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

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
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.
I guess I'm kind of OK with that? I mean, fireball is a legendary spell in E6, and it's not like 0 HP is particularly dangerous in 5e.

I think the more meta-game goals for broad acceptance of a 5e E5/E6/E(X) would be as follows.

1) Make sure it's compatible as possible with existing 5e rules. (Although my personal favorite version of 3e was a total mod using E6 as a base. Gnorman's Complete E6 Compendium)

2) Have alternate advancement, not diminished advancement. I mean, you could do E10 with everyone getting Hit Die every other level and spell advancement every other level, so that all those fun Tier 2 abilities are in, but I don't think that would feel as good. If you want to keep the demi level idea, maybe make a bunch of 4-5 level "prestige classes" that don't give Hit Points, spell slots, or proficiency bonus, but have some cool tier 2 grade abilities instead.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

clearstream

(He, Him)
1) Make sure it's compatible as possible with existing 5e rules. (Although my personal favorite version of 3e was a total mod using E6 as a base. Gnorman's Complete E6 Compendium)
Thanks for this link - very helpful. I agree about the compatibility. You know how it is, once you start homebrewing...

2) Have alternate advancement, not diminished advancement. I mean, you could do E10 with everyone getting Hit Die every other level and spell advancement every other level, so that all those fun Tier 2 abilities are in, but I don't think that would feel as good. If you want to keep the demi level idea, maybe make a bunch of 4-5 level "prestige classes" that don't give Hit Points, spell slots, or proficiency bonus, but have some cool tier 2 grade abilities instead.
It might well be that the key lies in the framing. Up-thread @Tom B1 suggested halving the advancement rate, which could of course be represented on the tables by dividing the features from 10 levels across 20.

A subtle aspect of the design work is mitigating the aggressive vertical power progression in 5th edition without harm to the horizontal progression (and better yet, with strengthened horizontal progression.) So understanding when a level's features are additive, and when they are alternative. And where the former can be retained due to particulars of the class, such as being normally under-powered relative to others.
 

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Thanks for this link - very helpful. I agree about the compatibility. You know how it is, once you start homebrewing...
Definitely fallen into that trap myself. :)

It might well be that the key lies in the framing. Up-thread @Tom B1 suggested halving the advancement rate, which could of course be represented on the tables by dividing the features from 10 levels across 20.
Yes. Like halving the advancement rate would make perfect sense to achieve the overall design goals, but I don't think the acceptance would be as broad. It's too obvious of a nerf.

A subtle aspect of the design work is mitigating the aggressive vertical power progression in 5th edition without harm to the horizontal progression (and better yet, with strengthened horizontal progression.) So understanding when a level's features are additive, and when they are alternative. And where the former can be retained due to particulars of the class, such as being normally under-powered relative to others.
I mean, really the key for any system like this is deciding on a system to handle horizontal advancement. I think the core idea of progressing as normal up until early Tier 2 works perfectly. Deciding on the best way to get from Level X+0 to level X+10, and what power level should be accessible at those points, is really where the design works comes in.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Pardon my intrusion, but I wonder how a
“mod” like this would play out in 4E? Intriguing… 🤔
4e has enough Feats, you could just pick a level to cap out at and do it just like original E6. But I think 4e needs such a system even less than 5e does. 4e just scales nicely as-written.
 

Rune

Once A Fool
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.
I don’t think this is inconsistent with what I was talking about, but I realize I could have been clearer. I wasn’t talking about how E6 changes the way the world views the characters (although, if I was, that still would say nothing about their mortality).

I was saying that E6 changes how the world views the abilities of high level characters. Spells like fly and fireball are the stuff of legends. That transforms D&D into an entirely different genre.

And I’m reasonably certain this was the intent. The “E” in E6 is short for “Epic,” after all.
 

Unfortunately, in 5th edition there are not the granular feats to make the original solution work.
I strongly disagree with you on that.
For the last ten years i only played E6/E7 D&D-like TTRPG.
Since the first time i read R. Stoughton words here, E6/E7 is my way of playing D&D.

For 5e i go E7, allow multi-classing and stay true to Ryan brilliant design principles : only feats after level 7.
I see no reason why it should not work nicely : with Xanatar's and Tasha's we have far enough feats to play with.
 

Dausuul

Legend
I strongly disagree with you on that.
For the last ten years i only played E6/E7 D&D-like TTRPG.
Since the first time i read R. Stoughton words here, E6/E7 is my way of playing D&D.

For 5e i go E7, allow multi-classing and stay true to Ryan brilliant design principles : only feats after level 7.
I see no reason why it should not work nicely : with Xanatar's and Tasha's we have far enough feats to play with.
Just out of curiosity, what made you pick level 7 instead of 6 or 5?
 

NotAYakk

Legend
All of this feature fiddling is fun but a lot of work. Both for the player and the DM.

And as noted, the goal is to keep the level cap down.

What if we stole from 3e Gestalt/4e Hybrid mechanics? That provides an easy half-level; when one of your levels is 1 above the other.

Everyone is a multiclass/gestalt. You are a Rogue/Fighter, a Fighter/Wizard, a Paladin/Cleric, a Paladin/Fighter, or whatever.

We'll even strip out other forms of multiclassing. You get 2 classes. Live with it.

If you have 2 spellcasting classes, you get +1 spell slot progression level when your levels are tied. This even works if one is a 1/2 or 1/3 caster (go to EK/Wizard).

If you have spellcasting and pact magic, you lose a normal spell slot for every pact magic slot you gain.

Your levels can be at most 1 apart.

If you have 2 classes that gain extra attack at 5, you gain 1 6th level feature of either class when they are both 5.

Levels cap out at 5.

You add your Con bonus based on the highest level you have. You gain HD and HP from both classes, but the value is reduced:
d6: +2 HP
d8: +3 HP
d10: +4 HP
d12: +5 HP

You get an extra d8 HD if medium, or d6 HD if small, at level 1 (and the accompanying HP). Your HP are not maximized at level 1.

A core 5e level 5 barbarian with 16 con has 5*7+5+3*5=55 HP. A 5/5 fighter/barbarian with 16 con in this system would have (4+5)*5 + 3*5+3 = 63 HP. They do have 11 HD 5d10+5d12+1d8). So pretty close.

At level 1 the 14 con barbarian has 14 HP, the figher/barb has 14 as well.

A wizard/sorcerer with 12 con has 8 HP at 1/1, 1 more than a standard wizard or sorc. At 5/5 they also have 1 more HP than a standard wiz or sorc. They cast like a 6th level character, and have 2 ASIs, 5 metagmagic points, arcane recovery, lots of cantrips, etc.

Your proficiency bonus is based off of your highest class level. Which is capped at 5, so +2 or +3 proficiency.

Progression is 1/1, 1/2, 2/2, 2/3, 3/3, 3/4, 4/4, 4/5, 5/5 for 8 level-ups.

If you want more...

Keep progressing past 5/5, but:
1. No HP/HD past level 5.
2. Spellcasting and Pact magic grants 1 overcharge per level. An overcharge can be used to boost the level of a spell cast by 1, and recovers on a long rest. No more than 1 overcharge per spell cast.
(1/2 and 1/3 casters gain it when their spell slot progression would advance 1 step)
3. No proficiency improvement.

Otherwise, you gain class features as normal up to 9/9.

This provides 16 "steps" of character advancement, or up to "L 17". Each of them is meaty.

A 9/9 Barbarian/Rogue with 20 dex, 20 str, 20 con who dual wields Short Swords would look like:
5*(8+5)=65 HP
AC: 20 naked.
3 attacks for 1d6+8 and a single 5d6 sneak attack.
 
Last edited:

clearstream

(He, Him)
I strongly disagree with you on that.
For the last ten years i only played E6/E7 D&D-like TTRPG.
Since the first time i read R. Stoughton words here, E6/E7 is my way of playing D&D.

For 5e i go E7, allow multi-classing and stay true to Ryan brilliant design principles : only feats after level 7.
I see no reason why it should not work nicely : with Xanatar's and Tasha's we have far enough feats to play with.
Do you mean you are playing 5th edition E7 using feats since it came out? Or that you have played enough 3rd or 4th E7 to feel confident predicting that there are enough feats?

By my count PHB and TCoE between them offer 57 feats. XGE offers 20 more, but they are racial feats so only 2 per race. A given character might have around 20 relevant feats to choose from, about half of which are likely quite bad picks for that character.

So the original E6 anticipated a character gaining up to 20 feats, with 5 feats being roughly equal to a level. Say one 5th feat equals two 3rd? The only choice a player is making is the order they getting the ten feats that matter. And this is committing them to some fairly borderline choices. I don't have your experience, but it appears to me likely that players will experience a haphazard and limited offering. Hence I feel drawn to explore ways to retain access to the many class and subclass features, on top of feats for groups using that option.
 

Just out of curiosity, what made you pick level 7 instead of 6 or 5?
I will quote the excellent cripsy hack :

Basically, if you decide to limit your games to a certain tier of play, I highly recommend raising the level cap by just one level, to give most classes a very impressive capstone ability.
But I ultimately decided not to forbid this technically optional rule that’s usually assumed to be allowed anyway. This goes back to the level cap: at 5, there’s just not that much room to break the game, and any multiclassing is going to come at the cost of those capstone abilities. I like that it becomes a much more difficult choice.
(...)
As a side note, combining a relatively small number of levels with a robust support for multiclassing reminds me of The Goblin Laws of Gaming, one of my favorite OSR systems that definitely influenced this project.
Level 7 is perfect from a capstone ability point of view : casters get level 4 spells, most martials get strong class features (Evasion + 4d6 sneak attack for the Rogue, Feral instinct for the Barbarian, second Martial archetype feature for the Fighter, etc.). If the player choose to multiclass, it will come with a cost.
Also level 7 is the exact halfway point in the second tiers of play and is the (very theorical) level wich allow the PC to do an epic battle against the strongest adults Dragons (for a game called D&D i believe it's an important symbolic feature).

Do you mean you are playing 5th edition E7 using feats since it came out? Or that you have played enough 3rd or 4th E7 to feel confident predicting that there are enough feats?

By my count PHB and TCoE between them offer 57 feats. XGE offers 20 more, but they are racial feats so only 2 per race. A given character might have around 20 relevant feats to choose from, about half of which are likely quite bad picks for that character.

So the original E6 anticipated a character gaining up to 20 feats, with 5 feats being roughly equal to a level. Say one 5th feat equals two 3rd? The only choice a player is making is the order they getting the ten feats that matter. And this is committing them to some fairly borderline choices. I don't have your experience, but it appears to me likely that players will experience a haphazard and limited offering. Hence I feel drawn to explore ways to retain access to the many class and subclass features, on top of feats for groups using that option.
I played a lot of D&D 3 E6 (i've even done a complete E6+D&D 3 SRD custom game in my native language back in 2011, it was the actual 3rd crowdfunding for a TTRPG there ^^) and since then i always play something close to E6/E7 when i play a D&D-like game.
My very own french OSR minimalist game is still E6.

From my POV, E6 is all about actual play not theorical perspectives, a sort of ockham razor mindest.
And what we all know is : 90% of D&D Games Stop By Level 10
By playing E5/E6/E7 games with D&D 5 what you will face 90% of the time is a campaign coming to an end after the E(X) + 3-5 feats.

And let's be honest, everyone will take Lucky so what you'll really see is level X PC + Lucky + 2-4 feats.
And then you will start a new campaign.

Also you can easily break 5e feats into smaller increments : give Lucy one reroll after the other (turning it into 3 smaller feats) or split Tough in two "+X PV" mini-feats.

Another very important point with the E6 philosophy, and i'll quote R. Stoughton on that :

There several philosophies on what feats to allow in an E6 game, but in any long-running E6 game some expansion feats should be made available for players to continue to grow their characters in different ways.

Which feats you allow depends on what you want for your own game. Some GMs want to encourage single-classing, others are happy to tell their players to work within a framework, choosing only those feats that match the style of their campaign. Some want to see more gestalt-style characters and allow feat chains towards specific classes’ abilities. Many GMs make a real-world decision, allowing feats from publishers they trust, or all feats from the books the GM owns. The original E6 campaign allowed feats on an ad-hoc basis; players were encouraged to develop various aspects of their characters rather than linear power, but were allowed to suggest feats if they couldn’t find something that worked in the available rules. Ultimately, the decision on what feats to allow belongs to the GM, and should naturally vary from one E6 campaign to the next.

All of these feats should be considered suggestions – each E6 game is different and it is always up to the individual GM what they want to allow.

If you want to allow you PC to have access to level (X+1) - 11 class feature, build custom feats for them on a case-by-case basis :)
 

Remove ads

Top