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

[clearstream]

Well, my solution to that would be that in addition to cutting monster HP in half, would be to dial back the drama a bit on the higher CR monsters damage. Dial back the damage dice one die step, knocking the number of damage dice in half, or something similar. One would have to use a sharpie pen and their judgement on a case by case basis.

Part of the reason IMO The HP count and damage on some of the creatures is so high is so that they can remain a threat to PC groups as they continually level up and their HP increases. With an E5/6 mod that is just not needed.

Intuitively, I wouldn't both limit character HP and reduce monster damage dealing. That seems self-defeating (characters have fewer HP, but monsters deal less damage!) My feeling is not at all that monsters deal too much damage - only a reality check that fighter HP will still feel meaningfully different from wizard HP. Also, by my estimation capped at 5th a wizard is fairly likely to be taken down in one round by many of higher CR creatures (at least CR 5, and upwards), while at 6th I think they generally will survive one round.

But ultimately IMHO, that extra 6 HP or so will not make much difference if the PC stands in front of a creature after taking a good shot.

Agreed!

For me part of E5/6 feel is the complete paradigm shift of how many, and of what kind of creatures you can throw at your PC's.

Also agreed, and a strong reason not to weaken monsters! In my experience the great majority of by-the-book creatures are not too challenging for characters.

As for dealing with things like Dragons - well there was a reason long polearms were once a thing in the game back in the day!

IMO rules for creating/setting big traps, the use of long polearms like Pikes, and ballista should be a thing. If not outright necessary for the bigger creatures in the MM.

Also Henchmen/Hirelings; Dragon hunting is a group event.

Agreed.

I don't think so. Looking at how my Barbarian would work and the remaining class features there are no real "trap" abilities. Everything is useful.

Of course you will get people who will do the math and figure the ideal "build" for dealing the most damage in this or that circumstance, but they were doing that already in normal 5e with multiclassing...

Also for me part of it would be taking a sharpie pen to parts of the feats that are OP as well. Like the Alert feat; I'd either re-write it, or it is out! It's a bit ridiculous. So for my E5 I'd have to go through the feats with my sharpie pen as well and take out stuff that crosses into the superhero ability spectrum as well.

As an example, for Clerics interested in joining melee, it is hard to see why anyone would pick the Bonus Proficiencies feature from Life or Nature when they could instead gain the strictly better version from Tempest or War. Getting martial weapons and heavy armor, rather than heavy armor. I don't see why any fighter choosing Combat Superiority from Battlemaster would invest a pick in Student of War or Know Your Enemy when they could instead add Spellcasting or Arcane Charge from Eldritch Knight. Similarly, what prevents a player taking say Totem Spirit and then Retaliation?

For me, the fundamental issue with offering class and subclass features as picks is that they are not equal in value. That isn't a matter of a minor discrepancy: it's between a ribbon and a near-double-feat. One option I tried in my earlier drafts was to price features in ASI-equivalents (the 1, 2, 4 scale where 2 = an ASI) and give characters 2 points at each level which they could save up if desired. I set it aside for two reasons. One is that it is very hard to correctly anticipate and cost all combinations that result in imbalance, even where the parts are individually balanced. Second, it was tangential to my goals as it delivered on customisation, but not at all on vulnerability or mortality.

 

[clearstream]

As for what to gain on level up… I feel like “demi-levels” are too complex, and also wouldn’t feel like an E6 system. Just a powered-down version of regular level advancement. Instead, I would look at what scaling you want to remove. HP? Proficiency bonus? Class features? Damage per round? ASIs? Then just remove whatever you don’t want to scale from level up, and keep the rest.

Well, I believe you turned out to be right. In my defense, it was not so much a matter of complexity, as clarity of concerns. I realised I had taken on a class balancing project hidden within my E6 heroes-not-super-heroes project. Once I dropped the former, I found that it was possible to deliver the latter much as you suggested - by limiting scaling along a few fundamental dimensions. (OP revised to capture that.)

 

[Distracted DM]

I've been seriously considering enacting my own "e9" rules, but I'm always looking at other folks doing something similar- did any of you ever enact the changes here?
@clearstream @Tom B1 @Jaeger @Charlaquin

 

[clearstream]

I've been seriously considering enacting my own "e9" rules, but I'm always looking at other folks doing something similar- did any of you ever enact the changes here?
@clearstream @Tom B1 @Jaeger @Charlaquin

Yes, I've tried two versions, the one in the OP and an alternative version we are using in our current campaign. The alternative version has it that

Level Progression Capped at 6th Level​

Exactly as it says, the maximum level is 6th. So this is simplified, relative to the OP. This is what we're playing now.​

​

Characters can Spend XP on ASIs (feats) and Epic Boons​

So this is similar to original E6. You just decide what rate you want these to enter play and cost accordingly. We have it dialled so that it would take 3-4 sessions to gain a feat, and around 10 to gain an epic boon. Level-equivalence is still calculated in the same way as the OP.​

​

Creatures Reduced to 0HP and "Dying" gain Stunned: 5​

So the moment you go down, you gain 5 rounds of the stunned condition. You're still unconscious and making death throws as usual, however, most things that bring you back to consciousness (e.g. healing) do not alleviate stunned. This rule has been incredible in play! Unattractive healing word-driven whack-a-mole game play is gone. Players take and cast cure wounds... sometimes even pre-emptively. Dramatic scenes ensue, as characters strive to save downed friends.​

Five rounds may seem punitive and there is reasoning behind it. We first chose it based on the largest number of rounds a character could in theory go before either dying or stabilising. What we used to see - and found unattractive - was that a character would go down and be healed and thus prone on their next turn. Under our new rule, players really, strongly, do not want to go down. On top of capping at 6HD, we have seen the action-economy price of defensive buffs become worth paying. That's a huge change. As I said, we've also seen a far more active and strategic approach to healing. The "efficiency" of letting characters on low HP be dropped before healing has gone out the window (what I mean is that a character on say 5 HP takes 15... was "efficient" because they can only drop to 0.) Combats typically run something like 3-10 rounds, with 4-6 being the middle ground. Out for five means you're out for the combat... or maybe up in the last few rounds. (We're still playtesting this, and it might go down to Stunned: 4 or Stunned: 3 in the long run.)

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.

 

[Distracted DM]

Yes, I've tried two versions, the one in the OP and an alternative version we are using in our current campaign. The alternative version has it that

Level Progression Capped at 6th Level
Exactly as it says, the maximum level is 6th. So this is simplified, relative to the OP. This is what we're playing now.

Characters can Spend XP on ASIs (feats) and Epic Boons
So this is similar to original E6. You just decide what rate you want these to enter play and cost accordingly. We have it dialled so that it would take 3-4 sessions to gain a feat, and around 10 to gain an epic boon. Level-equivalence is still calculated in the same way as the OP.

Creatures Reduced to 0HP and "Dying" gain Stunned: 5
So the moment you go down, you gain 5 rounds of the stunned condition. You're still unconscious and making death throws as usual, however, most things that bring you back to consciousness (e.g. healing) do not alleviate stunned. This rule has been incredible in play! Unattractive healing word-driven whack-a-mole game play is gone. Players take and cast cure wounds... sometimes even pre-emptively. Dramatic scenes ensue, as characters strive to save downed friends.

Five rounds may seem punitive and there is reasoning behind it. We first chose it based on the largest number of rounds a character could in theory go before either dying or stabilising. What we used to see - and found unattractive - was that a character would go down and be healed and thus prone on their next turn. Under our new rule, players really, strongly, do not want to go down. On top of capping at 6HD, we have seen the action-economy price of defensive buffs become worth paying. That's a huge change. As I said, we've also seen a far more active and strategic approach to healing. The "efficiency" of letting characters on low HP be dropped before healing has gone out the window (what I mean is that a character on say 5 HP takes 15... was "efficient" because they can only drop to 0.) Combats typically run something like 3-10 rounds, with 4-6 being the middle ground. Out for five means you're out for the combat... or maybe up in the last few rounds. (We're still playtesting this, and it might go down to Stunned: 4 or Stunned: 3 in the long run.)

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.

Thanks for the reply! It's funny how Healing Word caused a lot of issues.. I wonder if just removing it, making it Touch range, or grant Temp HP would resolve all the house-rules etc. that have been built up around the bonus action heal yo-yoing.

Do you find a lot of players max out multiple stats, or are they using ASIs for feats?
You said 3-4 sessions is enough for an ASI, you're still using XP I assume? Do you have a set number for that?

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, I've tried two versions, the one in the OP and an alternative version we are using in our current campaign. The alternative version has it that

Level Progression Capped at 6th Level
Exactly as it says, the maximum level is 6th. So this is simplified, relative to the OP. This is what we're playing now.

Characters can Spend XP on ASIs (feats) and Epic Boons
So this is similar to original E6. You just decide what rate you want these to enter play and cost accordingly. We have it dialled so that it would take 3-4 sessions to gain a feat, and around 10 to gain an epic boon. Level-equivalence is still calculated in the same way as the OP.

Creatures Reduced to 0HP and "Dying" gain Stunned: 5
So the moment you go down, you gain 5 rounds of the stunned condition. You're still unconscious and making death throws as usual, however, most things that bring you back to consciousness (e.g. healing) do not alleviate stunned. This rule has been incredible in play! Unattractive healing word-driven whack-a-mole game play is gone. Players take and cast cure wounds... sometimes even pre-emptively. Dramatic scenes ensue, as characters strive to save downed friends.

Five rounds may seem punitive and there is reasoning behind it. We first chose it based on the largest number of rounds a character could in theory go before either dying or stabilising. What we used to see - and found unattractive - was that a character would go down and be healed and thus prone on their next turn. Under our new rule, players really, strongly, do not want to go down. On top of capping at 6HD, we have seen the action-economy price of defensive buffs become worth paying. That's a huge change. As I said, we've also seen a far more active and strategic approach to healing. The "efficiency" of letting characters on low HP be dropped before healing has gone out the window (what I mean is that a character on say 5 HP takes 15... was "efficient" because they can only drop to 0.) Combats typically run something like 3-10 rounds, with 4-6 being the middle ground. Out for five means you're out for the combat... or maybe up in the last few rounds. (We're still playtesting this, and it might go down to Stunned: 4 or Stunned: 3 in the long run.)

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.

I’m not super likely to employ a level cap in 5e, but the stunned 5 on dropping to 0 HP is an awesome idea!

 

[Distracted DM]

Personally I changed the Stunned condition because after running Night Below, and in general enjoying Mind Flayers as a foe, I was so tired of players not being able to play for entire combats because their characters were stunned, and unlike Paralyzed etc. there's no way to do anything about it.

It'd still work in this context actually, but I run Level Up A5e so that already has a penalty for going down to 0.

Spoiler: Stunned House-rule

A stunned creature's speed is halved and can speak only falteringly; it cannot cast leveled spells requiring a vocal component.
A stunned creature cannot take reactions or concentrate.
On its turn, a stunned creature can take either an action or a bonus action, not both. In addition, it can't make more than one melee or ranged attack during its turn. Its attack rolls and ability checks are made at Disadvantage.
It automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.

 

[clearstream]

Thanks for the reply! It's funny how Healing Word caused a lot of issues.. I wonder if just removing it, making it Touch range, or grant Temp HP would resolve all the house-rules etc. that have been built up around the bonus action heal yo-yoing.

I've observed two unattractive tactics that are encouraged in the current design, and I believe the issue acute only because of the way the two work in tandem.

First, it is far more efficient to drop to 0 and then be healed, then to be healed while standing. Say I am on 7 out of 28 hit points and fighting an Air Elemental (deals 2d8+5). If I am healed before dropping to 0 then that's likely d4+4 so call it worth +7 hit points. If I let it hit me, it is sure to drop me to 0 and I cannot take more than it's minimum. If it rolls the average of 14, I'll just ignore 7 damage (cannot go below 0). If I am then healed, on average that heal is now worth 14 hit points (the 7 healed and the 7 ignored.)​

​

Secondly, healing word and healing spirit are very efficient in the action economy. They're ranged, and they use a bonus action. There are other ranged heals, but those are two of the most efficient. Combining a tempo-efficient heal with the "efficiency-of-dying" explained above, makes it outright silly for players to heal first. The only time that would be justified is if a foe could do - in the scenario above - 35 or so damage in one hit so that I am at risk of instant death. Never am I more reminded of the adage - balance means ensuring multiple strategies are equally viable!​

I want to critique a couple of other solutions.

One solution would be to track negative HP. The prospects for this look good, albeit it's just fiddly to track and if you use a VTT ruled out unless you can write an extension to do it. In the scenario above, a heal after falling to -7 would only bring me to 0. At that point, healing word is still a better spell than cure wounds but at least whack-a-mole is somewhat countered.​

​

A solution I see in many places is to suffer exhaustion. I think this is in many respects reasonable, however, its knock-on effect is to encourage players to more often want to rest after an encounter. To recover levels of exhaustion. Seeing as we like to see both attritional and lethal encounters matter, we have to be careful how much we make "rest" a forced choice. While imposing a cost for dropping to 0, it doesn't strongly solve the whack-a-mole problem that we find unattractive, and it can contribute to a 5MWD problem.​

Do you find a lot of players max out multiple stats, or are they using ASIs for feats?

So far a mix. Feats like sharpshooter were prioritised by two of the players, for example, while another just focused on spellcasting stat. There are two tweaks I am contemplating for feats. The first is that a feat that lets you increase a stat by 1, lets you increase any stat. That makes many feats more interesting to a wider range of classes. The second is to ignore stat and species prerequisites. Again, this opens up feats that are gated for theme rather than balance. I'm happy to let players develop the theme for their characters rather than adhering to designer conceptions.

You said 3-4 sessions is enough for an ASI, you're still using XP I assume? Do you have a set number for that?

Per DMG261 answers to that will vary per table. We're using "Milestones" combined with "Session-Based Advancement" where players say what their milestones are, with up to 5 per session (milestones include personal motives that can be achieved in parallel with goals etc). Seeing as level progression stops, the costing is then 15 and 30 milestones apiece. That is probably not too low but might be too high: I don't expect to have it well-tuned until we've played half-a-dozen more sessions with it.

 

[clearstream]

Personally I changed the Stunned condition because after running Night Below, and in general enjoying Mind Flayers as a foe, I was so tired of players not being able to play for entire combats because their characters were stunned, and unlike Paralyzed etc. there's no way to do anything about it.

You are right that there are a very limited number of ways to remove stunned. TCoE monks can do it, for example. But I feel the real elephant in the room is putting a player out of an entire combat. I imagine that is what led the game designers to make the choices they have.

There are many approaches to play that I believe wouldn't benefit from the Stunned rule. Off the top of my head, introductory play, pick-up play, casual play, one-offs, groups who want to feel like a***-kicking heroes.

On the other hand, I wouldn't equate the stunned rule to "gritty" or "old school" play. It was first motivated by the unattractiveness of whack-a-mole. Hero goes down. They get up. Goes down again. Up again. And so on. For us, it's just unappealing. We considered just removing the going down part altogether! We tried making healing word a 2nd-level spell, which then cast the "efficiency of dying" problem that I describe above in bright light.

There are then other consequences worth considering. In baseline play, we don't see defensive buffs getting used. The best play is almost always attack, or attack better. When combats are driven by the simple - we fight until you all are down, or we all are down - only attacks can settle the matter. Making down mean down enhances this calculation: defensive actions gain revelance.

That's all well and good, but - for me - such wargamer-ish considerations are not really about improving the wargame. Combat is just one recourse for resolving conflicts on all kinds of matters. It's those conflicts that matter, not the combat (conflicting desires, conflict across moral lines, conflicting needs) so it is fantastic to be able to end combat without being forced to make everyone on the other side fail all their death saves. (Choosing not to deal lethal only works for player characters, it makes no difference to whack-a-mole: a heal is still a heal.) It is fantastic for combat to feel more like a last recourse, and less like our primary means of expression.

So my answer to the "elephant in the room" is - groups can have different goals in mind for the combat-minigame. The best solution (for them) will speak to those goals. My goals require combat to be tightened up and consequential because winning combat resolves some conflict that the combat is about. And for that to feel like it matters to the players, the solution has to be forceful, tight and not arbitrary. In a sense, Stunned: 5 makes most sense when combat-as-wargame isn't your focus of play.

It'd still work in this context actually, but I run Level Up A5e so that already has a penalty for going down to 0.

I see that A5E SRD has it that

Spoiler: A5E dying

Dropping to 0 Hit Points Damage that reduces you to 0 hit points without killing you knocks you unconscious (see Conditions). Regaining any hit points ends this unconsciousness. Falling unconscious as a result of taking damage during an encounter is traumatic and inflicts a level of fatigue.

If you gain seven levels of fatigue, you are doomed...

A doomed creature dies at a time determined by the Narrator, or within 13 (2d12) hours.

Is that what you are using? Is there any other relevant text?

 

[CapnZapp]

I've observed two unattractive tactics that are encouraged in the current design, and I believe the issue acute only because of the way the two work in tandem.

First, it is far more efficient to drop to 0 and then be healed, then to be healed while standing. Say I am on 7 out of 28 hit points and fighting an Air Elemental (deals 2d8+5). If I am healed before dropping to 0 then that's likely d4+4 so call it worth +7 hit points. If I let it hit me, it is sure to drop me to 0 and I cannot take more than it's minimum. If it rolls the average of 14, I'll just ignore 7 damage (cannot go below 0). If I am then healed, on average that heal is now worth 14 hit points (the 7 healed and the 7 ignored.)​

​

Secondly, healing word and healing spirit are very efficient in the action economy. They're ranged, and they use a bonus action. There are other ranged heals, but those are two of the most efficient. Combining a tempo-efficient heal with the "efficiency-of-dying" explained above, makes it outright silly for players to heal first. The only time that would be justified is if a foe could do - in the scenario above - 35 or so damage in one hit so that I am at risk of instant death. Never am I more reminded of the adage - balance means ensuring multiple strategies are equally viable!​

I want to critique a couple of other solutions.

One solution would be to track negative HP. The prospects for this look good, albeit it's just fiddly to track and if you use a VTT ruled out unless you can write an extension to do it. In the scenario above, a heal after falling to -7 would only bring me to 0. At that point, healing word is still a better spell than cure wounds but at least whack-a-mole is somewhat countered.​

​

A solution I see in many places is to suffer exhaustion. I think this is in many respects reasonable, however, its knock-on effect is to encourage players to more often want to rest after an encounter. To recover levels of exhaustion. Seeing as we like to see both attritional and lethal encounters matter, we have to be careful how much we make "rest" a forced choice. While imposing a cost for dropping to 0, it doesn't strongly solve the whack-a-mole problem that we find unattractive, and it can contribute to a 5MWD problem.​

So far a mix. Feats like sharpshooter were prioritised by two of the players, for example, while another just focused on spellcasting stat. There are two tweaks I am contemplating for feats. The first is that a feat that lets you increase a stat by 1, lets you increase any stat. That makes many feats more interesting to a wider range of classes. The second is to ignore stat and species prerequisites. Again, this opens up feats that are gated for theme rather than balance. I'm happy to let players develop the theme for their characters rather than adhering to designer conceptions.


Per DMG261 answers to that will vary per table. We're using "Milestones" combined with "Session-Based Advancement" where players say what their milestones are, with up to 5 per session (milestones include personal motives that can be achieved in parallel with goals etc). Seeing as level progression stops, the costing is then 15 and 30 milestones apiece. That is probably not too low but might be too high: I don't expect to have it well-tuned until we've played half-a-dozen more sessions with it.

Apologies for not cutting out the part I'm not responding to.

In the last campaign I played in, the DM used a rule I believe he got from one if the splatbooks.

Exhaustion levels each give -1 to all checks, rolls and saves (but not passive values). The penalty is cumulative.

To this, add:

Whenever you drop to zero, take one exhaustion level.

This was plenty enough discouragement from relying on "min maxing" yo-yo healing.

---

PS I fully realize this is predicated on staying with a pretty standard D&D use-violence-to-solve-problems approach. I fully agree a more severe penalty (and being stunned five rounds for being downed is very much a severe penalty) might be in order if you play in a style where you no longer actually expect players to use violence as their go-to tool to solve most game challenges.

My personal observation however is that any combat-as-last-resort (or at least not combat-as-first-second-and-third-resort) approach is much much better used with pretty much any other ruleset than D&D. When we play D&D we buy into the game's strengths, which definitely includes the notion that any successful/high-level hero will have left a very long and very bloody trail of corpses. That's just how the game is written and not something we try to work against, because when we want something else, we simply use other rulesets. YMMV

DS