Characters (Prismatic Planet)

Most of the planet's inhabitants live in small enclaves, villages, and isolated settlements, separated from one another by vast stretches of hostile terrain. Great cities and powerful factions exist, but they are the exception. Because the demands of survival are largely the same everywhere, certain skills appear in virtually every community; warriors, survivalists, psionics, and scavengers among them. Sorcerers and scholars are rarer. The “known world” is, for most people, a small place.

The player characters are usually something rarer still: the ones who walked away from their communities. Whether driven out, drawn away, or simply unable to stay, they now belong to a wandering class that exists between settlements. Most will have come from one of the small communities described above, though some may have broken from a larger organization.

Player characters can most often begin free from any overly restrictive obligations to factions, groups, cities, or specific tribes. They may also belong to a small community independent of the great empires and organizations. The purpose of this is to allow them freedom to act and to gradually come into contact with the world. This arrangement lets the characters discover the world at the same time as the players themselves.

For the same reason, and because the vast majority of the planet's inhabitants have very limited knowledge, the players begin without major details about history (usually limited to one or two generations before the character at most, plus a few scattered legends). Their grasp of geography should not extend beyond the land they have crossed on foot (roughly a hundred kilometers at most), though even the most sheltered character will know the mountains on the horizon and the direction of the nearest great body of water, if one exists within sight or legend. Their understanding of technology is minimal; they know of the existence of artifacts from the progenitors, but except for some specific skill, they can barely distinguish technology from simple sorcery.

Likewise, the power of the great empires and groups is mostly unknown to them, unless they live near one, in which case they will have heard of its influence, generally negative or at best dubious. Even those who are part of a great faction or organization rarely see beyond their immediate role within it.

It is also possible to run a campaign in which the players are part of a powerful empire or group, where their movements are restricted and they must carry out missions and follow orders until they decide to desert or rebel, etc. This kind of restrictive campaign, however, is not the standard I prefer.

Therefore, here follows a list of possibilities that explain why the players are wandering more or less alone, or in a very small group, throughout the world. Roll 1d6, than 1d8, and check the table below (or choose your own story!).

Mixed groups, made of characters of different origins, colors and even species are permitted.

Clyde Caldwell

 

1. Your settlement/tribe was destroyed by...

1.1. Dangerous beasts.

1.2. A large faction.

1.3. Famine or plague.

1.4. A progenitor or titan.

1.5. An enemy clan.

1.6. An ancient machine.

1.7. A criminal horde.

1.8. Something unknown. You came back from the fields to find ruin.

2. You were once a slave, but...

2.1. You escaped during a crisis.

2.2. You deserted as soon as they trusted you.

2.3. You bought your freedom.

2.4. An owner let you go quietly.

2.5. A rival faction freed you as a political gesture.

2.6. You outlasted or killed your owner.

2.7. You were set free to be hunted for sport.

2.8. You participated in a rebellion.

3. You were expelled from your group, because you...

3.1. Were a thief or tax evader.

3.2. Committed assault, justified or not.

3.3. Blaspheme against authorities or deities.

3.4. Show mercy when you shouldn’t.

3.5. Refused to follow orders.

3.6. Accidentally offended powerful people.

3.7. Became the target of an envious rival.

3.8. Were cursed or persecuted by outside forces.

4. You were cast out or abandoned, because...

4.1. There was not enough to feed you.

4.2. You were orphaned and had no kin.

4.3. You found out some inconvenient truth.

4.4. Lost during a crisis and never found by again.

4.5. You lost a public dispute.

4.6. You were physically different.

4.7. Your group disbanded after a loss.

4.8. Your mind was just too different.

5. You simply woke up...

5.1. In a vat in a ruin, fully grown, with no memory of before.

5.2. Alone in the wastes, days from anywhere, with no idea how you got there.

5.3. In a stranger's home, after they rescued you from a disaster.

5.4. After a fever that left you like dead for days.

5.5. In a cell, with no memory of being put there.

5.6. Half-buried after an earthquake.

5.7. After being left for dead by a rival. Buried, dumped, or simply abandoned to die.

5.8. Surrounded by other victims of a man-eating monster.

6. You escaped abduction, just before being...

6.1. Sold at a slave market.

6.2. Sacrificed by a cult.

6.3. Conscripted into an army.

6.4. Robbed and killed on a trade road.

6.5. Used as a test subject by the Progenitors.

6.6. Eaten by cannibals.

6.7. Branded as cattle.

6.8. Aware of their motives.

---

Back to the table of contents.

---

NOTE: Mutant Crawl Classics RPG (and DCC, and several DCC tiles) are up to 88% off. Very tempted to get this, since I really like DCC. Affiliate links.

Currency, precious metals, taxes, and training

I'm currently writing the equipment section for my "minimalist OSR" game. I've recently gone back to XP per gold spent. Hopefully, that will encourage PCs to donate to church, sleep indoors, carouse, or whatever is appropriate to their alignment and personality. But that's a whole other discussion.

What I want to talk about today is precious metals, and specifically a problem I keep coming back to: gold's value is severely degraded in D&D. On one hand, I want to be more or less faithful to the original rules. On the other, I like to maintain at least a minimum of internal coherence, and I can't shake my discomfort with the idea of any common weapon being worth almost its weight in gold (or, in the case of a bow, more than its weight in gold). At that point, gold is too heavy to even be considered a viable currency, and copper starts to feel less like medieval coinage and more like the Weimar Republic, with people hauling wheelbarrows of coins just to buy bread.

I've heard various explanations for this, the most common being a kind of gold rush that inflates prices across the board, so a sword ends up costing ten to a hundred times more than it would in actual history. Then there's the coin size problem: ten coins weigh about a pound, which is absurdly impractical (in my current system I am considering 100 coins to weight about a couple of pounds, which improves things somewhat).

The other issue is player wealth. If characters earn more than half their XP from gold, a fighter reaching level six might already be sitting on 10,000 gp or more. He can essentially buy every piece of available equipment (and wagons to carry it, with horses to pull it...), even at inflated prices, and hire several retainers on top of that (which isn't necessarily bad). The problem is that my players, specifically, start treating wealth accumulation as the point of the game. They stop spending, the pressure to go out and find more treasure starts to feel increasingly artificial and forced, and the whole economy becomes more and more implausible, even if the adventures keep coming.

There are several standard fixes for this. Many people suggest draining gold through taxes, maintenance fees, making PCs targets for bandits, or (as AD&D recommends) requiring them to pay for training to level up. 

None of that appeals to me. I can hardly imagine Conan or Elric paying for a trainer (although they must have been trained according to their culture in status in the past). And my players, being perfectly rational (and I mean this is a fantasy, setting, of course...), will dodge every tax and respond to any tax collector with disproportionate violence. Worse, constantly handing out gold just to take it back makes me spend even more time focused on wealth, which is the opposite of what I want.

Then I read some Gorgon's Grimoire posts about the subject (like this), and an idea clicked into place; one that solves several of these problems at once, by letting the things I dislike cancel each other out.

Here's how it works: imagine that the legitimate local currency is whatever is stamped with the official seal of the local lord or empire (as suggested in conversation by Gorgon's Grimoire - thank you!). The coins the PCs pull out of dungeons are "frontier" coins; recovered from lost empires or inimical creatures, unregulated, unofficial, not recognized within current civilization. Any merchant who accepts them still has to exchange them for official currency before they can use them to buy anything inside the normal economy, which means they'll charge a heavy premium to cover that conversion cost.

This explains inflated prices without requiring an extreme gold rush. It's not only that goods are (notably) more expensive, it's that the PCs' money is worth less because of what it is and where it came from. They can't be bothered paying taxes or regularizing their hoard, and the prices they pay reflect that. Some merchants might try to smuggle the coins or find workarounds, but that's not the PCs' problem. Most will simply take the treasure to the appropriate authorities, pay the conversion fees, and pass the cost along.

It's a solution that feels organic rather than punitive, and it actually fits the fiction.

Of course, the occasional tyrannical ruler might start thinking the PCs are still not paying enough taxes, and some criminal guilds might consider a heist followed by forgery to make the coins legit... but then again, only occasionally. Money is not the main focus of the PCs or the game.

EDIT: BTW, these big costs include some upkeep too, so I can also ignore those...

Minimalist (?) turn undead, plus a reflection on playtesting

Here is my minimalist version of turn undead, which precludes the need for a turn undead table, and uses 1d6 instead of 2d6 plus another 2d6 plus table:

Turn Undead: Clerics can repel or destroy undead. Turning is attempted once per turn, in lieu of an attack. Turned undead flee by any means available and will not harm or contact the cleric. To turn undead, roll 1d6, add the cleric's level, and subtract the target's HD (e.g., 2 for zombies). A result of 5+ succeeds; 10+ simply destroys them permanently. The roll result also indicates the total HD of undead affected (minimum one creature, maximum 20 HD affected). For example, if you roll 11 against zombies, 5 of them are destroyed; against skeletons, 11 are destroyed.

This is the type of rule I want for my game; maps reasonably close to the original B/X (at least to my liking), but a bit simpler, faster, leaner, easier (it also expands to RC levels).

(BTW I can take no credit for it as apparently Delta wrote something similar more than a decade ago; since I take much inspiration from his blog, I might have read it at some point).

In practice, however, I found that this is not enough for even the simplest games. If using this rule (or even the original B/X rules), the players will certainly ask simple questions like "how often can I turn?", "how far", "for how long", etc. It happened in my last campaign.

And the text simply doesn't say. The Rules Cyclopedia adds a much longer text (and table) - but not many answers either. Same in the AD&D PHB.

5e D&D, on the other hand, clearly answers all these questions (30-foot radius, 1 minute or until the creature takes damage, etc).

I'm probably adding such details to my own game since they were obviously needed at my table. So my version might even look a bit longer than B/X, which wasn't my original goal. 

Old school D&D seems to work very well in practice; people often say it is because Gygax etc. had immense wargaming playtesting experience. But I have a feeling that old school GMs often relied on their experience and rulings over having things spelled out in the book, which some people may appreciate but certainly brings endless problems when you don't have much experience with a system and need to learn from the book.

In other words, these games were likely playtested by people who were familiar with wargames, instead of given to newbies to see how understandable they were.

Modern D&D is much more complex (and even verbose and repetitive at times) but often better explained. And, to be honest, I don't think you can get "minimalist points" by omission and incompletion. If the book needs a "good GM" to work, it is not a great book, as most GMs are average by definition (or, at the very least, the book cannot take much credit for the rules if the GM has to create most of them).

Anyway, I keep looking for my ideal D&D - say, something as simple as B/X but as clear as modern D&D. This, I hope, is one step in that direction.

Single roll combat (and more minimalist mass combat)

I nearly finished a document of about ten pages on mass combat in OSR systems. 

My idea, as I had already discussed a few times, was not to introduce a new/alternate system (Chainmail, Warmachine, etc.) new types of data, replace the d20 with a d6, or rewrite a troop list, but to simply to use the rules/stats as they are written in systems like B/X or AD&D, and extrapolate those rules to cover a much larger group of creatures at once, or to cover a longer period of time. In other words, to try to summarize several rolls into a single one.

I approached this issue through four paths: one versus one, which I thought could simply be ignored; one versus many, allowing powerful characters to attack many weak enemies at once; many versus one, which allows the opposite; and many versus many, which are rules for battles between groups of different sizes against each other.

In the end, I decided to add a small idea about how to resolve any combat with just a single roll. Ultimately, I am concerned that this idea may have made all my other ideas obsolete, since it solves almost any situation. The only caveat is that the combats must be between creatures of approximate power. If you avoid absurd situations like a thousand versus one, it should work in situations up to fifty versus twenty, one versus ten, and so on.

Here are some ideas that might give you the gist of it. And maybe this is already enough that the doc is not needed... But let me know if it sounds interesting.

---

The margin of success

When you make an attack roll, subtract the target number from your result. That difference — positive or negative — is your margin, and it is added directly to damage on a hit. Optionally, a miss works the same way in reverse: a near-miss deals reduced damage rather than nothing, meaning every roll moves the fight forward.

A fighter needs a 10 to hit and rolls a 14. Margin: +4. His sword deals 1d8 — say he rolls a 5 — for a total of 9 damage. If he had rolled a 7 instead, missing by 3, the optional rule gives him 1d8 minus 3 — perhaps 2 damage — a glancing blow that still counts.

The group attack bonus

Ten bandits attacking a single knight roll once, with a +10 bonus, and deal one die of damage plus the margin. No rolling ten separate attacks. One roll, one result.

Conversely, the knight can attack all ten in a single attack with a -10 penalty. If he hits, he damages ALL ten bandits at once (10 is the hard limit; the knight cannot attack 100 at once).

The bandits need a 12 to hit the knight and roll a 9, adjusted to 19 with their +10 bonus. Margin: +7. They deal 1d8+7. The knight is not struck ten times; he is overwhelmed by a sustained press whose worst moment is captured in that single roll.

The knight strikes back. He needs an 8 to hit a bandit and rolls a 14, but with a -10 penalty that becomes a 4. A miss. The bandits' formation holds for now. Next round he rolls an 18, adjusted to 8. He hits, margin 0, deals 1d8 damage with his sword. If the bandits only had 4 HP each and he rolls 5 damage, he might have cut down all ten at once.

Groups of different sizes

When two groups of different sizes fight each other, the larger group gets a bonus and the smaller group gets a penalty, equal to the difference in size. Seven bandits against five knights: the bandits attack with +2, the knights with -2.

In some cases the groups can be reduced to a common denominator. Six bandits against four knights can be treated as three bandits against two knights, keeping the same proportions with fewer units to track. Twelve against eight becomes three against two. This is purely a matter of convenience — the math is identical either way.

The single roll method (optional)

Both sides roll one attack each, simultaneously. Apply the margin to average damage. Compare remaining HP. The side with more left wins; the loser drops to zero; the winner keeps only their remainder. Two rolls, a subtraction, a comparison, done.

Two ogres, 19 HP each, average damage 6, needing a 10 to hit. Ogre A rolls 16, margin +6, deals 12 damage, leaving Ogre B with 7 HP. Ogre B rolls 9, margin -1, deals 5 damage, leaving Ogre A with 14 HP. Ogre A wins. Subtract: 14 minus 7 = 7 HP remaining. Bloodied but standing.

---

Obviously this is intended for NPC fights and mass combat, mostly. Most players do not want their PCs to be killed in a single roll, and that can absolutely happen here. But it can be used in a limited way even for PCs: if your fighter is attacked by a mob of goblins that could never realistically kill him, a single roll quickly tells you how much damage he sustains before cutting through them, and everyone moves on.

Minimalist treasure 3: superfast treasure generation

I really liked the last post. I think it opened my eyes to several circumstances that will be very useful in my games. For example, regarding the fact that each of copper/silver/gold/platinum is worth ten times  than the other, but especially that gems/jewelry are worth ten times more than gold on average, and that magic items are not far from ten times more valuable than gems. 

Even so, the result, although satisfactory, still ended up being quite complicated (and a bit abstract) for the game I want to call OSR Minimalist. I realized that by reducing the types of treasure to a 2d6 table similar to a reaction table, you could keep the roll simple while at the same time producing varied and concrete results for quickly describing treasure.

| Roll        | Result                          |

|-------------|---------------------------------|

| 2 or less   | Heavy objects, Copper, Silver   |

| 3–5         | Copper, Silver, Gold            |

| 6–8         | Silver, Gold, Platinum          |

| 9–11        | Gold, Platinum, Gems            |

| 12 or more  | Platinum, Gems, Magic Items     |

A lot, some, a few

This treasure is immediately easy to describe with "a lot, some, a few". So 6-8 means "a lot of silver coins, some gold, a few platinum pieces".

But how many, exactly?

| Roll        | Result         

| 2 or less   | d6×10,000 Copper, d6×1,000 Silver, Heavy objects

| 3–5         | d6×10,000 Copper, d6×1,000 Silver, d6×100 Gold

| 6–8         | d6×1000 Silver, d6×100 Gold, d6×10 Platinum

| 9–11        | d6×100 Gold, d6×10 Platinum, d6 Gems

| 12 or more  | d6×10 Platinum, d6 Gems, d6×0.1 Magic Items

So, each item in the list has the same value on average.

Also, each line is worth slightly above 1,000 gp on average.

So if you find a hoard worth 5,0000, just multiply every result by five.

Neat, right?

Now, following the intuition from the last post (that larger hoards should be more weight-efficient, the "nobody buys a Ferrari with dimes" point), let's assume the table is calibrated for a 1,000 gp hoard. Roll with −1 for hoards under 500 gp, +1 for over 5,000 gp, +2 for over 10,000 gp, and +3 for over 20,000 gp.

This is optional, of course. If you don't apply the modifier, a dragon might end up sitting on piles of copper, which is fine.

Alternatively, if you want more variety, you can roll on the table multiple times for a large hoard, treating each roll as a separate component.

Bjorn Pierre (unsplash)

A note on heavy objects and magic items

I added some heavy objects to the table because I like the idea of some hoards containing statues, pelts, rugs, clothes, etc., but you can easily ignore it.

Magic item, OTOH, are d6×0.1 per each thousand GP. If the hoard is smaller than that 10,000 gp, you can treat it as a small chance of having a magic item, a low value magic item, etc.

Even more variety?

I am tempted to add a secondary table of "special effects" that take effect if you roll the same number on both dice. But that is just for extra flavor. To keep the minimalist vibe, that 2d6 table is all I need.

Minimalist treasure 2: generating hoard types

Continuing from the previous post, I wanted a way to generate treasure without complicated tables. The goal: a single roll that tells you not just how much treasure there is, but what kind — and how much of it is worth carrying.

Introduction (designer's notes)

Modern economists, following Aristotle, identify (at least) three qualities of sound money: portability, divisibility, and durability. In D&D, coins are certainly durable, but portability and divisibility are more situational. Few millionaires keep a significant share of their wealth in one-dollar bills — and no one with fifty thousand dollars in assets holds it as a single diamond. The denomination also has to match the transaction. Nobody buys a Ferrari with piles of dimes.

Put simply, the wealthier a person is, the more efficient their treasure tends to be per pound.

A handful of silver coins offers more divisibility than gold, but the gold is more portable. A gem offers more portability still, at the cost of divisibility, since dividing a ruby makes it lose most of its value.

In D&D, perhaps only a dragon — a compulsive hoarder by mythological nature — would accumulate the kind of mixed, inefficient pile that the encumbrance system is quietly designed to punish. Everyone else, given the choice, gravitates toward the top of the table.

This system takes all of this into account. If I may say so, it ended up being a lot easier to use than I expected.

The system

You already know the total value of the hoard (roughly 100 gp per HD, as discussed before; a lair of 100 bandits has a hoard worth about 5,000 gp). This roll tells you the composition — what the treasure is made of, and how efficiently it's packed.

Roll d20, then add +1 for every 1,000 gp in the hoard, up to a maximum of +20 (corresponding to a 20,000 gp hoard). Larger hoards should be broken into smaller parts and rolled separately. The result determines treasure type from the table below.

Roll	Treasure type	Value density
0 or less	Low-value or heavy objects (junk, pelts, tools)	= gold / 1,000
1	Reroll -10	—
2–9	Copper	= gold / 100
10–11	Reroll ±10	—
12–19	Silver	= gold / 10
20–21	Reroll ±10	—
22–29	Gold	= gold
30–31	Reroll ±10	—
32–39	Platinum	= gold × 10
40–41	Reroll ±10	—
42–49	Gems & Jewelry	~ gold × 100
50–51	Reroll ±10	—
52–59	Magic items	~ gold × 1,000
60	Reroll +10	—
61+	Legendary item or artifact	~ gold × 10,000

A quick note on the value density column. Each tier is roughly 10× more efficient per pound than the tier below — a clean order-of-magnitude progression that makes the table easy to understand.

And this progression looks very reasonable and not that far from the original. Consider:

Gems and jewelry in B/X are worth about 1,000 times their weight in gold (the 100× figure in our table is a deliberate simplification). In the real world, everyday jewelry is worth only slightly more than its gold content, but gems span an enormous range — common stones are worth a fraction of gold per gram, while fine rubies and emeralds can reach 2,000–5,000×.

Magic items vary immensely in price and weight, but 1,000× their weight in gold is not absurd as a round number. The spread is enormous: a Ring of Invisibility is roughly 3,300 times more valuable per pound than +1 plate armor, which works similarly to the gem range — the same category contains both a pebble and a diamond.

Because of that, gems and magic items might deserve their own sub-tables (which are already in B/X, AD&D etc.).

Treasure composition

The digit at the end of your result — the ones place, from 2 to 9 — tells you how heterogeneous the treasure is. This is where Pareto comes in: if a player takes only 20% of the treasure by weight, how much of the value do they recover?

• Digit 9: 90% of the value is in the top 20% by weight. Highly varied — gems scattered among coins, a magic item wrapped in cloth at the bottom of a chest of silver.
• Digit 5: roughly 50% of the value in the top 20%. Moderately mixed.
• Digit 2: 20% of the value in the top 20%. Nearly homogeneous — a chest of nothing but copper pieces, uniform all the way down.

A result of 24 (gold, digit 4) means: the treasure is worth its weight in gold on average, and taking the best 20% by weight recovers about 40% of the value (this 40% is mostly platinum pieces, some gems, etc.). A result of 27 (silver, digit 7) means: it's heavy and low-value on average, but picking carefully gets you 70% of the value in 20% of the weight — there's some gold in there.

Results ending in 0 or 1 are rerolls: 0 means roll again and add 10, 1 means roll again and subtract 10. This preserves the natural 20 as a potential windfall and the natural 1 as a setback, while keeping the table open-ended in both directions. The +20 cap means most large hoards cluster in the gold-to-platinum range, with gems and magic items requiring either a lucky roll or a genuinely exceptional hoard.

Treasure appearance

Homogenous treasure (i.e., digit 2) is easy to describe. For example, result 22 is basically a big pile of gold, etc. Mixed treasure, however, will look mostly as one tier below. E.g.,  result 25 is maybe almsot half silver, around 20% gold, around 20% copper, and only a bit of platinum.

Pocket money

Individual creatures carry roughly 1% of the lair's total value on their person, in the same denomination as the main hoard, provided they can carry it. A gnoll lair worth 3,000 gp in silver means each gnoll carries about 30 gp worth of silver coins — enough to be worth mentioning, not enough to change the logistics. This also gives the party a small preview of what's coming: creatures carrying gold suggest a gold hoard ahead; creatures carrying gems suggest something more interesting.

Outliers

Even a very small hoard can contain gems and magic items. This isn't usually a problem — as noted above, both categories vary enormously in value. A potion might be worth 50 gp, a semi-precious stone even less.

If you roll gem and magic item values separately, you face a choice: fix the results to match the hoard's overall scale, or let the dice fall and accept that a lone goblin might be carrying a ring of inestimable value. Maybe that deserves a table of its own... but that's a post for another day.

Carrying mixed treasure

The digit makes it possible to record treasure concisely and make decisions about it later. A player might note "30 pounds of platinum (34) Treasure" — meaning the hoard is platinum-tier (so, it is worth 3,000 gp) and the digit is 4. Back in town, or at a bottleneck in the dungeon, they can decide to keep only the best 20% by weight: that recovers roughly 40% of the value, or about 1,200 gp, at one fifth the encumbrance. If they have a cart, they take it all. If they're fleeing through a collapsing corridor, they know exactly what to grab first and what to leave behind — and they have a number to justify the decision at the table rather than an argument.

Pareto to infinity?

The system can recurse. A gold-tier hoard contains a platinum-tier sub-hoard — roll again to find what share (the digit, as before). That platinum sub-hoard may itself contain a gem-tier portion, and so on, until you've identified the single most valuable in the pile. Stop whenever the detail stops being useful, or when the digit is 2 (meaning a uniform pile of coins, homogeneous all the way down). In theory you could choose the best gem in a handful... But few adventurers are wealthy enough to leave any gems behind!

Time is money

One thing I haven't analyzed here (nor have I seen it addressed in any D&D rulebook) is the time required to sort a hoard. A disorganized dragon hoard could take hours to sift through properly. Most human-administered treasures, by contrast, will have at least some organization and can probably be assessed and selectively looted in a few minutes, depending on size. In a rush, however, PCs might be forced to carry a few random bags and trust their luck!

But does this actually make sense?

Yes!

For example, if you rolled 24, this is what a treasure could look like. This is mostly AI-generated but fixable by adding more copper and gems, and probably a human with excel could do a similar job.

Hoard: ~10,000 gp total, result 24 (gold tier, digit 4)

Item	Weight	Value	% of value
30,000 cp in copper coins	300 lb	300 gp	3%
40,000 sp in silver coins	400 lb	4,000 gp	40%
3,000 gp in gold coins	300 lb	3,000 gp	25%
120 pp in platinum coins	12 lb	600 gp	6%
5 gems (avg 80 gp each)	0.1 lb	400 gp	4%
2 pieces of jewelry (avg 200 gp)	0.2 lb	400 gp	4%
1 magic item	0.5 lb	1,000 gp	10%
Total	~1,013 lb	~9,700 gp	100%

The top 20% by weight is ~203 lb. That's:

• the magic item (0.5 lb, 1,000 gp)
• the jewelry (0.2 lb, 400 gp)
• the gems (0.1 lb, 400 gp)
• the platinum (12 lb, 600 gp)
• and about 190 lb of gold coins (1,900 gp)

Total: ~203 lb, ~4,300 gp — about 44% of the value in 20% of the weight.

Minimalist weapons (2026)

I've tried this before: rationalizing B/X weapons and giving a few extra options without too much complexity.

I also gave weapons more reasonable prices and weights (encumbrance system to follow).

Now I'm writing my "OSR Minimalist" again and this is what I'm going with.

This is my latest attempt, and I'm quite happy with it. 

Tell me what you think! Did I miss anything?

Melee Weapons

In the case of melee weapons, the damage, price, and weight are determined by size.

 

Size	Damage	Price	Weight
Small (S)	1d4	$3	1/3
Medium (M)	1d6	$5	1
Large (L)	1d8	$10	2
Great (G)	1d10	$20	2

 

Small weapons can be used in the offhand and thrown (20 feet). E.g., dagger, dart, sap.

Medium weapons are used in the main hand and can likewise be thrown (20 feet). E.g., short sword, hand axe, light mace.

Large can be used in one or both hands (+1 damage when used with both). E.g., longsword, dane axe, heavy mace.

Great weapons must use two hands to attack. Two-handed sword (zweihänder, claymore), great axe, lucerne hammer, maul, most polearms, etc.

 To further differentiate weapons, here are some optional traits.

---

§  Expensive: double the cost.

§  Quick: if you roll minimum damage, make one immediate free attack against the same target (once per turn).

§  Reach: attack from second row (5' extra).

§  Charge: double damage on a charge or when set against one.

Here are some common weapons:

§  Axes, maces (M, L, G). +1 to hit shields, heavy armor, hard or brittle targets. Axes also get +1 against wood and maces +1 against stone.

§  Brass knuckles (S, $1). 1d2, quick.

§  Clubs (S, $1). No special features.

§  Daggers (S). Expensive, quick.

§  Flails (M, L, G). +1 to hit shields or heavy armor, +2 if both, -1 if none.

§  Javelins (S). Thrown 30', weight ½.

§  Kick (S). 1d2; on a natural 1, risk falling prone.

§  Pole weapons (L, G). Expensive, reach, charge, plus same effect as axe and mace.

§  Punch (S). 1d2−1, quick.

§  Quarterstaffs (L, $3, 1d4 damage). Reach or quick (choose when attack).

§  Spears (M, L, G). Reach, charge.

§  Swords (M, L, G). Expensive, quick.

§  Warhammers and warpicks (M, L, G). +2 to hit heavy armor, hard or brittle targets, -1 against unarmored and soft targets.

G weapons: +1 damage vs. larger-than-human foes, −1 to hit smaller-than-human ones. Swords and spears get +1 damage if M, +2 if L, +3 if G. 

---

Ranged Weapons

 All ranged weapons require ammunition and two hands to operate. 

Weapon	Damage	Price	Weight	Range	Notes
Sling	1d4	$2	1/3	40'	-
Short bow	1d6	$20	1	60'	-
Long bow	1d6	$30	2	70'	-
Crossbow	1d6	$40	2	80'	Slow

• Slow: spend one round reloading between shots. 

Ammunition costs:

• Arrows or bolts — 20 for $5, weight 1.
• Sling bullets — 30 for $1, weight 1.

---

Note: I may or may not combine this with an optional critical hit checklist (and fumbles) to give weapons even more distinctions.

Also, let me know: would a list of ~24 weapons be easier to grasp than this "choose the size of your weapon" scheme? Or something else (e.g., list of weapons and sizes versus separate list of traits...)

I'm leaning towards leaving lhe list of simple weapons in the minimalist version and adding the full list as separate and optional.

Example (unfinished):

#	Weapon	Size	Damage	Price	Weight	Traits
1	Punch	S	1d2−1	—	—	Quick
2	Kick	S	1d2	—	—	On natural 1, risk falling prone
3	Brass knuckles	S	1d2	$1	0	Quick
4	Dagger	S	1d4	$6	1	Expensive, quick, thrown 30'
5	Club	S	1d4	$1	1	—
6	Javelin	S	1d4	$3	½	Thrown 30'
7	Axe, mace	M	1d6	$5	1	+1 to hit shields, heavy armor, hard or brittle targets
8	Flail	M	1d6	$5	1	+1 vs shields or heavy armor, +2 if both, −1 if neither
9	Spear	M	1d6	$5	1	Reach
10	Sword	M	1d6	$10	1	Expensive, quick
11	Warhammer, warpick	M	1d6	$5	1	+2 to hit heavy armor, hard or brittle targets; −1 vs unarmored
12	Axe, mace	L	1d8	$10	2	+1 to hit shields, heavy armor, hard or brittle targets
13	Flail	L	1d8	$10	2	+1 vs shields or heavy armor, +2 if both, −1 if neither
14	Quarterstaff	L	1d4	$3	2	Reach or quick (choose when attacking)
15	Spear	L	1d8	$10	2	Reach
16	Sword	L	1d8	$20	2	Expensive, quick
17	Warhammer, warpick	L	1d6	$10	2	+2 to hit heavy armor, hard or brittle targets; −1 vs unarmored
18	Axe, mace	G	1d10	$20	2	+1 to hit shields, heavy armor, hard or brittle targets
19	Flail	G	1d10	$20	2	+1 vs shields or heavy armor, +2 if both, −1 if neither
20	Pole weapon	L	1d8	$20	2	Expensive, reach, +1 to hit shields, heavy armor, hard or brittle targets
21	Pole weapon	G	1d10	$40	2	Expensive, reach, +1 to hit shields, heavy armor, hard or brittle targets
22	Spear	G	1d10	$20	2	Reach, disadvantage within 5'
23	Sword	G	1d10	$40	2	Expensive, quick
24	Warhammer, warpick	G	1d10	$20	2	+2 to hit heavy armor, hard or brittle targets; −1 vs unarmored