E6: The Game Inside D&D (with PDFs!)

[Ry]

One thing I like with the 6th level cap, and the switchover transition, is that I see things like that in fantasy literature and movies: At the beginning, any given character is unimportant and vulnerable. A series of dangerous events transform them into a capable adventurer, and they are significantly more powerful (6th level) than their younger selves (1st level). After this, they develop masteries and diversify their skills, but do not as a matter of course outpace others who have gone through a similar period (i.e., they gain feats, but not levels). Against others of their power level, they must take advantage of their special strengths and techniques to overcome their foes; this leads them to even further development and again, this is not a linear progression beyond their peers (i.e. even more feats).

 

[Cheiromancer]

I think super-powered characters (like in comic books) also follow this progression. Although they may regularly gain powers at first (like Clark Kent in the televesion series Smallville), this eventually stops. Thereafter a super-powered character might devise a new trick or two, but don't gain entirely new powers. They gain feats, but not levels.

Same for the folks in Heroes - each hero has essentially one super-power, which they can learn to apply in new, but essentially similar ways. No new powers (i.e. no leveling) but new tricks (feats).

I think we are talking nuances here - I want E6 to be a bit more gamist (allowing continued substantial rewards, i.e. leveling) while you seem to want it to be a bit more simulationist - simulating the switchover you describe. E6 has both elements, but there is room, I think, for differing on what the exact mixture should be.

I like how E6 is easy to describe- as normal D&D until level 6, then a feat every 5,000 xp. That's a big part of its appeal. I haven't been able to define an alternative in such a concise and elegant way.

 

[Ry]

I like how E6 is easy to describe- as normal D&D until level 6, then a feat every 5,000 xp. That's a big part of its appeal. I haven't been able to define an alternative in such a concise and elegant way.

Thanks, Cheiro. That concision sure doesn't happen overnight.

 

[Wiseblood]

I was on my way to creating something similar. The sweet spot thread got me thinking.

My idea was to stop numerical advancement at level 10 (for PC not for monsters). HD, spells, attack bonus, saves. Also max skill ranks top out at 10 and are no higher than character level (It will become clear why later.)

Eliminate full round actions. Things instead break down into, standard, move, free and possibly swift. IMO immediate actions clutter things, also because they should be involuntary or reflexive. Full round action spells with a duration would be standard + concentration, instantaneaous would be 1 level higher than normal.

Eliminate AoO's for movement. This would aid melee types. Additionally I had considered only allowing fighters iterative attacks. That look like this. But I'm not so sure.

+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6/+2
+7/+4
+8/+6
+9/+8
+10/+10

Touch attacks would be handled like normal attacks.

AC and skill DC's stop at 30. Additionally apposed rolls are handled differently.

Ability scores top out at 24 plus any size modifiers.

After levels 1-10 I am trying to figure out how to give cookies so to speak.

Levels 1-10 characters are treated as heroic.

levels 11-15 they are treated as super-heroic.

levels 16-20 they are treated as legendary.

above 20 they are godlike, or demigodlike.

While skill DC's top out at 30 their meaning changes at super-heroic, legendary, and godlike.

DC's for actions go down for PC's that achieve super-hero status and greater.

Move silently: Heroic

DC: 10 moving cautiously

DC: 15 moving quietly.

DC: 20 moving steathily

DC: 25 very stealthily

DC: 30 Moving silently (no sound at all, beating this means DC:30 Super heroic listen check = echo location)

 

[Morrius]

I like how E6 is easy to describe- as normal D&D until level 6, then a feat every 5,000 xp. That's a big part of its appeal. I haven't been able to define an alternative in such a concise and elegant way.

It does have a very elegant simplicity to it. Following in this vein, I think it would be a good idea to keep the list of feats as concise as possible. I'm rather anti-splat, so I don't have access to the huge lists of feats that some of you do.

 

[Ry]

Morrius - I'm curious what you're planning. I was thinking a lot of feats were pretty necessary for E6. What do you think of as the minimum? The ones I originally included in the pdf?

 

[Morrius]

Realistically, you can't plan for every possible way that someone will wnat to develop their character. Limit the feats to only the way that the characters can naturally progress, and don't add too many new things. Isn't the point to simplify things to avoid getting bogged down?

 

[Ry]

So, are you saying

"Don't add a lot of feats to the E6 document because we shouldn't allow many feats, as it bogs us down"

or

"Don't add a lot of feats to the E6 document because what feats we allow should be done by the GM as situations come up, not a big dump at the beginning."

?

 

[Wiseblood]

rycanada,
I have taken more time to evaluate E6. I like it a lot. Death Flag. 8)
If memory serves, monsters such as the Pit Fiend and Balor were substatially weaker in 3.0.
Do you suppose they could be used in E6 with less tweaking? Reserving the 3.x stats for even more grandiose foes. (Arch-Devils and Such)

 

[Ry]

Hi Wiseblood; I do think those versions are much more E6-friendly, although they'd still require some tuning. Actually, has anyone done a 3.0 fiends to 3.5 conversion, without making them uber?