D&D 5E Assaying rules for 5E E6 (Revised)

[Horwath]

Very much agree. The fix for healing word isn't to make healers pay more for the yo-yo. Costs should fall on the side of the character going down.

I mean, balance-wise, range and bonus action is worth far more than 2HP... but that isn't fundamentally the problem. It just casts it in brighter light.

that is why we increased amount of HP healed by Healing word, removed Cure spell, added negative HP and exhaustion levels. It all forces you to heal before falling to 0 and amount is not trivial like current Healing word.

 

[Shardstone]

I use a Crippled Condition in my games that I've been toying with applying to 0 HP.

When Crippled, you can only choose one to take on your turn: an Action or Bonus Action. This goes away after the duration or if the crippled creature restores hit points through any means.

When reduced to 0 hit points, a creature is crippled. Additionally, every time they take damage while at 0 HP, or whenever they take an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction, they must make a Death Saving Throw. 3 successes = regain 1 hp; 3 fails = death.

Will report back on how it goes.

 

[clearstream]

that is why we increased amount of HP healed by Healing word, removed Cure spell, added negative HP and exhaustion levels. It all forces you to heal before falling to 0 and amount is not trivial like current Healing word.

I've been mulling over the increases to healing (from 1d8 per level base to 2d8 per level). There are interesting facets to it

Healing by a small amount is only good for whack-a-mole... it doesn't do much to keep participants from going down in the first place and to some extent relies upon the "efficiency-of-dying" to make the cut as a viable strategy, therefore I generally like the idea of increasing the baseline​

​

The increase correctly represents the cost of a slot (spell) versus that of a freely repeatable effect (cantrip). That's true only if a group are prepared to make rests mean something (i.e. enforce X rests per encounter). Otherwise, within a fight, the true cost is found in the action economy (i.e. it's near identical.) Along with tightened wording on long rests, it seems to me that this sort of change indicates that the designers intend rests to matter.​

​

Seeing as the above doesn't obviate the efficiency-of-dying, I wondered about limiting the increase to when cast on those standing? Possibly rethinking Stunned: 5 to something like Stunned: 2 and Resistance: Healing. That forestalls whack-a-mole and addresses head-on the "efficiency-of-dying".

 

[Charlaquin]

I use a Crippled Condition in my games that I've been toying with applying to 0 HP.

When Crippled, you can only choose one to take on your turn: an Action or Bonus Action. This goes away after the duration or if the crippled creature restores hit points through any means.

When reduced to 0 hit points, a creature is crippled. Additionally, every time they take damage while at 0 HP, or whenever they take an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction, they must make a Death Saving Throw. 3 successes = regain 1 hp; 3 fails = death.

Will report back on how it goes.

You could use the Dazed condition from the UA playtests instead - able to move or use an action but not both, and can’t use a bonus action or reaction.

 

[Shardstone]

You could use the Dazed action from the UA playtests instead - able to move or use an action but not both, and can’t use a bonus action or reaction.

I didn't know this was a thing! I need to reread the UA.

 

[Charlaquin]

I didn't know this was a thing! I need to reread the UA.

Also, should say Dazed condition not Dazed action. My bad there.

 

[CapnZapp]

Otherwise, within a fight, the true cost is found in the action economy (i.e. it's near identical.)

Just so we're clear: There's a large difference in action economy between a bonus action cast like Healing Word and an action cast like Cure Wounds.

 

[squibbles]

Yes, I've tried two versions, the one in the OP and an alternative version we are using in our current campaign. [...]

The combination of advancement capped at 6th and Stunned: 5 at 0 HP is leading to very lively play in our sessions. We love the rule and expect to keep Stunned: X on 0HP/dying for the long term.

If you're willing to elaborate @clearstream I'm interested to hear how 5E E6 played, whether you continued increasing the challenges for the static level PCs, and whether the capped advancement--or lateral advancement if the game goes into domain play or acquisition of magic items--feels fun and natural. Does E6 deliver on it's no superheroes and no wuxia intent when applied to 5e?

Also, why did you move away from the rules articulated in the OP? Just wanted to try something different, or did you find them lacking in some way?

Not to rain on anybody's parade discussing whack a mole healing and its solutions.

 

[clearstream]

Just so we're clear: There's a large difference in action economy between a bonus action cast like Healing Word and an action cast like Cure Wounds.

Yes, that's what I said: the true cost is found in the action economy ([because on resource use] it's near identical.)

I can see that the part you quoted could mislead if taken out of the surrounding context of my post.

 

[clearstream]

If you're willing to elaborate @clearstream I'm interested to hear how 5E E6 played, whether you continued increasing the challenges for the static level PCs, and whether the capped advancement--or lateral advancement if the game goes into domain play or acquisition of magic items--feels fun and natural. Does E6 deliver on it's no superheroes and no wuxia intent when applied to 5e?

Yes, it does. Characters become strong, but they are never super-heroic. Bearing in mind that it takes a lot of sessions to see a decent slice of the 12 possible classes + dozens of sub-classes, we need more play still to understand how fun and natural it will feel. So I will report back in a few more sessions.

Allowing epic boons could prove to stray off-piste, because some of them do feel super-heroic. It's easy to find yourself making something expensive that, really, you'd rather not see in play at all! The cost reflects your aversion to it and maybe it's better to cut it. OTOH some epic boons look like they'd add interest....

Relatedly, I am noticing that feats and epic boons are uneven. Something we're doing that I might not have mentioned is

Relaxed prerequisites​

Ignore ability score and species feat pre-requisites​

​

Broadened benefits​

When a feat increases an ability score by 1, you can increase any ability score... not just those listed​

Together, these make a much wider range of feats interesting to each character. If I remember to, when I report back I will document what we're doing more completely!

Also, why did you move away from the rules articulated in the OP? Just wanted to try something different, or did you find them lacking in some way?

I might still revert to the OP! The give and take as I see it includes

OP-version: class features tie better to class thematics than collections of feats and epic boons​

Cap-at-6th: it's interesting to customize characters with feats and epic boons​

​

OP-version: class features are unequal*​

Cap-at-6th: feats and epic boons are a finite list that's unequal in focus and value​

​

OP-version: there's some interesting play around magic (dispels and counterspells)​

Cap-at-6th: it's simpler and thus likely more accessible (although trap-feats might undo that)​

*Evaluating classes in ASIs under the OP-version up to 12th: Brb 32, Brd 34, Clr 34, Drd 33, Ftr 25, Mnk 28, Pal 31, Rgr 31, Rog 28, Src 29, War 32, Wiz 27. It's an imperfect analysis, but the gap could be as much as 9 ASIs. As a side note, for anyone who wants to better balance casters against martials, capping spell level at 3rd goes a long way toward that.