E6/Ry20: The game inside D&D

[Kiero]

This is something originating on ENWorld 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 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?!

[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