Thoughts on E6 (Paladins, Rangers, Bards, and Gestalt Classing)

Hey all, I realize this is my first actual post on EN World, and I've been registered for forever...been in and out of the d20 scene, if anyone remembers way back a few years ago, I think my last notable post was a prestige class called the Woodland Muse on Monte Cook's boards.

Anyways, I gotta admit, I'm very impressed with the concept of E6 and how it works. Haven't tried it yet, but it sounds good so far. Keeping in mind the whole issue of class balancing, there are a few things that I think should maybe be addressed in E6. And really, I guess a lot of this relates to multi-classing...so here's some food for thought:

Rangers(one of the many variants, doesn't matter), paladins, and bards tend to be a bit front loaded. Sure alignment restrictions can help alleviate the multi-classing tendencies, but fact is that dipping into these classes can result in some really neat benefits.

So, as an idea, look at the spellcasting tables for these classes. Now shift them upward to level 1, so that all 3 classes receive 0 1st level spells at level one. The end result? Paladins and rangers get the ability to cast a level 2 spell, and bards can cast a level 3, if their charisma is high enough.

I fully understand the point of E6 is to prevent overpowered spells from entering play. But ridiculous splatbooks aside, the spells in question here are not overpowered - they're level 2 and 3, which fits well within the quartile.

Yes, maybe it's a small extra boost to paladins and rangers. However, it's more of an incentive to not go for the power multi-class. There has been a ton of discussion of the futility of the fighter, and Combat Veteran (I believe) was created to help this - it works well, gives pure fighters a place. Now let's help justify purity of the other classes.

By giving the bard an extra spell (with sufficient charisma), there's now actually a decision to be made. The bard/sorcerer combination is still very possible and very attractive, but there's actually a point to playing a bard to 6.

On another note - it would be good to have a feat for Inspire Greatness, as frankly it's not *that* powerful, and it is technically a level 9 ability. The requirement? 6 levels of bard. Given the lower number nature of E6, I think it would work well to help solidify a pure bard as a valid choice of class.

Alright, I think I've rambled enough there, hopefully there's a decent idea somewhere in that mess of text.

Now, about Gestalt classing. Yeah, it's been said they're 1.3x a normal character. I'm not entirely sure how that calculation came about, but I believe it. Do I think it's a problem in E6? Actually, no - but it needs to be controlled. Personally, I'm a big fan of gestalt, it lets me run games with fewer players and gives me a bit more freedom in some of the content I design.

Here's the thing: Multi-classing wrecks gestalt. In my opinion, if you're going to do it, a character picks their two classes at the start, and that's IT. And within the context of E6, I think that works well. Basically, kind of like 2nd Ed D&D multiclassing, except without the ridiculous demi-human restrictions.

Conceptually, the point is that they've matured as an adventurer, right? And the post-level 6 advancement just represents the height of their careers. Okay, makes great sense. But really, how much maturing can someone do when their path consists of 4+ classes? Limiting it to two gives some more balanced ideas and helps with character concepts. Another thing here is that the DM must be careful in what's feasible and what's not. Sticking to the core books obviously helps here - and it has to make sense in the context of the world. Scout/rogue? Hrm...I'm skeptical myself, for instance.

The advantage here is also for the DM - it allows for greater variety of NPCs without truly upping the ante that much. Sure, a dragon cult might be all sorcerers. But what if they're rather tribal in nature, and they're actually barbarian/sorcerers? Definitely changes a few things.

Or, depending on the game world, an order of knights dedicated to protecting and gathering the lore of the world (Paladin/bard, if you'll excuse the alignment differences).

In a lot of cases, having the 1.3x power is a wash if you note that none of the abilities available break that level 4 or 5 spell barrier, and also since the DM can definitely do it too. It'll make the heroes a little more heroic, that's true. But I think we're still in the golden quartile. Again, you have to take care, fighter/rogue will of course be a powerhouse - if need be, stipulate that any sneak attacking has to be done in light armor. A small mechanic tweak to prevent too much insanity.

Alright, basically I guess to sum it up, I'm impressed with E6. I would LOVE to run it in a Gestalt format with a few House Rule tweaks as well - I think the strength of the system is that a character can focus on just being the character, and not being a ridiculous hodgepodge of classes. To me, it harkens back to playing Hero Quest again, where simplicity was golden and it was a ton of fun. So think about some of the ideas - I think with some basic class guidelines in place, the horizon only expands for DM and players alike.

As someone who's spent the better part of a few weeks studying E6, your concerns about paladins are unwarranted, as long as other WotC books are used.

From Complete Warrior, Extra Smite gives paladins more smites/day.

From Complete Divine, Improved Smiting gives paladins better smites.

From Complete Champion, Battle Casting lets paladins swift-cast spells, and there's a smite-based tactical feat.

From Complete Divine to Complete Champion, divine feats give the paladin interesting things to do with their turn attempts.

In fact, were I to start playing an in E6 game, I'd be sorely tempted to go paladin, as I think they are one of the classes with the most feat-based toys to play with.

Oh I agree that there are a bunch of feats out there geared to paladins - but of those, do any require being level 6? Basically, is there any point to playing a "pure" paladin?

EDIT: Clarification. I don't feel that paladins are necessarily underpowered, I just feel that giving them a 2nd level spell is a lot more incentive to play one fully to 6, and also makes the class more enjoyable, without greatly changing the balance of play, barring any absolutely stupid 2nd level spells in a splatbook.

On another note, how do you feel about my other comments?

King Lemming said:

Oh I agree that there are a bunch of feats out there geared to paladins - but of those, do any require being level 6? Basically, is there any point to playing a "pure" paladin?

EDIT: Clarification. I don't feel that paladins are necessarily underpowered, I just feel that giving them a 2nd level spell is a lot more incentive to play one fully to 6, and also makes the class more enjoyable, without greatly changing the balance of play, barring any absolutely stupid 2nd level spells in a splatbook.

On another note, how do you feel about my other comments?

Click to expand...

I fully understand and sympathize with the desire to keep a player taking levels in one class.

I don't like reworking existing classes when additional level-6 feats can be created. Giving Barbarians DR1/-, Bards Inspire +2, etc. should work well.

To look at your examples, there's really nothing wrong with letting paladins and rangers grab a 2nd level spell, but I think the more meaningful ability for bards would be inspire +2, not a 3rd level spell. Plus, then you don't have to explain why bards can cast cones of fear, but sorcerors and clerics never can.

I don't like your gestalt rules, though I will be letting players retrain class levels every 5,000 XP, if they decide they really want to be a wizard5/fighter1 instead of wizard6.

King Lemming said:

Anyways, I gotta admit, I'm very impressed with the concept of E6 and how it works. Haven't tried it yet, but it sounds good so far. ...here's some food for thought:

<SNIP>

Alright, basically I guess to sum it up, I'm impressed with E6. I would LOVE to run it in a Gestalt format with a few House Rule tweaks as well - I think the strength of the system is that a character can focus on just being the character, and not being a ridiculous hodgepodge of classes. To me, it harkens back to playing Hero Quest again, where simplicity was golden and it was a ton of fun. So think about some of the ideas - I think with some basic class guidelines in place, the horizon only expands for DM and players alike.

Click to expand...

I like your ideas. I've been thinking about ways to do Gestalt E6 for a long, long, time.

I like your suggestion of shifting the spell tables of classes like the Paladin & Ranger one notch down so as to make one higher level of spells available to them at 6th level.

I, also, think that Gestalt E6 is a very good idea. And, I kinda like the idea of keeping the classes fixed in a Gestalt E6 game (no multiclassing). However, I'm not sure that restricting multiclassing is the only or best way to fix the potential problems with multiclass Gestalt builds (the biggest of which that comes to mind is the +2 saving throw bump that a character gets in at least one save when he or she multiclasses... but that's possibly a problem in regular D20 3.5, too...)

I plan on running Gestalt E6 in the very near future as a test campaign. Probably will start with only one player, for testing, and build from there.

I really liked the idea of shifting the spellcasting for paladins and rangers. Very nice.

Dragonblade275 said:

(the biggest of which that comes to mind is the +2 saving throw bump that a character gets in at least one save when he or she multiclasses... but that's possibly a problem in regular D20 3.5, too...)

Click to expand...

Indeed -- the easy fix is to do what the True20 book does, and say that you don't gain +2 saves on the first level of a multiclass. It's not a perfect fix, though, unless you do the same with prestige classes.