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

[Kunimatyu]

Ahh, that capstone ability is pretty sweet for the fighter. I was thinking about giving the fighter the ability to take feats that up his effective BAB for the purpose of qualifying for other feats. But yours works pretty well without eating up another feat by the fighter.

Also, the fighter does get access to weapon specialization, which at 6th level is still a big boost. If you allow that capstone, that allows even more feats only the fighter can take, and then it starts to look like the fighter is actually doing what he's supposed to do - just out-fight everyone else.

Is there a capstone for rogues as well? Trap Sense +2 isn't really compelling.

-Nate

The floated capstone for Rogues was the ability to select one of the 10th level bonus rogue abilities at 6th. The barbarian capstone was DR 1/-.

In this same vein, a swashbuckler's level 7 charge ability would be its capstone, and the hexblade's greater curse would be its capstone(by the way, hexblades, if you include the additional hexblade feats in Dragon, are actually a compelling choice in E6)

 

[Doplegager]

It looks like I've finally managed to get a few players excited running through an E6 campaign. I'm brewing up a fairly dark lean-upwards E6 campaign, kind of a mix between Ravenloft and Call of Cthulhu in a high fantasy, low magic setting. I'm porting a bunch of rules directly from BoVD, including the optional ceremonial sacrifices. This means that spells like Wish are still on the menu, but only if you're willing and able to make elaborate human sacrifices and sell your soul in the process. I'm also porting the sorcery rules from the d20 Call of Cthulhu. I might include a feat tree to increase to levels 7 and 8, but I'm thinking it would involve taking the Leadership feat and using all of your followers to fuel a huge sacrifice- 6th level is going to be a hard cap without the significant aid of unnatural forces.

(And all the active unnatural forces so far are decidedly evil. Sucks to be a good guy, huh?)

I'm using levels both to measure characer potency as well as a gauge of narrative importance. My interpretation of levels so far has been:
6th: Characters who are either very powerful or who drive the plot in significant ways. If the campaign were laid out as a map, they're the capitols.
4th: Characters who are named, and may be powerful, but who mostly establish setting or provide resources. They're important, but rarely instigate narratives like the 6th level characters. In the campaign map, they're like major cities.
1st-3rd: These characters are the mooks. They're like individual buildings or the tiniest of hamlets- there might be a few noteworthy or interesting ones, but you mostly stumble across them. They're rarely on the campaign map.

Given the recent talk about PrC's, here's my take. For the players, I'll probably use a feat-tree. I have a few NPCs that are designed using PrCs instead of base classes. I picture those NPCs as having a very niche role in the campaign that would'nt really be appropriate for most PCs. For example, I have a 6th level Disciple of Mammon (BoVD) as the leader of a thieves guild. Finally, a thieves guild led by someone for virtues other than having the highest sneak attack.

I'd be able to make the same character by using a feat tree, but then he'd have additional abilities from his base classes that would not only make him less unique but also make him more powerful than I want him to be. Going straight to the PrC cuts my bookkeeping in half and gives my NPC a more specialized, unique feel while keeping him from being an uber-NPC. When you get down to it, a lot of PrCs aren't nearly as potent if they aren't reinforced by base classes.

(Can anyone else see 'the chosen one' being a 3rd level Heir of Siberys (Eberron)? Marked from birth, he's destined to be one of the most powerful people in the land- but right now, he's a teenager with only 3d6 hit points. Sure, he hosts the most powerful magic known, but he's nothing against a 6th level character.)

 

[Dragonblade275]

I'm brewing up a fairly dark lean-upwards E6 campaign, kind of a mix between Ravenloft and Call of Cthulhu in a high fantasy, low magic setting. I'm porting a bunch of rules directly from BoVD, including the optional ceremonial sacrifices.

Sounds like it should be great! Hope to hear how it goes.

 

[jjsheets]

New E6 Play-by-Post Campaign starting.

I have officially set up my Play-by-Post Psionics/No-Magic game over at rpol.net. Anyone wanting to join will need to sign up for an rpol.net account (free and quick), unless you already have one, then read the Request to Join rules here. I'd appreciate anybody willing to help playtest the rules.

 

[TwoSix]

Given the recent talk about PrC's, here's my take. For the players, I'll probably use a feat-tree. I have a few NPCs that are designed using PrCs instead of base classes. I picture those NPCs as having a very niche role in the campaign that would'nt really be appropriate for most PCs. For example, I have a 6th level Disciple of Mammon (BoVD) as the leader of a thieves guild. Finally, a thieves guild led by someone for virtues other than having the highest sneak attack.

I'd be able to make the same character by using a feat tree, but then he'd have additional abilities from his base classes that would not only make him less unique but also make him more powerful than I want him to be. Going straight to the PrC cuts my bookkeeping in half and gives my NPC a more specialized, unique feel while keeping him from being an uber-NPC. When you get down to it, a lot of PrCs aren't nearly as potent if they aren't reinforced by base classes.

(Can anyone else see 'the chosen one' being a 3rd level Heir of Siberys (Eberron)? Marked from birth, he's destined to be one of the most powerful people in the land- but right now, he's a teenager with only 3d6 hit points. Sure, he hosts the most powerful magic known, but he's nothing against a 6th level character.)

You know, using PrCs right off the bat is a pretty interesting idea for a slightly higher powered E6 game...might have to think about this one. Thanks!

 

[joela]

PrC feat tree

Given the recent talk about PrC's, here's my take. For the players, I'll probably use a feat-tree.
...

I'd be able to make the same character by using a feat tree, but then he'd have additional abilities from his base classes that would not only make him less unique but also make him more powerful than I want him to be. Going straight to the PrC cuts my bookkeeping in half and gives my NPC a more specialized, unique feel while keeping him from being an uber-NPC. When you get down to it, a lot of PrCs aren't nearly as potent if they aren't reinforced by base classes.

(Can anyone else see 'the chosen one' being a 3rd level Heir of Siberys (Eberron)? Marked from birth, he's destined to be one of the most powerful people in the land- but right now, he's a teenager with only 3d6 hit points. Sure, he hosts the most powerful magic known, but he's nothing against a 6th level character.)

Could PrC be made into feat trees instead? For an E6 multi-classed cleric/wizard, for example, each take of the "Mystic Theurge Prestige Class" feat would simultaneously increase the number of spells they could prepare per day in each class until they reached the maximum of 4/4/4/4 divine/arcane. Such a system could both provide a unique flavor to a campaign ("no, the Order of the Crimson Archmage Prestige Class Feat provides these abilities") and makes it easy for players who don't want to browse thousands of feats to plan their swashbuckler or warrior princess concept.

 

[The Souljourner]

You know, using PrCs right off the bat is a pretty interesting idea for a slightly higher powered E6 game...might have to think about this one. Thanks!

Yeah, actually I was thinking that exact thing... that maybe many prestige classes would be ok to take right off the bat. Certainly not all, and probably most would have to be tweaked some, but I think it's a lot less overpowered than it may seem at first blush.

And they're certainly fine as NPCs >

-Nate

 

[Shadowmist]

To the regulars: I changed Ability Training to provide a small benefit.

Extra Feats


Stone to Flesh (General)
Prerequisites: 6th level, ability to cast 3rd-level arcane spells, Intelligence 18, Craft (Alchemy) 9 Ranks
Benefit: You can use stone to flesh, as the spell, with an expensive and secret magical ingredient with a market value of 1000 gp and a casting time of 1 day.

Is this feat intended specifically for Wizards? It would be considreably harder for Sorcerers to qualify for it.

 

[The Souljourner]

Intelligence 18 isn't a good prerequisite.... stat prereqs are always odd, and for good reason - they may odd stats worth something. Plus, as others said, it's not fair for sorcerers.

I also think it's a bizarre feat in general. I assume the only reason it exists because you feel there is an intrinsic need to be able to fix people who have been turned to stone. I don't know, it just seems like a very specific and inelegant patch in an otherwise elegant solution. I'd rather not have it, and if the PCs run into a medusa or something, make it part of a quest to get their fallen fellows back.

-Nate

 

[Ry]

The feat's been tossed around before; there's a few reasons it's the way it is.

1) The 18 INT requirement is because 18 INT casters don't get an extra 4th level spell. I wanted to throw them a bone, regardless of the "it makes odd stats worth something." It's fine for other feats to do that but there's no rule about feats that says they need to have odd prereqs, it's just a convention that shores up the weakness of odd stats (which is still an overwhelming weakness in my view).

2) I put it in because there are legitimate CR enemies that have stone attacks, and DMs don't necessarily want those to be permanent. This was a way to say "Hey, you're turned to stone, but if the party can get you back to this powerful wizardly alchemist, and he can reverse it."

3) I made it a feat rather than a ritual or a plot point because I try to keep all my low-level tinkering with the rules at the feat level. I think any other patch for removing petrification is going to be just as inelegant, if not moreso. Changing existing spells in D&D, or making rituals a necessary part of E6 change its implied complexity. I don't want to imply that if you add spells to E6 you need to rewrite them, or if you add monsters you need to redesign them. That impression is something I want to avoid as much as possible - hence, here's a few feats that cover the bare minimum, and you're all set to run a game. After all, E6's unofficial slogan is "Get out there and play, damnit!"

So that's my thought process on the feat.