D&D 5E Assaying rules for 5E E6 (Revised)

[clearstream]

But I would also add that part of what made E6 what it was is a redefinition of what “epic” means to the game-world. Teleport? Plane Shift? Not possible. Greater Invisibility? Nope. The pinnacle of magical achievement in the world for mere mortals is the fly or fireball spell.

Very much agree. That is fundamental in the original design, and retained in most variants I have seen. It's one reason why I am cautious of following the Magus Arcanum or similar route.

But it’s not just that the players are limited to 3rd level spells. The game-changing thing is that the world views them as the stuff of legends. That alone reshaped D&D into an entirely different genre.

This seems not quite right. To quote one of the original discussions - "E6 recognizes that 6th level characters are mortal, while providing a context where they are epic heroes." Emphasis mine. I believe that D&D normally aims for characters to - over time - become the stuff of legends. What E6 uniquely re-injects is that they remain mortal. Hence the original E6 - and every variant I have so far read - caps hit points.

 

[clearstream]

Or in this thread, for folk who don’t feel like going off-site.

I referenced StackExchange as I believe it is important to look at for anyone attempting an E6 design for 5th edition. For example, I found the thoughts in this thread helpful. In fact, it was by trying out such proposed variants - testing the characters that could be created at various levels - that I was able to make visible the problems with approaches such as using 5th edition feats or features ad-lib.

 

[clearstream]

Fair, although E5+feats puts Tough on the board for players worried about squishiness.

I'd urge you to try creating a few characters in each class and see what you find with E5+feats. I did do that using Fantasy Grounds to make chargen easier. To be honest, at a single table where one sees only a dozen or so characters anyway, a house rule using feats can work. My aim is to create something that can be used more broadly - successfully supporting as many characters as possible. With that in mind, I also have a draft for multiclassed E6 characters, but it introduces some complexity so I want to get the basis straight first.

I have realised - reading this thread - that it is better to simplify anything that isn't absolutely necessary. It feels like each piece of additional design - such as the method I stole from WWN for HP - comes at a high cost in terms of acceptance. Such methods can bring something worthwhile, but too subtle to be worth hitting the potential barrier of player skepticism... and not aligned with the concerns of everyone.

 

[Aldarc]

Pardon my intrusion, but I wonder how a
“mod” like this would play out in 4E? Intriguing…

 

[Horwath]

personally, I would cap it at 9th level, call it E9.
you just get +4 prof bonus, full casters get single 5th level slot, halfcasters get to 3rd level spells.

After that, for every "level" I would just give ASI or a level on a second class beginning from 1st level OFC. If second class has more HP per level that current adjust accordingly. I.E. 9th level wizard takes 1st level of fighter instead of ASI, increases his HPs by 4 as 1st level fighter gets 10 HP and wizard gets 6, and gets +2 HP they take a "level" of fighter after 1st level. Fighters levels are still capped at 9th as normal.

 

[TwoSix]

Pardon my intrusion, but I wonder how a
“mod” like this would play out in 4E? Intriguing…

E10, then continue to collect feats? Make some homebrew feats that let you grab a power of 11th or 12th level? Seems pretty playable to me.

 

[TwoSix]

I'd urge you to try creating a few characters in each class and see what you find with E5+feats. I did do that using Fantasy Grounds to make chargen easier. To be honest, at a single table where one sees only a dozen or so characters anyway, a house rule using feats can work. My aim is to create something that can be used more broadly - successfully supporting as many characters as possible. With that in mind, I also have a draft for multiclassed E6 characters, but it introduces some complexity so I want to get the basis straight first.

I have realised - reading this thread - that it is better to simplify anything that isn't absolutely necessary. It feels like each piece of additional design - such as the method I stole from WWN for HP - comes at a high cost in terms of acceptance. Such methods can bring something worthwhile, but too subtle to be worth hitting the potential barrier of player skepticism... and not aligned with the concerns of everyone.

I guess my concern is that the demilevel system ultimately feels like a diminishment on the current system. "So I get levels like before, except they no longer give me hit points or spell slots like they used to?" Whereas getting new feats feels like a different type of game, a new kind of reward system. I mean, we as players are used to the idea that we don't normally get our full level progression; stopping a game at level 6 or level 8 is hardly novel. And everyone knows feats, and knows they're a limited resource in 5e; getting to take 5 feats on the same character you couldn't before is actually novel.

So I think if you want to create a system with broad acceptance and easy uptake, you definitely want to limit the novelty factor. Most especially a novelty that feels like a nerf.

 

[clearstream]

I guess my concern is that the demilevel system ultimately feels like a diminishment on the current system. "So I get levels like before, except they no longer give me hit points or spell slots like they used to?" Whereas getting new feats feels like a different type of game, a new kind of reward system. I mean, we as players are used to the idea that we don't normally get our full level progression; stopping a game at level 6 or level 8 is hardly novel. And everyone knows feats, and knows they're a limited resource in 5e; getting to take 5 feats on the same character you couldn't before is actually novel.

So I think if you want to create a system with broad acceptance and easy uptake, you definitely want to limit the novelty factor. Most especially a novelty that feels like a nerf.

That's a useful insight! Would the framing work better as E11 or E10? With the presentation being the adjusted level progression tables, dropping the 'demi-level' language altogether?

What I am aiming for is to cleave extremely close to the expressed goals of E6. Statements such as -

Levels 1 to 6 was the period where a character comes into his own, where a crash course in action and danger transforms them from 1st-level commoners into capable fighting men (or corpses). Once transformed by their experiences, a character’s growth is no longer a continuous, linear progression. There are still major differences between the master warriors and the veteran mercenaries, but it’s not a change of scale.

Emphasis mine. And -

Q: What if I want there to be a higher level magical effect, but still use E6?

A: The rules for rituals in Unearthed Arcana are an excellent fit for E6, to support things like opening portals to another dimension, higher-level divinations, and so on. When a spell is a 3-day event requiring 20 mages, it’s more of a plot point than a spell itself, and that maeks it a great a springboard for challenging the players.

These are goals that resonate with me.

The E6 game design is more correctly understood as a meta-game design, with distinct consequences for play - such as no ordinarily available 4th level or higher spells for player-characters. I'm confident that the kinds of mechanics I am working with produce the same consequences in play, but people seem invested in the meta-game design.

I'm not sure if reflecting on the relative impoverishment of discarding all the rich class and sub-class features above 6th level, that do not derail the core objectives, would help others understand the value of 'not-just-feats'? 5th has about 75 feats. 3.5ed had hundreds by the time E6 was created. The granularity and class coverage (feats given classes care about) is entirely different, for example meta-magic was all contained in feats in 3.5ed, whereas casters have a short list in 5th, many of which are well-known to be low in value.

 

[TwoSix]

The E6 game design is more correctly understood as a meta-game design, with distinct consequences for play - such as no ordinarily available 4th level or higher spells for player-characters. I'm confident that the kinds of mechanics I am working with produce the same consequences in play, but people seem invested in the meta-game design.

I think the general goals for an E6 project are twofold.

1) Limit magic commonly accessible to the PCs to 3rd level (with the possibility of very limited access to 4th+ spells). Higher level magic is limited to the DM, and generally the realm of powerful monsters and legends.

2) PCs at the peak of progression should still be mortal heroes. A max-level warrior might be able to fend off 5-6 guards, but a dozen crossbowmen is going to be a fatal encounter.

I think for item 2, we need to ascertain a benchmark for what makes a mortal hero. 3e used 6th level, of course, but I think we all know 3e scales much faster than 5e with bounded accuracy in place.

Personally, I like about 60 HP for a warrior-type as a good benchmark for a mortal hero. It means a long fall (doing 20d6) is more than likely to kill you. 12 crossbowmen doing 1d10+2 will probably kill you in a round, assuming about a 60-65% hit rate.

So a 5th level warrior would have about 49 HP, normally, assuming 16 Con. 6th level would be 58 HP. So yea, 5th or 6th level both work pretty well; 6th lets you start right around 60, 5th lets you grow into it (assuming increased Con over time and dice shenanigans like the WWN rule.)

 

[clearstream]

I think the general goals for an E6 project are twofold.

1) Limit magic commonly accessible to the PCs to 3rd level (with the possibility of very limited access to 4th+ spells). Higher level magic is limited to the DM, and generally the realm of powerful monsters and legends.

2) PCs at the peak of progression should still be mortal heroes. A max-level warrior might be able to fend off 5-6 guards, but a dozen crossbowmen is going to be a fatal encounter.

I think for item 2, we need to ascertain a benchmark for what makes a mortal hero. 3e used 6th level, of course, but I think we all know 3e scales much faster than 5e with bounded accuracy in place.

Personally, I like about 60 HP for a warrior-type as a good benchmark for a mortal hero. It means a long fall (doing 20d6) is more than likely to kill you. 12 crossbowmen doing 1d10+2 will probably kill you in a round, assuming about a 60-65% hit rate.

So a 5th level warrior would have about 49 HP, normally, assuming 16 Con. 6th level would be 58 HP. So yea, 5th or 6th level both work pretty well; 6th lets you start right around 60, 5th lets you grow into it (assuming increased Con over time and dice shenanigans like the WWN rule.)

I agree with you on your key points. Remember we have to think about other classes for HP. At 5th a wizard or sorcerer could have 30 HP assuming primary in Int and secondary in Con. At 6th, 36. A bard or rogue may well go primary Dex/Cha, secondary Cha/Dex (or Wis), so they might well have at 5th 25HP, and 6th 30 HP. They're unlikely to boost Con given their interests. At 5th one fireball will do enough damage on average to incinerate all four.

Another kind of modelling I did was to check how many rounds each might stay in combat against foes for their level. Again, at 5th it feels just a bit tight, whereas 6th they are palpably threatened - a barbarian can still one-shot a rogue - but they should survive an average damage roll.

Regards shenanigans. The play-feel of the WWN method feels good - tough, but fair - especially allowing continued re-rolling after 6th. But it seems like a hard sell. In play, it comes up only on levelling - a fraction of the time - but included it in the rules test it sticks out as something to question. I don't see it as make-or-break, so in the interests of an easier sell I believe cutting it is the right move.