log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E E6 in 5e

, skipping levels 1 and 2 so everyone can begin in their subclass would work fine. However, the other side is that because they happen so quickly, it doesn't take long to get through them so you might as well just keep them in and not worry about it.

Either way, you know? :)
Sure. First impressions, though. Display your sub-class session 1 and you're established.

Also, alive.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



I dunno, I think 5e is better balanced than any edition except 4e
'less badly imbalanced' might be a fair way of putting it.
;)
Mainly because I'm a bit tired to come up with an amusing ranking of fictional mass murderers by relative sanity, at the moment.

Edit: (further edit: OK, some of these get obscure...)
This edition is imbalanced in the game sense like......this fictional serial killer is imbalanced in the crazy sense
3eThe Joker
(PF1)(Carnage)
(Arduin Grimoire)(Deadpool)
2ePamela Voorhees
0eHans Beckert
B/XBilly Haloran
1eNorman Bates
5eHannibal Lecter
(13A)(Frank Castle)
4eDexter Morgan
 
Last edited:

killerklown

osrdread.blogspot.com
I want to try out "Gold=XP" in a D&D 5E campaign - with an E9 level cap. These are my ramblings on the subject :)
 



I dont get whats wrong with powerfull PCs.

Going toe to toe with a Demon Lord and winning is fun. Being Elminster or Mordenkainen is fun.

It's not that players prefer low level play that low level play is common; it's that most DMs cant properly run games in mid to high level, and quit the campaign at that point.
No, it IS what players prefer or else every survey I've ever seen is wrong. Besides, it's not what you play, it's how you play it. E6 is (or at least aimed to be):

  • Fast play at every level.
  • Focus on planning, not leveling. To defeat powerful opponents the PC's utilize information, terrain, consideration of strategy and tactics, or bringing in assistance, not they themselves just having MORE spells, MORE levels, MORE hit dice.
  • A game that everyone knows how to play. Higher spell levels ARE the ones seen the least and the ones that are least tested and most problematic, but low level spells have been seen many, many times, and mastery over their use is simpler.
  • Encounters are always relevant.
  • Classic monsters STAY relevant over the entire campaign.
  • "Legendary" heroes remain mortal. A fighter, regardless of abilities isn’t invulnerable. A sorcerer is never so powerful that he fears no retaliation for destroying a village.
  • Quicker prep and easier improvisation at all times for a DM.

The more sheer levels that characters have, the more lengthy the roster of spells and powers to choose from, the more that numbers of all kinds get inflated for any reason, the more complicated the game becomes to both play and run, and the greater the distortion of gameplay from where PC's are when they BEGIN play, to where continued play is simply given up.

You're perhaps right that most DM's can't properly run games mid-to-high level and just quit. That is a problem with the game even if it's 5th Edition and it means PLAYERS will prefer better-run games at lower levels just as DM's are better AT those kinds of games.

There is nothing wrong with powerful PC's but "powerful" according to what metric? A powerful PC can be 6th, just as they can be 20th or 100th. A "Demon Lord" can be 9th level, 30th level, or 150th. The NUMBER there doesn't matter. The way that the game plays out AT that number, whatever it is, is what matters. It matters that the DM can always easily provide challenges and interesting events with known monsters much less things that players have never seen before. It matters that players not so inclined don't need to always buy more and more sourcebooks or utilize new and exotic classes, races and abilities to create bigger/better PC's and COMPETE AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS who do. It matters that the DM can prepare a game session in a few hours rather than a few days. It matters that the DM and players are familiar enough with the rules they DO use that they can improvise more easily when games go pear-shaped and still have fun.

Higher levels is not equivalent to a better game, a more enjoyable experience. If it is then every designer of D&D ever has failed at a basic task - eliminating the un-fun/less-fun lower levels. Every survey I've ever seen says that players do prefer lower-level games even if those same surveys never explain why. If it's because the great number of DM's are just too incompetent to run higher level games it STILL means those players are going to prefer lower level games BECAUSE of that. Maybe that would change when D&D designers create a game that MOST DM's CAN run well at higher levels, or manage to TEACH them how to do it. Or maybe you're wrong that players want more levels and complexity and higher numbers and the reasons they gravitate to lower than mid-to-high level games is because they genuinely don't want to be Elminster and Mordenkainen going toe-to-toe with Demon Lords and shaking the pillars of heaven, or else are at least AS satisfied with being just local heroes and don't need to save entire kingdoms, the world, or the multiverse on a regular basis to enjoy D&D.
 

It's not that players prefer low level play that low level play is common; it's that most DMs cant properly run games in mid to high level, and quit the campaign at that point.
And, y'know, it's harder to 'properly' run games at high level when the system is going bonkers on you....

You're perhaps right that most DM's can't properly run games mid-to-high level and just quit. That is a problem with the game even if it's 5th Edition and it means PLAYERS will prefer better-run games at lower levels just as DM's are better AT those kinds of games.
The more sheer levels that characters have, the more lengthy the roster of spells and powers to choose from, the more that numbers of all kinds get inflated for any reason, the more complicated the game becomes to both play and run, and the greater the distortion of gameplay from where PC's are when they BEGIN play, to where continued play is simply given up.
In traditional D&D, especially for casters, that's very much the case.


Higher levels is not equivalent to a better game, a more enjoyable experience. If it is then every designer of D&D ever has failed at a basic task - eliminating the un-fun/less-fun lower levels. Every survey I've ever seen says that players do prefer lower-level games even if those same surveys never explain why.
And designers have thus let higher levels slide, making them less playable, and harder to run. So there's a good deal of self-fulfilling prophecy or vicious cycle going on. The early game was poorly balanced in general, and got a lot worse as got out of the 'sweet spot,' so people preferred play in that early-mid level range, designers tried to fix up the earliest levels, keep the sweet spot sweet, and let high level slide. Players continued to eschew high level play. Imagine that.
  • It matters that the DM can always easily provide challenges and interesting events with known monsters much less things that players have never seen before.
  • It matters that players not so inclined don't need to always buy more and more sourcebooks or utilize new and exotic classes, races and abilities to create bigger/better PC's and COMPETE AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS who do.
  • It matters that the DM can prepare a game session in a few hours rather than a few days....
Every survey I've ever seen says that players do prefer lower-level games even if those same surveys never explain why. If it's because the great number of DM's are just too incompetent to run higher level games it STILL means those players are going to prefer lower level games BECAUSE of that. Maybe that would change when D&D designers create a game that MOST DM's CAN run well at higher levels, or manage to TEACH them how to do it..
The former has happened (ticked all three points, above), it just didn't stick around long enough for the latter to kick in.

Or maybe ...players ...genuinely don't want to be Elminster and Mordenkainen going toe-to-toe with Demon Lords and shaking the pillars of heaven, or else are at least AS satisfied with being just local heroes and don't need to save entire kingdoms, the world, or the multiverse on a regular basis to enjoy D&D.
IMX, new players will often come to the table wanting to play a representative character from fiction, and that character would often be either high-level when modeled in D&D, or outright unachievable in the system. So, maybe, they stick with it, create a 'low level version' of what they want and wait for it to grow into shape. Before that does, of course, the game turns into a mad magic show of character-re-defining magic items (beneficial or cursed) and spellcasting powers that beggar genre. And, if they stick with it another few cycles, after maybe riding that tiger themselves, they figure out they 'prefer low level.'
 


dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
What about rewriting some of the classes / sub-classes to make sure you can fit all of the key abilities into a set number of levels?
LOL, this is so ironic! I am working on a 10-level version of 5E right now, hoping to polish it off this weekend (first draft anyway). Maybe I will start the thread today...
 



Cool. I hope you can share it when you happy with it or want feedback.
So far, the basic premises is that 20 level is just too much. I don't want to play a superhero game, but I like many of the sub-class features that are restricted to higher levels. Similarly, I'm taking the chance to slightly lessen the power of ranged weapon combat, remove expertise, etc. The ranger class is gone, replaced by the scout (rogue subclass) and the ranger (a new fighter subclass). A few other classes might hit the dust, as well.
 


I do think 5e benefits less from an E6 than 3.5 did, but I still think the concept is solid. It really comes down to the fact that once you hit 4th level spells (and even more so 5th level spells)...the gameplay does start to shift.

Divination as a ritual, banishment and wall of force as 1 shot monster "kills", the raw physical power of polymorph or animate objects....the game does shift in a way that a DM has to adapt to keep a proper game flow.

I will repeat, doesn't mean its a bad thing, but for those who aren't looking for the gameplay to shift as dramatically, and E6 concept can work very well.
 
Last edited:


I think where E6 doesn't fit as well as in 3E is that 5e has far less point buy dna left.

E6 was basically a way of making D20 function more like all the point-buy games that were a clear influence on it.

With E6 when you reach level 6 you still have character decisions to make in regards to feats and skill points and the like. How do you do this in 5E?
 
Last edited:

I think where E6 doesn't fit as well as in 3E is that 5e has far less point buy dna left.

E6 was basically a way of making D20 function more like all the point-buy games that were a clear influence on it.

With E6 when you reach level 6 you still have character decisions to make in regards to feats and skill points and the like. How do you do this in 5E?
If you were to stop at level 6, I would create new feats from higher level class features. If I were to do a version of e6, my main enemy would be hit point inflation, not game-breaking special abilities.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
However, what I do think 5EE6 could help with is a particular issue you are having CapnZapp. If you cap HP, Attacks, and spells at PC level 6-10. I think the higher CR monsters would be more relevant as is.
The elephant in the room is: playing D&D without the level-up experience is boring.

What you're suggesting is really nothing more than "use high level monsters already at medium level". You can do that in the base game already, no houserules needed. Just sayin'...

My "particular issue" has a specific solution: WotC doing better monster design, not coddling their high-level critters.
 

COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top