# "Epic" progression after 6th level



## Ry

This is the original thread.  Please see the newest thread.

Here's my house rule for advancement, which makes a game of D&D run in a rules-light, low-magic, and quick-prep kind of way, without actually making major changes to the individual rules.  The classes cap out at 6th level, after which characters use experience to purchase feats, and that's all.  I have playtested the system extensively with my guys, and I can say that it works as intended.

The Rule:

Character progression from level 1 to level 6 is as per D&D.  Upon attaining 6th level, characters stop normal advancement and enter "epic" advancement, which is an experience buy system.  Under the "epic" advancement, for each 5000 experience a character gains, they gain a new feat.

The Consequences:

1.  Classic monsters (such as Chimeras and manticores) don't need to be constantly upgraded (HD advancement, monster of legend) to remain a significant threat to accomplished heroes.

2.  Forget meaningless encounters.  The players can be involved in a dozen or so major combat scenarios (perhaps more than one encounter each) and have accomplished something legend-worthy.  See Lord of the Rings movies, or most fantasy novels.

3.  Even legendary heroes remain mortal; while a 6th level fighter who has taken toughness several times can take on a good mob, he isn't invulnerable.  The sorcerer's 6d6 fireballs are phenomenal, but not so powerful that he can destroy a village and not fear retaliation.

4.  Making large swaths of your NPC cast is easy.  Make a 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 6th version of a sorcerer, and now you have a whole sorcerous school.  Make a version at 6th level and tack on 5 extra feats, and you have its grandmaster.  Also, the relative simplicity of low-level NPCs is preserved even as the players become epic.

5.  Reduces the cognitive workload on the DM.  It's hard to know every 4th through 9th level spell out there; they're the ones we see the least.  But we've all seen the 0th through 3rd level spells many, many times, and mastery over them is relatively simple.  Adding to this selection, and balancing a spell to a particular level, is not difficult either.

6.  Player characters never leapfrog over your encounters (by this I mean that they don't go from pushed around by a villain to pushing him around because they detoured through a lucrative side quest).

7.  Major battles require planning, not levelling.  To defeat the black dragon Zolanderos, the CR 10 terror of Staunwark Island, the heroes will need help, special resources, and information.  I want to further encourage party-directed adventuring, and if the heroes want to take on something 4 to 6 CR above them, then that's what they will require.

8.  Right away, you have a low magic ruleset that everyone knows how to play.

9.  There is a need for a diverse selection of spells and feats to provide for the epic level advancement.


----------



## Ferrix

Interesting ideas, although my one problem would be as a player.  Sure it's a lot of work to keep ideas flowing as a DM, but as a player would you really want to play in this game?  I wouldn't.

Eventually with those caps you are going to end up with characters who've easily topped out on the things they want to do and can't go any higher.  This reminds me sort of the cap in 2nd edition where once you hit your racial cap in your class you couldn't go any farther.  It seemed arbitrary and annoying.

*shrugs*


----------



## Ry

Ferrix said:
			
		

> Eventually with those caps you are going to end up with characters who've easily topped out on the things they want to do and can't go any higher.  This reminds me sort of the cap in 2nd edition where once you hit your racial cap in your class you couldn't go any farther.  It seemed arbitrary and annoying.




Maybe it's specific to my crew, but I don't think this will be a big issue for them.  We've played several systems where the characters have spent a lot of time being knowingly at the height of their abilities, or where character development builds diversity rather than power.  One of my players actually said this would be better for roleplaying, because once they'd "proven themselves", there was room for them to build the non-core elements of their characters.

Also, keep in mind that with 2E racial caps, you are capped while your human friends are continuing to grow.  In this system, reaching level 6 puts you among the "epic" company, and while this is a fairly large group (including powerful barons, archmages, etc.), you're not looking at more powerful people who have whizzed past you.

To address the continuing development problem, I'm hoping to include a very large grab-bag of feats, to allow more and more diversity.  While I agree that heroes will not get better and better at the tasks which are at the core of their role, it will encourage them to expand that role.  Thus, I disagree that they would be "topped out in the things they want to do."


----------



## Vrecknidj

This is one way to accomplish this.  Another is to use something more like the d20 Modern system, where the spell casters have to have a bunch of levels in other classes first.

But, it looks like what you're going for is a more heroic and less over-the-top ruleset, and I think that if your players agree to work with you on it, you've got a good system.

A lot of campaigns lose steam between 6th and 10th level, so if you can manage to keep things alive and well, more power to you.

One suggestion:  If your players want their characters to be involved in repeated scenarios, over a few years of play, you could either drastically lower the XP values in the XP table in the DMG (say, divide them all by 3), or you could alter the amount of XP required to advance a level.  Also, if you really wanted to discourage spell casting, but were willing to give it to those who really wanted to pursue it, you could make the sorcerer's XP table even harder than everyone else's (so, by your system, they'd be finally getting their 3rd level spells at around the time everyone else is cashing in some XP for some juicy new feats).

Dave


----------



## Nifft

I've heard good things about the Conan d20 system for low-magic, high-hero adventures. It seems like when you eliminate magic items & spells as things that the PCs get piles of, their power level will remain more predictable.

 -- N


----------



## Turanil

Ferrix said:
			
		

> Interesting ideas, although my one problem would be as a player.  Sure it's a lot of work to keep ideas flowing as a DM, but as a player would you really want to play in this game?  I wouldn't.




Ditto. 

It's really a DM's concern. Me also I have a problem with still maintaining a coherent setting while challenging PCs over 10th level, without mentioning that running several high levels NPCs is boresome, and to design even more. Your system looks like it would solve your DM's problems. But what about players? What do they think about it?


----------



## molonel

To be completely honest, I think you could skip this whole system and just slow down XP gain. You claimed you wanted to avoid mind-numbing brainwork, but it looks like all this system does is load-balancing by shifting the burden more onto the players.  That's my take, anyway. It makes all feats and skills into Item Creation. I see it placing too much emphasis on "valuable" skills and feats. I wouldn't so much worry about an exploit as a flattening out of which skills and feats people choose. If you're paying through the nose for a feat or skill, are you going to buy Great Cleave or another, lesser feat like Skill Focus? It's hard enough, sometimes, to get players to choose suboptimal feats for roleplaying reasons. Making feats into the equivalent of Item Creation with XP costs will only add to that, in my opinion. Tumble and Spot are just more valuable than Appraise or Craft. There is just no getting around that, and the level cost of all skills will only heighten that distinction. It minimizes prep work, I suppose. But realistically, how long is a campaign going to run with these sorts of rules in place, anyway? I tend to limit which rules books and supplements are allowed in the game, and that minimizes the spells and magic items (many of them poorly designed) that I have to worry about as a DM. I don't tend to worry about players thinking up things I've never thought of. I encourage that sort of thinking. I like it when players come up with creative uses of spells I didn't anticipate. And sometimes, I like it when they cakewalk one of my encounters. It keeps me on my toes.

Please note, btw, that I'm just looking at the system and thinking about it. What works for you is what works for you.


----------



## the Jester

Interesting idea for a low-magic campaign.  As a player, I don't think I'd much enjoy it without a truly great dm, but as a dm I find the idea intriguing and elegant.


----------



## Ry

Thanks for all the responses!  My replies below:



			
				Vrecknidj said:
			
		

> One suggestion:  If your players want their characters to be involved in repeated scenarios, over a few years of play, you could either drastically lower the XP values in the XP table in the DMG (say, divide them all by 3), or you could alter the amount of XP required to advance a level.  Also, if you really wanted to discourage spell casting, but were willing to give it to those who really wanted to pursue it, you could make the sorcerer's XP table even harder than everyone else's (so, by your system, they'd be finally getting their 3rd level spells at around the time everyone else is cashing in some XP for some juicy new feats).
> 
> Dave




I don't really want to reduce spellcasters as an option more than this system would already.  Consider what I'm taking away: the hope for that 20th level mage who can incinerate large nations if he puts decent planning into it.

As for lowering the XP speed going from levels 1 to 6, I ran that by my players, and they responded that:
  1.  They didn't want to be slowed down. 
and 
  2.  In my campaign (set on an island kingdom about the size of Corsica) by 6th level, progressing normally, they have accomplished something that will be known across the island.  At this point, they're members of the "society of peers" that is made up of 6th-levelers (barons, powerful wizards, the king etc.) on the island.  Entering "epic" levels in this milieu seems to fit what they think of as the move from up-and-coming characters to accomplished heroes.  They think that's a good speed, fame, and power ratio already, and I'll defer to them on that.



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> I've heard good things about the Conan d20 system for low-magic, high-hero adventures. It seems like when you eliminate magic items & spells as things that the PCs get piles of, their power level will remain more predictable.
> 
> -- N




I'll definitely look into that system (I'll read some reviews after these replies).  Just to be clear, though, predictability isn't the only issue.  Do characters in Conan still advance to a point where they're pretty invulnerable to the little guys?  Also, how's the workload in terms of building NPC wizards and monsters?



			
				Turanil said:
			
		

> But what about players? What do they think about it?




So far, they're very enthusiastic about it.  They want more gaming, and they want to continue with the same characters without ending the campaign, or having it trail off.  Unfortunately, this has happened _every_ time I've run D&D, whereas I've run 3-year monster gaming epics in 2 other systems.  

But we don't want to ditch D&D.  We like it, we feel we can jump into it in a more casual way, and we're nostalgic for it.



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> To be completely honest, I think you could skip this whole system and just slow down XP gain.




See the response to Vrecknidj, above.



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> You claimed you wanted to avoid mind-numbing brainwork, but it looks like all this system does is load-balancing by shifting the burden more onto the players.  That's my take, anyway. It makes all feats and skills into Item Creation. I see it placing too much emphasis on "valuable" skills and feats. I wouldn't so much worry about an exploit as a flattening out of which skills and feats people choose. If you're paying through the nose for a feat or skill, are you going to buy Great Cleave or another, lesser feat like Skill Focus? It's hard enough, sometimes, to get players to choose suboptimal feats for roleplaying reasons. Making feats into the equivalent of Item Creation with XP costs will only add to that, in my opinion. Tumble and Spot are just more valuable than Appraise or Craft. There is just no getting around that, and the level cost of all skills will only heighten that distinction.




This is the stuff I don't understand - why are all the feats like Item Creation?  I thought the problem with Item Creation was how it hurt wizard characters relative to the rest of the party.  I can see how my spell purchase rules do that, but not for the rest of the system.  My players seemed to think this would get them to do more role-playing purchases, since they knew they could always get another feat later.  

Now, as a related point, do you think my xp values for feat, skill, and stat purchases are set too high?



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> It minimizes prep work, I suppose. But realistically, how long is a campaign going to run with these sorts of rules in place, anyway?




Again, I think I'm missing something here.  Indefinitely?



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I tend to limit which rules books and supplements are allowed in the game, and that minimizes the spells and magic items (many of them poorly designed) that I have to worry about as a DM.




Hmm... I was already... doing that?  We were pretty much down to PHB, DMG, and MM, but the problems were cropping up at higher levels, not because players had access to things I didn't like.  Of course, when I put in this new restriction, I'll open up the splatbooks for feats and spells, because I don't want to crush their customizability.  But they weren't in before.



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I don't tend to worry about players thinking up things I've never thought of. I encourage that sort of thinking. I like it when players come up with creative uses of spells I didn't anticipate. And sometimes, I like it when they cakewalk one of my encounters. It keeps me on my toes.




Yeah, this is true of me, as well.  But I think we're talking past each other - I don't have any problems with players outsmarting my encounters (If I did, I'd have packed it in a long time ago).  But what keeps my games from happening every weekend is the time it takes for me to provide the kind of challenges that keep _them_ on their toes, which increases dramatically in the mid-to-high level range.



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Please note, btw, that I'm just looking at the system and thinking about it. What works for you is what works for you.




Absolutely - I really want to hear these points.



			
				the Jester said:
			
		

> Interesting idea for a low-magic campaign.  As a player, I don't think I'd much enjoy it without a truly great dm, but as a dm I find the idea intriguing and elegant.




Thanks for the feedback.  I've DMed for a long time now (well, 8 years) and I'm hoping that the smaller scale of the rules will help get me back to NPC portrayal and atmosphere.  I was called a great DM for the long epic games; I'm hoping I can be a great DM for last-minute 3-hour weekend games.

One other issue came up from a player this weekend:  He's making a sorcerer built for melee combat w. reach weapons.  The group doesn't seem to think this is a disastrously bad idea, because the spread between a sorc's maximum BAB and a fighter's is only +3.  They seem to think that the new system encourages longer builds that make the characters more versatile, but I'm wondering whether this is going to give me a hard time.  Any thoughts?


----------



## Turanil

> One other issue came up from a player this weekend: He's making a sorcerer built for melee combat w. reach weapons. The group doesn't seem to think this is a disastrously bad idea, because the spread between a sorc's maximum BAB and a fighter's is only +3. They seem to think that the new system encourages longer builds that make the characters more versatile, but I'm wondering whether this is going to give me a hard time. Any thoughts?




No, it won't give you a hard time. The 6th level fighter has 2 attacks per round, fighter feats, twice as much hit-points, and can wear heavy armor. Having a reach weapon won't turn your sorcerer into a killing machine (at least at 6th level).


----------



## Tidus4444

Earlier, someone posted an idea for turning some PRCs into Prestige Feats.  Maybe you can try that out with your group?  The sorcerer could take Mage of the Arcane Order feats to gain access to the spellpool, or incantrix feats to increase his proficiency with metamagic (casting empowered magic missiles at level 2...).  I don't think these would make your characters too much more powerful (lack of addition to BAB and caster levels), but it would give them something to grow into.


----------



## Ry

Tidus4444 said:
			
		

> Earlier, someone posted an idea for turning some PRCs into Prestige Feats.  Maybe you can try that out with your group?




I found the post; this looks like a _great_ idea.  I'm definitely going to implement something like this; I'll probably decide xp costs on a case-by-case basis, letting the players collectively gauge the value of the class feature in question against a feat.


----------



## molonel

rycanada said:
			
		

> See the response to Vrecknidj, above.




Ah. Well, when the players and the DM are on the same page, it's hard to go TOO terribly wrong. It sounds like you're laying it all out for them, and talking about it intelligently. Since that is the case, the odds are pretty good that you and your players will discuss any issues that arise, or problems, and you will have first-hand knowledge and experience with those issues. Sounds like you've moving in the right direction, and to be quite honest, your playtesting of these proposed ideas will probably be more fruitful than anything I offer you here.

I'll offer my comments, anyway, but I think the best possible way to know will be to play it out. I hope, once you get six or eight months into your system, you post a follow-up to this thread, and let us know how it went. I'd personally be very interested to hear it, and if you don't post it, please shoot me an email at molonel@yahoo.com

I'd like to hear about it.



			
				rycanada said:
			
		

> This is the stuff I don't understand - why are all the feats like Item Creation? I thought the problem with Item Creation was how it hurt wizard characters relative to the rest of the party. I can see how my spell purchase rules do that, but not for the rest of the system. My players seemed to think this would get them to do more role-playing purchases, since they knew they could always get another feat later.




Well, again, when you and your players are on the same page, I guess that is really the best indicator.

In practice, item creation feats really don't HURT anyone, especially if you allow them to create commissioned items for NPCs at book cost. An artificer (anyone with item creation feats) effectively doubles the value of their treasure. That's a big bonus. Most players lose XP if they are killed and raised from the dead, or resurrected. Someone who is creating items loses XP, and gets paid for it. Not a bad trade-off.

The reason I compared the two was because now gaining feats and skills burns XP.



			
				rycanada said:
			
		

> Now, as a related point, do you think my xp values for feat, skill, and stat purchases are set too high?




There are too many variables to answer that intelligently. That depends entirely on the XP they gain from combat encounters, and the rate of advancement. Playtesting will reveal more than I can say.



			
				rycanada said:
			
		

> Again, I think I'm missing something here. Indefinitely?




I didn't have QUITE as much information about how much your players are into the development of this concept. Scratch that question.



			
				rycanada said:
			
		

> Hmm... I was already... doing that? We were pretty much down to PHB, DMG, and MM, but the problems were cropping up at higher levels, not because players had access to things I didn't like. Of course, when I put in this new restriction, I'll open up the splatbooks for feats and spells, because I don't want to crush their customizability. But they weren't in before.




It really sounds like you've thought this idea, and its consequences, rather thoroughly. I've spent a little more time reading your description, and thinking it through. You have (a) legitimate design reasons for implementing it, (b) your players agree with it and understand it, and (c) it seems for all intents and purposes to work.



			
				rycanada said:
			
		

> Yeah, this is true of me, as well. But I think we're talking past each other - I don't have any problems with players outsmarting my encounters (If I did, I'd have packed it in a long time ago). But what keeps my games from happening every weekend is the time it takes for me to provide the kind of challenges that keep _them_ on their toes, which increases dramatically in the mid-to-high level range.




You're probably right. I think I was talking past the real issue.


----------



## Ry

Thanks, molonel, for the replies - I really appreciate you taking such a serious look at my idea.  I didn't want to bog down my original post with too much gaming philosophy, so I can see why I wasn't clear at first.

I will let you know how it goes in a few months.  I've got a slow story arc that will conclude with a confrontation with a CR 10 or 11 black dragon.  I'll report back when that's over, along with any prestige feats we've built for the game.  

One mechanical hurdle does remain, however, and that's how to account for some of the constant effect items that will be in the game.  Does anyone know some way I could give a 6th-level equivalent feat that allows for the creation of 1st-7th level appropriate constant effect magic items?


----------



## Raven Crowking

rycanada said:
			
		

> This is the stuff I don't understand - why are all the feats like Item Creation?  I thought the problem with Item Creation was how it hurt wizard characters relative to the rest of the party.  I can see how my spell purchase rules do that, but not for the rest of the system.  My players seemed to think this would get them to do more role-playing purchases, since they knew they could always get another feat later.
> 
> Now, as a related point, do you think my xp values for feat, skill, and stat purchases are set too high?





Actually, I thought that your XP for feat purchase system was a great idea.  Although I don't intend to run your "capped at 6th" rules, I could really see why you might consider it.  A 6th level fighter clearly beats a 1st level warrior, but she isn't necessarily superhuman.

And, no, I don't think your XP costs are too high.




> One other issue came up from a player this weekend:  He's making a sorcerer built for melee combat w. reach weapons.  The group doesn't seem to think this is a disastrously bad idea, because the spread between a sorc's maximum BAB and a fighter's is only +3.  They seem to think that the new system encourages longer builds that make the characters more versatile, but I'm wondering whether this is going to give me a hard time.  Any thoughts?




Seems to me that one of the side-effects of your new rules is going to be that characters are going to want to do exactly what this sorcerer is doing.  I don't see that as a problem.  Why would it give you a hard time?

RC


----------



## Ry

I was just mildly concerned that we'd lose role definition, but on further consideration 

1. I don't mind that, so long as players are getting characters they want.

and

2. It actually doesn't look like it's happening.


----------



## S'mon

It sounds like a good idea - I wouldn't use skill caps, though


----------



## S'mon

I might use this with the 'Lost City of Barakus', which is designed for 1st-5th level PCs but w XP halved.  Maybe allowing XP as normal but treating 5th or 6th as Max level w Epic boosts would work well...


----------



## S'mon

I think I'd prob combine this w giving out free skill points at all levels.


----------



## Ry

Why would you want to remove the skill caps?  My thoughts for keeping them circle around the power of available feats, and the availability of feats such as skill focus and +2/+2s for the truly dedicated.  Why wouldn't these be sufficient?


----------



## S'mon

rycanada said:
			
		

> Why would you want to remove the skill caps?  My thoughts for keeping them circle around the power of available feats, and the availability of feats such as skill focus and +2/+2s for the truly dedicated.  Why wouldn't these be sufficient?




Well, a max ranks of 9 is only 5 higher than a 1st level PC, or a 25% difference on a d20.  That seems far too low to me to distinguish between a talented novice & 'best of the best'.  I suppose you could allow skill focus to be taken multiple times & stack?  But my inclination if I capped skill ranks would be to allow at least a 100% difference between no-skill & max-skill characters, which would translate to a skill ranks cap of +20 on a d20.  My experience has been that compared to skill-based systems like Runequest/BRP, D&D offers far too little variation in skill effectiveness at low levels, with the randomness of the dice overwhelming the skill ranks.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem

*6-level only house rule?*

There was a thread here a while back about running D&D with the classes going up only to level 6, and letting people buy feats and such with xp after that. Can anyone direct me to it? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!


----------



## John Q. Mayhem

Yay, I found it!


----------



## Ry

Hey Mayhem, that was me!  

FYI, it works great, although the restriction on wizards and learning new spells isn't really necessary.  I'd recommend opening up to other base classes (esp. the warlock as an alternative to the Sorcerer), provided you have given them a read-through.


----------



## igavskoga

Would you mind posting a link to that thread?  I'd be interested in checking out those rules.


----------



## Ry

Link: 'Epic' progression after 6th level


----------



## Ry

Really you can boil it down to this:

1. Character progression from level 1 to level 6 is just as per D&D. 

2. Upon attaining 6th level, characters stop normal advancement and enter "epic" advancement, which is an experience buy system. Under the "epic" advancement, 

a. To gain a new feat (for which the character qualifies) the character must spend 4500 experience. Note: Characters will never qualify for feats which require more than 9 ranks in a skill or a base attack bonus higher than +6.

b. To raise an ability score, the character must spend 500 * the next target score. Thus, a character with 11 STR must spend 6000 to raise it to 12.


----------



## Eolin

I am stealing and modifying this.

one question: Why 6th and not 7th? Or 5th? Did you choose sixth as that is when everyone has access to 3rd-level spells? 

If you have six levels of fighter, can you ever learn spellcasting? If you have six levels of wizard, can you raise your BAB? If you added it, how much XP would this cost?

You have a rule for learning new spells -- does this apply to Wizards as well as Sorcerers? What about clerics and druids? Warlocks?


----------



## Ry

I picked 6th because it's a good level for everyone, what with the extra feat, and there's 3rd level spells, an iterative attack, improve all 3 saves, and such in the mix.

The spell thing just ditch.

Picking up spells / class features / BAB increases I'd just handle with even more feats (probably 2 feats = +1 BAB), but the +6 BAB and 9 skill Rank caps are not to be tinkered with, since that cracks the top and it's what we're trying to avoid.

One danger is low hitpoints:  I used the variant from the DMG where you take the average instead of rolling (still max at 1st level).


----------



## DreadArchon

Hey, I _like_ that.

Let's see... I didn't read the actual thread (too long), but as far as a BAB and skills, I'd probably be inclined to allow some feats to stack where they normally wouldn't.  For example, a master sniper might take Weapon Focus: Longbow multiple times.  He would never have an extra iterative attack from high BAB, but he'd still be able to become a better shot.  At the moment I can't think of any other good examples of feats to stack (that don't already), but you get the idea.

Edit: Or multiple Dash feats to simulate Monk speed.


----------



## Ry

DreadArchon said:
			
		

> Hey, I _like_ that.
> 
> Let's see... I didn't read the actual thread (too long), but as far as a BAB and skills, I'd probably be inclined to allow some feats to stack where they normally wouldn't.  For example, a master sniper might take Weapon Focus: Longbow multiple times.  He would never have an extra iterative attack from high BAB, but he'd still be able to become a better shot.  At the moment I can't think of any other good examples of feats to stack (that don't already), but you get the idea.
> 
> Edit: Or multiple Dash feats to simulate Monk speed.




As an alternative, look at allowing or making a house feat book of various Dragon Magazine feats that cover the same subject.  You'll be surprised (or maybe not) at how many things there are that allow greater and greater specialization without blowing the top off of modifiers.


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril

That's pretty interesting.  I'll try and convince my players to run a campaign using these rules.  But maybe allow skills to reach up to rank 10, just for ranks to vary from one to ten...  Although the last level might be double cost.

One other thing I would do here is allow rings to be forged as Wondrous Items... no need to deny the players rings of Feather Falling and Protection just because Forge Ring requires 12th level.


----------



## Ry

That's quite slick - especially when you consider that Rings are the only thing on the Minor magic items list that can't be made by 6th level.


----------



## MarauderX

Why not just go with a point buy system from the beginning?


----------



## Ry

MarauderX said:
			
		

> Why not just go with a point buy system from the beginning?




A point buy system would make for a totally different game - I like the way that classes encourage roles on the way up, and then versatility and specialization go up after those roles have been established.


----------



## mhensley

This looks like a very cool idea.  How did your campaign doing this turn out?  Did the player's ever run out of options for advancement?  Did you have any problems creating encounters for the party after they had been at 6th level for a while?


----------



## Ry

The campaign is sort of still ongoing - it's an off and on one, but even characters who've been sitting at 6th level for ages have stuff they still want.  I let in feats from several sources.  Creating encounters hasn't been a problem either - even feated out to the max the characters are still more versatile than anything else.  Over time you hold back less on tactics, but the CR system is still your buddy in that range.  My main advice is be hesitant to crack the top (like putting anything higher than CR 10 against a fully-healed party ).


----------



## gamecat

While a 6th level cap doesn't appeal to me, I find the epic rules kinda wonky - a 20th level cap would be kinda cool.


----------



## mhensley

Why didn't you allow wizards as a class?  What feats do you consider overpowering that made you cap skill ranks at 9 and bab at +6?  Sorry for all the questions, but this idea has really sparked my interest.


----------



## GreatLemur

This sounds--in theory--like something I keep wishing for in both pen-and-paper and computer RPGs: Character progression that's more about gaining options and abilities rather than raw power.  This seems like a weird kludge, but extremely interesting.  I'd really love to see the whole idea developed more.  It could make a great PDF product.


----------



## Ry

gamecat said:
			
		

> While a 6th level cap doesn't appeal to me, I find the epic rules kinda wonky - a 20th level cap would be kinda cool.




If 6th seems too low, you might be interested in trying 12th.  From reading all these discussions of the "sweet spot." there are a lot of campaigns that get bogged down just after that, or because the GM is getting burned out trying to build a world that goes past that.


----------



## Ry

mhensley said:
			
		

> Why didn't you allow wizards as a class?  What feats do you consider overpowering that made you cap skill ranks at 9 and bab at +6?  Sorry for all the questions, but this idea has really sparked my interest.




Sparks good - sparks lead to fire, fire being actually sitting down at the game table more often.  

At the time, I didn't allow wizards as a class because wizards can just keep learning spell after spell w/o any xp.  But in practise, I didn't actually enforce that limitation, and it was never a problem.  The PC wizard wasn't overpowering, and he didn't hog the spotlight, even when he'd been at 6th level for quite a while (I think he's sitting at 12 feats past 6th now, with many PCs still around 4th or 5th level due to character retirements and new players).

The reason I don't let skill ranks past 9 and BAB past +6 is because feats that are built around higher BABs and Skill Ranks are feats built for higher-level D&D.  Just like 7th level spells aren't what I'm trying for, the feats designed to appeal to high level fighters don't match the 6th level thing.


----------



## Ry

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> This sounds--in theory--like something I keep wishing for in both pen-and-paper and computer RPGs: Character progression that's more about gaining options and abilities rather than raw power.  This seems like a weird kludge, but extremely interesting.  I'd really love to see the whole idea developed more. It could make a great PDF product.




You know, I'd be really tempted to do it as a $1 PDF if I could get some kind of art for it.  Mostly the PDF would be "how to have fun with this" and some examples, since the rules are such an easy hack.


----------



## mhensley

rycanada said:
			
		

> If 6th seems too low, you might be interested in trying 12th.  From reading all these discussions of the "sweet spot." there are a lot of campaigns that get bogged down just after that, or because the GM is getting burned out trying to build a world that goes past that.




8th level looks like an interesting cap as well.  That's the cut off before world altering spells like raise dead.


----------



## Eolin

But at 6th, you only have 3rd level spells, everyone just got a feat, and fighter-types -- and only fighter types -- just got an extra attack.

At 8th level, clerics and rogue's have a second attack as well... and there are fourth level spells.


----------



## mhensley

rycanada said:
			
		

> The reason I don't let skill ranks past 9 and BAB past +6 is because feats that are built around higher BABs and Skill Ranks are feats built for higher-level D&D.  Just like 7th level spells aren't what I'm trying for, the feats designed to appeal to high level fighters don't match the 6th level thing.




I'm guessing that the feats you're talking about come from outside the core rules.  I only see two or three feats in the phb that require >6 bab and none that require high skill ranks.


----------



## mhensley

Eolin said:
			
		

> But at 6th, you only have 3rd level spells, everyone just got a feat, and fighter-types -- and only fighter types -- just got an extra attack.
> 
> At 8th level, clerics and rogue's have a second attack as well... and there are fourth level spells.




True, 6th level is probably about right.  Looking through the MM last night, I could see that around 90% of the monsters are usable (up to 10EL) with this.  Once you get much past that, you have to start bringing in demons and stuff to challenge a party or else start adding class levels to everything.  Capping parties at 6 would make running games a lot easier.


----------



## Ry

mhensley said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that the feats you're talking about come from outside the core rules.  I only see two or three feats in the phb that require >6 bab and none that require high skill ranks.




Absolutely - but adding splatfeats was a handy selling point for players in my campaign.  The players still have fun tweaking up their characters.


----------



## Ry

mhensley said:
			
		

> Capping parties at 6 would make running games a lot easier.




You get the added benefit that the players never think of an aboleth as something they'll outgrow.  

"AAAH!  An ABOLETH!"

Watch them run.  So good.


----------



## Darklone

Eolin said:
			
		

> But at 6th, you only have 3rd level spells, everyone just got a feat, and fighter-types -- and only fighter types -- just got an extra attack.
> 
> At 8th level, clerics and rogue's have a second attack as well... and there are fourth level spells.



I'd go for 8th level as cap because the medium BAB guys get their second attack. IME fightertypes still benefit greatly from the extra points to hit at that level and their advantage concerning hitpoints starts to show more and more. 4th level spells are great... I do think most game breakers come at 6th level, some at 5th level but Raise Dead is usually too cost intensive.


----------



## Ry

Darklone said:
			
		

> I'd go for 8th level as cap because the medium BAB guys get their second attack. IME fightertypes still benefit greatly from the extra points to hit at that level and their advantage concerning hitpoints starts to show more and more. 4th level spells are great... I do think most game breakers come at 6th level, some at 5th level but Raise Dead is usually too cost intensive.




Personally, I've never been that enamored with 4th level spells... but it's nice to see people talking about different caps rather than what's wrong with having a cap.  I'd love to hear actual play experiences most of all.  Go forth and play!


----------



## mhensley

rycanada said:
			
		

> You get the added benefit that the players never think of an aboleth as something they'll outgrow.
> 
> "AAAH!  An ABOLETH!"
> 
> Watch them run.  So good.




You know this is probably the main reason I'm running WFRP instead of D&D right now.  The concept of high level D&D pc's killing rooms full of giants bothers me to no end.  A troll should always be scary, not something you could knock over with your pinkie.


----------



## Land Outcast

What do you think would be a "correct" xp cost to rise an ability score by 1?


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril

According to the sixth post, 500xp * the target score (raising STR from 17 to 18 costs 9000xp, for example).

As if this is "correct" or not, it does simulate pretty well an ability cap -- it gets more and more expensive as you increase your bonus.  Remember, the XP bonuses for monsters parks at 6th level, so it takes progressively more adventures to raise attributes.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

I have this system copied into my HR folder for Eberron, altho I was planning at capping at 10th level.. it fits in with the world setting better...

But my group never made it past 4th level 

Damn real life interuptions!


----------



## Lopke_Quasath

A cap at 8th level would also allow fighters to get their precious Improved Critical feat. Something that would certainly set them apart from the other classes.

Barbarians could get their Damage Reduction 1/-, and Rage 3/day, very cool.

All spellcasters get 4th level spells. Still appropriate for a low-level magic campaign.
(Bards get 3rd level spells)

Druids get Large wildshape and can change their animal companion

Monks get better unarmed damage (1D10)

Rogues get Improved Uncanny Dodge, also very cool.

Other than that, keeping the skills capped at 9 or 10 ranks sounds good. 

I am going to steal this idea and present it to my players. See what they think of it. We just started a new campaign and they are almost 3rd level. If they want to try it, we shall experiment. 

Cheers


----------



## joela

*Link?*



			
				rycanada said:
			
		

> I found the post;




Could you post it? I've never heard of such a concept.


----------



## Piratecat

Threads merged!


----------



## Ry

Thanks P-cat!


----------



## Ry

*Epic Progression after 6th level*

_Here are my Epic 6th level rules, which Khuxan called Ry20.  I have playtested the system extensively with my crew, and I can say that it works as intended.    Previous discussion indicated that this approach has some appeal for others, so I've revised it to show it here on free RPG day._

Do you have complaints about D&D's high level play?  Sure you do.  Well, don't go burning those rulebooks just yet, because there's a secret game hidden inside of D&D.

This game has fewer rules, lower magic, and it is quick and easy to prepare.  But you don't need 3D glasses or a degree in cryptology to find this game.  With a single rule, you too can find the secret game hidden inside D&D.

*The Rule:*

Character progression from level 1 to level 6 is as per D&D.  Upon attaining 6th level, for each 5000 experience a character gains, they earn a new feat.  

Note: Feats with unattainable prerequisites under this system remain unattainable.

[sblock='Benefits']1.  Very fast play at every level of the campaign.

2.  Focus on planning, not levelling.  To defeat the black dragon Zolanderos, the CR 10 terror of Staunwark Island, the heroes will need help, special resources, and information.  I want to further encourage party-directed adventuring, and if the heroes want to take on something 4 to 6 CR above them, then that's what they will require.

3.  A low magic game that everyone knows how to play.

4.  Never a need for meaningless encounters.  The players can be involved in a dozen or so major combat scenarios (perhaps more than one encounter each) and have proven themselves and made a major accomplishment.  See Lord of the Rings movies, or most fantasy novels.

5.  Classic monsters stay classic throughout the campaign; Chimeras and Aboleths start scary, and stay scary.  Dragons are always exciting encounters.

6.  Even legendary heroes remain mortal; while a 6th level fighter who has taken toughness several times can take on a good mob, he isn't invulnerable.  The sorcerer's 6d6 fireballs are phenomenal, but not so powerful that he can destroy a village and not fear retaliation.

7.  Quicker prep.  Make a 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 6th version of a sorcerer, and now you have a whole sorcerous dragon-cult that can last you through your whole campaign.

8.  You can put what you've learned of the rules to good use.  It's hard to know every 4th through 9th level spell out there; they're the ones we see the least.  But we've seen 0th through 3rd level spells many, many times, and mastery over them is relatively simple.[/sblock][sblock='Using outside feats']To provide lots of selection and preserve the fun of character building, I allow all WotC books as sources of extra feats.  I also allow feats from Phil Reed's Book of Unusual Feats, and the Books of Eldritch Might.  Other feats would be approved on an ad-hoc basis, but so far I've never run into players that have been unhappy with this selection.[/sblock][sblock='Conviction']This is a totally optional rule that I find goes very well with the Epic 6th level rules, and I use them in my game to reduce lethality and make sure that the PCs are the stars of the show.

This rule also runs very smoothly when Players Roll All the Dice, which I recommend for all campaigns, Epic 6th level or not. 

*Conviction*

Player Characters have a pool of Conviction, which functions like Action points.  All PCs get 5 Conviction.  Conviction is replenished whenever the party has a night of complete rest.  

A character can use 1 Conviction re-roll any d20 check they make, or to make an opponent re-roll any d20 check made against them.  2 Conviction points can be spent to take an extra move-equivalent action on the player-character's turn, 3 conviction for a standard action, and 5 Conviction for a full-round action. 

_When a player spends Conviction, they're saying "Hey, this is important to me.  I want my character to have been the one that pulled this off - or at least, put everything into trying."_

*The Death Flag*
As an Immediate action, a player character can choose to raise his Death Flag and gain 5 Conviction instantly (even if this brings their total Conviction pool above 5).  

When the death flag is raised, the normal rules for death apply.  If the death flag has not been raised, then the character, if killed, is treated as reducing the player character to 1 hit point above death.  The Death Flag can be lowered by spending 5 Conviction.

_When a player raises the Death flag, they're saying "This is worth staking my character's life on."_

[/sblock][sblock='Level Adjustments']If you use races with a level adjustment, the 6th level cap is a big issue.  Use the point buy rules in the DMG as follows:
*LA Points*
+0   32
+1   25
+2   18
+3   10
+4   00[/sblock]


----------



## Land Outcast

Perhaps you should add wether feats like Improved Critical are available (ie: feats with unnatainable prerequisites).

-

By the way, are you hosting that "Legends" somewhere?


----------



## Ry

Land Outcast said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should add wether feats like Improved Critical are available (ie: feats with unnatainable prerequisites).
> 
> -
> 
> By the way, are you hosting that "Legends" somewhere?




Not quite yet.  I'm giving it an edit and then passing it back to Tim.  If you want, you can flip me an e-mail, I have a hotmail account named ryanstoughton, and I'll flip it to you (mostly I'm not showing it but I'll make an exception for the playtesters  )


----------



## Ry

Also, if any of the other posters who were interested in this before had a chance to play it, how did it go?


----------



## Nifft

I'm interested, not for my current game, but for a friend's lower-magic game.

Please do post full rules when they're available, and any feedback from playtesters. 

Thanks, -- N


----------



## exempt

I'm not 100% sure by your description, but it sounds like BAB, spells, saves, etc. etc. don't improve after level 6 except for what feats can do for you.  Is that right?


----------



## Ry

Absolutely correct.  Once you hit that level, you've proven yourself, and you've likely survived more violence than most humans do in a lifetime.   But you're not on your way to being invulnerable to the common man, nor indifferent to his will.

Plays like a fine wine.


----------



## Quartz

A couple of questions:

How does varying the stop level (say changing it to 10th) affect the game?

Are monsters bound by the same rules?


----------



## Ry

I used monsters across the spectrum, once they're CR 6 I don't add any more class levels - just feats, or (sometimes) monster hit dice.  But if you have a creature higher than CR 10, it's basically not an "encounter" but more of an event.


----------



## Ry

Oh, and for Liches, I use the Bone Creature template, and so on.  The great things about those kinds of templates are that they are quite simple to add in-game.


----------



## Rhun

Sounds very interesting. I like the concept.


----------



## phindar

This is very interesting.  I've been considering something similar (like a feat per level, capping out at 9th), to put more lateral advancement into the game.  My group tends to play in the mid levels, and there is a tendency to "level out" of the game we enjoy into a game we enjoy less (or just takes more work than we're comfortable with).  There is a facet of high level play-- when you're not used to it-- where you spend as much time figuring out how to play (looking up spells, abilities, feats, calculating numbers, etc), than you do actually playing.  

Have you considered letting characters gain stat points in addition to feats?  Maybe a point every 10k, or lower if you go with a lower overall level of magic.  (I'm leaning towards giving pcs a stat point every level and taking permanent stat boosters out, but leaving charged items and spells that do it.)

Have any of your players tried races with LA's?  It would seem capping out at 6 HD, that giving up even a level or two would be a much bigger deal than in a game that was running into high levels.  I've always been a big proponent of making LA +0 versions of any race... maybe letting them take racial abilities as feats.  What about characters gaining LA'd templates in play, like vampires or lycanthropes?  Assuming you wanted to allow it, how much to you think it would throw off the numbers?  If a group had capped at 6th level, and one of them got chomped by a werebear for what amounts to a free increase in CR, I could see that overshadowing the rest of the group.  (There's all kinds of problems with that example, but if a character got a free increase in CR that you were cool with, how would you bring the other pcs up?  Would you deficit the guy with increased CR until the group had earned enough feats to even it out, or just not worry about it?)

Edit:  Thought of something else.

It seems like this system would benefit from being pretty transparent with creature CR's.  In the case of the black dragon of Staunwark Isle, the players knowing roughly how far above their level the monster is will determine how much help, special resources and knowledge they will seek before going there.  (Personally, I find tougher encounters the party can prep for to be more fun than easier encounters that are sprung on them, even if the relative level of difficulty is about the same.


----------



## Ry

There are two extra rules that I wrote and used:

I had a rule where each stat point upgrade was 500 * the next value.  So going from STR 11 to STR 12 was 6000 exp.  I didn't include this in the first post because IMC it hasn't seen much use (a few odd to evens around 10-14 range, that's it).  

For LA races, what I did was change the point buy.  A LA +0 was 32 point buy, LA +1 25, LA +2 18, LA +3 10, and LA +4 0.  This is an optional rule because LA races of course are optional.


----------



## Shieldhaven

Considering that the PCs in my game are 6th level at the moment, and I've seen how much devastation they can bring to bear, I find this idea quite compelling.  I don't know that I'd _ever_ be able to talk the players into playing in a campaign with these rules, but I'd love to hear more about the experiences of people who do use 'em.

Haven


----------



## Ry

I was surprised how much my players jumped on board when I gave them the idea, especially since we'd had several campaigns disintegrate around 8th-10th level before.  But I admit it was better to design the game this way from the start - building it into the world assumptions.


----------



## Quartz

Do you limit what can be gained to just feats? How about extra spells per day? Extra BAB (up to +6)? Extra stats? Extra skills? Are feats from the ELH allowed? Can you give an example of an epic character?


----------



## phindar

rycanada said:
			
		

> There are two extra rules that I wrote and used:
> 
> I had a rule where each stat point upgrade was 500 * the next value.  So going from STR 11 to STR 12 was 6000 exp.  I didn't include this in the first post because IMC it hasn't seen much use (a few odd to evens around 10-14 range, that's it).
> 
> For LA races, what I did was change the point buy.  A LA +0 was 32 point buy, LA +1 25, LA +2 18, LA +3 10, and LA +4 0.  This is an optional rule because LA races of course are optional.



I've done the same thing for LA races, oddly.  

Back in the dark days of 2ed, I had a GM do something similar for characters that had reached their level limit. They continued to earn xp and could spend it for spells or proficiencies.  One player ended up putting 50,000xp into an "Epic" spell, a 10th level one from a supplement (Priest's Handbook maybe?) and I guess that player thought he'd bought it as a spell-like ability, because he used it in a fairly unimportant combat and was shocked to find out that nope, it was a one-shot thing-- 50k for a 10th level spell.  The player was miffed but you know, it was kind of funny.  (Put that in the file of "Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.")


----------



## Ry

phindar said:
			
		

> I've done the same thing for LA races, oddly.




Not odd at all; the debate over how to handle LA has happened many times - I think this  consistently comes up as the best option.  I yoinked it from such a thread.


----------



## igavskoga

Quartz said:
			
		

> Do you limit what can be gained to just feats? How about extra spells per day? Extra BAB (up to +6)? Extra stats? Extra skills? Are feats from the ELH allowed? Can you give an example of an epic character?





I would be curious to hear more elaborations along this line.  I really dig the idea of stopping between 6-10 but allowing some form of ad hoc advancement afterwards.  I have no idea of how I'd convince my players to go along with it though.  Then again, sometimes they do surprise me.


----------



## Ry

Quartz said:
			
		

> Do you limit what can be gained to just feats?



Essentially no, because I allowed feats that help out in the other areas you described.  101 Feats has one that lets your BAB = your level, for example, and WotC splats let you expand spells per day, and get new skill points.  Feats from ELH usually have unobtainable requirements.


----------



## Ry

igavskoga said:
			
		

> I would be curious to hear more elaborations along this line.  I really dig the idea of stopping between 6-10 but allowing some form of ad hoc advancement afterwards.  I have no idea of how I'd convince my players to go along with it though.  Then again, sometimes they do surprise me.




This system really caters to a "sweet spot" of 6-10, because you spend a LOT more of your time with players in that power range (hard to get out the top but easy to get into that section).  That's my favorite part of D&D anyway, and the effects of things like not giving out so many magic items is fairly minimal.


----------



## Ry

igavskoga said:
			
		

> I have no idea of how I'd convince my players to go along with it though.  Then again, sometimes they do surprise me.




Emphasize that the rest of the world is playing by the same rules; i.e., the enemy general might be a renowned fighter but he still has only BAB +6, for example.  Once players realize that the world they live in isn't massively stratified, they start really busting out.


----------



## igavskoga

So if I'm reading you correctly, you allow limited expansion in other areas typically reserved for levelling growth through expanded feats?  I'd love to get a look at the details, I don't have time these days to create major rules from scratch on my own. =/ 

The 6-10 sweet spot seems to be what fits myself and my group's tastes the best.  My current homebrew amalgamation (gritty, rare magic - finally codifying alternate and variant rules instead of shifting things around in standard D&D as I've been doing for the past 10 years) is mostly an attempt to scale back the superhero-ish nature of teen-level play (getting rid of iterative attacks for example), but I've been wondering if capping things somewhere around 6-12 with some form of ad hoc advancement afterwards might be a better way to go.

I really like the potential flavor this could add to my games, but the few times I've hinted about going in this direction did not result in favorable musings from some of my regulars.


----------



## Ry

I used Phil Reed (Ronin Arts) expansion feats, I think the book's name is the Book of Unusual Feats (101 Unusual Feats, Another 101 Unusual Feats, etc), the rest are just allowing splatbook feats.


----------



## phindar

What about class abilities?  I'm the sort that plays a lot of multiclasses, but with only 6 levels to play with I could see this being more difficult.  (Not a knock against, merely a factor to be considered.)  On the one hand, splitting classes might mean you lose access to a higher level class ability; if you go Fighter 4/Ranger 2, you'll never get an Animal Companion (for a really poor example).  Rogues will never get Improved Uncanny Dodge, however a Rogue 4/Barbarian 2 would.  (Also, just glancing at the progression it would seem like Rogue 6 would be pretty rare, all they get is Trap Sense +2; it seems like they'd be better off with almost any other class-- fighter for the feat, BAB and Fort, Sorcerer for the spells and Will, Barbarian for the Fort, BAB, HP, Rage and Fast Move, Monk for the Flurry, Saves, Imp Unarmed Strike and so on.)  If you use feats from AE, which my group does, Uncanny Dodge exists as Intuitive Sense, so anybody would be able to pick it up.  Wpn Specialization is in there too with just a +4 BAB, which would make it accessible to other classes.  

I also notice that capping it at 6th means some characters might be eligible for one level of a PrC.  It seems like an assassin's Death Attack would be a lot scarier in a world with capped Fort Saves.  Horizon Walkers would be limited to one Terrain Mastery, but that actually makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Ry

As a rule of thumb, I say: If you could have gotten a class / prestige class feature by 6th level, then there should be some kind of feat chain to that ability.  The discussions really haven't come up because (at least in my game) players had plenty of good feats for their character concepts, but I wouldn't mind accomodating.  In the case of very powerful abilities, though, in addition to stringent requirements I'd make at least one "filler" feat that was "this feat lets you take that feat.  Thanks for the 5000 xp!"


----------



## phindar

How arbitrary was the 6th level cap?  How much do you think your system would be affected by an 8th or 10th level cap, or a 4th?


----------



## Ry

I put a lot of thought into it and discussed a lot with my players before choosing 6th.  I/we think the system could probably work at other caps, but our experience in D&D is that at around 6th level the classes are really nicely balanced regardless of magic items.  Each class is strong enough that they're well defined, but not so strong that lower-level characters don't matter to them any more.


----------



## Land Outcast

> Rogues will never get Improved Uncanny Dodge, however a Rogue 4/Barbarian 2 would.



Wanted to point out that this is not so, he would get Uncanny Dodge twice, just that.


----------



## Aegir

Land Outcast said:
			
		

> Wanted to point out that this is not so, he would get Uncanny Dodge twice, just that.




"If a barbarian already has uncanny dodge from a different class, he automatically gains improved uncanny dodge instead."

"If a rogue already has uncanny dodge from a different class she automatically gains improved uncanny dodge instead."

...as listed in the SRD, for both classes.


----------



## phindar

Uncanny Dodge was the only class ab that stacks that I could think of, so that's the example I used.  There might be others.  Although in my game I let just about anything stack.  (If a character already has TWF and they pick it for their combat style as a Ranger, they get Imp TWF.)  I'm very sympathetic to the plight of the mulitclass.


----------



## Land Outcast

oops


----------



## Asmor

rycanada said:
			
		

> regardless of magic items.





How exactly DO you handle wealth/magic items/etc?


----------



## Ry

Pretty ad-hoc.  Sometimes I use the tables, other times I just throw in a resource or reward that I thought of before.  When I'm using a module I usually only award items that I think make sense; no tapestries in the room with the fire elementals.


----------



## Asmor

Sorry, what I meant was whether you still allowed people to accrue magical items (and/or wealth to procure them), since that matters alot in terms of power... A level 6 with +6 strength and con is effectively a few levels higher in terms of attack bonus and HP.

I've got to say, though, I really like this idea. It seems like it would work especially well in d20 modern, as well, with maybe a discount on buying talents.


----------



## Ry

Well, the system is at least a bit self-monitoring; since the world only goes up to 6th level casters, nobody can make items that have higher reqs.  Occasionally I'll put in a better item as a plot focus.  
For example, if Kord (for whom I would use stats of a Titan) made a sword, it could be better, because as a Titan Kord can cast higher-level spells than a mortal can.

But the magic item haul of CR 1-6 NPCs is fairly light, even if CR 7+ monsters are around they're not loaded with magic items like NPCs would be.  CR 10's random treasure has 1% chance of a Medium magic item, if I remember correctly.


----------



## Dragonblade275

Glad to see you're still working on this and that you've had such success with it.

Our group finally got around to getting a real campaign going... We're going through the Shackled City with Core plus Arcana Evolved and the Complete books... And, the one thing that I'm noticing is that our group likes to do a lot of fighting... more than the Shackled City includes... Problem is that adding more monsters equates to gaining more experience too quickly...  So... I'll likely be scaling back on the XP awards...

The first few levels always seem to be the most fun... Perhaps, after the Shackled City... we might try your idea of epic advancement after 6th level.


----------



## Ry

If your guys would be amenable to something even more rules-light, drop me a line once you're done Shackled City.  Around then I'll be looking for more external playtesters for Legends, which might have some appeal if you like to run things fast.


----------



## frankthedm

This variant sounds like you would enjoy warhammer.


----------



## Ry

Are there fast play / teaser rules for WFRP around anywhere?  Legends is close to being finished but I'd love to take a look at it.


----------



## Meeki

I like the idea of your system, with capping out hps and what not and buying advancements but do you find that your game favors more front loaded classes like fighters than classes that shine more at later levels like wizards.  I would feel jipped as a wizard being capped at lvl 3 spells.  I understand its suppose to be low magic but how do you deal with wizards not wanting to be evocers.


----------



## Ry

Actually, I found the opposite in my games.  Wizards really shine.  The reason, I think, is the change in setting assumptions.

For example, if you want to have a village of 100 people, they're ALL 1st level commoners, maybe 2 first level warriors, maybe an expert.  

The fact that if they all stood in a crowd, the wizard could kill them all with a few words (I'm talking fireball here) - that's scary.  A fighter knows he could survive that, but who knows what else the wizard can do?  Turn invisible?  Protect himself from arrows?

Basically, if you cap at 6th, there's less of the arms race: "but my spell beats that"  - "but my goggles counteract your invisibility" - "but I've got boots that do that anyway" - "WE'll just raise him from the dead"

Magic is powerful under these rules.


----------



## Quartz

Here's a suggestion for you: any character capable of casting Divine spells (or perhaps an appropriate feat, like Devoted) can pray for a _Miracle_ - assuming they've got 5000 XP to spare. The chance would be 1% per spellcaster level per full day of continuous prayer. So a Ftr 2 / Cl 4 would have a 4% chance the first day, 8% chance the next day, 12% the third etc. Get two 6th level clerics and it's 12%, 24%, 36%, etc. This would allow for removal of negative levels, raising of the dead, Commune, etc.

BTW even a 6th level commoner (17 HP) will fall to a 6th level fireball (21 HP) on a failed save.


----------



## Ry

What I'd recommend instead for negative levels / raising the dead (if you really want it), would be incantations, from UA.  Like a 3-day long ritual that can remove a negative level, that requires some big Knowledge:Religion checks, maybe some test that the aspirant has to complete.  Miracle (and I'm guessing you mean the wishlike spell) and generalized requirements for it I think opens up more possibilities than I really want.


----------



## Dragonblade275

rycanada said:
			
		

> If your guys would be amenable to something even more rules-light, drop me a line once you're done Shackled City.  Around then I'll be looking for more external playtesters for Legends, which might have some appeal if you like to run things fast.



We'll keep that in mind, Ryan.


----------



## GrolloStoutfoam

I find your ideas fascinating and would like to subscribe to your newsletter 

I've been inspired to run a campaign (my first in decades) and love this idea.  I always see campaigns die when the characters are around 12th level because of PC power.  Please count me in if you ever need any more playtesters and consider this yoinked!


----------



## I'm A Banana

Not really my cup of tea, but seems good for a low-power feel, while still giving the PC's something to look forward to after a few successful adventures. 

How do you do magic items? It would strike me that there would be a lot of quantity of low-quality under this rubrick.


----------



## Ry

Grollo: I'm just doing a revision to Legends right now, playtesting on the weekend  with the local D&D meetup.  I'll let you know when I need playtesters next - you wouldn't by any chance be Toronto-local, would you?

Midget: To be honest, I never really had a strategy, per se, for magic items.  Sometimes we'd roll, sometmies I'd just skip the roll and give something I thought was appropriate.  I think I'm more likely to err on the low side.  Still, whatever the PCs find tends to be disposable - but not easily tradeable, since the economy doesnt' assume there are wizards with $100,000 gp stashed around.


----------



## phindar

Would you expect to see more magic item crafting with a level cap?  If you figure a caster takes the item crafting feats available to them under the level cap (Magic Arms and Armor, Scroll, Potion, Wand and Wonderous, give or take), they could pump out a whole party's worth of items and only be a feat or so behind the rest of the group.  It might not be something a pc would do (if all your feats are crafter feats, its kind of like having no feats at all), but I could definitely see taking Leadership at 6th and taking a caster/crafter as a cohort.

Would you consider that a loophole to be closed?  Even so, if I were playing a caster it'd make Craft Wand very attractive.  (Especially if the GM allows the base material cost of items to be picked up in play, such as using the horn of a red dragon of the appropriate age to make a Wand of Fireballs.)


----------



## evilbob

The crafting rules would be extremely strange but probably not abusable in this system.  For one, you can't craft an item with an enhancement bonus of greater than +2 in this world, since caster level = 3 x bonus is the formula.  There are also very, very few special abilities that could be done (traits with a caster level of 6 or less), so you'd never see a +1 flaming longsword, either (caster level 8th).  The vast majority of wonderous items are also out, due to the rule limits:  you could never have a +2 ability item (no more Gloves of Dex +2) since they are caster level 8th, and you could never make any bracers of armor - even +1 requires caster level 7th.  You could make an amulet of natural armor +1 (caster level 5th), but +2 and above is out.  Potions would _rule_, though!

In any case, having a maximum 4th level crafting cohort would mean that your crafting options are severly restricted.  The point about wands is a good one, but again you're limited to 3rd level spells even if you're doing it yourself, so I don't think it'd get out of hand.  The relative value of such an item would be much higher, however.


That aside, this idea also intrigues me.  I don't think raising the level cap would be a particularly good idea, because the "7-10" range is the one that is the most brutal for many classes (especially multiclass characters).  I hate that range the most of all levels.  And if you're going to go over 10, you might as well not limit folks.

However, I would think giving access to some higher level abilities might be nice, even if it was through the "feat" mechanic.  Then again, it's probably not fair to let a ranger somehow gain the ability to hide in plain sight if the wizard can't throw 4th level spells and the rogue never does more than +3d6 sneak attack, either.

Are there any feats you use that would allow a caster access to a single (or more) higher level spell (but without the caster level)?


----------



## Ry

evilbob basically summed up why magic items don't get too powerful in the setting, especially the ones your cohort makes.

As for higher level abilities... there so far hasn't been a need.  I think if you want more powerful spells there are lots of feats for enhancing existing spells and lots of sources for spells from different niches.  For example, the Sudden Metamagic feats from Complete Arcane are very good.


----------



## phindar

Arcana Evolved has a catch-all metamagic feat called _Modify Spell_.  All casters in that system are spotaneous casters, and _Modify_ lets them increase either the range, the duration, the AoE, remove either the somatic or verbal components, or increase the damage by x1.5 at the cost of two slots instead of 1.  

Now, with casters getting a lot more feats I could see removing _Modify Spell_, since it was designed to be the one metamagic feat that does pretty much everything.  But at the same time, I could see making those feats it was designed to replace work the same way-- costing two slots of a spell of that level rather than a higher level slot.  That way, having a _Stilled Fireball_ wouldn't be impossible (4th level spell), just expensive (two 3rd level spell slots).  

I wasn't suggesting magic items would be overpowering, just it seems like crafting would be a lot more common.  (This might just be my group, but we haven't had a pc or cohort crafter in years.)  That's not a bad thing, but it is one way it would most likely separate a 6th level group with a level cap from one without one.  A 6th level wizard might have one or maybe two fireballs a day, but a Wand of Fireballs is just cash and 320xp.  At that point, cash becomes the balancing factor, since a crafter could make 15 3rd level Wands before he was more than 1 feat behind the rest of the party.

Personally, I love disposable magical items, and this seems like another way to expand a group's bag of tricks without having to level.  Potions, scrolls, wands are all good times.  While the big ticket items like your Frostbrands and Flame Tongues and Holy Avengers are beyond the abilities of pcs of that level to create, I wouldn't have a problem including them as "artifacts of a forgotten age".  (Borrowing an idea of Shadowrun where magic goes in cycles and in the past magic might have been so powerful that even commoners would have had abilities and archwizards could have made the stars dance to their will, and there might be items from that age that have survived.)  Even though swords like that are really, really expensive, generally they're just another +1 or +2 and and extra d6 or some damage against specific creatures.  Its a nice mechanical benefit, but mainly its a bit of flash that separates that character from his contemporaries.  Having cool stuff is one of the fun parts of the game.

Characters might find "impossible" items in forgotten tombs or dragon hoards or places like that.  And things like a Wand of Stoneskin with 3 charges left, or single use item of Heal become very valuable resources that the party will likely obsess over how to use properly, like when they finally go after that CR 10 black dragon.


----------



## Ry

Impossible Items FTW: What's great is that it actually makes sense by the RAW.  If you have a +4 sword... it could have been crafted by a Titan.  

And that's a big deal.  That's a sword that no mortal can make.


----------



## Machiavelli

Holy crap, I am loving the sound of this whole thing!  I want you to meet me in the parking lot down the street from my house.  I will bring my gaming group, and you and I will convince them that this system is amazing.  Thanks, RyCanada!


----------



## Ry

Machiavelli said:
			
		

> Holy crap, I am loving the sound of this whole thing!  I want you to meet me in the parking lot down the street from my house.  I will bring my gaming group, and you and I will convince them that this system is amazing.  Thanks, RyCanada!




Thanks, Machiavelli!  This is why every 6 months or so I collect experiences I've had running it and post it again (lately I've been working on another system that's really turning into its own beast, but I always seem to be running a few sessions here and there in 6th-level capped D&D).


----------



## Ry

Oh, but the down the street thing ain't likely unless you live in say, Richmond Hill Ontario.  =)


----------



## Zebediah Magus

Man, thats really a great idea. I may include that cap in my Dragonlance campaign...


----------



## Ry

Dragonlance is a particularly good setting for this.  I've run Dragonlance many times in the past and if I were to go back to it yeah, this would do it nicely.


----------



## Ioreck

I'm actually doing a similar thing!

We're playing a low level, extremely low magic campaign (no casters, lots of homebrew, etc).  You need more xp to level, and cap out "normal" levels at 5.  Levels 6+ are considered epic, and the max level is 7, at which point you're the equivilent to archtypes like Kenshin - just can't be beat.  

I find this to be alot more realistic for the game.  No, you can't beat an army of orcs on your own, you need to use tactics and some ingenuity to defeat some mroe powerful monsters, such as a CR 10 dragon, and if you want to be really good at some skill, you do have to spend the feat.

What I did is crunched the classes.  You gain a feat per level, since its so much harder to level, as well as class abilities scrunched up. For example, of the course of 5 levels, the warblade will get his Battle abilities, the barbarian will end get his Greater Rage at level 5, etc.  We also use elite array stats, ie 25 point buy.

Here's the link that shows just how awesome systems like these are, and got me to design this one:

http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

Took alot of work to make sense, but its great.  Feat chains make more sense, and any bonus to skills are very useful.  And without healing magic, the heal skill is huge.  I find the game alot more enjoyable and there's so much more to do.  Its far more challenging.


----------



## Ry

Sounds awesome, Ioreck!  Looks like you've tailored the rules to your campaign very tightly.  While this doesn't have that... it keeps a hair's breadth from the rules as written, which is handy when you're, say, between gaming groups or attracting new members from the local gaming community.


----------



## Ry

Actually, Ioreck, sounds like you've got an Iron Heroes take on this.  Is that what you were going for?


----------



## Khuxan

Hi,

I quickly went through the SRD docs and deleted class levels from 7 to 20, spell levels from 4 to 9, and feats with impossible prerequisites. It's a bit of a rushed job, so I'm sure it's got relics of the old system (for example, fighters still have Improved Critical as a bonus feat option even though that's been removed), but it was created to easily compare classes from 1st to 6th level without the baggage of levels 7 to 20.

http://www.box.net/shared/z62l7pnlxs


----------



## Ry

Hey, sweet - tastic.  I expected no less from a feat man such as yourself  

That makes me think of a tagline:

_If you love feats, you'll love... Ry20.  _

But then again, maybe I should go with:

_Ry20: Shut up and play._


----------



## Ry

BTW, thanks for titling it Ry20  

I love EN World.  

And Bump, because I've updated the first post with the 2 optional rules that I use with this game (level adjustment and Conviction).


----------



## Koewn

This'd work out really nice with True Sorcery too; stopping at 6th leaves you at 9 ranks in Spellcraft and First Magnitude (which is where the bulk of the talents are).

It'd be a lot more lower magic that DND; but TS takes on modifications like group casting rituals and whatnot very easily.

Items that give bonuses to Spellcraft would quickly become legendary.


----------



## Ry

You know the DM's Best Friend rule?  Well, in Ry20 (with Players roll all the dice), you've still got the DM's Best Friend, but in addition, meet the DM's Sultry Mistress.

I was looking at my old D&D statistical analysis stuff (I have a big database of monsters and NPCs and I did some curves for how they develop) and I hit upon something for the 1-6 + feats range of characters.  When you look at the attack DCs (11+attack roll for die-rollin' DMs), armor classes, save DCs, and even skills, you start to see a pattern that fits - not badly - to the following set.  

*The DM's Sultry Mistress*

Typical DCs / ACs by level:
Level 1: 15
Level 2: 16
Level 3: 17
Level 4: 18
Level 5: 19
Level 6: 20

If you think your situation is atypical, add or subtract up to 5.

Obviously, these aren't hard figures; but they _are_ close-enough-to-get-away-with-it figures.


----------



## Ry

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I quickly went through the SRD docs and deleted class levels from 7 to 20, spell levels from 4 to 9, and feats with impossible prerequisites. It's a bit of a rushed job, so I'm sure it's got relics of the old system (for example, fighters still have Improved Critical as a bonus feat option even though that's been removed), but it was created to easily compare classes from 1st to 6th level without the baggage of levels 7 to 20.
> 
> http://www.box.net/shared/z62l7pnlxs




I wish I had some talent at layout, because if I did I would turn these things into a "real" player's handbook.


----------



## Machiavelli

How do players usually handle choosing level-adjusted races with the level adjustment modification?  Specifically, how well does the loss of starting stats usually balance out with the gain of starting stats?


----------



## Ry

If you think of, say, Draconic, depending on the build, you can turn it into a small loss or a small gain over the point buy.  Them's, as it were, the breaks.  The system I put above doesn't solve LA's problems - it just gets closer to doing so for E6L's purposes.


----------



## Khuxan

rycanada said:
			
		

> I wish I had some talent at layout, because if I did I would turn these things into a "real" player's handbook.




It's not quite the same, but I'm making a pdf with each of the classes on their own pages, and I'm collecting Ry20 feats.


----------



## Ry

Wow, Khuxan... just wow.  Please keep me updated as you work on this, this is fantastic.  What program are you using before converting to .pdf?


----------



## Ry

Do you know about the ones that The Other Game Company made?  Those could be the "Ability Scores", "Races" and "Equipment" chapters.

Wow, I'm really excited for this project again.


----------



## Nifft

Hmm. Interested in a SW Saga (style) adaptation? Six levels is easier to balance than 20, so it would be an interesting exercise IMHO.

 -- N


----------



## Khuxan

rycanada said:
			
		

> Wow, Khuxan... just wow.  Please keep me updated as you work on this, this is fantastic.  What program are you using before converting to .pdf?




PagePlus, which you can get free here. It's very intuitive and easy to pick up. I can upload the .ppp files if you're interested.



			
				rycanda said:
			
		

> Do you know about the ones that The Other Game Company made? Those could be the "Ability Scores", "Races" and "Equipment" chapters.
> 
> Wow, I'm really excited for this project again.




The SRD Handouts? They look nice, although not that much different to just printing out the relevant section from the SRD. For races I was thinking about collecting all the monstrous races from LA 1 to ECL 6, although that'd be in the mid-to-distant future.



			
				The Great and Mighty Nifft said:
			
		

> Hmm. Interested in a SW Saga (style) adaptation? Six levels is easier to balance than 20, so it would be an interesting exercise IMHO.




Not sure I understand what you mean? Just cutting off the Star Wars classes at level 6?


----------



## Ry

Well, that would make for a much bigger project... although I'm intrigued.

There's a downside, though - the more you stray from D&D, the less outside material remains compatible.

To get your skill consolidation, and maintain compatibility, you could add on Iron Heroes-style skill groups, where you pay 1 skill point to get 1 point in a set of skills (like Tumble, Jump, and Balance).

Personally, I hate Ability Scores and would rather ditch them in favor of Ability modifiers.  But that changes a few SRD spells (although not many, since we only have 0th-3rd).  What else were you thinking of, Nifft?


----------



## Ry

One thing I forgot to mention is that if you don't like first-level fatalities, it's no problem to start E6L games at 2nd.  I've started new characters at 6th and still had a blast.  Feel free to let your players play badasses right from the start if that's your style.


----------



## Ry

Here's a file that was the result of painstaking statistical analysis on D&D.  This gives you even better "best guesses" for ad-hoc monster and NPC stats.

I like to think of it as the DM's Able Secretary


----------



## Gold Roger

Nifft said:
			
		

> Hmm. Interested in a SW Saga (style) adaptation? Six levels is easier to balance than 20, so it would be an interesting exercise IMHO.
> 
> -- N



You gave me quite an idea here - I'm homebrewing a (gritty) anime spacepulp system based on SW saga and escalating hp was a concern of mine.

If I use epic after 6th or 8th rules, allowing to buy feats, talents and access to additional talent trees with xp after the level cap...


...hmmm...


----------



## Ry

I remember there was this long discussion about how there are 4 quartiles in D&D:

1-5 : Gritty
6-10: Heroic
11-15: Wuxia
16-20: Superheroes

Personally, I like the first two quartiles the best.  Sounds like you do too.


----------



## Nifft

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Not sure I understand what you mean? Just cutting off the Star Wars classes at level 6?




The SW Saga classes all look like this:

Level 1: Starting Feats, Defense Bonus, Talent
Level 2: Bonus Feat
Level 3: Talent
Level 4: Bonus Feat
Level 5: Talent
Level 6: Bonus Feat
... etc.

The only differences are skills, hit die, and defense bonus. All the rest is bonus feats and talent trees.

If you multi-class, you get *one* of your new class's Starting Feats (not all of them) -- this allows front-loading without encouraging multi-classing too much.

So the interesting thing here would be to break down class abilities into Talents and Feats, and then to establish "Epic" XP prices for these Talents & Feats.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft

rycanada said:
			
		

> There's a downside, though - the more you stray from D&D, the less outside material remains compatible.



 True, but SW Saga is *hot* right now. Many intelligent people consider that it might be a preview for 4e. So the effort may be less wasted. 



			
				rycanada said:
			
		

> To get your skill consolidation, and maintain compatibility, you could add on Iron Heroes-style skill groups, where you pay 1 skill point to get 1 point in a set of skills (like Tumble, Jump, and Balance).



 SW Saga has a neat solution for this: the way you get trained in a new skill is to raise your Int bonus (skill training is retro-active) or take a Feat. We can price those; skills fold into the system nicely, without any independent mechanic.

For the 5 classes in SW Saga, there's a nice trade-off between starting HP and starting skills -- two classes start with 30 HP and 2-3 skills, two classes start off with 24 HP and 4-5 skills, and one class starts off with 18 HP and 6 skills. They have mostly the same number of starting feats; each one has at least one starting feat that the others do not.

Spellcasters would be different, of course -- that's a part of the system that's significantly different. The SW Saga Force powers are much more like ToB maneuvers than spells.

Anyway. Just thinking out loud, for the moment. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Khuxan

Nifft said:
			
		

> The SW Saga classes all look like this:
> 
> Level 1: Starting Feats, Defense Bonus, Talent
> Level 2: Bonus Feat
> Level 3: Talent
> Level 4: Bonus Feat
> Level 5: Talent
> Level 6: Bonus Feat
> ... etc.
> 
> The only differences are skills, hit die, and defense bonus. All the rest is bonus feats and talent trees.
> 
> If you multi-class, you get *one* of your new class's Starting Feats (not all of them) -- this allows front-loading without encouraging multi-classing too much.
> 
> So the interesting thing here would be to break down class abilities into Talents and Feats, and then to establish "Epic" XP prices for these Talents & Feats.




Ah, I do like that idea because it does seem with 6th-level D&D multiclass characters are 'missing out' - a sorcerer 5/barbarian 1 never gets 3rd-level spells and that seems a pity, particularly when the fighter 6 gets more and more of his only class feature.

One change I would recommend is either abolishing class skills, or creating a feat which makes a skill a class skill - because otherwise in Saga once you hit 6th-level there's no way to become trained in a skill unless it's already a class skill. (I think that's how it works).


----------



## Ry

I'd definitely allow a feat to grant a new class skill, and feats that help you get up from 5th-level sorc to 6th-level equivalent sorcerer.  Those are totally OK with me.

I did some playtesting today at a local games club; characters were 1st level using my death and conviction rules, with players rolling all the dice (so it was Epic 6th Level, but starting at 1st).  That gave me a lot to think about rules-wise.


----------



## Ry

Remember, if you could get there inside of 6th levels, I'm happy making it available via feat chain.  Each part of that chain has to be judged against other feats, but that's not that hard.


----------



## Bloosquig

I've been fiddling with making a simple to understand start up game for some friends I'm trying to get into roleplaying games and this has given me several ideas.  Thanks and keep the info coming.


----------



## Ry

Welcome, Bloosquig!

One thing I'd recommend, make pregenerated characters with a simple, easy to read character sheet, and start the fun as soon as people are at the table.  

I used a slightly modified The Other Game Company initiative card (blown up) as the "character sheet" and it worked really well.  I made 12 1st-level PCs off of Goodman Games' free character .pdfs, and that meant there was lots of selection.  That also meant that we were sitting for all of 10 minutes before we were really _doing_ something.  

That's a big appeal for newbies.  They want to play a game, and choosing a piece like Monopoly is more familiar than building it from scratch.  Also, it's a great way to show the fun stuff right off the bat (hey, we're fighting goblins!  And they have a treasure map!")


----------



## Asmor

Ry, here's an idea...

Change the multiclass rules so that instead of a straight addition, it's pseudo-gestalt. You only ever take the single best score in any of your classes. So for example, you could build up to, say, a level 6 barbarian/level 6 ranger... You'd still only have a +6 BAB, but you'd get all the ranger abilities up to level 6 and all the barbarian abilities up to level 6...

The biggest issue with this system I think is that you'd quickly end up with people getting +5 to all saves as they multiclass into different classes with different good saves.

Not really sure how to price it... I think I'd personally allow you to buy your levels in any order, and you just pay the appropriate amount of exp... For example, a level 3 wizard/level 2 monk could either pay 3000 exp to go to level 4 in wizard or 2000 exp to go to level 3 in monk.

It's got a bit of a built in exp penalty in the fact that you're really not gaining as much by buying levels you've already got... For example, a level 6 wizard who then buys 6 levels of fighter only gets +3 BAB and +3 Fort save, instead of +6 BAB, +5 fort, +2 ref and +2 will, but he still has to spend 15k exp on it... And as you accrue more and more classes, the benefits get even smaller until you're only buying class features with your exp.

Of course, on the other hand I guess you could take the view that class features are almost the same as feats... In that case, they level from 1 to 6 with normal costs, and then after level 6 they buy each level in other classes for 5000 exp a piece.


----------



## Land Outcast

Good as a higher powered variant, but think your idea doesn't quite mesh with "Ry20", mainly because it would greatly up the power at each step (even though the steps would be climbed slower).

The second option is telling the player that if he wants his character to grow in power, he'll have to diversify (at arriving at level 6, a feat is worth less than Rage1/day, or sneak attack +1d6, or lvl1 spells).
And "forcing" (or rather: offering two paths which take to the same place, but one is easier) players to do something is something I try to avoid (I know I don't like the fact that my Paladin9, Griffon Guard and Protector of Draco is mechanically weaker in kicking evil ass than the Paladin5/PrC4... but that's a rant for other day).


As you see, there's no solid argument, just my opinion...


BTW: great work here Ry!


----------



## Khuxan

Alright, all the base classes are available. Please tell me what you think, and if you find any typoes/layout problems.

One thing I tried to do was avoid having any classes reference other classes. The exception was the ranger, because its Animal Companion class feature entry is both similar to and different from the druid's, and I didn't want to screw up and miss out information.

Does anyone have any ideas for a better capstone ability for the rogue than "Trap Sense +2"? I can't think of a less appealing class feature.

Finally, I want to stat up a few 6th-level generals, archmages and so on. Anyone got any ideas?

A cover I knocked up in Photoshop

The cover was created from this image:
    * Sample fractal image generated by the Electric Sheep project from sheep 10531
    * Source: http://electricsheep.org/archive/generation-198/dead.cgi?id=10531 (Image)
    * this sheep was designed by blazindime.


----------



## Ry

Hmm.  Give me a few to think about these.

My initial reaction is not to touch things on the level of detail as the Trap Sense +2.  While I agree it's a weak level 6 ability, we have to weigh customization against familiarity.  When someone sits down to play who has played a D&D game before, and they brought their well-loved 3.5 PHB, I'd rather be able to just tell them the 1 page worth of house rules and say "Welcome to the game, roll up a character!"  Poring the rules (say, so you can spot the difference between the Ry20 Rogue and the PHB rogue) is something I'd rather avoid for Ry20.

That said, if you want to get down to that level of detail, I'd say go for it, but make it into an optional rule / appendix ("Alternate Class Features"?)

Looks like I will soon have a regular weekly Ry20 game with a rotating player base, so luckily enough, I'll be able to do lots of playtesting.


----------



## Khuxan

rycanada said:
			
		

> My initial reaction is not to touch things on the level of detail as the Trap Sense +2.  While I agree it's a weak level 6 ability, we have to weigh customization against familiarity.  When someone sits down to play who has played a D&D game before, and they brought their well-loved 3.5 PHB, I'd rather be able to just tell them the 1 page worth of house rules and say "Welcome to the game, roll up a character!"  Poring the rules (say, so you can spot the difference between the Ry20 Rogue and the PHB rogue) is something I'd rather avoid for Ry20.
> 
> That said, if you want to get down to that level of detail, I'd say go for it, but make it into an optional rule / appendix ("Alternate Class Features"?)




That's actually what I intended. Sorry for not making that clearer. I agree the core rules should be unchanged from the SRD.

Another alternate rule I was considering was making Improved Critical require 6 levels of fighter. I think that'd be a nice boost for fighters to make sure people don't dip for two levels for the bonus feats.


----------



## Ry

I share with you a desire to keep single classing viable.  I don't think the 2-level fighter dip is as appealing though.  I we were just starting this with my old crew...

Consigliori: "You know what we won't see anymore?  Fighter Dipping."
Ryan: "What?  Why not?"
Consigliori: "Because you can ALWAYS get more feats."
Ryan: "Huh.  I hadn't thought of it that way."


----------



## Ry

I am so (SO!) tempted to say that Base Saves cap at +5, btw.


----------



## Khuxan

It worries me that the prevalence of feats means people won't take fighter levels _at all_. A barbarian, ranger or paladin all get full BAB and pretty similar hp to a fighter - and equal or better saves. When feats are a precious commodity, those four fighter feats are a real advantage. It seems when everyone gets bonus feats (and nothing but bonus feats) after 6th level, favoured enemies, smites, spells and rages are going to be a lot more tempting. (The ranger already gets four feats, but Endurance and Track aren't that fantastic).

I suppose the question boils down to - are a particular combat class's class features worth >4, 4 or <4 feats?


----------



## Ry

I agree that might happen, but I don't think it's going to break anybody's game.  Being 4 feats ahead is being 20,000 exp ahead along any given feat chain your character wants.  That's a real factor.

At the same time, yeah, maybe we'd see fewer fighters.  But IMO, the fighter's something of a weak class to begin with.  Did you see the Dead Levels article at WotC?  Fighters got, a real ability to "shore them up."  Think of it another way: If your campaign was full of rangers, paladins, and barbarians instead of fighters, would it really suffer?  Now if a player really wanted a soldier-style character, thought the fighter was weak, and you agreed, there's loads of alternate options available.

Nifft - I agree that 4e will likely look a lot like Saga.  But also, I want to let people with a PHB and some dice just show up, and know how it works.  At least when it comes to my own projects, if I make big revisions, I end up making more and more tiny ones.  If the rules are in flux, it's harder for a new player.  I want a player to be able to (for example) get to 6th level, go to Japan, and then drop back into my game six months or a year later and still know how to play.  I may convert this to 4E when it comes out, but that depends a lot on what 4E looks like (i.e. does it have a SRD?  What's the community reaction?  Is everyone converting or is the community forking?)


----------



## wolff96

I really like the idea of this system, but I have to comment on one slice of balance...  Sorcerer/Wizard.  I'm specifically looking at the top-level spells here.

The Sorcerer has 3 slots per day, with one 3rd level spell known.

The Wizard has 2 slots per day -- memorized in advance, of course -- and a minimum of four spells known.  He can, of course, add as many more spells as he likes assuming time and money are available.

Worse still, the wizard can still specialize.  At that point, he has the same number of spells per day as a sorcerer...  Not to mention that he still knows a lot more than one spell.  

I see this as being as bad, potentially, as a fighter never being played because feats are more prevalent.  At least the fighter has Weapon Specialization going for him...  A sorcerer versus a specialist wizard doesn't have much going for him at all.


----------



## Ry

Hi Wolff; you raise a good point, and it's one of my bigger concerns for the game.

I'd say there are 4 effective options:

1) Introduce an XP cost for learning spells (not my preference).
2) Write a few feats to address this very problem
3) Make an alternate class feature and stick it in the appendix
4) Allow / encourage the use of an alternate class, like the Warlock, depending on the Sorcerer the player wants.
Either introduce an xp cost for learning spells (not my preference) or write a few feats with this dilemma


----------



## Quartz

I've been thinking about this more, and I do like the concept, but I do have issues with the execution.

How about letting the sorceror pay 5000 XP to add one spell?

I agree with the earlier comments about fighters: why play a fighter if you can pick up the feats later anyway? Better to play something else and get cool class features first.

With regards to limiting base saves, can I suggest you limit the total, not the individual? This would allow greater variety.

Have you looked at what happens when characters have large numbers of extra feats?

It seems to me that there's a major imbalance with respect to the Craft Wand feat. A wizard with a collection of wands could dominate the party. In a normal game, the HP of the combat types would increase suficiently to balance it, but that cannot happen here.


----------



## mfrench

Quartz said:
			
		

> How about letting the sorceror pay 5000 XP to add one spell?
> 
> I agree with the earlier comments about fighters: why play a fighter if you can pick up the feats later anyway? Better to play something else and get cool class features first.
> 
> ~snip




1) The sorc could take Extra Spell (I think it's from Complete Arcane - you could adjust it to allow 3rd level spells.)
2) Introduce feats (from other sources / made up on your own) that require fighter levels as pre-reqs.  Maybe tactical feats from the new splatbooks could require Fighter levels?  Also, Fighter is really the only (core rules) way to play a heavy-armored combatant without a strong moral compass (which many players don't want to be saddled with).  I think that the Fighter niche can be made safe pretty easily.

~~~~~~~

The magic item discussion was really interesting, that had been on my mind for a while, but I still have a couple other observations about the system:

1) It basically removes PrC's.  This might be a good thing or a bad thing depending on preferences, but some players might raise a stink about not getting a chance at them.

2) It basically removes metamagic (someone touched on this above).  You can't quicken anything, you can only apply some of them to the lowest level spells (e.g., you can't apply anything to Fireball).  I think you mentioned the Sudden metamagics, but IIRC they require the base feat as a prereq, and I wouldn't want to take Quicken (which I couldn't use) and a slew of other MM feats just to get Sudden Quicken (which I could use 1/day).

Thoughts?


----------



## Ry

Thanks mfrench, you brought up exactly what I wanted to say re: the sorc issue.  

Mostly-removing PrC's is definitely by design.  If your players want to play, say, a tattooed monk, I'd suggest chatting with the player about character concepts and how to accomodate that rather than seeing "Being a tattooed-covered monk whose tattoos contain mystical powers" as something that can only be expressed through a prestige class.


----------



## phindar

I see class balance as being more of a non-issue.  People not choosing classes doesn't really seem to be that big of a deal in actual play-- if  no one plays a class the point of "Doesn't this class suck?" never gets brought up.  (I mean, yeah it sucks, but npcs can still take it.)  Classes balanced from 1-20th level with a certain amount of feats available probably aren't going to be equally balanced at 1-6th level with a completely different amount of feats available.  You could introduce changes to make the Fighter more viable (basing it off something other than more feats), but at that point you're almost writing a new class just to preserve the name "Fighter".  And with 68 Base Classes and counting (that was the last number mentioned, I haven't been counting), its not like their aren't options out there.

Capping base saves:  My theory is if a player multiclasses to get an awesome Save, he's either shafting other Saves (like the guy with the Fort +12, Reflex +2 and Will +0), or he's shafting other class abilities, like a Monk 2/Ranger 2/Cleric 2.  He'd have a Fort +9, Ref +6, and Will +6 (base).  At that point, having great saves is his class ability, because everything else is a bit of a mish-mash.  

I'm also a little proud that a lot of this-- Rogue 6, Wands-- I was talking about two pages ago.  If a lackluster class ability (like Trapsense +2) makes people more likely to take a level of something else, I don't see that as a bad thing.  (Although looking at the chart, I'd probably just move Imp Uncanny Dodge down to 6th level-- but I'm nicer about defensive abilities.  And that solves the problem of barb/rogues being better Uncanny Dodgers than single class rogues.)  

Instead of having Craft Items simply be a gold and xp trade, I'd so go back to the old school idea of needing unique components.  If to make a Wand of Fireballs you need the horn of a Red Dragon, the balancing factor isn't money or xp.  (You could limit it to something like CL equal to Age Category of the Dragon, depending on how... um, draconian you wanted to be.)  Personally, I like unique components because it encourages player creativity, and the items end up feeling less generic.  

I like the idea of the titans as gods, and I wanted to put forth a few more less anthropomorphic beings to be worshipped.  Dragons, natch, have the CR to be revered as living gods.  Kraken are both mighty and very intelligent.  I also like the idea of people worshipping big monsters, like a tribe of islanders who revere a megladon as their totem animal.  Elemental Weirds from the MM2 are great for people who want to worship elemental forces, they cast as 18th level Sorcerers and get a list of at will divinations (which is interesting in how _divine_ relates back to perception and to godliness).  In a 6th level world, a CR 9 or 10 creature, or one with the ability to cast 4th or 5th level spells could easily be considered "gods".


----------



## Ry

You're right, phindar, and good point about the saves.  I'd rather not touch the crafting rules if I can avoid it (although treating as wondrous items was suggested before).  But putting some kind of "alternate magic items rules" as an appendix to give advice on adjusting to taste would be a good idea too.


----------



## wolfpunk

I have been reading this thread and I have a couple of quesitons.

If a character could qualify for an epic feat, can they take it? I am leaning towards no because they are not 21st level characters. I just wasn't sure if you were treating the feats gained after 6th level as being epic level feats and so you could take one if you met the prerequisites other than the 21st level one of course?

For example, Chaotic Rage, requires Rage 5/day and chaotic alignment. You could easily get the five times per day by taking the Extra Rage feat.



Also, I have an idea, but I don't know if it twists from the path you are intending to travel, so if it is not of interest, don't worry. What if you moved characters attribute adjustment from every fourth level, to every third level and then an additional increase every 15,000 XP after 6th level. Or to slow it down, every 30,000 XP after 6th level.


----------



## Ry

Don't all those feats require 21st?  I'd assume no.  

For me, the existing epic level rules are like crack, in the sense of "what, cocaine wasn't good enough for you?"  (Once a fighter can take on armies of 1st-level characters or a wizard can cast wish, that's even MORE epic than the fantasy I like to read or play).


----------



## Ry

What does Chaotic Rage do?


----------



## Meeki

rycanada said:
			
		

> Actually, I found the opposite in my games.  Wizards really shine.  The reason, I think, is the change in setting assumptions.
> 
> For example, if you want to have a village of 100 people, they're ALL 1st level commoners, maybe 2 first level warriors, maybe an expert.
> 
> The fact that if they all stood in a crowd, the wizard could kill them all with a few words (I'm talking fireball here) - that's scary.  A fighter knows he could survive that, but who knows what else the wizard can do?  Turn invisible?  Protect himself from arrows?
> 
> Basically, if you cap at 6th, there's less of the arms race: "but my spell beats that"  - "but my goggles counteract your invisibility" - "but I've got boots that do that anyway" - "WE'll just raise him from the dead"
> 
> Magic is powerful under these rules.




Thats great, for an evoker.  What about those players that want to play abjurers, diviners, conjurers.  These schools have some of their most powerful spells at higher levels.  Do you allow them to take weaker versions of those spell or how do you deal with this?


----------



## wolfpunk

It allows you to treat your attack as chaotic so you deal +2d6 damage against lawful creatures. 

It was more just an example. I can see people wanting to take epic toughness which gives you +30 hit points as being desirable.

I am not actually promoting the use of epic level feats after sixth level, just wondering since all you get are feats after sixth level. No to mention that most epic feats have skill and feat requirements that the players will never be able to meet, but there are a few that they could.

I suppose if you really wanted to, you could treat each 5,000 XP after sixth level as a virtual level, so the character would have to earn 81,000 XP before being able to take their first epic feat.


----------



## Ry

Meeki said:
			
		

> Thats great, for an evoker.  What about those players that want to play abjurers, diviners, conjurers.  These schools have some of their most powerful spells at higher levels.  Do you allow them to take weaker versions of those spell or how do you deal with this?




Splatbooks and variants typically handle that.  But IMC people typically just go for base wizard.

I'd allow spell research into weaker versions of appropriate spells, and of course there's just so many different spells out there in the world that you can usually find something that fits a lower-level niche.


----------



## Ry

If it has [Epic] after the name it's not allowed just like it's not allowed before 20th in the core rules.


----------



## Animus

Hello,

This system looks like it would be cool to play as a change of pace. I do have a question about skills, however, and I apologize if I missed information upthread. What do you do about really high DCs (30+)? Some Knowledge skills may require attaining a result at or above DC 30. A 6th level character with 9 ranks in a skill +3 from Skill Focus +2 from one of the misc. feats that gives +2 to two skills gives a total bonus of +14-18 depending on the relevant ability bonus. Taking 10 or an average roll gets you 24-28. Of course you can roll high to get better results, but do you view this as a problem?


----------



## Meeki

rycanada said:
			
		

> Splatbooks and variants typically handle that.  But IMC people typically just go for base wizard.
> 
> I'd allow spell research into weaker versions of appropriate spells, and of course there's just so many different spells out there in the world that you can usually find something that fits a lower-level niche.




 splat books are not an answer I was looking for, but research could be neat i suppose.  Even with spell compendium and the like I feel many schools are lacking at low levels.

 I really like the idea of capping the levels, however im really a lush for high magic .


----------



## Ry

Well, for knowledge checks, I think there's no problem with a limit.  As-is, it's like the Wizard has a better and better version of Google installed in his brain.  

I don't mind if some information just isn't available... unless you have a big circumstance bonus, like researching in a giant library.


----------



## Ry

Meeki said:
			
		

> splat books are not an answer I was looking for, but research could be neat i suppose.  Even with spell compendium and the like I feel many schools are lacking at low levels.
> 
> I really like the idea of capping the levels, however im really a lush for high magic .




Fair enough; 20-level D&D can't be all things to all DMs, but then again, neither can 6-level


----------



## phindar

When it comes to Knowledge checks, "unbeatable" DC's are generally plot points.  If a DC is too high for a pc to know, a lower DC may point them to where that information might be found.  If the pcs can't make the DC 35 Knowledge check to figure out how a guy became a lich, a DC 25 might let them know which necromantic text he was researching, and a DC 15 might let them know what lich legends he was looking up prior to seeking out his lichdom.  They don't need to make the DC 35 to figure out how he did it if they manage to get their hands on the "How I Did It" tome.  A book doesn't necessarily have to be a "+2 to Knowledge checks", it can also effectively be an auto-success to a particular subset of questions.

I find it somewhat humorous if the pcs were trying to figure out how to kill a lich and they find out he took a century off to write an autobiography before getting sick of that and going back to the original plan of world domination.  It could be filled with all sorts of stuff beyond how he became a lich or his nefarious plans; just mundane stuff from his childhood, his first love, as well as the choices he made that led him down the path of evil and undeath.  There's no telling what a creative group of pcs could do with information like that.


----------



## Ry

Maybe I should put together a FAQ.


----------



## Nifft

Maybe you should start a Ry20 wiki. 

 -- N


----------



## Ry

I'm hoping to keep the rules so very short... but I'm considering it.

Actually, after the playtest I'm looking for some kind of "raise the stakes" mechanics, i.e., the player can say "If I'm successful with this hit, he gets -2 AC, but if I lose, I get -2 to attacks."  and I can say "Done" and then they roll.


----------



## green slime

This idea is probably the best thing to happen to DnD since 3.0... seriously.

It also opens up a whole new can of possibilities/worms.

For instance, you could introduce new feat chains, similar to ELH, that would allow casters to gain access to 4th+ level spell slots, for use with metamagic spells. 

Feats to improve effective creator/crafter level, for access to better items (+3 armours!)

Feats to gain access to otherwise unattainable feats (Imp Critical, for instance).

Personally, I'd feel happier with the cap at 10th, but that is just me.


----------



## Khuxan

green slime said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd feel happier with the cap at 10th, but that is just me.




The thing that sold me on the 6th-level cap is the article that explained Aragon is a fifth-level character. Sixth-level makes more sense than 5th-level as a cap for a number of reasons (iterative attacks for combat classes, 3rd-level spells for sorcerers, the bonus feat, etc.).


----------



## Ry

The 1e Dragon magazine article "Gandalf was a 5th-level wizard" really inspired all this.


----------



## Nifft

rycanada said:
			
		

> The 1e Dragon magazine article "Gandalf was a 5th-level wizard" really inspired all this.



 I can see that being a bit controversial these days... he was dual-class at least, right? For the whole sword thing? 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Ry

Maybe so; but he can certainly be done as an Epic 6th level character.


----------



## phindar

Well, clearly, because once he hit the level cap he picked up Martial Weapons Proficiency.

That's actually an interesting idea for a character under this system.  Go 6 in Wizard and once you go Epic alternate between taking Increased Toughness and offensive feats like Martial Weapon, Weapon Focus and so on.  You could probably make a fairly decent melee caster without having to multiclass.

It also raises an interesting point about stats.  Capped at 3rd level spells, having casting stats above 16 becomes less important. Its still nice for the bump to Save DCs, but its not non-negotiable the way it is when its tied to that bonus 4th level spell.


----------



## wolff96

rycanada said:
			
		

> Maybe so; but he can certainly be done as an Epic 6th level character.




Sure.  Give him Weapon Proficiency: Longsword, Weapon Focus: Longsword, and maybe one of the splatbook feats for using two weapons (staff and blade) and he's up there with some of the best fighters in the world -- most of them aren't sixth level half-celestials, after all.  

----------------------

Also, it occurred to me that you might want to make a few feats for Sorcerers...  Since they fall behind wizards under the system assumption here, you could re-write the "Sudden" feats -- making them into the equivalent of Weapon Specialization for fighters.  

They might not know many spells -- and I agree they need access to the Extra Spell feat -- but they're suddenly the masters of their own spells again.  No wizard could match the intensity of a _Sudden Maximised Fireball_.

I do think that you should allow modifiers for items under this system, though.  Find a rare magical site and use a bunch of special materials and you can make the legendary Flaming Blade of Azirethos (a +1 Flaming Longsword that required several special components.)  By making components important and then cribbing some of the "Special Sites" rules -- the ones in Midnight were particularly good -- you could really make crafting interesting.


----------



## Ry

Maybe I should mention this, then:  When players reach the cap, I actively encourage - but don't require in the rules - that they look for other things about their characters besides "powering up"


----------



## Nifft

rycanada said:
			
		

> look for other things about their characters besides "powering up"




When I read this, I was weakened for 2d4 rounds and dazed for 1 round. Thank the gods you don't have more hit dice! 

 -- N


----------



## phindar

Well, I'd say going all melee at 6th is more diversification for a Wizard than powering up, but any time a character gains something, power is involved.  I'm not entirely sold on the idea that say Wpn Focus is more of a power up than Skill Focus; its all about getting better at what you want that character to do.  

A character can go 6 in Fighter and not change much with 6 bonus feats; they get better at more stuff but its all the same schtick; hitting people harder and more often.  He isn't going to be able to cast spells, and even if he devotes all his feats to skill bonuses, he's probably still not going to be a particularly good skill monkey.  But if you go 6 in any of the other classes and then tack on 6 bonus feats, and its not that hard to horn in on the Fighter's action.  (Even with 6 feats devoted to melee combat, a Wizard is still going to trail behind a basic 6th level fighter-- nevermind and Epic Fighter with 6 more feats-- but then he'll still have his 6 levels of Wizard to fall back on.  I mean, just _Fly_ and a few ranged combat feats would give him quite the edge.)

There are all sorts of other considerations that an actual game would bring into the discussion, things particular to the campaign's focus, setting and the characters.  When you're playing a character or running a game you go by a lot more than just the raw mechanics, but I'm only focusing on the raw mechanics right now.  I gotta push the envelope, Mav.


----------



## Ry

That's a good point, phindar - feats mean mechanical power, whether you're working within your niche or not.  

On another note, I think the biggest priority is for me to get my hands dirty and do more playtesting.


----------



## Ry

For playtesting I'm hoping to use a nice, friendly character sheet.  I worked this up from a TGM Initiative card originally.  Not pretty but workable.

Edit: Updated version.


----------



## Ry

Also, for now I'm going to keep calling it E6L (E-sixel), but if you want to call it Ry20 then go nuts.  

Maybe just E6 would be better...


----------



## rom90125

Ryan,

I really like this idea...a lot!  I think I would lose some of my powergamers, but I suspect everyone else would go for this variant system with little concern.

Is there any chance of getting the E6L rules condensed into a PDF for review?  I would like to see the rules/options all listed in a single document that I could give to my players.


----------



## Ry

Hi Rom, I am trying to figure out what the best presentation would be, but yeah, that's the idea.  Let me see what I can cobble together.


----------



## Ry

I'm going to compile the rules (just the house rules, not the SRD originals updated), do a FAQ, and ask a mod to merge this thread with the really old one of the same name.  Then I'll start a new thread with all the collected details.


----------



## Storminator

Animus said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> This system looks like it would be cool to play as a change of pace. I do have a question about skills, however, and I apologize if I missed information upthread. What do you do about really high DCs (30+)? Some Knowledge skills may require attaining a result at or above DC 30. A 6th level character with 9 ranks in a skill +3 from Skill Focus +2 from one of the misc. feats that gives +2 to two skills gives a total bonus of +14-18 depending on the relevant ability bonus. Taking 10 or an average roll gets you 24-28. Of course you can roll high to get better results, but do you view this as a problem?




It's not that bad. A 14-18 without synergies or circumstance bonuses or Aid Anothers gives a pretty good shot a DC 30 check, and not out of the question for a DC 35.

There is the question of what happens in those cases where a failure means you can't check again until you gain another skill point (like some Spellcraft checks). If you never level, you can never gain another skill point. A feat that grants +1 Skill Point probably isn't outrageous, even if it lets you break level caps.

PS


----------



## Ry

There's a feat that allows 5 Skill points, I believe, but it doesn't break skill caps.  But I'd allow an "Incantation" to reset that requirement.  

Hoo boy.  There are quite a few little epicycles that I didn't expect.  But we shall perservere!


----------



## Animus

rycanada said:
			
		

> There's a feat that allows 5 Skill points, I believe, but it doesn't break skill caps.  But I'd allow an "Incantation" to reset that requirement.



Open Minded is the name of that feat.  I believe it's in Complete Adventurer.


			
				rycanada said:
			
		

> Hoo boy.  There are quite a few little epicycles that I didn't expect.  But we shall perservere!




Yes we shall! By sharing your ideas, others can help develop it as well.


----------



## Nifft

Animus said:
			
		

> Open Minded is the name of that feat.  I believe it's in Complete Adventurer.




Also in the Expanded Psionics HB, and therefore also in the SRD (here).

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Darkness

Threads merged.


----------



## Ry

Thanks Darkness.  From here on out, please post to the newest thread


----------

