Microlite20 : the smallest thing in gaming

[greywulf]

I'll start work on the playtest write-ups tomorrow. And you're right, 20th level characters in play most definitely don't die in one round. Or two. Or three (unless you're really dumb, of course).

Larcen, your classless suggestions are good. I'll stick them in the Macropedia (with your permission, of course) when I'm not knee-deep in Linux configuration

Back tomorrow, peeps. Still.

 

[jezter6]

I'm still interested in actual reports on playtesting. My players are now on level 2/3, so I can't comment – yet. But I think it is obvious to all of us that “Surprise! Your 20th level character is dead” is a lousy proposition. And since none of us actually want it, and since Greywulf is the only one who actually did any playtesting and liked what he saw, I think it's fair to assume that the result is empathically not “Surprise! Your 20th level character is dead!”

I'm looking forward to Greywulf's combat tests.

While not a 'combat test,' greywulf's own comments about the deadliness of Lvl 20 on 20 combat show exactly what both of us (Larcen and myself) are distinctly concerned about:

Dunno what you think, but I'd say those two would be a fair fight for each other. The elf would likely get the drop on the Dwarf and pepper him with arrows taking (say) three-quarter of his HP before the Dwarf acts like a blender and chews the Elf up in a dervish of blood and guts. He'd get at least 5 hits on the Elf easily in one round (probably more) doing an average of 21hp damage each. That's over a 100hp damage. Take off Derek's shield and give him a two-handed waraxe (x2 STR damage). Ouch.

Of course, in another situation (ambush!), the Elf would win before the Dwarf so much as lifted his axe.

OK, it' might not be perfect, but it's balanced enough for me. Just like a bicycle.

He later said that this was sans magical trappings, but considering that they should scale pretty evenly (IE: the rogue gets +3 armor, the dwarf has a +3 axe). Otherwise it would obviously skew the favor in one direction or another of one had some massive magical armor situation going on.

My major point is that (ignoring the fact that there is no 'BAB' term, yet the net effect is everyone gets BAB +1/level, fighter getting even better) we're creating attack machines way to quickly, and for classes that do not deserve it. AND we are not changing the way AC and HP are derived, so statistically across the board any friend or foe made up with character classes is either going to demolish a monster (with standard AC and attack bonus stats) or be completely decimated by some high HP consuming attacks because they are all at a relatively low level of HP.

Considering the magic user has d6 HP, but loses that while casting spells, puts him back on what a balanced d20 wizard would be averaging a d4 HD over the same levels. However, the m20 MU can stand toe to toe with a d20 mage because the m20 MU has a full d20 fighter attacking bonus. Heck, when spells are goine, the m20 MU can just walk up and pound the living crap out of him with his staff because he can hit 2 or even 3 times per round.

My only though, and reason why it's unplayable, is that m20 destroys the balance of d20 so far that any 1-to-1 conversion is near impossible.

Let's take an Ogre. d20 - it's a CR3 monster. Which means it should stand up to a full party of lvl 3 PCs, taking up approx 25% of resources.

Converting to md20:
Ogre (HP 4d8+11 = 29hp), AC 16, Great Club +8 melee (2d8+7)

In d20 mode, the fighter might hit him that first round, but will only do about 1d8+3 (8) damage. leaving the Ogre with 21hp.
The rogue and cleric fail to hit, wizard gets off a lvl 1 spell for 5. Dropping the ogre to 16.

In md20 mode, the fighter has 2 shots at him. Let's say for argument that he only hits once for the same 8 damage.
Now the expert has the same attack bonus as the d20 fighter would have, so now HE hits them for 8 damage.
Now the cleric has the same attack bonus as the d20 fighter, so now HE hits for 5 damage.
And the wizard casts HIS spell for 5 damage.
Ogre now resides at: 3 HP (that's one lucky ass ogre)

Ogre returns fire with 2 hits. 1 to the fighter (avg 16 dmg) and 1 to the expert (16 dmg).
Chances are that one of those 2 could go down and out at the first round. The ogre won't live to see another day, and chances are 1 PC is dying, the other with maybe 1-4 HP left.

If the fighter would have hit on his 2nd attack (+8/+3 - I think?), and since it's better than the d20 fighter, he probably would have...dead ogre in 1 round.

Had the ogre won initiative, he could have easily taken out 1 PC in round one, and left with 3 HP would have easily killed another in round 2.

My take on it - PCs are too powerful when attacking, but not powerful enough to defend. If 2 PCs die, it's harder than a CR3 encounter. If a CR3 dies in round 1, it's easier than a CR3 encounter. It's ALL about who wins init in this system.

 

[kensanata]

Ok, while eating breakfast this morning I tried the following Ogre fight against my players. These are real player characters, except for Yasu Odong, because I don't have his character sheet here, and I had to advance Yonkyu and Yasu Odong from 2nd level to 3rd.

Kyoshi, Fighter-3, 29hp, STR 16, DEX 12, MIND 8, AC 16, Masterwork Katana+8/+3 (1d10+7)
Myung, Rogue-3, 21hp, STR 12, DEX 18, MIND 9, AC 14, Wakizashi+7/+2 (1d6+1)
Yonkyu, Cleric-3, 23hp, STR 9, DEX 18, MIND 11, AC 14, Takujo+3 (1d6), Kyuu+7/+2 (1d8), Magic+3 ("The Archer")
Yasu Odong, Mage-3, 18hp, STR 5, DEX 11, MIND 14, Tanto+1 (1d4-2), Magic+5

vs.

Ogre, 29hp, AC 16, club+8 (2d8+7).

We're assuming no surprise, no ranged combat, no ambush, and thus I rule that attacks go in order of attack bonus. Since both the ogre and Kyoshi have +8, I rule that the Ogre goes first, then the exact order of players doesn't matter for the rest of the round.

Ogre rolls 10+8, does 12 damage to Kyoshi – down to 17.
Kyoshi rolls 17+8, does 10 damage to Ogre – down to 19.
Kyoshi rolls 2+3, misses.
Myung tries to hide, rolls 4 + sub (7) + DEX bonus (4) = 15
Ogre tries to spot, rolls 3 + HD (4) = 7, fails.
Yonkyu casts Bull's Strength on Kyoshi (giving him STR 20), uses 5hp – down to 18.
Yasu Odong casts Sleep on Ogre, rolls 10 + Magic Attack Bonus (5) = 15, uses 3hp – down to 15
Ogre tries to resist, rolls 15 + HD (4) = 19, succeeds.
Ogre rolls 8+8, does 17 damage to Kyoshi – down to 0!
Myung attacks from the shadows, rolls 12+7, does 5+7 damage – down to 7.
(In an alternate universe the sneak failed and he rolled 12 and 15, doing 5 and 6 damage, bringing the ogre down to 8.)
Yonkyu sees that the ogre is badly hurt and rolls 18, does 3 damage – down to 4.
Yasu Odong casts Sleep on Ogre, rolls 9 + Magic Attack Bonus (5) = 14, uses 3hp – down to 12
Ogre tries to resist, rolls 6 + HD (4) = 10, fails, and will fall asleep next round!
Ogre rolls 15+8, does 20 damage to Myung – down to 1!
Myung rolls 9+7, does 5 damage to ogre – killing it before sleep takes effect.

Party wins!

Yonkyu casts Cure Light Wounds twice on Kyoshi & Myung, costing him 12 hp total, healing 2d8+6 for each: 15 for Kyoshi and 14 for Myung.

Status:
Kyoshi @ 15/29hp
Myung @ 15/21hp
Yonkyu @ 11/23hp
Yasu Odong @ 12/18hp
58% of max.

Conclusion:
1. Not a point landing with the party ending at 58% instead of 75%.
2. Combat was interesting I think.
3. The ogre having the initiative did not decide the fight.

 

[greywulf]

Very good example, Kensanata. That's how we find combat to play through too. It's fast, exciting and fluid. I think you've proved that "attack in to-hit bonus order" works well too. That's good. We're going to be playtesting it, but not for few weeks. I'm starting the Ptolus campaign (using D&D with all volume turned up to 11) tomorrow, so that's going to keep us busy, methinks

In our games, combat usually starts some distance away when the opponents spot each other. That tends to means it goes roughly comething like this:

Round 1: missile attacks, fighters charge, spells cast
Round 2: close combat, some critters die (probably)
Round 3: close combat, more critters die, PCs start to sweat
Round 4: PCs win, evil is defeated yet again.

It might go to the fourth round, maybe not.

I think a large part of it is that I play the critters moving around. They pull out of combat, hide behind furniture, jump back to get in a better position, etc. It depends on the critter, largely. Some (like Orcs) would never disengage in combat, but Goblins prefer guerilla tactics. My players don't like Goblins! A typical exchange between a Fighter and an Goblin (say) would bo like this:

Fighter: Charge!
Goblin: Toss javelin
Fighter: Hit with sword (+2 to-hit due to charge)
Goblin: Back away, snarling, hide under table
Fighter: attack (-2 to hit due to cover), miss
Goblin: poke with spear, hits
Fighter: "Come outta there, runt!", attack (-2 to hit due to cover), miss
Goblin: poke with spear, hits
Fighter: "Grrrrrrrrrr", throws table out of the way, hit goblin with sword, goblin dead

That's 5 rounds against a single Goblin.

Remember that in Microlite20, you only have a single action in a round, so you can move OR attack. By 20th level, there's a lot of maneuvering in combat and jockeying for position involved before a single hit is made. Think about Erol Flynn style cinematic combat with fighters jumping on tables, swinging from ropes, trying to get the high group while their blades briefly clash up until the climax where blades whirl on the rooftop. THAT's epic combat!!!!

 

[kensanata]

Remember that in Microlite20, you only have a single action in a round, so you can move OR attack.

Gah, subtleties of the rules!

My players are medium humanoids of AD&D 2nd ed abomination subtype… They feel that a retreating opponent deserves an extra free attack in their back with a +2 bonus. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Pilsnerquest]

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate for the last two posts.

Now, I personally don't give a rat's arse about how much party resources should be used in one encounter but 42% compared to the recommended 25% is most definitely a point. Again, that's only if you feel the percentile in a certain $29.95 (U.S.) book is a logical figure. (An ogre though, may be a tad rough for an example with their large strength bonus compared to their CR or EL)

The ogre had initiative and did not win the fight, but, the first thing done was to use the alternate initiative method? Should we be using the "attack in to-hit bonus order" for combat as opposed to the old method to prevent one-sided fights?

I think the main concern, at least originally, wasn't quite epic combat but epic level combat. With attack bonuses and the number of attacks out-stripping defense things look pretty bad for the loser of initiative or for combat lasting more than 1 round. That dwarf in the previous pages example with the whopping 8 attacks is pretty scary, then the elf with 7 attacks himself. (Offense out-stripping defense is relatively true for D&D D20 too, though a 20th level fighter in D&D has 4 attacks)

How does the monsters HD=attack bonus play into it all? Do monsters stack up the way PC's do? If so maybe a staggered level attack bonus gain, similar to the ones found in the PHB pg. 22. This would lower the attack bonuses a tad and lower the number of multiple attacks. Possibly have monsters rated by this same table in the PHB for attack bonus and their CR/EL setting?


Pilsnerquest

 

[greywulf]

Just a thought to toss into the pot 'cos I'm busy right now........

How about we set a maximum of 4 attacks per round, regardless of bonus? Does that help alleviate everyone's concerns?

(I don't see it myself, but still..... A round is an arbritary term - there's no difference between one guy taking seven rounds to kill a beastie, and a 20th level guys taking one "round" to hit it seven times. Combat is faster, but that's at it should be. Don't get hung over the concept of "a round". The same dice are rolled either way. allbeit with higher bonuses. It goes like this:

Fighter: try to hit
BBEG: try to hit
Fighter: try to hit
BBEG: try to hit
Fighter: try to hit
BBEG: try to hit
Fighter: try to hit
BBEG: try to hit
Fighter: try to hit
BBEG: try to hit
Fighter: try to hit
BBEG: try to hit
Fighter: try to hit
BBEG: try to hit

Give or take a few hit attempts due to initiative/to-hit bonus, whatever. I dunno.

(close bracket)
)

 

[Land Outcast]

How about we set a maximum of 4 attacks per round, regardless of bonus? Does that help alleviate everyone's concerns?

Motion supported.
(Yes, I'm still here... previous post was in page 5 or so)

 

[Darrell]

Just a thought to toss into the pot 'cos I'm busy right now........

How about we set a maximum of 4 attacks per round, regardless of bonus? Does that help alleviate everyone's concerns?

Heh. I guess I've been messin' up a bit.

Because that's how far the example description went in the original .rtf document (which is the source for my 'personal' m20 rules document), I've been giving 'em a maximum of three attacks per round.

As far as combat being 'too short,' I personally feel there's no such thing. We toyed for a while with a simple 'opposed roll' combat. This pitted the attacker's (the party initiating the attack) STR against the opponent's AC. The better roll won, period. It worked in the abstract, but fell apart when we started trying to figure how to handle hit point losses to the winning side.

My group and I would love a system that would let us handle combat with a single roll, so we could get any type of combat out of the way ultra-quick and get back to role-playing.

Combat doesn't get as much play in our games as it does in most, I guess. The most common rolls made for us in m20 are CHA vs. MIND (or Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate vs. Sense Motive in D&D). Of course, sometimes you just have to break down and start swingin' swords.

Regards,
Darrell

 

[kensanata]

Attack limits (or not)

It's interesting to see how other DMs run their games. I usually try to alternate between roleplaying/investigative sessions and sessions heading up to a fight. And unlike Darrell, I find that most of my players long for the dice at least once per session.

As for limits on multiple attacks: If the fights are more or less balanced, I think all these rolls at -20 and -25 for your fifth and sixth attack are basically wasted. You'll never hit, and thus you're just trying to roll a natural 20. I wouldn't mind loosing those rolls, even though they don't hurt much. My players seem to enjoy rolling a 20.

When fights involve swarms or hordes, however, then all these -20, -25, etc. rolls still have a chance to hit (and kill), basically simulating cleaving and related feats. Since my players enjoy rolling a 20, and since I don't want to introduce extra rules later when I send them against skeleton or goblin armies, I think I'll just stick with the current rules.

Darrell, can you shed some light on this? I fear that since your group doesn't enjoy fighting so much, you haven't sent them against hordes of critters... But if you did, I'd be interested in the result.