Microlite20 : the smallest thing in gaming

greywulf · Jan 27, 2007

kensanata said:
I usually just rule that moving from one end of the battle to the other takes a round, all other movement from foe to foe comes for free.

Same here, in essence - elegantly put. Combat is all about moving, jockeying for position, etc; exciting movement is for free, and I toss in the occasional +1 or +2 to hit or damage for great tactics and/or roleplaying.

We play two-weapon fighting by the Microlite20 rules with individual to-hit rolls for each weapon, and testing the "using to-hit bonus as initiative" works well with this - it means that a twf-wielding dude gets two hits at the same initiative point (a fast double swipe) as opposed to the usual +6/+1 cycle which gives multiple attacks at different points in the round. It's a tactics thing.

I like all these teeny tiny House Rules folks have for M20; it makes the system alive, and people are thinking about how to make the rules work for them. That's great! Tomorrow is Big Shiny day where I'm working on the Macropedia PDF. If anyone has adventures, supplements, etc that they've submitted to http://home.greywulf.net/m20 in an editable format (.rtf, .doc, .odt, whatever), please send 'em to me. It'll make putting your adventures into Big Shiny a whole lot easier!

Thanks

JiffyPopTart · Jan 28, 2007

Larcen said:
Since I am trying to get away from multiple attacks as much as possible, this is rather interesting. But which of the two weapons rolls for damage if you score a hit?

Players choice. I just view the extra weapon as an anti-shield sorta thing. I ruled it accordingly.

DS

greywulf · Jan 29, 2007

Just a quick heads-up.

I've added a new entry to the Summary of Lite Systems. Mini20 by Luigi is a great take on the Microlite20 rules with extra races, feats and rules. He's managed to fit the equipment list, spells and monsters into just 24 pages. S'good is you want a heavier system than the Core Rules M20, but don't particularly want to roll your own.

WSmith · Jan 29, 2007

WSmith said:
BTW, my TWF rule I used for a while is this:

One attck roll, two damage rolls, one for each weapon. The higher of the two weapons is the one that strikes true and inflicts damage. A tie means both strike.

This goes along with my beilef in the abstract combat reasoning. One attack roll consists of many strikes, thrusts, feints, parries, etc.

Not to violate netiquete to quote myself,

but I want to expand on this since I have more time now.

This was one method I proposed during C&C's development that was voted down. I actually think it fits better into microlite20 as a house rule, (well at least one I am going to use.

)

It evolved in many ways.

First it was one attack roll and two damage rolls, with the higher of the two rolls being the damage inflicted.

Then it came the -X penalty for TWF, (it went from -2 to -4 to -6 to -2 again.)

Then, that penalty was offset by the DEX modifier.

Then, STR to hit was denied.

Everyone wanted more traditional TWF method so it got deep sixed. I did however, keep this for my own use in D&D as a house rule.

After some play and some thought, I said to myself, "why bother will all these modifiers and conditions? Just make it simple!" So, it became a single attack roll as normal, a damage roll for each weapon, and the damage inflicted was from the higher number die. But what if the dice tie? Well, if you are lucky enough to have both dice tie, then you have been lucky enough to find a flaw in your foe's defense and bite with both weapons! THE END.

BUT WAIT.... what about drawbacks, penalties, shield wielding, crazy swashbucklers, etc.?

Yeah, what about it.

The only condition I demand is that at least one of the weapons are small, (my rule was actually a dagger or hand axe, but M20 has a few other options.)

So why wouldn't everyone want to use TWF like this in M20?

Well, If you are very strong as a PC,and since you are not using a shield anyway, are you going to want to do the higher of a d6 and d4 damage roll, or are you going to go with a big honking weapon that will give 1d10 or 1d12 + double your STR mod for damage?

Plus in my game, I am still in the "no shields for rogues" camp. So at least this way they have something else they can use in their arsenal.

WSmith · Jan 29, 2007

kensanata said:
I'm thinking of getting rid of that extra skill check, ruling that a thief adds his Sub to damage rolls whenever they hit and their party has numerical superiority.

Stop it right there! That is perfect!

Regarding withdrawing, retreating, and fleeing: In this campaign all enemies have been human until now, so I'll basically start by saying that enemies are backing away slowly, offering to surrender as they continue to fight. I then start moving the wooden counters away from melee, and players either turn to other foes (usually no extra round required, just attack any nearby foe) or follow the retreating enemies.

If followed, enemies may start their real withdrawal, ie. not attacking and retreating even faster (still no attack of opportunity or attack bonus for the party members). If the party members pursue their foes, we change from combat into a chase and will resolve it after everybody else has finished combat.

Excellent! Excellent! Excellent! That is perfect. The only time I would bother with movement rates is when the chase has begun.

I am so in favor of movement being abstract and simplified. I hate:

"I won initiative, now I move across the room and attack the goblin." (This movement happens as the goblin just remains idle and lifeless in the spot where it stands and waits for the oncoming adventurer to come to slaughter him in his place!)

At best, the two combatants should meet somewhere in the middle of the room or battlefield if they wish to engage. If the goblin tries to evade the engagement, then I would have the adventurer roll a DEX + Phys vs a plausible DC to see if our hero has reached the goblin before the beastie tries to run under the table for cover, or flee out the door, or duck behind a jade statue, etc. (NOTE: this is pretty much the kind of thing that Tunnnels & Trolls has taught me! Do not be afraid to use rolls in place of rules. Instead of a whole bunch of rules and conditions for AoO-like strikes, just make a roll, in M20 DEX + Phys maybe, to see if you hit the fleeing bad guy before he gets away.)

That is also very microlite-ish.

kensanata · Jan 29, 2007

Pdf

greywulf said:
Just a quick heads-up.

I need a PDF of the core rules in English, and I decided I wanted to use the revised rules. Anybody who doesn't want to wait for "Big Shiny" and never bothered to convert the wiki page, here's something for you.

WSmith · Jan 29, 2007

Good job, kensanata.

Are the M20 rules in either doc or rtf format anywhere? I don't remember seeing them.

EDIT: Nevemind. I found it.

Larcen · Jan 29, 2007

Ideas for TWF and roguish shields seems to be two of the points of thought right now, so I will throw in my 2 cents...

Looking in the great Wikipedia for "Main Gauche" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_gauche) , we find:

"In sword fighting, the main-gauche is a dagger used in the off-hand, mainly to assist in parrying incoming thrusts, while the dominant hand wields a rapier or similar longer weapon intended for one-handed use. It may also be used for attack if an opportunity arises."

I say this sort of thinking can apply to most any secondary weapon, not just the main gauche, so how about if the secondary weapon is the rogue's "shield"?

Whenever someone uses a secondary weapon, they get no extra attacks, but instead add a +1 to their AC against any melee attack.

This would appy to everyone not just rogues. The +1 represents not just your parrying ability, but also the opponent's hesitancy and caution to perform an attack or rush knowing that you have a backup weapon in hand.

I would refrain from changing the set AC bonus to something DEX related, with the thought that fast hands can parry easier. DEX is already adding to AC and we dont want the bonus to get too big.

Optional: In order to make use of the other good point Wikipedia made, "It may also be used for attack if an opportunity arises", here is another advantage we can add to TWF...

If you are using two weapons and you roll a natural 20, your secondary weapon rolls damage too.

There you go. No extra attacks. No bonuses to hit. But still great cause it adds to AC and might provide extra damage from time to time.

Since this is a rules-lite game, and I hate to keep track of conditional bonuses (especially small conditional bonuses), the only thing I might change is to make the +1 to AC a global bonus, not just a melee bonus. It's heroic fantasy so swatting an arrow from the air with a dagger is not beyond reason. Heck, Aragorn did it in Fellowship...

Cymew · Jan 29, 2007

Two weapons add one to AC: good idea!
A natural 20 gives another dmg roll when using two weapons: good idea!

Me like.

About spell lists, I'm compiling a list of spells from Basic D&D to use with M20. That is, spellcasters have access to that list and not everything in the SRD. Anyone who can make a pocketmod out of it, for me?

greywulf · Jan 30, 2007

Lots of good stuff, and me too busy to reply! Meh!

Ok, I'm here now, so............

Kensanata, thanks for the Core Rules Revised .pdf. Good work

I'm still ploughing on with Big Shiny, should have something to post by the weekend. I hope. Slow going. It'll be worth it though. No, really.

TWF adds +1 to AC. I like. I'd suggest that the second weapon doesn't get an additional attack if it's being used for defence, though it can be switched from round-to-round. At low levels, that would mean defence usually is the better option, but at higher ones that extra attack might be worth sacrificing a point of AC. Tactics. Tactics are good.

Again, I'd say only for Fighters and Rogues, and only with light weapons.

kensanata said:
I'm thinking of getting rid of that extra skill check, ruling that a thief adds his Sub to damage rolls whenever they hit and their party has numerical superiority.

Hmmmm. Not sure. My players like to roll, and a lone Rogue can do a lot of damage from the shadows even when outnumbered. I'd say this is more of a case-by-case thing. There have been times when I've not bothered asking the Rogue to make a skill roll because it's clear the poor victim doesn't know he's there.

For example:

- Rogue spider climbed on the ceiling above, with a crossbow. My player's favourite tactic

- Guard is being distracted by the Fighter, who's arguinig with him. Rogue in the shadows some way off. With a crossbow. Again.
- Rogue is disguised as a prostitute, Guard is stoopid. Rogue has punch dagger behind oriental fan. Nasty.

I could have asked the player to roll with a hefty bonus, but it's a lot easier and more rewarding to the player it say the stunt has succeeded. It's more cinematic and player-centric that way. Always good things in a game. Good roleplaying + tactics = reward in my game.

A few more things (heck, I'm still here, but should be coding. Ah well).............

- When ~~Big Shiny~~ the Macropedia is done, I'm going to stick it on lulu.com as a print on demand publication. So if you want your own printed, bound copy of Microlite20 all the House Rules, adventures, campaign settings and more, it'll be there! If you've contributed stuff, your name will be in print! Cool eh?
- I'm going to trawl through this thread and add the best of the House Rules to the Macropedia site and Big Shiny itself. That's going to take a while, so any volutneer assistance would be gratefully received!
- I'm also going to grab a copy of this thread and post it someplace just in case a Great Server Crash at ENWorld takes down all your valuable input. That'll never do
- I need more Critters! Please run the Monster Generator, make up descriptions and append them to that page. Thanks!

Phew. I'm done.