Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Theo R Cwithin" data-source="post: 5423223" data-attributes="member: 75712">[MENTION=86652]macrochelys[/MENTION] , [MENTION=89401]Veven1290[/MENTION] - I think this is a good point.  I understand that level caps are built in by design for balance purposes, so it might be safer to keep the existing full SRD's RAW level caps explicitly in place rather than take the effort to E6ify them-- even though a typical E6 game might never actually see such a level cap in play.Doing so allows game groups that "lean up" and somehow support especially high CLs (via houserules, magic items, etc) to still be covered by RAW; at the same time, high caps has no effect on very strict or "cautious approach" E6 game tables.  Additionally, some monsters might have higher CLs for the their SLAs, and therefore need the damage, etc, caps above what typical E6 PCs would need.  Lastly, not changing these sorts of things means fewer mods to the SRD-- and therefore less potential for errors/inconsistencies down the line.So I'm inclined to agree with this: spell damage caps (and really all CL-dependent variable caps, where applicable) should remain as in the full SRD. I'm open to any other thoughts on this, but in the meantime....Note to those modifying "Spell List" files or "Spell A-Z" files:CL-dependent level caps (eg, damage caps) should not be changed for the E6 SRD.  This is to maintain consistency with the full SRD; to account for monsters with SLAs at at higher CLs; to include gamers that include CL-boosting PrCs, metamagics, items, etc, at the table; etc. I believe this is the safest way to go that injects the fewest unknowns into RAW, but please let me know if you think otherwise!Any time!  Every little bit is welcome and helpful, now or down the line as things mature a bit.</blockquote>

Verification