Microlite20 : the smallest thing in gaming

[WSmith]

BTW, the option I posted above might not work for everyone. It does forme since I am from the school of thought that a natural 20 should NOT always be a hit no matter what and a natural 1 should NOT always be a natural miss regardless.
Lossing the extra "to hit" roll doesn't bother me at all.

Also, I am intruigued but Land Outcast's post:

Oh, as simple as you can think it is: picture the classical image of the hero in the middle of the battle, dropping enemies by the dozen.

Instead of using identical soldiers A and B, I use this:
HP: A+B
AC: A+2
Attack: A+2
Damage: A+(B's average damage /2)

A, B, and C:
HP: A+B+C
AC: A+4
Attack: A+4
Damage: A+(B's average damage /2)+(C's average damage/2) = A+B

once they lose their total hp (given I use them at higher levels, usually it results to be in one round) the squad dies. Maybe in big numbers it results incoherent, but I never use them in numbers greater than 5

I like where this is going. Maybe statting out a "squad" of common minions like goblins, skeletons, zombies, etc. might save some time.

 

[greywulf]

BTW, I also like CHA, so blahhh!

Lol! Opinion duely noted.

Oddly enough, Microlite20 didn't have multiple attacks. People complained, so it got added in. Same for Rogue's Sneak attack. Go figure.

As it stands, I like multiple attacks as it increases the dynamic pace of combats, but whether they get used is (as with all things) entirely up to you.

I dig Darrell's damage-cascade idea, and the mob-rule rules too. They're going to both get plonked into the Macropedia at some point, for sure.

 

[jezter6]

EDIT: Jezter, if it makes you feel better to call it BAB, that's fine by me. But it's not M20 works with totals only, not "parts of the total given a special name so we can hang more rules off it" as it is with D&D.

Call it CAB (Class Attack Bonus) or LAB (Level Attack Bonus), either way, the NET gain is +1/level which is comparable to a d20 fighter class.

If, in d20, all classes got +1/level, then I imagine that all monster challenges would be much MUCH different. But, because you're giving it to everyone for free, they are hitting much more often than a d20 counterpart would have. Also allowing other bonuses to stack in regards to multiple attacks, you're giving people multiple attacks faster, at a better bonus.

Net result: PCs hit more often than they would normally. Doing more damage to creatures than they would normally. Which means an AC 17 isn't quite as good as it used to be. Really, depending on the PC level, it's probably 5-10 WORSE than it should be. Creatures were designed around the thought that not everyone is a melee master and the rogue and cleric are not going to be hitting each and every round.

I also disagree with the HP thing, but you're sold on it, so there's nothing I can do about it. Sure, it's not supposed to be d20, but when you're taking d20 monsters to fight the PCs, you've got to understand that they were designed for a certain power level, and groups with certain HPs. If the fighter is no longer the tank he once was because he has half the HP he could have had in d20, well then what's the point? An extra +1 every 5 levels? Not enough bonus. Ability to wear heavy armor? Since NPC total attack bonus is much higher than it used to be, it negates the extra +3 AC or so you could get over the expert class.

Maybe I'm the only one that see is, and that's ok. I'll leave you guys be. I'm just going in circles here anyways.

 

[greywulf]

If, in d20, all classes got +1/level, then I imagine that all monster challenges would be much MUCH different. But, because you're giving it to everyone for free, they are hitting much more often than a d20 counterpart would have. Also allowing other bonuses to stack in regards to multiple attacks, you're giving people multiple attacks faster, at a better bonus.

..big snip...

You're half-right. Kinda. In Microlite20 all classes have a higher to-hit bonus (and rate of attacks, probably), than their D&D counterparts. But....and here's the kicker.... NO FEATS! So, there's no Combat Reflexes, no Cleave (though some have House Rule'd it back in, of sorts), so no Power Attack, no Rapid Shot, no Combat Expertise, no Point Blank Shot, no Weapon Focus or any of the other feats which give characters higher to-hit bonus, damage or number of attacks.

Instead, we just give a blanket higher attack. In D&D terms, there's not a lot between one nor the other - and actually playing the game bears this out.

 

[Larcen]

You're half-right. Kinda. In Microlite20 all classes have a higher to-hit bonus (and rate of attacks, probably), than their D&D counterparts. But....and here's the kicker.... NO FEATS! So, there's no Combat Reflexes, no Cleave (though some have House Rule'd it back in, of sorts), so no Power Attack, no Rapid Shot, no Combat Expertise, no Point Blank Shot, no Weapon Focus or any of the other feats which give characters higher to-hit bonus, damage or number of attacks.

Instead, we just give a blanket higher attack. In D&D terms, there's not a lot between one nor the other - and actually playing the game bears this out.

But then, neither do the monsters have feats...so you can take that back out of your equation again.

I suppose you can argue that PCs are usually more feat-laden than monsters...

 

[jezter6]

But then, neither do the monsters have feats...so you can take that back out of your equation again.

I suppose you can argue that PCs are usually more feat-laden than monsters...

Good call Larcen. I imagine though, after hearing greywulf's arguments, that it may not be as bad as I think it is. I will admit not playing this ruleset, just crunching numbers from the math side.

I think if I houserule HPs per class, and maybe re-tweak a few things to give some advantage to the lower HP classes, it might work for me.

Thanks for a different perspective, greywulf. I was not sold there for a while, now I'm still considering it.

 

[greywulf]

Thanks for a different perspective, greywulf. I was not sold there for a while, now I'm still considering it.

Cool! Welcome to the lightside.

 

[Phantos]

wow.
a newcomer/latecomer here.
I have nothing to add but appreciativeness to what I just read (and the links).
very cool stuff. I look forward to trying this out very soon.
cheers.

 

[greywulf]

Phantos, we appreciate your appreciativeness. Thanks!

 

[WSmith]

I made a small observation.

In the core rules revised this says:

Any armor up to armor bonus +3 is light and any armor up to armor bonus +5 is medium. All classes can wield shields, as long as their armor bonus remains within their class limits.

In the equipment list in the PDF, it has chain shirt at +4 under light armor and hide +3 under medium armor. I assume this is no longer correct, and the two should be switched on the equip. list, correct?

This is how this all plays out

• Fighter: all armor, no worries.
• Mage: no armor, no worries.
• Rogue: can use a light shield if wearing padded or leather armor, or heavy shield with padded armor. Is this the concept that was intended?
• Cleric: medium armor allowed. This means that they could no longer use a shield with chainmail or wear armor heavier than chain mail or breast plate at all. Is this also the concept sought?

To me, it seems simpler to just use the catagory names instead of of the number shuffling, which I understand adds some flexibility. In addition, basing armor allowed on a modifier becomes slightly complex once magic armor, bracers, shields, etc. are thrown in the mix.

I was thinking of something like:

• Fighter: all armor and shields.
• Mage: no armor or shields.
• Rogue: light armor and shields*.
• Cleric: medium armor and shields.

*I am still not covinced the rogue should be able to wield shields, but I know many other would like that.

Also, the cleric is now restricted to medium. In full on d20, they have all armor available. Personally this doesn't bother me one bit, but I was wondering if that was intended.