One (single magic item) to rule them all

I've been thinking for a while now about the excessive multiplication of magic items in D&D. 

Whether through random tables or official modules, players quickly become overloaded with items. And this ends up stripping away all the special character these items should have. Many times I've asked myself (and others) if this aligns with the literary works that inspired D&D (Appendix N etc). 

Sometimes Moorcock's works are cited, since Elric has several magic items and so does Corum. there are examples on Tolkien too. But I think there's a distinction to be made there:

It seems like most of these stories have just one magic item that clearly stands out above the rest: Stormbringer, in Elric's case, Excalibur, in King Arthur's case, or the Holy Grail, in other Arthurian stories, or The One Ring, in Tolkien's case, the decks of cards in the Amber series, and so on.

And D&D-based literature seems to follow the same line, from The Crystal Shard, which gets its own book, to Dragonlance, which lends its name to an entire series.

Of course, even when there's just one protagonist item per campaign or setting, there are several other items as well. In Tolkien's case, for example, we have Andúril, the (quite powerful) Palantíri, and even Sting and mithril armor. Stormbringer itself has its twin sister sword, which gets less attention in the book.

However, what definitely does not happen in most of the literature mentioned is the constant accumulation of magic items by a single character, or quickly swapping those items for better ones. Every magic item carries a story, which is why simply discarding it seems to diminish its value and importance.

In addition, such legendary items should play a central role, not something you find in a random dungeon or that is easily traded. Think of the Arkenstone in The Hobbit, which has monetary value but also a sentimental/historical values that may cause or resolve a war, and ends up feeling more relevant than The One Ring at least for this book.

So why do D&D PCs get so many (disposable) items?

One of the reasons this happens is that, in older versions of D&D, magic items worked as a way of making PCs not only more powerful but also more unique. Often, equipment was what differentiated one character from another, in the absence of feats or even talents that could be chosen with new levels. Two tenth-level fighters, for example, would differ greatly from one another depending on the items they carried.

Now that modern D&D has feats and new class talents as you level-up (well, even BECMI and AD&D eventually got their skills, proficiencies, etc.), the magic item treadmill feels unnecessary.

But having only "meaningful magic items" is not an easy thing to apply at the table, precisely because D&D players are so used to, and expect, receiving more and more magic items. 

Another problem is that D&D wizards essentially have no clear ceiling on their power. A D&D wizard with enough XP has more power than a Palantír (or a dragon, making dragonlances somewhat pointless), so many magic items may become worthless as wizards level up.

Maybe one way would be to separate legendary items from more disposable ones more clearly. Something I've been using in my (science-fantasy) campaign is making some of the supposedly "magic" items mass-produced. You could do something similar by saying that a +1 sword is just better quality and can be safely traded for a +2 sword without any regard for its story or "magic".

Since I don't like writing a post about a problem without at least trying to offer a solution, here are a few attempts:

Multiplication. A magic sword that doubles or even triples its damage, for example. If a regular sword deals 1d8+1 damage, the magic sword deals 2d8+2. But if the character, for whatever reason (strength, proficiency, etc.), deals 1d8+5 with a common sword, the magic sword deals 2d8+10. That way, it's ALWAYS meaningful, but it's far more dangerous in skilled hands.

Absolutes. Items that simply bypass the rules in an absolute way: this item is completely immune to magic, or it's basically indestructible like "the One Ring", or it simply negates any possibility of resurrection, or ignores armor completely. D&D itself already has a few items like this, they just need to be part of the setting's history instead of thrown into a lsit of artifacts.

Items that grow with the character. The longer the character keeps the item, the more they learn from it and bond with it. Something I've suggested before, but which would also work with sentient items like Stormbringer, or mysterious items like the Claw of the Conciliator, whose effects, even by the end of the book of the same name, aren't 100% clear (which is also the case with The One Ring and Stormbringer).

Minimalist Magic Item table

I've spent a lot of time trying to finish this table. Probably too much time, honestly. It’s one of those things that works exactly as I wanted once it’s done, but just by looking at it, you can’t really see the amount of effort I put in. This is my Dark Fantasy Magic Items in minimalist form (although I think that book is still worth a read at $1.49; it has some additional stuff). 

After polishing it quite a bit, I am almost satisfied with the result.

The idea is this: anyone can create a table with 1,000 magical items (a single d1000 table or d10 versus d100 etc). Since you’ll never use more than a few dozen (maybe not even that many) in a campaign, you’ll never really know the true value of the table. If the results don’t make sense to you, you’ll just think you got unlucky when rolling.

What I wanted was a table that could be easily judged by anyone at a glance. For example, you can easy see how common is a magical dagger compare to a magic ring or rope.

I could also have a table meant purely for inspiration, with a completely abstract and open format, where you combine an effect with an item, no direct relation between the two. The problem is when the effects often don’t fit the items very well, so you end up with armor that deals extra damage or axes that make you move faster, etc. 

I had the impression this was the case in Shadow of the Demon Lord.

Or, ideally, I'd have a big list of common, uncommon, rare, legendary magic items... with sub-tables and elaborate descriptions, maybe prices too. I think this is what 5e does, maybe AD&D too. But it wouldn't be really "minimalist", would it? Anyway, I want to fit mine in a page or two.

The table below boils down to about 10 categories of objects and 20 categories of effects. Since the objects are divided in practice, we end up with more than a thousand possible combinations of effects and items. The difference is that I tried to make it very clear which effects fit best with which objects, so that most of the items you generate using the instructions will actually make sense, and "common" magic items will be, well, actually common. In fact, I toned don't some of the more fantastical and looney tunes effects (e.g., portable hole) to fit my favorite genres of fantasy (low fantasy, dark fantasy).

To illustrate the tables, I included a few items as examples at the end of the post.

---

Magic Items

The most common magic items are listed below with their usual effects. You can replace the effects (or alter them, if you roll 1-4) using the effects table, below. It is recommended you do that when you roll an odd number in the first d20, at least until you need more variety.

 

1–2. Apparel. A piece of clothing. Sometimes it only affects an specific part of the body. Examples [1d8]: 1 amulet (+1 to all saves), 2 belt (your Strength becomes 18 or gets a +3 bonus, whichever is better), 3 boots (+10’ movement, i.e., walk 25% faster), 4 bracers (like belt), 5 cloak (+1 AC and saves), 6 gloves (+4 to manual tasks such as picking locks, pockets, etc.), 7 helmet (+4 vs. mind effects), 8 GM's choice.

3–4. Armor or shield. +1 AC. Roll 1d4 for type: 1 light, 2 medium, 3 heavy, 4 shield.

5–6. Potion. Restores 1d6+1 hit points.

7–8. Ring. Rings can do almost anything. Roll on the effects table.

9–10. Scroll. Contains a common random spell, anyone can cast. Roll 2d6, keep the lower die, for its level.

11–12. Tool. A magic tool that resembles an ordinary object but is supernaturally more efficient. Examples: Roll 1d6: 1 rope (you can command it to climb walls, tie itself, etc.), 2 lantern (burns without fuel for up to 10 hours on command), 3 bag (weighs one unit but holds 10 units without changing size or weight), 4 key (once a day, it can open any ordinary lock), 5 tinderbox (creates flame on command like a strong modern lighter), 6 waterskin (creates water on command, up to a gallon a day).

13–14. Wand / rod / staff. Cast one spell (see Scroll, above). Roll for maximum charges (wand 1d6, rod 2d6, staff 3d6). Casting spends charges equal to the spell's level; regain one-third of maximum (round up) at dawn.

15–16. Weapon. +1 to attack and damage. Ammunition comes in a bundle of 3d6 pieces, each expending its magic on a hit. Weapon type: 1 axe, 2 spear, 3 hammer/mace, 4 bow or crossbow, 5 ammunition, 6 polearm. See below for size if needed.

17–18. Sword. +1 to attack and damage. Roll for size if needed: 1 dagger (1d4), 2–3 medium (1d6), 4–5 long (1d8), 6 two-handed (1d10).

19–20. Special. Either roll 1d20 on the Effects table, then invent an unusual object to carry it (19) or roll for the object, then give it a remarkable or combined effect (20).

 

 

Magic Item Effects (d20)

Some effects fit some items better. Entries 1-4 can fit almost anything (if you don’t have an obvious effect, a roll of 1-3 might require you to roll twice); 5-6 are ideal for weapons; 7 (spells) are better left for scroll and wands, although magic swords can sometimes cast spells; 8-15 are mostly passive defensive and they can work well for armor or potions or apparel; 16-17 are more “mental” and better suited to helmets, necklaces and similar; 18 and 19 are rare and are only an easy fit for scrolls (summoning) and big apparel or amulets (transformation). 20 is for all items.

If the effect does not fit the item, decide what to do, randomly or otherwise.

E.g.: 1d6: 1-2 be creative and make it fit or allow it to be weird, 3-4 roll again, 5-6 fall back to the ordinary effect.

 

1. Cursed. The item carries a curse that may manifest at the worst possible time.
2. Temporary. The item becomes mundane after being used 2d6 times.
3. Powerful. The item is unusually strong. For a numeric bonus, roll 1d20: 1–10 the effect is +2, 11–16 +3, 17–19 +4, 20 +5. Similarly, a d6 becomes 2d6 to 5d6, and a 50% reduction becomes 1d20 × 5% (minimum 60%).
4. Conjuring. The item seems to return or appear from out of nowhere, as the owner conjures it with a word or gesture. Alternatively, it is very easily concealed, foldable or very light. If it’s a thrown weapon, it returns to your hand instead.
5. Elemental attack. Deals an extra 1d6 damage of one type. Roll 1d8: 1 acid, 2 cold, 3 fire, 4 lightning, 5 necrotic, 6 poison, 7 psychic, 8 radiant.
6. Hatred. Deals an extra 1d6 damage against one type of creature. Roll 1d12: 1 aberration, 2 beast, 3 celestial, 4 construct, 5 dragon, 6 elemental, 7 fey, 8 fiend, 9 giant, 10 humanoid, 11 monstrosity, 12 undead.
7. Spells. Cast one type of spell. Roll 2d6 and keep the lower die for the spell's level, the higher die for maximum charges. Casting spends charges equal to the spell's level; regain one-third of maximum (round up) at dawn. Alternatively, simplify "magic missile, three charges" to something like "cast magic missile three times a day" when desired. Best left to rings, wands, staves, and scrolls.
8. Protection from element. Reduces incoming damage of one type by 50%. See entry 5 for type.
9. Protection from creatures. Reduces damage or attacks from one type of creature. See entry 6 for type.
10. Protection (saving throws). +1 to all saving throws.
11. Defense. +1 to Armor Class.
12. Augmentation. Raises one ability score by +3, or sets it to a fixed value (18), whichever is better. The stat affected is usually physical and adequate to the item in question. If necessary, roll 1d6: 1 Strength, 2 Dexterity, 3 Constitution, 4 Intelligence, 5 Wisdom, 6 Charisma.
13. Resilience. 50% resistance to a hazard or condition. Roll 1d8: 1 poison, 2 fear, 3 charm, 4 sleep, 5 exhaustion, 6 disease, 7 petrification, 8 an environmental hazard (hunger, thirst, drowning, suffocation).
14. Movement. Move faster or in new ways. Roll 1d8: 1 fly, 2 climb any surface, 3 swim, 4 burrow, 5 walk on water, 6 ignore difficult terrain, 7 leap great distances, 8 slip free of grapples, shackles, and cages.
15. Misdirection. Disguise yourself, your movement, or your actions. Roll 1d6: 1 invisibility, 2 silence (move without sound), 3 impersonate someone, 4 create illusions, 5 leave no traces, 6 pass as another kind of creature.
16. Perception. A supernatural sense. "Keen" versions of ordinary senses grant advantage. Roll 1d8: 1 darkvision, 2 keen hearing, 3 keen smell, 4 blindsight, 5 detect invisible, 6 see auras or magic, 7 detect lies, 8 truesight.
17. Communication. Understand or speak across barriers. Roll 1d8: 1 all humanoid languages, 2 all spoken languages, 3 all written languages, 4 one exotic tongue (celestial, infernal, draconic, sylvan), 5 speak with animals, 6 speak with plants, 7 telepathy, 8 understand any language you hear.
18. Summoning. Call or create a creature to serve you. It looks friendly and possibly loyal but is not enslaved. Roll 1d6 for HD, 1d6 for number of creatures (limit total to 10 HD), and see entry 6 for creature type.
19. Transformation. Turn into a creature, usually an animal. Roll 1d12: 1 insect or spider, 2 rat, 3 owl, 4 snake, 5 wolf, 6 fish, 7 cat or tiger, 8 ape, 9 bear, 10 hawk or eagle, 11 boar, 12 a monster (see entry 6 for type).
20. Special. Roll twice and combine, invent something unexpected, or make the item especially noteworthy with multiple functions.

---

Examples:

- Cloak: grants flight.

- Heavy armor +1 AC.

- Potion of cold resistance.

- Scroll holding a 2nd-level spell and a 3rd-level spell with 5 charges (this is a special result; I'd probably change this to a single 5th level spell, or replace it by two separate scrolls)

- Spear +1, +1d6 lightning damage.

- Two-handed sword +1 (1d10).

So far, these are cool if a bit ordinary. I haven't changed a thing. Let's try a few more:

- Helm that allows the wearer to see magical auras.

- Light armor that raises Dexterity by +3 (or sets it to 18) [I could change this, but since its is light armor, I think the Dex boost makes sense].

- Potion of healing.

- Belt of Strenght.

- Scroll of Levitate

- Shield that reduces damage from fiends by 50%.

I didn't even need to re-roll anything. Last pass, with some die rolls:

- 19, 6, 11 - Now this requires some input. I'd say it is a holy symbol that makes you a monster slayer (+1d6 damage to monsters) while you carry it. Maybe a sigil, tabard, etc.

- Level 1 scroll.

- 6, 2, 13 - We could stop at 6 and make it a healing potion, or roll on the second table and make a potion with 2d6 uses that protects you from fear.

- 8, 13, 5 - A ring of protection from disease.

- 16, 6, 17*, 11*, 14*, 6, 12 - A "mace of communication" sounds funny but doesn't quite work for me at first, so I re-rolled three more times (roll with asterisks were discarded) until I got a mace that causes additional 1d6 damage to undead. I could have stopped at a +1 AC weapon, come to think of it.

- Ring of Constitution.

As you can see, no "Legendary" status items, these would require rolling more 20s. But almost all the results are perfectly usable with little effort. I'll probably tinker a bit more with it before I finish my Old School Minimalist PDF (if I ever do), but at least I think I've found the right path here. Or almost...

Did I miss any obvious cool item or effect?

"Serious" fumbles I can enjoy

As I’ve said before, I usually don’t like fumbles or critical failures in combat, at least in more "serious" campaigns; they make fighters look foolish.

Worse, the higher level a fighter gets, the more attacks they make; if every natural 1 is a fumble, fighters end up failing far too often. When you’re rolling 4 or 5 attacks per round, one of them is almost guaranteed to be a ridiculous blunder. Critical failures do happen in real life, but not nearly as often as a single die face suggests.

The idea of a saving throw to confirm whether the fumble actually happens is a decent (mathematical) fix; but with multiple attacks and multiple saves you end up with lots of rolls that don’t lead anywhere.

Instead of focusing on the character, we could focus on the weapon or the environment. Keep fumbles, but only in situations that are genuinely risky; and the effects shouldn’t make the character look like an idiot, but highlight the limitations of the weapon or the setting instead.

For example, a longsword needs space to be effective. In a cramped tunnel it still works (you can use half-swording, etc.), but it’s suboptimal; that could cause the fumble. You could even build a table of things that might go wrong on a natural 1, but only if it makes sense in context. If there’s no additional danger, then nothing funny happens.

Another option is to give the enemy an opportunity to strike with an advantage; maybe you overextend, make a reckless swing, and miss, opening yourself up to a counterattack. That way the focus isn’t on your “stupid mistake,” but on the danger you’ve exposed yourself to.

Let's try to combine both ideas. Here is how an actual rule I might use would look like:

---

When you roll a natural 1 on an attack, it is always an automatic miss. In addition, it can cause serious consequences if you’re in a risky situation:

• Close allies: If an ally is too close to your target (e.g., shooting into melee or attacking a grappled foe), roll again to see if you hit your ally.

• Tight spaces: If the area is too cramped for your weapon, you strike a wall and take a –4 penalty on your next attack with that weapon.

• Flails and chains: If you’re using a flail, roll again to see if you hit yourself (half damage).

• Fragile weapons: If you’re using a low-quality weapon or one unsuited to the target (e.g., a common blade against a stone creature), your weapon may break or lose its edge (–1 damage until repaired).

• Dangerous stunts: If you’re attempting a dangerous stunt, such as jumping form a higher point etc., you failed catastrophically. Fall prone, take damage, save for half.

• In all cases: You lose your footing, expose yourself, and take –2 AC until the start of your next turn, unless you spend an attack to regain balance.

---

By the way, this is the best rule I have for "shooting into melee". Being  a good archer improves your chance to hit an ally close to targe (an incompetent archer is more likely to miss both entirely), and this also takes into account your ally's armor.

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

The critical hit "checklist"

As you might have noticed, I really like critical hits, but I dislike complexity. Playing systems such as Rolemaster with extensive crit and fumble tables, where a bad roll could mean your character trips over an invisible turtle (really!), was fun but also slow and frustrating.

This is another idea for critical hits. 

My aim is to pile all weapon complexity onto critical hits, so we don't have to write it down in every character sheet. It makes critical hits lengthy and detailed, but something you can easily change or ignore if you dislike it.

Maybe critical hits activate on a natural 20 (maybe 19-20 for certain fighters), or maybe on a margin of success of 10 or more. Whatever method you use, I think this table would simplify things. Each line can represent an idea that applies to lots of weapons, and you can just skip the lines you don't use.

You start with the idea that a critical hit not only gives you maximum damage, but — if it doesn't outright kill your target — gives you a percentage chance of doubling it.

The chances start at 5% for each point of difference between your d20 roll and your target number (e.g., with ascending AC, if you have a total of 23 against AC 13, you start with a 50% chance).

Then you go through a small checklist, skipping the items that do not apply:

• Using two hands gives you +10%.
• Armor (or tough/brittle bodies) gives swords and axes -10%.
• Shields give swords, spears and arrows -10%.
• No armor (or soft/flexible bodies) gives swords +20% and axes +10%.
• Lack of blood and functioning organs gives swords and spears -20%.
• Spears give you +10% otherwise (i.e., if there are blood/organs).
• Oozes give blunt and small weapons and missiles -20%.
• Large foes give blunt and small weapons and missiles -20%.
• Polearms are combinations of weapons, so it depends. Other weapons might fall somewhere in the sword (slashing) spear (piercing) or mace (blunt) categories. 

You get the idea. You can tweak the numbers, but potentially the entire "weapon versus armor" and "weapon versus large" tables could be included here — and since critical hits are rare, all this complexity only comes up occasionally, keeping the game fast the rest of the time.

When you get the percentage (if positive), you roll the chances of doubling your damage. If you roll doubles, you triple damage. Such a critical hit should always be described in detail, and someone killed in this manner will often suffer a gruesome death (decapitation, disembowelment, etc). If you miss the percentage roll, you still add +2 damage if you roll doubles.

If you like to use fumbles, a natural 1 could give you a fumbling chance. At least here they wouldn't apply to 5% of all attacks. Fumbling chances could be affected by circumstances such as:

Using a flail.

Shooting into melee.

Fighting with large weapons in small spaces or using bows indoors.

Uneven or unsafe ground.

Either way, the goal is the same: keep the complexity tucked away where it rarely surfaces, but it exists and always stays somewhere in the back of the players' heads, making weapons feel more grounded and detailed without slowing your game down.

Maximum Damage

We've been playing with a lot of ideas using D&D weapons and margins of success. Yesterday, a new one occurred to me: maximum damage.

Let's say weapon damage is determined by margin of success, but the maximum damage is unchanged from the original game. So a d4 becomes 4, a d8 becomes 8, etc.

This has several benefits before we get any deeper:

• You don't need a damage roll.
• Damage raises steadily with level, especially for fighters.
• Armor becomes even more significant.
• Armored duels
•  feel a bit slower and more realistic, with lots of wounds.
• Magic users could use swords etc. but it would usually not be worth the effort.
• We'd get more granular weapons (e.g., maximum damage 5, 7, or 9).
• Even a goblin can potentially survive a hit of a +3 sword, although this is very rare.

If we rule that a natural 20 doubles or triples maximum damage (or just raises it by 10 points or whatever), even a dagger can be deadly in the hands of a very skilled fighter against an unarmored foe.

Conversely, we can introduce laser guns with 15 or 20 maximum damage, and he stormtroopers would still have a hard time actually killing someone with it in a single shot.

I'm tempted to add your attack bonus to maximum damage too, so Conan can occasionally kill a sorcerer with a punch.

We'd have to consider how backstab works. Maybe a flat +4 bonus to attack and maximum damage.

Also, how do exact hits work? Maybe 0 damage, maybe 1, maybe some special effect, not sure.

One downside I can see is that average damage is a bit higher than usual even for low-HD creatures, although this is somewhat countered by the fact that in my games, PCs don't die at 0 HP. The fact that high-level warriors deal lots of damage is a plus for me, especially because I don't like having many magic weapons.

The fact that people get used to thinking about margins of success could also be useful if you use this for skills and other checks, which I like.

Another problem is that big foes such as giants and dragons could have their damage significantly diminished if we use this system exactly as written, never being able to actually reach their "maximum damage". Maybe that's a problem for another day, but I can imagine we could have a size multiplier of ×2 to ×4 (maybe "3x6" instead of "6d6"), which could create an interesting effect: a giant will not often hit the fighter, but when he does the damage is massive — one mistake might cost him dearly!

I think I originally had this idea years ago, when playing bell-curve systems, which might have different, but interesting, effects.

There are probably another issues I'm missing, but so far I really like this idea... let me know what you think in the comments!

Note: the GM Day's sale* is on, and most of my books are included! 40% off many titles! Here are some of my picks from past sales. Some deep discounts here, including the Dolmenwood Campaign Book looks really cool and it is 50% off! Maybe I"ll get it to take a look...

* Affiliate link.

More minimalist weapons, armor and some numbers

Another random idea for B/X D&D weapons.

I've tried this before, but I like this version better.

Since maces/axes deal 1d6 damage and swords deal 1d8, we could use:

--

Maces get +2 against armor.

Axes get +1 against armor, and +1 damage against unarmored.

Swords don't need it but can get +1 to-hit against unarmored. Still best weapon unless foe is heavily armored.

[Hard/brittle foes made of rock or bone count as armored, soft foes such as oozes and maybe snakes, tentacles etc. count as unarmored].

Of course, maces and axes are always more useful to break down a door.

---

That is it, that is all we need. Or not - maybe the sword is just better because it is heavier and more expensive.

But while we're here let's crunch some numbers.

In B/X, the best nonmagical armor you could get would be plate + shield, which a first level character (any class) hits on a 17 or more - i.e., 20% of the time.

This is a DPR of 0.9 (20%*1d8) for swords. Maces hit more often, for a DPR of 1.05 (30%*1d6). A nice small improvement.

[Notice that our change adds 50% to the mace's DPR under these circumstances].

If you put the target in chain, no shield, the sword is identical to mace on average (1.575); against lighter armor, sword is better again.

The axe is never quite optimal but it works well enough against armored and unarmored foes, and it is just slightly worse than the sword against unarmored opponents.

The thing is, once you get ability score bonuses and magic weapons, the whole distinction becomes almost meaningless. 

For example, under the usual rules, if your fighter deals 1d6+5 damage with a mace, getting a 1d8+5 sword is only an 11% improvement in DPR, instead of almost 30%. 

And if you're hitting on a roll of 6 or more (75% of the time), for example, getting a +1 bonus is only a 7% increase in DPR. And you're unlikely to face a foe with negative armor unless it is a dragon or something.

So, while the distinctions will lose importance to powerful heroes, they are relevant enough for low-level PCs and armies in general.

Note that, in AD&D, these small rules could partially replace the complicated weapon versus armor table; they'd be a bit more significant against plate+shield, which requires 18 or more to hit for a 1st level PC. 

Also since you need a 20 to hit AC 0 in AD&D, and monster AC is usually the same as B/X,  the differences are more notable and relevant for a bit longer.

---

Addendum (10 Nov 2025): Another issue I had are specialized weapons, such as flails and picks. In this case, I'd give them -1 against unarmored, and otherwise treat them as maces, with and additional +1 against shields (for flails) and +1 against plate (for picks). 

For polearms with multiple heads, I'd be inclined to give them just bonuses, since the fighter will be able to use the best method available.

More glancing blows (and near-saves)

 A quick rule for any D&D game. I'm certainly not the first one to suggest the "half damage" part.

---

Glancing blows

When you roll the exact number needed to hit the target's AC, this is a glancing blow.

You damage is halved.

If the target has more than 1 HP before the hit, the glancing blow can reduce it to 1 HP, but no less.

---

This is the gist of it, but we could change the specifics. 

Instead of half damage, for example, I might do "one third of your maximum damage" to save myself a roll (and further differentiate 1d6+1 from 1d8 damage). 

Likewise, the "1 HP" part probably needs a few exceptions, but it would be fun if even a peasant has a 5% chance to survive being hit by a powerful monster and live to tell the tale (even if unconscious, maimed, etc.  -the idea is that a glancing blow doesn't kill).

You could extend the same reasoning to saving throws. This is somewhat similar to what I've been doing in my games. When the MU casts an 8d6 fireball, I make a roll even if the target is a group of goblins, allowing a natural 20 to save some of them. I might call this rule "there is always a save".

D&D 4e had minions rules that worked in a similar way: "minions" had only 1 HP but wouldn't be killed if they made a successful save. 

I think my version feels a bit less artificial. No goblin should resist TWO 8d6 fireballs! Also, REDUCING a foe to 1 HP is a great opportunity of surrender, retreat, parlay, etc.

I also like making glancing blows a common concept so my players can finally accept I'll eventually tell them the monster's AC, so they might as well stop asking if they hit!

Anyway, for now this is just a random thought.

Weapons vs. monster

We discussed weapon versus armor in several posts. I think it is an interesting subject, but I'm still not sure it is worth the effort.

It probably works better when you're running troops of humanoids against each other, a la Chainmail. But what about dragons and ogres? AD&D suggests the table doesn't apply to them.

But, arguably, knowing if you foe is a dragon or ogre is more relevant than chain versus plate.

So maybe we should do "weapon vs. monster" tables instead of "weapon vs. armor"?

Of course, we already have something like that at least since AD&D. I don't remember if if it is from some  OD&D supplement (let me know!), but even in Chainmail the weapon versus armor table has a couple of columns for horses (and also different hit probabilities against ogres, dragons, etc.).

Could we create a minimalist version for B/X and other OSR games?

I think it would be a good idea. Let's see. Instead of specific monsters, I like to think of monster types.

- Giants are resistant to small weapons, but more vulnerable to large weapons, especially swords and polearms. Same for oozes. (although I think giants also deserve an HP boost for that). The downside is that David vs. Goliath becomes harder.

- Golems are resistant to cutting and piercing weapons, plus weapons made of wood. You need a mace of pick for that. Of course, a golem made of straw is weak against cutting and strong against bludgeoning.

- Plant creatures and wood golems are more vulnerable against cutting weapons, especially axes.

- Arrows and daggers are weak against ALL these creatures (you're unlikely to reach their vitals), plus undead, but maybe daggers are good against unarmored and defenseless humanoids. Would give thieves a reason to use them over longswords.

- Blunt weapons are good against skeletal undead and similarly brittle creatures.

- Lycanthropes require silver weapons. Demons, fey and golems have magic resistance. Elementals resist most weapons and certain elements, and so on. Swarms resist all weapons.

Dragons and other monsters are treated according to size.

How to enforce that? I think a simple -1 to +2 to both attack and damage will suffice. Anymore than that would probably be a headache.

If we only had giants and oozes to deal with, I'd give them some damage resistance - maybe 4 points? - but allow a weapon to roll two dice instead of one. So a dagger would have a hard time but a 2h-sword would deal more damage than usual (2d10-4).

And then we'd have to consider giants in armor... sigh. Maybe doing a simple version is not so simple after all. But it might be worth the effort, at least to different weapons and make the monsters more... tangible?