| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean come on. who really needs more than a feat or two, some cantrips and 2 digits worth of hit points anyway...
So... Hackmaster?
Here's what I'm thinkin Gandalf's stunt double: at least give 'em to level 3. Still low level, still challenged by even camping in cold weather or overland travel, yet full spellcasters finally get into another level of spells and many class features are opened up.
How about E6 with NPC classes?
Alright alright alright... E2...
But man... those 2nd level spells are a little over the top.
Lets just stick with E2
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then you wouldnt have to feel bad about giving everyone in the party superpowerful magic items
I've got a staff of the magi
I've got a +5 keen stalker
I've got a sphere of annihilation!
Who cares... You got like 20 some odd hit points....
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then you wouldnt have to feel bad about giving everyone in the party superpowerful magic items
I've got a staff of the magi
I've got a +5 keen stalker
I've got a sphere of annihilation!
I got a rock.
(Cue Charlie Brown music)| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about Gestalt20/20/20.
You pick 20 classes, you get 20 levels in each class, and then you get 20 random artifacts. SO FUN GUYYYZZZ...
Or, we could just not make threads that are thinly veiled attacks on ways other people like to enjoy Pathfinder.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think so; it brought back a lot of memories of playing classic Traveller. :P
|
No, the OP is making an attack on people who want to play a play style different than his. So not only is it a troll, he is calling out players and DMs who like eX games as stupid/incapable of playing with the existing rules.
Posting this trash in a suggestions forum, which goes to show the brilliance of the OP.
I don't disagree Aux, but the thread really did remind me of the fun I had playing a system where there's barely any advancement all.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think so; it brought back a lot of memories of playing classic Traveller. :P
My character died of old age during the creation process. :(
Old age? He was one of the lucky ones, my guys always failed their survival roles at a tragically young age. :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP is just having a little bit of fun. E6 advocates often come off a little arrogant, declaring that they've found a better way to play and that they've fixed what's "wrong" with Pathfinder. A little gentle needling is a time-honoured tradition; have a little fun with it, rather than becoming indignant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if you're joking, but honestly, I have considered things like this.
I've also considered "Static 6" and "Static 4", where you start as a given level and never level up. You just gain the feat after x many experience points. Since feats are generally versatile enough to improve any desired number, and where they are missing you could fill in the gaps, it's an easy way to change the advancement of Pathfinder into something more akin to a free-form advancement system.
The advancement arc is one of the least understood aspects of GMing in Pathfinder. I think alternative systems like E6 are great for illustrating the nuances of different levels. The only downside, I think, is this tendency for E6 advocates to think that everything after 6th is broken.
I don't think so; it brought back a lot of memories of playing classic Traveller. :PMy character died of old age during the creation process. :(
And they say making characters in PF takes long...
I once built a game system from the ground up. Never really looked into publishing it though, but played it for a few years with my friends. We all loved it.
I wanted it to be compatible with D&D (2nd edition which was fairly new at the time) so I could use their source material and adventures, so I kept it close enough to use with a little conversion.
One of the key points was you started with a fixed amount of HP based on race (elf started with 5, dwarf with 9, human with 7, etc.). There were no classes but as you gain XP you spent it to "purchase" new abilities. Because there were no classes or levels, your HP never went up automatically. There were abilities to gain HP, but only small amounts. Like you could gain a +1 bonus to hit or you could gain 2 HP. And the HP increases were limited to how often they could be taken (the main limitation was a geometrically increasing cost so it was much more effective to take several new abilities rather than increasing HP by a little bit).
Worked very well. We had characters with 20 HP taking on giants and dragons and such. Of course, we also had abilities to mitigate damage, avoid hits, and resist magical/elemental effects otherwise it would have been impossible. Dragon breathes fire for 60 damage. Save for half, apply 80% resistance, so ultimately you only take 6 HP. That kind of thing.
On the plus side, it was far more realistic. In our games, there was no "high level" character who could jump off a cliff and survive the fall (he could magically avoid falling, but if he really fell, it would kill him). There was no "high level" character who could survive being hit 20 times with an axe (he could avoid those hits, but if he was actually hit once or twice, he would die like any "low level" character would).
And they say making characters in PF takes long...I don't think so; it brought back a lot of memories of playing classic Traveller. :PMy character died of old age during the creation process. :(
Character generation is rolling for the life events that give them their adventuring skills. You choose a service, roll for events, etc. It's feasible to start with a 60 year old character that mustered out of a lifetime in the imperial navy. Skills up the yin-yang, but probably not the best in hand-to-hand, or looking at a very long career as an adventurer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
he will be here all week, folks
try the veal!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then you wouldnt have to feel bad about giving everyone in the party superpowerful magic items
I've got a staff of the magi
I've got a +5 keen stalker
I've got a sphere of annihilation!Who cares... You got like 20 some odd hit points....
That idea really intrigues me actually.
|
|
The OP is openly insulting eX advocates and posters in these parts of the forums. If this was an insult/joke thread about 4e it would have shut down immediately.
who really needs more than a feat or two, some cantrips and 2 digits worth of hit points anyway...
Alright alright alright... E2...
But man... those 2nd level spells are a little over the top.
Lets just stick with E2
Where the hell are you getting the notion that he is advocating a skill based progression system vs. a level based system?
I will admit I post partly in jest, and anyone who knows my posting history knows i'm no fan of e6... but truth be told... E1 or E2 might be something folks think is crazy fun...
I had the same thought as Sissyl... Character creation couldnt be easier.
And DM Blake shows how not only can it be done, but that it *even more* creates the kind of game that the E6 folk seem to enjoy...
I may not personally take the idea seriously, but based on the posts I see so far there are a few people who agree that 'this actually might be fun to try'... I'm not trolling... I just thought...
If e6 is so conceptually popular... why did they chose 6... and some choose 8.... if the idea is to limit power... why haven't I seen any posts about going lower... so I searched for e1 and didn't find anything... I thought to myself... it's as legitimate a concept as e6 for the purposes e6 are designed for... I wonder why nobody's talked about it... It kinda sounds funny. I should bring it up.
Sorry if my actual historical stance on e6 makes anyone feel like its troll burning time. I am genuinely curious about how such an idea would go over...
And it's a good enough idea to get people seriously thinking about it and how it would work...
Mythic Evil Lincoln, Epic meepo and Chaoseffect's reactions are the reaction I was going for...
If you're the kind of player who likes e6... what made you choose 6... and what would happen if you instead chose 1 or 2... Would it be seen as a horrible idea that's so bad its considered trolly bad? If so then why is 6 not trollybad... and if it's not then hey... E2.... think about it...
It could actually be fun. And for the exact same reasons people think e6 is fun, pretty much.
Almost feels like it could be warhammer 1e-ish... for those who like such things.
If so then why is 6 not trollybad... and if it's not then hey... E2.... think about it...
It could actually be fun. And for the exact same reasons people think e6 is fun, pretty much.
You do realise Basic D&D went up to level 3 and was quite popular, right?
You do realise Basic D&D went up to level 3 and was quite popular, right?If so then why is 6 not trollybad... and if it's not then hey... E2.... think about it...
It could actually be fun. And for the exact same reasons people think e6 is fun, pretty much.
Exactly! This is kinda like the 'Red Box Only' version of what you might think a 'pathfinder BECMI...' would look like.
It sounds kinda fun and kinda funny and in all honesty I only mention it because even to me it sounds like it wouldn't be a half bad idea that I just noticed nobody had brought up before....
I sure wasn't expecting the notion to sound like I was going for the 'hey I think i'll be an ahole on the threads by bringing it up'...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If e6 is so conceptually popular... why did they chose 6... and some choose 8....
From what I remember, there was a perception that 5th level spells like teleport started really messing with some game assumptions, and that just placing a ceiling before those game changing spells became available was a better solution than endlessly patching the polymorph spells or arguing over how broken gate was or trying to figure out how powerful the thirty 'half strength' red dragons the wizard just made with simulacrum are. Cutting it down further to 6th level was a further step, although I don't remember specifically what 4th level spells were considered problematic (well, other than the polymorph I just mentioned. I remember a barbarian player mentioning that he was saving up his money to have himself polymorphed into a 'war troll' or something for the massive strength bonus and reach and natural armor, and I was like 'uh, no').
(6 was chosen over 5 so that sorcerers weren't cut off from ever getting 3rd level spells, IIRC.)
I like this 'static' idea mentioned upthread. Coming from a lot of GURPS and superhero games, where you start the game playing the character you wanted to play already, and aren't 'building to anything that you might get to actually play, in several months...', I'm a big fan of starting out competent and heroic, and growing only incrementally, not by leaps and bounds.
E6ers oughta relax. Their game is troll proof. :)
But seriously, it's a variant. Why do people need to squabble about this? You're either into it or you're not.
Is anyone really being pressed against their will into E6 games?
An E6 game killed my family. From that moment on I swore to complain about it on the internet.
That aside, is there some sort of standardized rule set for E6 in Pathfinder? Perhaps one someone has a link to?
If e6 is so conceptually popular... why did they chose 6... and some choose 8....From what I remember, there was a perception that 5th level spells like teleport started really messing with some game assumptions, and that just placing a ceiling before those game changing spells became available was a better solution than endlessly patching the polymorph spells or arguing over how broken gate was or trying to figure out how powerful the thirty 'half strength' red dragons the wizard just made with simulacrum are. Cutting it down further to 6th level was a further step, although I don't remember specifically what 4th level spells were considered problematic.
(6 was chosen over 5 so that sorcerers weren't cut off from ever getting 3rd level spells, IIRC.)
I like this 'static' idea mentioned upthread. Coming from a lot of GURPS and superhero games, where you start the game playing the character you wanted to play already, and aren't 'building to anything that you might get to actually play, in several months...', I'm a big fan of starting out competent and heroic, and growing only incrementally, not by leaps and bounds.
That's exactly one of my favorite things conceptually that I always liked palladium/rifts/heroes unlimited for... Your skills and powers get better over time, but you pretty much start out with every capability right off the bat... No 'earning' a skill or a power... You hit the ground as the character you want to be instead of 'starting out a ball of nothing that has to wait to grow into what you actually want to play'.... One of the drawbacks to vancian casting was having to wait 13 levels to get anything really exciting to cast.. and not being able to cast them is why i'm not a big fan of e6, as everyone probably already knows...
But I was under the impression that in e6 you didnt just stop growing, you just never got 'godpowers' levels of casting... then again.... one might think teleport is 'godpowers'... then again maybe someone else thinks 'fireball' is 'godpowers'....
Talk about a low magic campaign... FIrst level spells only? Now there's a way to make magic items feel 'powerful'
An E6 game killed my family.
Man, the dead family backstory is getting really overplayed these days.
Set:
Polymorph was the big offender and that was a 4th level spell in 3.0/3.5.
It's a 5th in Pathfinder.6th level is also a level where Casters have neat tricks and spells but don't fully outshine non Casters.
I personally prefer E8 though.
See I like E6 but having a feat chain to access 4th level spells. It's more about making it so only martials can get multiple attacks IMO.
Meatrace that's one of the main reasons in support of E6 over E8. A good number of people like E8 better though. I actually have a thread going discussing the main differences.
I'm in the planning stages of a campaign that makes use of E6 and I was torn between that and E8 for a long time. Eventually I decided I wanted to restrict 4th level spells to a certain type of character and allowing 8th level wouldn't do that. And the martial thing.
But I have a cpl tweaks, like every time you get a Feat you also get 1 HP or Skill Point like a favored class bonus.
Set:
Polymorph was the big offender and that was a 4th level spell in 3.0/3.5.
Scrying is potentially a big game-changer, too.
The big arguments for E6 (instead of another number) are that full BAB classes get an extra attack, and that "Gandalf was a 5th level magic-user" (tm).
I searched for e1 and didn't find anything... I thought to myself... it's as legitimate a concept as e6 for the purposes e6 are designed for... I wonder why nobody's talked about it...I've talked about E1 before.
Thats odd. I wonder why my thread search didn't pop those up... Not only did you mention them, but you mentioned them in homebrew, which is where I searched...
Thats odd. I wonder why my thread search didn't pop those up... Not only did you mention them, but you mentioned them in homebrew, which is where I searched...
I think I recall seeing (although I can't seem to find where) something about the search engine on the site being unable to find text in thread replies, and it being better to use google (with 'site:paizo.com' in the search) to do thread searches.
|
|
I'm in the planning stages of a campaign that makes use of E6 and I was torn between that and E8 for a long time. Eventually I decided I wanted to restrict 4th level spells to a certain type of character and allowing 8th level wouldn't do that.
I like that. 4th level spells become the 'epic magic' of the E6 paradigm.