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

[Ry]

Oh, the big thing I want to discuss in the next thread is how to talk to your players about E6. A player in my group runs his own game, and found that players were rejecting the idea out of hand without even looking at it. Of course, that's a group of D&D-only old school grognards, so it might be worst case scenario (they do play 3.5e though). But I think that's the biggest thing that the main E6 document is lacking (god knows it took long enough to make it sound good to a select few DMs).

For now though, let's talk more about those feats. So far Ainatan is the only dissenter on the Woodland Stride / Swift Track. I like penalty-free flurry of blows for the Monk, and I certainly think it's featworthy. Improved evasion for the rogue only is also planned (although a monk/rogue can get it honestly as well).

 

[Shazman]

Sorry Shaz, I think your points are good but changing the underlying D&D rules (i.e. the class features of a 6th level character) is off the table for E6. It has to remain "D&D to 6th level, then feats." The capstone feats are an addendum: "Here's some extra feats if you want to encourage single classing." But just like any set of feats, because they're feats, a DM / reader knows that they're optional. If a changed set of class features was listed in the main E6 document, the reader's natural assumption is "Hmmm... changed class features... I wonder what else needs to be tweaked in the rules." So I'm restricting the tinkering to feats.

I see why you wouldn't want to put those changes in print, but if I run an E6 game, I will totally make them 6th level class features. It just seems to me that if you hand out a few class features as feats, you might as well hand out rage, wildshape, etc. and you've pretty much changed to a classless system since the disitnction between classes breaks down. That's just my two cents.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Tempting. But that sounds like it might be too broad. Is that how you'd word it?

No, "special combat maneuvers" is far too generally worded to make sense.

How about: "Select a maneuver from the following list: bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. You gain a +4 competence bonus on the appropriate check when an opponent attempts to use your select manuever against you."

+2 to all maneuvers seems a bit general and bland, but it makes a lot of sense that a master fighter would have some training at avoiding a particular combat tactic, so I like the idea of a +4 to resist. Both are roughly equal in power level, but I think a player would prefer picking a manuever and getting a significant bonus to avoid its effects.

In the case of everything but grapple, complete immunity to a maneuver wouldn't even be that unbalanced, though I think that bonuses and penalties are generally the way to go, rather than complete immunity.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Oh, the big thing I want to discuss in the next thread is how to talk to your players about E6. A player in my group runs his own game, and found that players were rejecting the idea out of hand without even looking at it. Of course, that's a group of D&D-only old school grognards, so it might be worst case scenario (they do play 3.5e though). But I think that's the biggest thing that the main E6 document is lacking (god knows it took long enough to make it sound good to a select few DMs).

For now though, let's talk more about those feats. So far Ainatan is the only dissenter on the Woodland Stride / Swift Track. I like penalty-free flurry of blows for the Monk, and I certainly think it's featworthy. Improved evasion for the rogue only is also planned (although a monk/rogue can get it honestly as well).

Are you sure you don't want to allow the rogue to simply choose a special rogue ability? None of the others approach the power level of Improved Evasion, but I could see some rogues wanting Skill Mastery and the like.

 

[Nimloth]

Improved evasion for the rogue only is also planned (although a monk/rogue can get it honestly as well).

Would you please elaborate on how a monk/rogue can get it. If you're thinking it is worded like uncanny dodge, it isn't, 2 evasions do not become improved evasion. So what am I missing?

Evasion (Ex): At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion.

Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.
If a rogue already has uncanny dodge from a different class she automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead.

Also, monks get improved evasion at level 9, 1 level earlier than rogues.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Oh, the big thing I want to discuss in the next thread is how to talk to your players about E6. <snip> But I think that's the biggest thing that the main E6 document is lacking (god knows it took long enough to make it sound good to a select few DMs).

I think maybe some kind of blurb similar in style to the blurb from more gritty games than D&D? When I read the blurb for most campaign settings, I actually start imagining adventures in the E6 style - that is, high adventure and daring deeds, but the protagonists are mortal.

Take a look at the introduction to FR, Eberron, Scarred Lands, Wilderlands, Known Realms and many others - none of these says "battle Balors and Tarrasques". Actually, many campaign setting introductions sound sort of Sword & Sorcery like - and E6 does indeed give me that S&S Vibe!

Then all that's needed is saying "Now you can actually play this - with 3.5 rules!!"

If I get a little spare time, I might try and see if I can piece something together, stealing heavily from campaign settings all over.

Edit: Also, I think it's a good idea to cater to the player that wants FEATS and diversity and is tired of having seven feats (which more or less must be certain feats to make the PC capable).

 

[White Whale]

"Here's some extra feats if you want to encourage single classing."

Why is it that you want to encourage single classing? The 3.X system was pretty much designed to multi class.

 

[Ry]

Why is it that you want to encourage single classing? The 3.X system was pretty much designed to multi class.

Boils down to the fact that it's something that's been asked for repeatedly. There've been a lot of posts of "but a Class 4/ Otherclass 2 is better than Class6 that's supposed to cover that niche!" The capstone feats are an attempt to answer those concerns without changing E6 itself. If you don't like the idea of capstone feats or don't want to encourage single-classing, I'd say leave them out of your game (just like you'd leave out ability advancement feats if you thought abilities shouldn't advance).

 

[White Whale]

Boils down to the fact that it's something that's been asked for repeatedly. There've been a lot of posts of "but a Class 4/ Otherclass 2 is better than Class6 that's supposed to cover that niche!" The capstone feats are an attempt to answer those concerns without changing E6 itself. If you don't like the idea of capstone feats or don't want to encourage single-classing, I'd say leave them out of your game (just like you'd leave out ability advancement feats if you thought abilities shouldn't advance).

I see what you mean, but even in normal D&D single-classing seldom is the "optimal" progression.

I just think that the beauty of the E6 system lies in its simplicity. Adding customized feats (that IMO are not needed) weakens this aspect. :\

 

[Shazman]

I see what you mean, but even in normal D&D single-classing seldom is the "optimal" progression.

I just think that the beauty of the E6 system lies in its simplicity. Adding customized feats (that IMO are not needed) weakens this aspect. :\

The main reason single-classing in regular D&D isn't optimal is because of prestige classes, most of which are more powerful than base classess. This is especilly true for casters. If my PC can get the full-spellcasting ability of a wizard or cleric (or maybe lose just one level) plus a bunch of prestige class goodies, it's a no-brainer to take that class. There are also classes like the frenzied berserker which will own any other melee class. You also have some feats in complete adventurer and complete scoundrel that allow you to multiclass and progress some of the more potent abilities of both classes. E6 eliminates a lot of prestige classes and the more potent abilities of the ones it does allow.