Minimum Viable Fighter (B/Xish)

I’ve written before about how the B/X fighter feels too weak compared to other classes, and even less interesting than dwarves or clerics. In my minimalist OSR project, the goal was to add as few features as possible while still giving the fighter a boost in power and fun.

I avoided the complexity of proficiencies, fighting styles, and the dreaded feats (even though I like them) and instead settled on two additions.

First, the cleave mechanic gives fighters a boost they need: it shines against hordes of weak foes, scales with level, and eventually offers some advantage even against stronger enemies. It’s also very satisfying to see a fighter mowing down hordes of minions, like Conan or Elric.

Second, extra attacks ensure damage keeps pace. At level seven, the extra attack raises damage combat output and cleave potential*; at level fifteen, another attack continues that trend, aligning with AD&D’s progression.

(*I think I like this way of dealing with 1.5 attacks, but maybe 2 then 1 then 2 works better, not sure).

This may not make fighters as versatile as clerics who can raise the dead, but it does make them far stronger than before. The open question is whether demi‑human classes like dwarves, elves, and halflings should share these benefits. In my system, races are separate from classes, so I haven’t tackled that.

Anyway, here is my minimum viable fighter.

Will playtest soon.

---

Fighter. 

You might call yourself a knight, a barbarian warrior, a soldier, or a ranger, but it makes no difference: your main skill is violence. A useful talent in this perilous world.

§  HD: 1d8.

§  Attack Bonus: level.

§  Saving Throw: level +3.

§  Cleave: When you reduce an opponent to 0 HP, you may immediately make an additional attack against another opponent in range, for a maximum number of times equal to your level.

§  Extra Attack: Fighters gain 1½ attacks* per round at level 7, 2 at level 15, and 3 at level 20. (*This means your second attack deals half damage, round up).

Minimalist OSR equipment list

Maybe I spent more time than I should have studying this list, but I believe I managed to summarize most of the equipment needed for a D&D adventure into major categories in a reasonably coherent way.

The price of one gold piece per day for food is expensive by historical standards, but it aligns with what most D&D editions recommend. And, of course, it can easily be swapped for a silver standard, if you prefer.

This updates the list on Dak Fantasy Basic slightly and convert prices to gold.

I believe this list is compatible with B/X prices when possible, but also the prices of items relative to one another are more accurate by historical standards and more sensible overall.

Please let me know if you have any corrections or objections!

--

Currency

The usual currency in this game is coins of various metals. For simplicity’s sake, assume all coins have similar weight, and each metal is ten times more valuable than the next in the list.

1 platinum piece (pp) = 10 gold pieces (gp) = 100 silver pieces (sp) = 1,000 copper pieces (cp).

Players start the game with 3d6 x10 gp. A gold coin is enough for hot meal, a cold beer or a night in a collective room. Copper pieces are rarely worth carrying for adventurers, but are common currency in hamlets etc. A common laborer will earn rough 1 gp per day and eat cheaper food.

100 coins weight one “item” (i.e., roughly 3 pounds).

  

Miscellaneous equipment

 

Food (one day): Fresh (1 gp, weight 1), must be eaten within a week. Rations (2 gp, weight 1/3) last for one month. A hot meal or cold beer in a tavern costs 1 gp.

 

Common tools (5 gp, weight 1): backpack (holds 10 weight), bedrolls (winter bedrolls: 10 gp, weight 2), blank book, block and tackle (requires rope), board game, camping gear (flint, small blade and hammer), chain (per feet), climbing gear (for wood surfaces or similar; stone climbing gear is 10 gp, weight 2), clothes (winter clothing: 10 gp, weight 2), cooking tools, crowbars, fishing tools, grappling hook, hammers, healing kits (10 uses), hooded oil lantern, hunting traps, merchant's scale, musical instruments (small, like drums, horns, trumpets; larger and more complex instruments cost 10 gp or more), rope (silk, per 20 feet), shackles, steel mirror, winter blanket.

 

Heavy tools (5 gp, weight 3): caltrops (enough for 10 square feet), shovel, pick, iron spikes (30), tent (1 person).

 

Cheap tools (1 sp, weight 3): 15 torches, 10' pole, 20 candles (weight 1).

 

Expensive tools (25 gp, weight 1): holy symbol, lock picks, grimoire, luxury versions of common tools (that might be 10% better or give you a +1 bonus to a test).

 

Liquids: water for one day (usually free, weight 1; weight 2 in very hot weather), pint of oil (1 gp, weight 1/3; can be lit and thrown 20' for 1d6 fire damage), holy water (25 gp, weight 1/3; can be thrown 20' for 1d8 damage against undead, demons, etc.).

 

Skills & tools

Skills will often require tools such as a healing kit, climbing gear, lock picks, etc. Improvised tools will often cause disadvantages. Some tasks will be impossible without tools (GM's call).

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2026/03/minimalist-weapons-2026.html

Manic at the Monastery (OSE adventure review)

Disclosure: The author has contacted me to offer a review copy.

From the blurb:

Manic at the Monastery is an old-school adventure for character levels 1-3 that has players exploring the secrets of an ancient monastery wracked with a psychedelic affliction. Rumors are spreading that the enigmatic Veiled Emperor has returned to Glynmoor, and there have been strange happenings near the monastery. Brave the horrors within and uncover the source of the madness before it spreads.

Manic at the Monastery comes with an Old-School Essentials version and a Worlds Without Number version. I've only read the OSE version. I'd suggest level 3 is more appropriate, which becomes obvious with a quick look at the bestiary—there are also several deadly traps that will certainly kill most level 1 (and probably level 2) parties before they explore most of the module.

This adventure has all the traits that are expected in an OSE adventure: random encounters, random events, rooms described in bullet points, good opportunities of exploration, combat and role-playing, a clean layout and terse language. 

The art is a bit sparse, most of it is simple, B&W and not particularly impressive. The maps are straightforward enough and some sections are duplicated for ease of reference.

So, what makes this adventure stand out? First, it is very grounded and setting-agnostic, which I enjoy. There are no orcs or dwarves here, only humans. The monastery is easily adaptable to any setting or even to a real-world-inspired scenario.

It has good thematic coherence, with one single threat being the source of most problems. It doesn't have the successive rooms of skeletons, giant bats and goblins that I usually find tiresome.

I'd call it mostly grounded, with some weird and just a bit of vanilla.

The adventure is a bit gritty; there is real risk here, even for 3rd-level characters. It contains a "ticking clock" of sorts; spending too long in the dungeon is dangerous. I find this very useful. 

It can serve as a good introduction for a campaign as it has some indications of an incoming doom of sorts, although this is not described in detail here (the author is planning on sequels).

I might have used this module in my campaign, come to think of it. Maybe one day I will; right now, the PCs are level 7-8 and it would be too easy.

It reminded me of The God That Crawls at first, mostly because of the religious setting (and because it would apparently kill the level 1-2 PCs that are supposed to enter it), but I think there is one useful comparison to be made with that famous module. While TGTC is full of weirdness and stuff that can affect your entire campaign, MATM is smaller, safer, terser, easier to run and to insert in your setting without much hassle.

If that's is what you're looking for, I'd recommend checking Manic at the Monastery out.

* By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog.

Chainmail magic: Spell Complexity, Counter spell, and more oddities

Chainmail* has several interesting ideas that have been "lost" in the transition to D&D. Studying them is fun and can provide many ideas for your D&Dish games. Today, we tackle magic, in three parts: Spell Complexity, Counter spell, and other curiosities.

[*affiliate link]

Spell Complexity

Spell Complexity is an optional rule where "each listed spell has a complexity value, and this value indicates how difficult it is to use such spell. [...] In addition, there may be a delay in the effect of the spell, or it may be totally negated due to some minor error or distraction. The table below gives the scores necessary for immediate, deferred (1 turn), and negated spell effects by the various levels of magic-users.".

In other words:

- Roll 2d6. Subtract spell level. Add half your level, round up (this is an approximation, CM units have names instead of levels).

- 8 or more means the spell is cast immediately. 6-7 means it is delayed for one turn. 5 means the spell fails. 

While I have written my own roll-to-cast rule for B/X, I must admit I'm enthralled by this one, simply because of the spell delay aspect. It adds another layer of excitement/tension and choice/tactics to everyone on the battlefield.

Now spell interruption is not only about initiative, but about a series of choices on both sides of the battle.

BTW, the book won't tell you what happens if you roll lower than 5; I first assumed the spell is lost for the day, but it could also be a spell mishap, etc. Look at the post I mentioned for more ideas. But, as mentioned in the comments, the table probably indicates that 5 or less means the spell fails. The notation is horrible but supposedly it is common in wargaming at the time.

Counter spell

"The stronger magician can successfully cast a counter-spell with a two dice score of 7 or better, while a weaker magician needs a score of 8, 9, 10 or 11, depending on his relative strength. A counter-spell fully occupies a magician's powers." 

In other words... you could employ a similar dice roll as the one describe above, adding your level and subtracting your opponent's level (half-level would be more precise, but I'd favor simplicity here).

CM does not delve into further detail; I assume the spell that is successfully countered is negated. I'm unsure if only delayed spells can be countered, but it would be fun if your delay allowed another magician to not only counter your spell but also cast a spell against you, etc.

Again, this adds another layer of tension and tactics to the game.

Other curiosities

"Wizards can handle magical weaponry. [...] Wizards can become invisible and remain so until they attack, they con see in darkness, they affect friendly and enemy morale as do Super Heroes [...]. Wizards are themselves impervious to normal missile fire but if they are struck by a missile from an enemy Wizard they must score 7 or better with two to survive."

They seems very powerful!

Wizards are also artillery. They can throw fireballs and lightning bolts (with effects similar to guns and catapults), which are not spells, so presumably they don't "roll to cast" and never run out. I like this approach and I added an "arcane artillery" feat to my Old School Feats.

A wizard - the highest level a magic-user can get - has only 6-7 spells. If we count fireballs, lighting bolts, and in visibility, we are not very far from one spell per level, which I like.

Also notice the lack of "Vancian" casting. No memorization. You just have a few spells that you can cast over and over until you fail.

Overall, I really like Chainmail magic. It is somewhat simpler and at the same time has more tactical depth than B/X, without getting to AD&D levels of complexity.

It doesn't require memorization, material components or specific casting times; the spells can be cast more often, but also can be delayed and countered. This seems to me as a superior alternative as it is more exciting than a list of requirements.

A B/X conversion?

How about 10+ means immediate casting, 5+ means delayed casting, and less than that you fail or lose the spell? This makes MUs lose some of their speed but not their power. Seems good for starting MUs, but as always they become too powerful at higher levels. As always, some fine-tuning is needed.

Spell points revisited

When I wrote Alternate Magic, I tried to keep it very compatible to BX / OSE. 

Here is what I've been using. A spell costs 1 SP per spell level.

As I've mentioned there, the goal was: "At low levels, this is nearly identical to the existing rules. At high levels, casters gain some versatility (they can cast the same spells more often) but they can memorize and cast fewer spells."

Lately, I'm finding this system makes high-level casters even more powerful in some aspects. In my defense, I still think they are OP to begin with, as I've said many times in this blog.

Am I overthinking this? Maybe SP are just not compatible with fireballs. Maybe LotFP was right in simply removing it.

Anyway, here is where I am now:

My PCs are about level 7-8 currently.

A 7d6 fireball destroys pretty much any random wilderness encounter. If you're checking once a day, the MU can always have TWO of them. But I'm using spell points, which makes things much worse.

Likewise, Cure Light Wounds (the baseline Lvl 8 cleric has 3 every day, plus 2 CSW - about 7d6+7 healing) can cure most non-lethal wounds. Using SP gives the cleric even more healing power.

Fortunately, I nerfed the cleric in other ways (a level 7 BX cleric should have raise dead; I use the BECMI progression instead).

(And boosted fighter/thieves. The B/X fighter and thief would have about +5 to hit, plus a magic sword, while the cleric gets raise dead, better saves, and also beats the thief at AC and HD).

Anyway, I still LIKE spell points, but in my next campaign I'm probably limiting them to 2 SP per level for MUs and 1 SP for clerics. Both learn one new spell per level.

So, a 8th-level cleric can still cure a lot of wounds (8d8+8 HP), but he can do nothing else that day. 

A 7th-level MU has four fireballs - still a lot, but after that there is not much else he can do.

(I allow MUs to use swords, they might need it).

What is more, they don't recover all SP overnight. Like wounded fighters they need a few days of rest. 

I've been using "you recover one fourth of maximum HP per day, round up", something I got from SotDL, so maybe use that for SP too.

Anyway, this is not perfectly compatible to B/X (or OSE), as it makes casters a lot weaker. But I think this is necessary to make the game grittier and more balanced.

If you prefer the original feel (MUs start weak and get incredibly powerful), you can keep the original table. For a dark fantasy or S&S feel, this is probably better.

30-mile hexes

I've considered several hex sizes before. Today I will think about 30-mile hexes.

Look at this map (source):

The hexes are about 31-miles each (31 miles across, with sides about 17.32 miles).

Good enough so they can fit all major cities and the shape of Italy is still recognizable.

You'd need to add several random villages and things (ruins, caves, castles, lairs, etc.) to each "empty" hex.

The whole country could be described in 150 hexes or so - sounds reasonable to run an entire campaign., maybe giving at least one page to each hex. And EVERY hex could have one or two interesting features.

At this size, I think you could just give the map to your players. If your setting is anything like medieval Italy, it wouldn't be hard to know the general direction of Verona or Genova. 

Rome fits in an hex, but does not FILL it.

You lose some interesting detail; the map doesn't show you Venezia (Venice) as an island, nor the Lago di Garda (the largest lake in Italy - with an area of 143 square miles, it would fill one or two 6-mile hexes).

According to google maps, you can cross the entire country (from Bova Marina to to Milano, for example) on foot in 302 hours (1310 km, 814 miles).

Apparently, "Google Maps uses average walking speed of 5km/h to calculate walking times" - which is 3.1 MPH.

This is NOT a straight line, and while there are many more roads in modern days, ancient Rome had several, as you can see in this interesting site:

https://orbis.stanford.edu/

OSE says "the number of miles a character can travel in a day is determined by dividing their base movement rate by five. For example, a character whose base movement rate is 120’ could travel up to 24 miles in a day."

Of course, if you travel 24 miles a day, you might as well use 24-mile hexes (although maintained roads will increase travel speed by 50%).

Anyway, that is 34 days to cross Italy on foot.

This will probably result in around a dozen encounters - most of them avoidable or uneventful.

Most expeditions will NOT require you to cross the entire country, of course.

What I'm thinking is that hex travel requires a huge map to be meaningful.

And MAYBE it requires RE-USING hexes. Getting lost, searching several hexes for a landmark, etc.

In my current campaign, the hex map only made sense when the PCs went exploring beyond the limits of the know regions, where there are no more cities or roads.

Herein lies an important distinction others have mentioned: do you want a map for EXPLORATION or TRAVEL? 

Maybe these should be distinct procedures.

Another thing to consider is "Medieval Europe x Old West USA", and which influenced D&D hexcrawling the most. 

I reckon Europe is too dense for most D&D settings. Mapping the USA would require more than 120,000 6-mile hexes, or around 5,000 30-mile hexes (Europe is of a similar size, but in the 1400s-1500s the population of Europe was more than 10-20 times bigger).

Maybe you should consider this BEFORE choosing hex size...

For now, I'll say that big hexes look better for travelling, and you can always sub-divide them as needed when PCs go exploring (or settling in) a particular area.

Additional reading:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/04/how-big-is-6-mile-hex.html
https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2019/06/osr-sienas-6-mile-hex.html

10:1 combat (B/X, Chainmail, and OD&D)

There are innumerable ways to do mass combat in D&D (I even tried to write my own). 

In old school editions, however, I am not sure it is even necessary to have a mass combat system.

On the contrary, I've been thinking a separate mass combat system might become a problem.

Take Chainmail, for example. Many people that play OD&D or AD&D like the idea of using CM for mass battlers, but I find this a bad idea.

In Chainmail, the mace is FIVE TIMES better than a regular sword against AC 2. In AD&D, since you can hit even negative AC with a 20, the mace is only slightly better than a sword.

This is the first thing that comes to mind, but there are many other differences - IIRC, a 4th-level fighter is much stronger in CM, for example, and using 2d6 will necessarily produce different results from a  d20.

My problem with this is that switching systems like that changes the assumptions about the game, to the point of changing the results of a fight depending oh the system you're using.

But what if you just use the same system with a different scale?

For example, say 100 knights are battling 150 berserkers. You could just run 10 knight "units" against 15 berserkers "units", as if they were individuals, and assume the results would be similar. 

I.e., a "10:1 scale"; one knight represents 10.

The rules would be exactly the same... with a few exceptions.

Morale

An unit tests morale upon losing one HP and again when losing half HP.

Notice that usually morale is checked when one combatant dies. If taken literally, this would indicate hat an army of 100 might flee is attacked by an army of 100 inflicting a single causality. I dislike that, and I only check morale when 10% of an army/unit is lost.

Interaction between scales

What happens when a unit of 10 knights attacks an ogre or even an exceptional PC?

Reverting back to the usual system is not a bad idea - it is easy enough to roll 10d20, etc.

Although I do think you should decide beforehand how many people can attack a single target at once (I like four, maybe twice as much for spears).

Likewise, the number of units attacking other units is limited and depends on geography.

When combat is resolved (because the ogre is slain or inflicts a causality and the knights fail a morale test), you can stay in 10:1 or 1:1 scale as appropriate.

Other scales/my experiences with mass battles

Of course, you can use other scales as appropriate. You could use 5:1, 100:1 or 1,000:1... The idea is finding a number of units that makes you comfortable. 

I have little experience running mass battles like that. But my PCs recently fought about 50 goblins in two or three waves, with the help of half a dozen NPCs, and it went very well. 

I once ran a 5e combat against 100 skeletons or so, which was also very easy as they came in groups of 4-5 thru the windows and the fighters would only miss them on natural 1s.

I think it would be hard to run more than 10 or 20 units at once, but within that limit I'd want to have as many unis as possible.

In addition, I'd have to consider unit types; if I have 1000 identical knights, I can use 100:1, but if I also had 50 archers, I'd definitely prefer 50:1. 

In any case, you can "zoom" back and forth as needed.

Well, for now, this is just brainstorming. Let's see if I can out it in practice.

The importance of cleaving mooks

I recently wrote a couple of posts about how B/X Fighters are too weak and how to fix them.

There is one thing I want to elaborate further: "cleaving" (or sweep attacks, etc.). 

As it often happens, there is a great post in Delta's blog about the subject, which covers most of the topic.

This is an ability the fighter had in OD&D and AD&D, that is missing from B/X. Here is how OSRIC describes it:

"Fighting the Unskilled: When the fighter is attacking creatures with less than a full hit die (i.e. less than 1d8 hit points), the fighter receives one attack for each of his or her levels of experience, e.g. a 4th level fighter attacking goblins would receive 4 attacks per round."

Delta's describes the importance of this rule when fighting hundreds of goblins. Notice that the number appearing for goblins is:

- In B/X, 2d4 in the dungeon and 6d10 in the wilderness. 

- In AD&D, it is 40d10.

This rule is useful not only to give the (very) high level fighter a chance against a goblin horde, but also to balance the power of fireballs (and similar spells) somewhat.

There is also a narrative importance to this rule that is worth mentioning.

In fiction, the "main villains" are often surrounded by low level "mooks" that must be defeated first by the protagonist. In RPGs, I've seem PCs ignore all mooks over and over again to attack the villain directly, as if the main villain was all that mattered. 

Which, fair enough, can be a good tactic, especially in the absence of "opportunity attacks" and the like.

However, it makes me wonder if the reason is not the lack of a cleaving rules, which would often encourage the fighter to make 10 attacks against the goblins instead of going directly for the goblin king/captain - which is a bit less likely to die in a single blow and usually deals significantly less damage than 10 goblins combined.

If you decide that the death of a leader will cause some penalty to morale, this introduces and interesting tactical choice.

Fighting hordes of mooks at once is also something that Appendix N characters like Conan and Elric can do.

In addition, let's remind that hacking down hordes of ores feels awesome for the fighter.

Amazing art by Dean Spencer.

My main issue with "Fighting the Unskilled" is that it lacks nuance. A 10th-level fighters has 10 attacks against goblins, but only one or two against orcs. 

Notice that orcs also appear in greater numbers in AD&D than B/X, but are not subject to these extra attacks.

Another difficulty is how these "extra attacks" combine with multiple attacks. If a 7th level fighter has 3/2 attacks, how many attacks does he get against goblins? Seven? 8/7? 

Weapon proficiency confuses things further.

This is why I like the "cleave" solution, from 3e, as explained in Delta's blog:

3E D&D

CLEAVE  [General] You can follow through with powerful blows. Prerequisites: Str 13+, Power Attack. Benefit: If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points, killing it, etc.), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature in the immediate vicinity... (PHB p. 80)

GREAT CLEAVE  [General]
You can wield a melee weapon with such power that you can strike multiple times when you fell your foes. Prerequisites: Str 13+, Power Attack, Cleave, base attack bonus +4 or higher. Benefit: As Cleave, except that you have no limit to the number of times you can use it per round. (PHB p. 82)

3E D&D introduced the concept of "Feats": special powers that may be chosen as characters advance in level. Fighters get additional, bonus Feats (more than any other class), and the two listed above are on their Bonus Feat applicable list. That said, not every Fighter gets the power; they must make a deliberate choice to pick up the ability. At the earliest, a Fighter might have Cleave at 1st level, and Great Cleave by (you guessed it) 4th level.

Most of us interpret this as a reworking of the rule from earlier editions; if a Fighter (with the Feat) battles very weak creatures, then they're likely to get a chain of attacks that puts many of them down. And many of us prefer the continuity of this mechanic -- unlike in 1E, where there's a huge quantum collapse between fighting "up-to-7-hp" creatures vs. "up-to-8-hp" creatures, the benefit here will more smoothly be usable against 2 HD or 3 HD creatures, just less frequently.

(Of course, I added similar feats to Old School Feats and I use them in my games.)

I'll add that this kind of cleave works smoothly with multiple attacks, magic weapons, weapon specialties, etc: the higher your attack and damage, the higher the chance to use this.

[One small aside: one thing I haven't considered in this post or the one before this is the 5e cleave method of "damage overflow": if you reduce an enemy to 0 HP, any excess damage is dealt to a nearby foe of same AC or lower. This is also a very interesting solution because it is simple, fast as smooth, while it also gives meaning to high damage rolls against goblins, etc.]

In short, if I were to add ONE single ability to B/X fighters, it would be this "great cleave". 

I do not think it would be enough, mind you - I still think they deserve extra attack to improve damage output against solo monsters  - but it would be a great start.

Fixing B/X fighters

In my latest post, I said B/X fighters are too weak.

Now I'll analyse some solutions - these are already implemented in AD&D, BECMI, and other games, but I'll discuss some and show which ones I use in B/X.

Better numbers

Easiest way of improving Fighters without making them more complex is just raising their numbers. E.g., giving them 1d10 HP or a better attack progression (AD&D), better saves, etc. 

This is a matter of fine tuning and taste; I like just giving fighters +1 per level as it simplifies things and it's just intuitive to me that a level 9 fighter has +9 to-hit (in my games, a 9HD monster also has +9). 

I'm not a fan of 1d10 HP because it leads to some HP inflation, but it is not bad either.

More damage

This is also "better numbers", but deserve special attention because, unlike HP and THAC0, damage doesn't usually raise with level (unless you use magic items).

A fighter that gets extra attacks increases damage output, but I always felt that Conan should be able to kill a sorcerer with a single blow occasionally.

We could give the fighter a damage bonus (level/3, round down?). 

Or just say that if you hit AC by 10 or more, damage is maximized or doubled. This will improve damage gradually with attack bonus, encourage the use of bigger weapons, give more importance to armor, and also give the thief a boost because of backstabbing (which is well deserved).

Better items

This is not exactly a solution, but a concern. Magic items in B/X are extremely important to Fighters, but not as common in my own games (which have a lowish fantasy, S&S feel). 

This is my own fault, of course - but I thought I should mention this here so you don't fall in the same trap. 

In other words, if you are limiting magic items (especially the intelligent swords of B/X), give the fighters something else to compensate.

Fighting minions and "cleaving"

The OD&D and fighter can attack multiple times against a horde of foes with less than one HD (e.g., goblins). I find this so important that I will write a small post on the subject next. 

My main objection to this is that it is binary; maybe the fighter can attack ten times against an horde of goblins but only once against a bunch of orcs.

"Cleaving" is a great substitution: when you reduce an enemy to 0 HP, you get an extra attack. This will often allow a high-level fighter to attack multiple goblins and even get some advantage against a group of reptile man. No calculations needed and it just feels cool.

Weapon specialization

Weapon specialization as described in AD&D and BECMI cover a lot of these grounds: better numbers, more damage, more attacks, etc. Which is good and also allows fighters to be archers, duelists, etc., giving players more archetypes to play with.

My issue with making weapon specialization a focus is that fighter often rely in magic weapons they've found, so they cannot always choose which weapon they'll use, and it is sometimes disappointing to find a cool magic axe that deals less damage in your hand than an ordinary sword.

My solution is that a "weapon master" gets a bonus with ALL weapons, and a SMALL bonus to a single fighting style, as suggested here:

Weapon master. You get +1 to attack, damage, and AC. Choose a type of weapon or a fighting style (blades, two-handed weapons, light weapons, missile weapons, dual wielding, sword and shield, grappling, etc.). When using this style, you get +2 to attack, damage, or AC (choose one when you pick this feat), instead of the usual +1.

Weapon maneuvers

BECMI has some cool weapon maneuvers (mostly starting at 9th level for fighters and mystics). 

The one I remember the most is smash: you get -5 to hit but add your entire Strength score to damage! From the Rules Cyclopedia:

For example, a Strength 17 fighter ( + 2 to attack and damage) using a sword +2 ( + 2 to attack, 1d8 + 2 damage) would perform a smash this way: He rolls to hit with a net penalty of -1 ( + 2 + 2-5). If he hits, he rolls 1d8 + 21 (17+ 2+ 2) for damage!

1d8+21 damage?!? With this, Conan can DEFINITELY kill a sorcerer with a single blow!

The only problem with this maneuver is that it is so obviously overpowered for strong fighters that you will never make a regular attack again!

Notice this was partly incorporated in 5e as a feat: a simple -5 to-hit and +10 damage. Other OSR games have their own rules for special maneuvers (more notably DCC, LotFP, and Low Fantasy Gaming).

Multiple attacks

This is the most notable and popular of fighter enhancements, present in almost every edition other than B/X. It enhances damage, number of targets, options of maneuvers (maybe you can trip AND bash).

One small issue is that the second attack DOUBLES damage output, which is an abrupt boost (in 5e, for example, a 3rd-level fighter has some hope against a 4th level one, but neither can beat a 5th level fighter).

The third attack enhances damage by 50% so it is not as dramatic.

AD&D has "one and a half" attacks, which is a decent solution if you prefer less dramatic changes. The second attack comes every other round, but if you don't like this solution make the second attack deal half damage, or only take place when you roll an odd number for the first, etc.

My favorites - to use with B/X

I'm running a game that is mostly inspired by B/X, although with many house rules. 

Here are some of my favorites, for fighters:

* +1 THAC0 per level.

* Feats that include cleaving, multiple attacks, weapon specialization, etc. - the fighter gets more feats than other classes.

* Simple weapon maneuvers. Usually, -4 to-hit and choose a benefit. Examples: +4 to damage, or AC (against a single foe), or to an ally's AC, or to cause an effect in addition to damage (e.g., trip, disarm, etc. - the enemy usually gets a save). But it doesn't come up often.

* If we get to level 10, I'm giving fighters 10d8 HP and so on (explained here). If a 12th level magic-user causes 12d6 with a fireball, I think it is fair to give the fighter 12d8 HP.

* Strength affects how much you can carry.

* Natural 20 deals maximum damage.

One thing I haven't used in the current campaign is "cleave" (as no one picked the feat), but I'm feeling I should have given this to everybody. This is what my next post is about.

Are B/X fighters too weak?

Yes they are.

Before comparing them to other classes, let's take a look at other versions of D&D.

In AD&D, fighters have several abilities that are ignored in B/X:

- 1d10 HD.

- Better attack progression.

- Better types of ordinary armor.

- A few perks if they have high abilities (more HP, damage, etc.)

- Extra attacks as you level up.

- Extra attacks against low-HD foes.

AD&D came before B/X, but BECMI came soon after.

Arguably, BECMI "fixed" many things in B/X I perceive as flaws (e.g., the cleric), and it also added several toys for fighters: weapon maneuvers, proficiency, etc.

All other editions (2e, 3e, 4e, 5e, and even 0e) have fighters that are stronger and more varied than B/X. Even some basic-inspired games such as DCC and LotFP make fighters more "special".

The fighter is DISAPPOINTED!

Now lets quickly compare a B/X fighter with other classes.

Cleric

- A cleric with 50,000 XP can raise the dead once a day. He gets the equivalent of "THAC0 17" and 7d6 HP.

- A high level cleric might have fewer HP than a fighter, but he can heal himself completely in three  or four days of rest, while the fighter may take weeks.

- A fighter with the same XP has the same THAC0, 6d8 HP, and worse saves. His THAC0 improves significantly at 64,000 XP. Which is nothing compared to raising the dead.

- If both reach maximum level, their THAC0 is nearly identical and fighter saves are slightly worse. The cleric can now raise dead four times a day, AND requires fewer XP to get there.

Magic-user

- A magic user is frail when compared to a fighter, but has lots of firepower. A 1st level MU can put multiple fighters to sleep; a 10th-level MU can memorize three 10d6 fireballs, or even better-  summon a 16 HD fire elemental, which will give ANY single fighter a difficult fight. If he wins initiative, he cannot be stopped.

- Even with an awesome magic sword, the fighter cannot deal this kind of damage.

Dwarf

- Dwarves stop their careers at level 12... ONE SINGLE HP short of a 14th-level fighter, and with better saves, fewer XP needed, plus infravision. They have no restrictions on using swords. Dwarves are simply better fighters that require 10% more XP.

The thief is debatable - he often hits as hard as a fighter of similar XP, but is much frailer. I do not think the thief is a strong class in B/X (and it is even worse in BECMI). Halflings are not great either because their level cap is a significant limit.

Elves are more powerful than fighters because of magic, but slightly frailer in HP and saves. Overall, I find them much stronger than fighters.

How to fix that?

Well, that's the subject of the next post (I use feats, mostly; you might as well use the AD&D perks described above).

This one is about illustrating how the B/X fighter is weak compared to other fighters (0e, BECMI, 1e, etc.) and other B/X classes. 

Basic Wilderness Encounters is now available!

My new book, Basic Wilderness Encounters, is now available!

It is 50% off for the first week or so - but if you bought ANY of my books before, see if you got my e-mail before buying.

I've been obsessing about random encounters for the last few months of my hexcrawl campaign...

I really liked adding them to my games, but there were some aspects that I found troublesome in practice: mostly, it took me too long to generate encounters and the results did not always make sense.

In this book, I try to tackle the whole idea of random encounters: the tables, procedures, terrains, and so on.

 

The first part of this book is a collection of thoughts, ideas and alternatives for creating random encounters - including reaction, distance, surprise number of monsters appearing, balance, and so on.

 

The second part is a list of 1000 random encounters (100 for each type of terrain), one line for each, including number, distance, surprise, and a few details, using this format (I added a summary of terrain features for easy reference):

 

  

The third part of the book describes a year in the wilderness – giving you a random encounter check, a succinct description of weather and some random details:

 

 

Each part can be used separately.

Take a look at the previews to see if you like it!

Writing this book has made using random encounters faster, easier and more fun in my own campaigns - I hope it does the same to yours!

How many leaders? Demographics of command

Just a small thing I noticed examining B/X encounters.

Some humanoid groups have a 2 HD leader for every 10-20 people, a 4 HD leader for every 40, etc. 

A few examples: merchants, pirates, brigands, etc.

It changes from creature to creature, but it would be easy to say, for example:

- One 2 HD leader for every 20.

- One 3 HD leader for every 30.

- One 4 HD leader for every 40, etc. 

Maybe up to level 9 (or lower for demi-humans; humans are the most organized and can get more levels).

If you ever find a group of 100 warriors, it would be organized like this:

- Led by a 9th-level warlord.

- One of each level 6, 7, 8 characters as advisors, maybe clerics, magic-users, etc.

- A couple of 5th-level captains.

- A couple of 4th-level lieutenants.

- Three 3rd-level and five 2nd level lieutenants.

This assumes an organized army. About 20% of the individuals are above 1 HD.

But most groups are way smaller, and it only have 10% of exceptional individuals or fewer.

I used to think the best way to calculate the number of exceptional people in a population was exponential: for example, one out of ten fighters would be level 2 or more, one out of a hundred for level 3, etc.

You'd need a army of MILLIONS to find a 9th-level fighter!

But come to think of it the difference between level 5 and 6 is not as extreme as level 1 to 2, so maybe level 6 is just a bit less common than level 5, a suggested above.

For larger populations (cities etc.) I'd say 50% are simply non-combatants, 25% are level 0, and 25% level 1 or more.

Anyway, it is nice to have more leaders. Gives NPC bands more personality.

This should definitely affect morale, BTW. 

I always found odd that you can defeat a group of 40 by killing one and forcing a morale check. 

Maybe this applies to leaderless groups - but with a leader, you only check when the leader or half heir numbers is killed, for example.

Anyway, just something to consider for my future encounters.

Minimalist roll-to-cast, take 2

My previous attempt was not minimalist enough, as pointed in the comments. So let's try this again.

The MU gets one spell per level.

Maximum spell level is equal to half your level.

To cast, make a spell saving throw - adding your Int modifier, but subtracting spell level.

Failure means one of the following (PC's choice):

- You lose 1 HP per spell level, AND the spell fails.

- You cannot cast the same spell until tomorrow.

A natural 1 means BOTH happen, or one plus spells mishap (spell goes wild, Earthsea style).

A natural 20 means the spell was particularly powerful.

Yes, I like this version even better!

Clerics get half as many spells (starting on level 2). Is this too much of a nerf? Consider they have more HP to cast spells, more levels (per XP), and a potentially lots of healing powers with this one. Probably deserves further reflection.

Minimalist roll-to-cast

Not entirely my idea, I read it somewhere and added a little twist.

Here it goes: the MU gets one spell per level.

To cast, roll 1d20 equal/under Intelligence.

Failure means one of the following (PC's choice):

- The spell fails.

- You lose 1 HP per spell level.

- You cannot cast the same spell until tomorrow.

Failure also means you must make a spell saving throw - a new failure means that the GM randomly chooses a second consequence from the list (alternatively, he may create a spell fumble if you're exhausted enough that losing HP means death. This is because otherwise no one would ever want to learn magic).

A natural 20 could mean all three things happen, but a natural 1 means your next casting gets a bonus.

Clerics: maybe they need to roll under wisdom and only get half as many spells. "Cure" spells are always a problem with HP-based spells, so that might need some consideration.

Consequences:

- The system is a bit harsh, especially at lower levels, if you're using 3d6 in order*.

- Clerics are somewhat safer casters because of their HP and better saves. Good.

- Level is taken into account through HP and saves.

- Low-level MUs can cast high-level spells but they risk their lives or a magical mishap. Neat!

- Other classes can cast spells, maybe with a penalty?

- Spells in combat become more dynamic, with failure and even death being possible consequences.

* Come to think of it, maybe memorized spells are rolled with "advantage" or whatever - provided you're rolling 3d6 in order for PCs. If using AD&D methods, this is probably unnecessary (give a penalty to non-memorized spells instead).

What is the minimum viable D&D?

From this post: B/X is close to a "minimum viable D&D", where every mechanic has a clear purpose. It still has some redundant parts (and some missing parts, IMO; I think every D&D should have a ranger or other way to meaningfully raise your chances at exploring the wilderness), but it does a great job overall. 

So, the "minimum viable D&D" is a form of D&D that includes every mechanic D&D to play a D&D game, and little else. In theory, you could play a D&D module using Risus and a few d6, but that is not what I'm talking about. What I'm trying to identify is the very essence of D&D - things that must be included in the core books of every edition to give you a D&D feel. Things that people came to expect from D&D. For example:

- Six ability scores.

- Three or four races.

- Three or four classes.

- Saving throws.

- AC and HP.

- XP and levels.

- Spells.

- Encumbrance.

- Equipment, including multiple weapons with differences.

- Treasure, including magic items.

- Rules for combat, interaction (reaction, morale, languages, etc.), dungeon exploration, and wilderness exploration.

- Monsters and HD.

Another thing to consider is how these things relate to one another. For example, your ability scores and your class affect your HP and saving throws. Let's call them "ties"; there are direct ties between abilities and AC. A mechanic that is tied to no other mechanic can be called "untied".

This is the PHB stuff. You also need monsters, GM advice, etc. I'll focus on PHB stuff that allows you to play existing OSR adventures.

Notice that there are some parts in B/X that I think are NOT strictly needed. They are add-ons to the essential parts. For example:

- Multiple specific saving throws.

- Multiple XP tables.

- Spell slots.

Let's tackle these and other issues to see what else is MVD&D.

This is how AI sees D&D covers.

Ability scores

It is certainly possible to play D&D without them (see The Searchers of the Unknown RPG). Conversely, you could play using mostly ability scores with the exclusion of other aspects (see Knave, The Black Hack, etc.).

However, they have been in every edition, and I think they are now part of the D&D experience.

Thieves

Thieves fall into a gray area. Their skills are deeply tied to the dungeon setting, but they are mostly add-ons, with the exception of hear noise and find trap (that create a connection between class and those actives... that would otherwise be affected by race). Open locks is not necessary since other ways to deal with doors (force doors, knock) already exist. Move silently and hide in shadow do not tie directly to existing mechanics such as surprise. Etc.

Overall, I think thieves are MVD&D at least in feel. They've been in every edition since Holmes. Notice that thief and paladin were officially born simultaneously in OD&D Supplement I: Greyhawk (0e), but the paladin is somewhat of an hybrid class, while the thief is very much its own thing.

Skills (and rangers)

Non-thief skills are not strictly necessary either. However, they are immensely useful to tie existing mechanics. 

For example, in B/X, there are rules for hunting and foraging, but no way to be better at either. Same for surprise and initiative, which become "missing ties" if there is no other mechanic to interact with them.

You could add this missing ties by allowing your Wisdom bonus to affect some of these rolls, for example, without needing skills. Skills are there to make these things a lot easier, IMO.

At minimum, we'd have thief skills, plus maybe nature and persuasion (to affect hirelings, morale, reactions, etc.) - and also make a decent/obvious tie between these three things:

- Hide/move silently.

- Surprise.

- Backstab.

And, if we are looking for the minimum, one single skill mechanic (percentages, x-in-6, 1d20, etc.) will suffice.

Clerics and paladins

These are hybrid classes; fighters that cast spells, especially for the paladin. There is also turn undead, which is a curious thing. Some undead are usually not tied to morale rules, making them especially dangerous. So, this might be a nice addition, but definitely an add-on.

There is a good case to be made for the cleric, but also against it. Overall, I'd say it gets the MVD&D status for being in every edition. Not so for the paladin.

Bards and other classes

I feel that a class that is especially adept at social interaction (the "face" of the party) would be useful, although Charisma can play that part independently. The thing is, the cleric is not necessarily filling this niche either - instead, it becomes a mix of thief, MU, and sometimes fighter. I am not a fan of the bard in general and I think a warlord would be more appropriate - with ties to morale, loyalty, hirelings, etc. 

Likewise, I don't find druids, barbarians, and monks strictly necessary either. They are cool, but not the minimum. Every B/X player is doing fine without them.

Multiple specific saving throws

Every edition has multiple saving throws, but they work differently. You have the original categories (wands, spells, death, etc.), the 3e/4e division (reflex/fortitude/will), the 5e model (tied to each ability score), etc. 

You must have saving throws, but which saves are a matter of choice. 

Again, since we are looking for the minimum, one single save will suffice.

I'll admit having Mind/Body STs is incredibly alluring to me for some reason.

Multiple XP tables

You could have a D&D game without XP - I'm playing such a campaign right now - but XP is in every edition and has ties to class, level, treasure, etc. Part of the minimum, IMO. And, again, there is no reason to have more than one table if we are looking for the minimum.

Spell slots

This is a curious mechanic that doesn't really interact with ability scores (except that in some versions you get more slots). 

I'd say that spells are very much mandatory in D&D, but spell slots are not (4e didn't have them IIRC; 3e and 5e has optional spell points and other methods).

You could tie them to existing mechanics (such as saving throws or hit points) instead.

That might be a personal preference - see below.

Different Hit Dice

I used to dislike different HD because I thought it was somewhat redundant with Constitution. Now, I'm a bit on the fence - the fighter has few features and we should be very careful when taking them away. In any case, HD is needed, even if all classes have the same HD (and some have more HP due to Constitution).

In addition, I really like giving bigger hit dice to big monsters (such as giants etc.), which is something common in modern D&D and even considered by Gygax IIRC (if he had been responsible for 2e).

In conclusion....

As you know, Dark Fantasy Basic was my first attempt at re-writing B/X to my liking. I'm still playing it with a few modifications (currently running a sandbox campaign). But DFB is not exactly minimalist. It contains lots stuff that I find cool and not strictly necessary. 

I might write a minimalist D&D one day - the beta version is here. This is only half-baked ATM; I'm having a hard time choosing a single mechanic for combat, spells and skills. 

Spells are the main problem, since everything else can use Target 20. 

And I haven't been a fan of Vancian casting for a while - I especially dislike spell level that do not correspond with character level!

But I'm very close to simply ignoring the existing spell system and creating something entirely new (and NOT necessarily compatible, unlike my earlier attempts) - maybe DCC-based, and much simpler than spell levels, slots, etc. 

Stay tuned for that!

Adding a new dimension to D&D weapons

D&D weapons have many different traits, depending on the edition. Usually, damage is the most noticeable. If I give my players a list of weapons, they'll usually pick the most damaging weapon they can carry.

But there is also price, weight, and in some editions speed, effectives versus armor, length, size, and different effects due to weapon proficiencies.

There is ONE dimensional that is sorely lacking since OD&D, however: an attack bonus.

In chainmail, weapons cause the same damage, but the to-hit chance is different depending on the weapon and armor. This is NOT simply an effect of armor: some weapons are just better to-hit overall.

For example, giving B/X battleaxes a +2 to hit would be very easy. They'd become better than swords against plate and shield, but still worse in most circumstances. Maybe 2h-swords deserve a +1 to-hit to compensate the "slow" aspect (if you're using that at all). Maybe maces deserve a +1 bonus (and make them weight a bit more than short swords). Etc.

What about unarmed attacks? They could cause 1, 1d2 or 1d3 damage... But it would be just as easy to give them a -2 penalty to-hit. Now attacking a foe in plate with bare hands is very ineffective.

[Notice that, because of how AC works, the bonus would be greater for armor-defeating weapons; these are usually heavy, unbalanced... In short, this is the opposite of speed.]

You could scatter high-quality and low-quality weapons by giving them -1 and +1 to-hit... without altering damage output significantly (probably less than 20%, or a smaller difference than 1d6 to 1d8 damage).

There is almost no effect on game balance.

This is probably the simplest addition you can make to B/X weapons. 

You don't need special rules or subsystems, and you probably can write your attack bonus (if you're using that) with your weapon - which already includes Strength/Dexterity and class bonuses. E.g.: "Dagger +3 [1d4+1], Polearm +6 [1d10+1]".

Unfortunately, the "+1 magic weapon" idea is too strong in D&D; it is expected that weapons only give you bonuses to hit if they are magical (it would be a good idea to mix things up here too: a magical weapon with +2 to-hit and +4 damage, for example, something 5e has embraced).

But giving ordinary weapons discreet bonus/penalties to-hit would already add an entire new dimension to your arsenal.

This is just a random idea for now; but if I ever had to add weapon details to my "minimalist B/X", this is where I would start.

Minimalist monk (B/X) - take 2

I've tried writing a minimalist monk a while ago... but maybe it wasn't minimalist enough. I was still too close to AD&D. Let's try something even simpler (and closer to B/X and Old School Feats' "monk package").

Minimalist Monk (v 2.0)

Requirements: Minimum WIS 9.

Prime requisite: DEX.

XP, HP, saves: as fighter.

Attacks, weapons, armor: as thief.

Special features:

Pick one on level 1, and one more on every third level (3, 6, 9, 12).

Martial artist. You deal 1d4 damage with bare hands/feet, which is increased to 1d6, 1d8, 1d10 and 1d12 on levels 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12. When attacking with weapons, you can choose to use this damage or simply add +2 to weapon damage.

Unarmed offense. You can make an additional attack per round, but it must be an unarmed attack (punch, kick, etc.)

Unarmored defense. When unarmored, you get a bonus to AC equal to half your level (round up).

Mobile. During encounters, your movement rate is half you base movement instead of one third (e.g., 120’ [40’] becomes 120’ [60´]).

Acrobatics. You take half the usual damage when you fall. You get a +4 bonus to AC during retreat and withdrawal. You get a +4 bonus to  ability checks and saves involving jumping, tumbling, etc.

Pure body. You are immune to disease and poison.

Resilience. You get +1 to all saves. You can pick this feature twice.

Regeneration. Once per day, recover an amount of HP equal to your level.

Thievery. You can use thief skills as a thief half your level. You can pick this feature twice to be as skilled as a thief of your level.

Taboos:

Monks cannot own more than they can carry, nor can they use more than 3 magic items at the same time.

---

NOTES: 

The classic monk has more features - and is significantly more powerful, requiring more XP etc.

This one is about as powerful as a regular fighter (who gets to play with more weapons, armor, shields,. etc.).

I like this "pick a feature" approach to customize characters easily. If you like this customization without complication approach, try Old School Feats.