that interests me and I wouldn't bother buying it," but that is wholly different from it being objectively bad.

[Tvtyrant]

Just sort of spitballing a half-formed idea in my head and it got me curious. Wendy's (yes, the restaurant) released their own TTRPG (yes, really) for free and its actually...not half bad. Its certainly interesting and they clearly put actual effort into it for what is pretty much just a marketing stunt, but the classes go to only 5 levels. This got me to thinking of if someone released a gamebook inspired by E6 in which the classes only go to level 6 and probably an accompanying setting for it.

Then I asked the question of would anyone buy it? And I'm honestly not sure.

I know a fair amount of this would be based off of the setting or the overall quality, but just think of the idea on its own. Would you be willing to buy something like that?

E6 is a great game, and lots of homebrews exist for it. What exactly would the new version do that would be better then the existing one, Gnorman's massive homebrew for it, or 5E (which is basically E6 stretched over 20 levels)?

That is the big question for me, what does this new version do that is better then other versions?

[Blackhawk748]

E6 is a great game, and lots of homebrews exist for it. What exactly would the new version do that would be better then the existing one, Gnorman's massive homebrew for it, or 5E (which is basically E6 stretched over 20 levels)?

That is the big question for me, what does this new version do that is better then other versions?

Well, my idea was to fuse some of the best concepts of PF and 3.5. Keep 3.5's good feats and add on PFs solid Archetype system. I was thinking of taking a page from 5e and their subclasses, but freeing up how you build things as I find 5e to be way to restrictive. Also I don't like the "E6 but spread over 20 levels" approach, just make it shorter if thats what you're going for.

Really, unlike the very good homebrew out there (and I do love it) the classes here would be built specifically for E6 and so Capstone Feats wouldn't be a thing. The class would just have a Capstone.

[exelsisxax]

Why do you say that? I completely understand you saying "That's not something that interests me and I wouldn't bother buying it," but that is wholly different from it being objectively bad.

Because the d20 game it is made from is poorly designed, and making the levels stop at a lower number never did anything to fix that. It would just lose any redeeming qualities, like being flexible, having lots of content, and having a history to lean on for support.

[ThatMoonGuy]

Depends on a lot of things. By E6 you mean a lower powered game, right? So basically a d20 that didn't assume you become a god slayer by 20th.

If it was just 3.5e but weaker I don't think I'd be that interested. But if it was a game that had a stronger focus on preparation, with solid crafting rules and tactical behaviours, then we'd be talking. One concept I really liked in PF was the weapon customisation but as it stands it was far too limited and hard to use in game so it was basically left to rot.

I'm picturing something a little like Hunter the Reckoning where you are a weak guy brushing shoulders with werewolves, mages and vampires. You have to be smart to prepare and the system ought to give you tools for that.

[Blackhawk748]

Depends on a lot of things. By E6 you mean a lower powered game, right? So basically a d20 that didn't assume you become a god slayer by 20th.

If it was just 3.5e but weaker I don't think I'd be that interested. But if it was a game that had a stronger focus on preparation, with solid crafting rules and tactical behaviours, then we'd be talking. One concept I really liked in PF was the weapon customisation but as it stands it was far too limited and hard to use in game so it was basically left to rot.

I'm picturing something a little like Hunter the Reckoning where you are a weak guy brushing shoulders with werewolves, mages and vampires. You have to be smart to prepare and the system ought to give you tools for that.

I love Hunter and I would take things from that into the design ideas, things like increased tactical flexibility and more varied abilities. I mean, we've had near 20 years of D20 to work out many of the kinks and to know what is good or bad, so a lot of that could be eliminated.

[ThatMoonGuy]

I love Hunter and I would take things from that into the design ideas, things like increased tactical flexibility and more varied abilities. I mean, we've had near 20 years of D20 to work out many of the kinks and to know what is good or bad, so a lot of that could be eliminated.

In that Case, yeah, I think it could work and I'd be personally interested in it. One thing that this kind of "preparation style gameplay" would allow is for magic to take a more ritualistic direction. A Wizard could have a few effects he knows how to easily reproduce but would have to research, prepare and realize long rituals for more complex effects.

You could even have means for the characters to get power boosts (temporary or lot) through pacts, rituals or body modification. A sort of "power from sacrifice" thing, you know?

[Blackhawk748]

In that Case, yeah, I think it could work and I'd be personally interested in it. One thing that this kind of "preparation style gameplay" would allow is for magic to take a more ritualistic direction. A Wizard could have a few effects he knows how to easily reproduce but would have to research, prepare and realize long rituals for more complex effects.

You could even have means for the characters to get power boosts (temporary or lot) through pacts, rituals or body modification. A sort of "power from sacrifice" thing, you know?

I was gonna have Rituals be a part of the casting system, but otherwise largely leave what we have alone. Well, beyond further differentiate between Spontaneous and Prepared casters

[False God]

Sure, but like my issues with 5E and most low-level play, I don't enjoy using a d20 as the primary die for the game. It really makes gameplay far too random IMO.

If you're gonna scale down the levels, I think other things need to be scaled down. And if you eliminate the d20, you can basically eliminate the +10 that is assigned to half the other things in the game.

[FaerieGodfather]

That is the big question for me, what does this new version do that is better then other versions?

Well, for one, it would be something would-be DMs could buy off the shelf instead of having to carve out of existing E20 rulesets.

[EisenKreutzer]

I’d probably buy it.

[Willie the Duck]

This got me to thinking of if someone released a gamebook inspired by E6 in which the classes only go to level 6 and probably an accompanying setting for it.

Then I asked the question of would anyone buy it? And I'm honestly not sure.

Would I buy a game with only 6 levels? Sure. Would I buy a game that clearly borrows inspiration and lessons from someone's E6 experience? Certainly, depending on other factors like quality and such. Would I (and here going to the thread title) buy a game based around E6? Probably not. That seems to be missing the point of it. E6 is a way to take the D20 system/D&D3e+PF and constrain it in a specific way to avoid some of the well-known pitfalls of the game system. It exists to make this other game playable within scopes or parameters where it isn't. It isn't a point into and of itself.

[EisenKreutzer]

Would I buy a game with only 6 levels? Sure. Would I buy a game that clearly borrows inspiration and lessons from someone's E6 experience? Certainly, depending on other factors like quality and such. Would I (and here going to the thread title) buy a game based around E6? Probably not. That seems to be missing the point of it. E6 is a way to take the D20 system/D&D3e+PF and constrain it in a specific way to avoid some of the well-known pitfalls of the game system. It exists to make this other game playable within scopes or parameters where it isn't. It isn't a point into and of itself.

I’m not sure I agree. Yes, E6 is a way of sidestepping power level issues with d20, but it holds merit on it’s own as a distinct set of mechanics. It doesn’t have to remain a series of obtuse, hard to access house rules confined to the hidden corners of the internet. If someone took the time to consolidate the various E6 rules, put them all in a single volume and maybe take the opportunity to streamline it, it would hold up as its own thing.

[Godskook]

Because the d20 game it is made from is poorly designed, and making the levels stop at a lower number never did anything to fix that.

That's contrary to everyone's understanding of E6, which **DID** do things to fix that. That's one of the primary VIRTUES of E6.


It would just lose any redeeming qualities, like being flexible, having lots of content, and having a history to lean on for support.

1.The base 3.5 game system has more redeeming qualities than that. Even compared to 4e or 5e.

2.I run a variant of E6 at my personal table which is loved by my players in part for being -more- flexible than standard 3.5 -or- 5e, due to the inherent mandatory multi-classing I introduced.(Turns out being forced to pick 3 colors out of 20 makes for more diversity than when you're able to pick just one)

[Zombulian]

I really like e6 as a variant system so I’d be happy to check out a fully fleshed out game system for it yeah.

[Karl Aegis]

Maybe if it stopped at level 5 like the old Basic set of BECMI. Level 6 doesn't make much sense if you're making a new game from the ground up.

[Willie the Duck]

Maybe if it stopped at level 5 like the old Basic set of BECMI. Level 6 doesn't make much sense if you're making a new game from the ground up.

BECMI's basic set went up to level 3. There was an intro boxed set that was 1-5, though, that came out some time in the 90s.

[EisenKreutzer]

Maybe if it stopped at level 5 like the old Basic set of BECMI. Level 6 doesn't make much sense if you're making a new game from the ground up.

It’s just an arbitrary number. Could easily have been 5 or even 7 or 8, it doesn’t really make a difference.

[Blackhawk748]

It’s just an arbitrary number. Could easily have been 5 or even 7 or 8, it doesn’t really make a difference.

It is arbitrary, but I also found it easier to make at class with 6 levels. Not sure why but I did.

[Tallyn]

It’s just an arbitrary number. Could easily have been 5 or even 7 or 8, it doesn’t really make a difference.

I thought the idea was, that at levels beyond 6, is where the game really starts to break down in 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder. Casters start getting into the spell levels where their power can break the game if used properly, other classes, can start to obliterate things in melee, etc...

I could be wrong though.

[ThatMoonGuy]

I thought the idea was, that at levels beyond 6, is where the game really starts to break down in 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder. Casters start getting into the spell levels where their power can break the game if used properly, other classes, can start to obliterate things in melee, etc...

I could be wrong though.

Yep. Level 7 is when 4th level spells come into play and the Caster/martial gap begins. Level 6 allows for quite a few iconic abilities (second attack for martials, for one) while keeping the stronger options off the book.

Full attacks, while viable, are not as overpowering an option as they are in higher levels so you tend to have a more mobile game or at least more uses of move actions. HP at this level is still on a point where you can tank a few hits but must be wary of stronger attacks. All in all, level 6 is tipically the last level before D20 changes into full heroics.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Maybe if it stopped at level 5 like the old Basic set of BECMI. Level 6 doesn't make much sense if you're making a new game from the ground up.

6 has a nice and clean halfway point. And 1/3 and 2/3 points. There's nothing that makes leveling up 5 times less valid than 4 times or any similar number. I don't think how round a number sounds should be the primary design specification. (Not for small numbers anyway. A game designed to go up to level 19 or 76 would be kind of weird maybe.)

[D+1]

The stated aim of E6 was to reduce or eliminate various drawbacks that exist/arise with D20 D&D. It was deemed desirable to keep the game out of the wuxia and superhero levels of power at a lower level of magic, reduce the amount of rules (just about everything past 6th level) thus reducing prep for both DM and players, and yet not being too radical a change so that anyone familiar with D20 is still fully familiar with E6 as well - even moreso because E6 encompasses the lower levels that get played more often by more players. Personally, I think it accomplishes all of that very admirably.

E6 in and of itself really doesn't need much tweaking - IF ANY. While some customization is understandable and expected, IMO the more additions and improvements you seek to bring in the more you've actually missed the point of E6 at all. If you accept what it is trying to do in the first place, mixing in More Stuff is only risking undoing what it accomplishes.

Now clearly E6 changes some significant dynamics of a long-term game. That's rather the point. But it means that having a setting that EMBRACES what E6 is doing, fully incorporates it, and again doesn't immediately start to UNDERMINE its aims is definitely of value and interest.

[Luccan]

So, what's the point of keeping the system locked to level 6 if you're designing it from the ground up? Is it to keep numbers smaller? I know why E6 chooses level 6: fighter types get their second attack, both prepared and spontaneous full-casters get their 3rd level spells, half-casters get at least one spell a day, and most classes have their iconic feature+an improvement by that point. But all that (and the problems it's intended to fix) is tied to it still being 3.5. If you're designing your own system, even if it's d20 based, you don't have to follow the same pitfalls as 3.5. PF only does that because it basically is just 3.5+.

I honestly can't say for certain whether I'd buy an E6 game, I'd need more understanding of the full product. I do lean towards no, however. I already have E6, it's free, and it has a ton of material to draw on, even if not as much as 3.5 as a whole due to the level cap.

[HouseRules]

Maybe if it stopped at level 5 like the old Basic set of BECMI. Level 6 doesn't make much sense if you're making a new game from the ground up.

Basic 1st Edition - Blue Box Edition
Holmes' Dungeons and Dragons: Basic Set - Level 1 to 3

Basic 2nd Edition - BX, Magenta Box Edition
Moldvay's Dungeons and Dragons: Basic Set - Level 1 to 3 - Magenta Box
Cook's Dungeons and Dragons: Expert Set - Level 4 to 14 - Light Blue Box

Basic 3rd Edition - BECMI, Red Box Edition
Mentzer's Dungeons and Dragons: Basic Set - Level 1 to 3 - Red Box
Mentzer's Dungeons and Dragons: Expert Set - Level 4 to 14 - Blue Box
Mentzer's Dungeons and Dragons: Companion Set - Level 15 to 25 - Teal Box
Mentzer's Dungeons and Dragons: Master Set - Level 26 to 36 - Black Box
Mentzer's Dungeons and Dragons: Immortal Set - Level i1 to i36 - Gold Box

Basic 4th Edition - The New and Easy-to-Master Dungeons and Dragons Game, Black Box Edition
Denning's The New and Easy-to-Master Dungeons and Dragons Game - Level 1 to 5

Basic 5th Edition
Allston's Dungeons and Dragons: Rules Cyclopedia - Level 1 to 36
Allston's Dungeons and Dragons: Wraith of the Immortal - Level i1 to i36

Basic 4th Edition Revised - The Classic Dungeons and Dragons Game, Tan Box Edition
Denning's The Classic Dungeons and Dragons Game - Level 1 to 5

[Katie Boundary]

Does anyone remember Chex Quest?

I would absolutely buy a Chex Quest TTRPG that only went to level 6.

[Blackhawk748]

Sure, but like my issues with 5E and most low-level play, I don't enjoy using a d20 as the primary die for the game. It really makes gameplay far too random IMO.

If you're gonna scale down the levels, I think other things need to be scaled down. And if you eliminate the d20, you can basically eliminate the +10 that is assigned to half the other things in the game.

Thats fair I guess, I rather like the variance the d20 gives, and by time you hit level 6 anyway most beatsticks will be chucking around like +12 or so to hit and skills will be around +14, so you get some good consistency if you don't have to ramp things up to the 30s.


Would I buy a game with only 6 levels? Sure. Would I buy a game that clearly borrows inspiration and lessons from someone's E6 experience? Certainly, depending on other factors like quality and such. Would I (and here going to the thread title) buy a game based around E6? Probably not. That seems to be missing the point of it. E6 is a way to take the D20 system/D&D3e+PF and constrain it in a specific way to avoid some of the well-known pitfalls of the game system. It exists to make this other game playable within scopes or parameters where it isn't. It isn't a point into and of itself.

I phrased it that way for lack of a better way. Its more officially codifying something inspired by E6. You only go to level 6, you get feats after that and whatnot, but there would be new classes built from the ground up, more feats added, some mechanical hiccups ironed out etc


6 has a nice and clean halfway point. And 1/3 and 2/3 points. There's nothing that makes leveling up 5 times less valid than 4 times or any similar number. I don't think how round a number sounds should be the primary design specification. (Not for small numbers anyway. A game designed to go up to level 19 or 76 would be kind of weird maybe.)

I think why I like sticking with 6 is that its easy to make stuff that goes in each slot. Classes have certain things they get at levels 1,3 and 6, things they get at 2,4 and 6, and then things they get a 1,3 and 5 or maybe 2 and 4. There's plenty of easy scaling methods there that I like.


The stated aim of E6 was to reduce or eliminate various drawbacks that exist/arise with D20 D&D. It was deemed desirable to keep the game out of the wuxia and superhero levels of power at a lower level of magic, reduce the amount of rules (just about everything past 6th level) thus reducing prep for both DM and players, and yet not being too radical a change so that anyone familiar with D20 is still fully familiar with E6 as well - even moreso because E6 encompasses the lower levels that get played more often by more players. Personally, I think it accomplishes all of that very admirably.

E6 in and of itself really doesn't need much tweaking - IF ANY. While some customization is understandable and expected, IMO the more additions and improvements you seek to bring in the more you've actually missed the point of E6 at all. If you accept what it is trying to do in the first place, mixing in More Stuff is only risking undoing what it accomplishes.

Now clearly E6 changes some significant dynamics of a long-term game. That's rather the point. But it means that having a setting that EMBRACES what E6 is doing, fully incorporates it, and again doesn't immediately start to UNDERMINE its aims is definitely of value and interest.

Any issue E6 has itself is an issue that cores to D20. I agree that E6 has done a bangup job in fixing many of the issues, but it is still a patch fix. The Fighter, Monk and Druid were never meant to only go to level 6 and many core issues still remain.

Basically, I want to take E6 the homebrew and turn it into a proper game in its own right that builds off of 3.5 and PF and all the other things we've learned over the past 20 years.


So, what's the point of keeping the system locked to level 6 if you're designing it from the ground up? Is it to keep numbers smaller? I know why E6 chooses level 6: fighter types get their second attack, both prepared and spontaneous full-casters get their 3rd level spells, half-casters get at least one spell a day, and most classes have their iconic feature+an improvement by that point. But all that (and the problems it's intended to fix) is tied to it still being 3.5. If you're designing your own system, even if it's d20 based, you don't have to follow the same pitfalls as 3.5. PF only does that because it basically is just 3.5+.

I honestly can't say for certain whether I'd buy an E6 game, I'd need more understanding of the full product. I do lean towards no, however. I already have E6, it's free, and it has a ton of material to draw on, even if not as much as 3.5 as a whole due to the level cap.

Because its easier to keep all the classes within hitting distance of each otehr that way. Plus when you;re aiming for a lower powered game adding all those extra levels just feels unecessary, plus it just turns into numbers bloat.

Idk, its just my view of the thing.

[Psychoalpha]

I'm picturing something a little like Hunter the Reckoning where you are a weak guy brushing shoulders with werewolves, mages and vampires. You have to be smart to prepare and the system ought to give you tools for that.

Ah yes, Hunter: The Reckoning, righteous/zealous warriors infused with semi-divine powers drawn from Lucifer himself. The weakest of guys. ;D

[Blackhawk748]

Ah yes, Hunter: The Reckoning, righteous/zealous warriors infused with semi-divine powers drawn from Lucifer himself. The weakest of guys. ;D

Where are you getting them being Devil powered from? The Reckoners where never explicitly defined afaik and the best theory I ever heard is that a lone Exalted was powering them

[EisenKreutzer]

Where are you getting them being Devil powered from? The Reckoners where never explicitly defined afaik and the best theory I ever heard is that a lone Exalted was powering them

The power source of the Imbued is pretty explicitly stated as being angels. There are two of them, but they never appear directly.

[Morty]

Ah yes, Hunter: The Reckoning, righteous/zealous warriors infused with semi-divine powers drawn from Lucifer himself. The weakest of guys. ;D

Reading the actual Hunter: the Reckoning rulebook reveals that they are, indeed, very weak.

[Luccan]

Because its easier to keep all the classes within hitting distance of each otehr that way. Plus when you;re aiming for a lower powered game adding all those extra levels just feels unecessary, plus it just turns into numbers bloat.

Idk, its just my view of the thing.

Fair. I think my problem with keeping it to 6 is the same as would be my problem only playing original E6: you have a very limited window on certain build resources. Multiclassing is very limited, a lot of prestige classes can't be entered, stuff like that. So even though you might have a lot of equal options, you get far fewer. At least if you stick to the E6 model. Which might be the point, but I don't think a system dedicated to that structure is for me.

[Blackhawk748]

Fair. I think my problem with keeping it to 6 is the same as would be my problem only playing original E6: you have a very limited window on certain build resources. Multiclassing is very limited, a lot of prestige classes can't be entered, stuff like that. So even though you might have a lot of equal options, you get far fewer. At least if you stick to the E6 model. Which might be the point, but I don't think a system dedicated to that structure is for me.

There's really no solution to the Multiclass thing, but for PrCs I was thinking of something along the lines of Prestige Feats, which would be feats that you take either at 6 or post 6 and represent a chain of like 4-5 feats that are flavorful and basically represent a Class Feature.

Not sure how to quite do it yet.

[Techwarrior]

I know personally, we managed to work in a variant of E6 that allowed you to gain class features as if you had become a gestalt character. So your Fighter 6 with 4 bonus feats could slowly gain cleric class features. I'm almost certain we limited it to one caster and one non-caster, but that was years ago.

Such a system could design itself to have the ability to gain class features past 'level cap' from other classes.

[Karl Aegis]

I may be less reluctant to accept this idea if you assured me the math would be reconfigured to something more palatable. There's six levels so just tell me when I get new points of BAB, saves, feats, ability points and stuff. I don't need to know 3/4 that, 2+1/2 this, 1/3 one of those, every 1+2+3 then every three after, four plus four, one-five-ten-fifteen-twenty, 3-4-5-6 then nothing until 9, 6-11-16, etc. Give me something good at level 5 like a feat, 1 point to my good saves and my iterative attack on a full BAB class and I'll be happy.

[BlackOnyx]

As someone who's already gotten used to playing within the E6 framework, I'm not sure if investing into a new-but-similar system would provide me with much added benefit.


The reasons I personally use E6 boil down to:



My friends and I are familiar with (and enjoy) 3.5e



The 3.5e framework features enough settings, character options, and variant rulesets to simulate a huge range of adventures, characters, & worlds



E6 provides a solid reason to constrain play to the "quartile" of 3.5e I enjoy most (in terms of both game balance and overall "feel")



A handful of houserules aside, I've found that E6 doesn't need much fixing to work really really well.


Even with the constraints of 6th level characters, players still have a huge wealth of options to choose from. Hundreds (if not thousands) of spells and feats are still on the table at this level of play, including a good helping of the more "iconic" ones.


In my eyes, capstone feats that simulate unavailable spells & class features aren't really necessary. Finding creative ways to simulate or altogether replace the options you would have taken in "standard" 3.5e is part of E6's charm. A lot of interesting feats, spells, and magic items that wouldn't otherwise see the light of day become attractive options under E6's constraints.


What's more, even if my PCs can't use options above 6th level, I like having them available for my own reference as a DM. E6 constraints are really more of a "fix" on the player side of things; monsters, gods, and magic rituals can be as potent as the story needs them to be. The nice thing about E6 is that it gives DMs access to a toolkit specific to them.


The only real "issue" (if I can call it that) I've run into with E6 is convenience; sometimes separating E6 accessible class features/feats/items from 7th level+ options can be a bit time consuming. That said, it really just boils down to checking prerequisites and familiarizing yourself with the options available to 6th level characters.


In short, E6 already provides me with just about everything I need for a crunchy-but-grounded fantasy rpg. As things stand, I don't really feel much of a draw to try out an unfamiliar system with less breadth that tries to simulate the same thing.


This said, creating your own "E6" system isn't a bad idea if there's some major mechanics you'd like to change/introduce. If you're only looking at making minimal changes though, I'm not sure how necessary writing up a "new" system is.

[Blackhawk748]

I may be less reluctant to accept this idea if you assured me the math would be reconfigured to something more palatable. There's six levels so just tell me when I get new points of BAB, saves, feats, ability points and stuff. I don't need to know 3/4 that, 2+1/2 this, 1/3 one of those, every 1+2+3 then every three after, four plus four, one-five-ten-fifteen-twenty, 3-4-5-6 then nothing until 9, 6-11-16, etc. Give me something good at level 5 like a feat, 1 point to my good saves and my iterative attack on a full BAB class and I'll be happy.

I guess I don't understand what you find unpalatable about the current math of going to level 6? Then again I was gonna have a stat boost at 3 and then again at 6 just so you can get 2 of them.


This said, creating your own "E6" system isn't a bad idea if there's some major mechanics you'd like to change/introduce. If you're only looking at making minimal changes though, I'm not sure how necessary writing up a "new" system is.

There is definitely some stuff from pathfinder and even Star Wars Saga edition that I feel are strict improvements over 3.5 that I would like to incorporate. Clearly what form this ultimately takes is rather up in the air right now, but there are some things I want to change that I feel would improve the game.

[Karl Aegis]

Well, if only full BAB classes get an improved chassis at level 5 and then everyone gets everything at level 6... Yeah, I'd rather just go the other way and try to figure out how to beat up a CR 769 crocodile that bites for 34,359,738,368‬d10+1350 damage with an ECL 135 character. If I'm doing math instead of just counting I'd rather explicitly need a spreadsheet to make a character. There is an opportunity to make a simpler game, but that requires making actual changes.

[EisenKreutzer]

Well, if only full BAB classes get an improved chassis at level 5 and then everyone gets everything at level 6... Yeah, I'd rather just go the other way and try to figure out how to beat up a CR 769 crocodile that bites for 34,359,738,368‬d10+1350 damage with an ECL 135 character. If I'm doing math instead of just counting I'd rather explicitly need a spreadsheet to make a character. There is an opportunity to make a simpler game, but that requires making actual changes.

Why is the goal a simpler game?

[Blackhawk748]

Well, if only full BAB classes get an improved chassis at level 5 and then everyone gets everything at level 6... Yeah, I'd rather just go the other way and try to figure out how to beat up a CR 769 crocodile that bites for 34,359,738,368‬d10+1350 damage with an ECL 135 character. If I'm doing math instead of just counting I'd rather explicitly need a spreadsheet to make a character. There is an opportunity to make a simpler game, but that requires making actual changes.

I...what? Im not even sure what you're trying to say here? Full BaB doesn't get a better chasis at level 5, they get their second attack at 6.

[D+1]

There is definitely some stuff from pathfinder and even Star Wars Saga edition that I feel are strict improvements over 3.5 that I would like to incorporate. Clearly what form this ultimately takes is rather up in the air right now, but there are some things I want to change that I feel would improve the game.I'll bite since nobody else is. What stuff from pathfinder and SWSE would you particularly like to incorporate? It could be better, it could be worse, it could just be meh.

Again, one of the conceits of E6 is, "This is a game whose rules you and your players already are very familiar with and know how to play." The more you change the more that it ISN'T actually based on E6. With E6 I can hand the players several 3.5 PH's around the house, just four pages of new E6 information (including ALL my house rules for it), and we're off and running. Nothing really new to learn (even though dynamics of the longer term game are substantially different), nothing to re-learn, and nothing I even need to buy. If I have to get players to all buy... 100 pages of new rules with all the additions and changes, it's NOT really E6 and I'm looking at weighing the amount of changes against whether those changes are worth the cost and effort to buy and learn, without actually knowing what those changes are going to be.

[Blackhawk748]

I'll bite since nobody else is. What stuff from pathfinder and SWSE would you particularly like to incorporate? It could be better, it could be worse, it could just be meh.

Again, one of the conceits of E6 is, "This is a game whose rules you and your players already are very familiar with and know how to play." The more you change the more that it ISN'T actually based on E6. With E6 I can hand the players several 3.5 PH's around the house, just four pages of new E6 information (including ALL my house rules for it), and we're off and running. Nothing really new to learn (even though dynamics of the longer term game are substantially different), nothing to re-learn, and nothing I even need to buy. If I have to get players to all buy... 100 pages of new rules with all the additions and changes, it's NOT really E6 and I'm looking at weighing the amount of changes against whether those changes are worth the cost and effort to buy and learn, without actually knowing what those changes are going to be.

Skills are a big one to me, both have superior Armor (with SWSE having better armor imo) and a handful of things that are fairly common houserules for 3.5 but got rolled into these two games.

[Psyren]

It would really have to add some form of concrete value that the current E6/P6 (which is free and pretty easy to use) doesn't have. Not being able to envision such value, my gut response is no, but I'm always open to being pleasantly surprised.