The fighter die (OSR)

This idea is inspired by DCC. I think it can be adapted to B/X (or other OSR games) for two purposes:

• Make the fighter a bit stronger.
• Give the fighter alternative maneuvers.

Let's make this as simple as we can.

The fighter gets a fighter die (FD) equal to their level: 1d4 on level 4, 1d6 on level 6, etc. Before level 4, this is replaced by a +1 bonus (use 1d2 if you prefer). After level 12, the die stays at 1d12 and grows no further (if you go all the way to level 20, you could expand this to 2d8 at level 16 and 2d10 at 20).

With each odd fighter level, the fighter can pick a new maneuver. He can use one maneuver per round.

• Bash: when you hit, add FD to damage.
• Aim: add FD to your attack roll.
• Slay: add twice FD to your damage if you crit.
• Defend: add FD to your AC against a single attack.
• Protect: add FD to an adjacent allies' AC against a single attack.
• Take cover: add FD/2 to your AC against ALL attacks.
• Mark: choose an adjacent target, he gets a penalty equal to your FD if he attacks someone else.
• Resist: add your FD to one saving throw [notice that this allows fighters to use the same STs as everybody else, a la Target 18].
• Recover: recover FD HP after you've been hit (no more HP than you lost this round).
• Cleave: get FD additional attacks against 1 HD foes within reach.
• Leadership: add +1 to attacks or morale to FD allies.
• Etc.

Simple and effective. No bookkeeping, no complex math, no need for tables, each "special features" takes a single line and you have about seven at most.

(Notice that the fighter die is roughly equal to half their level; you could repalce it with a "fighter bonus" instead).

Maybe you could give something similar to thieves (to improve their skills and backstabbing) and even clerics (smiting etc.). But it should be even simpler - maybe as a fighter half their level. An 8th-level thief adding 1d4 to their attack (which doubles if you successfully backstab) sounds very reasonable.

MUS? well, they don't need a boost... BUT you can give them cantrips if you want, causing 1d4 damage at level 4 etc.

Well, for now, this is just a random idea. My combat house rules are already getting a bit complicated as it is, so I don't need to add more stuff now. But it could be a worthy addition for a simpler game.

Target 18 spells (B/X)

I've been playing around with Target 18. And, well, it kinda works for spells too.

This is how you do it: no spell slots. Instead, roll 1d20, add your MU level, and try to get 18 PLUS spell level (e.g., 19 for magic missiles, 22 for fireballs, etc.). 

Success means you cast the spell and keep it (with some special effects on a natural 20). Failure means you cast the spell and forget it. A natural 1 might create potential disaster.

(See Alternate Magic for spell mishaps, critical successes, corruption, chaos magic, etc. Most of this is included in the first 10 pages, so you can check it in the preview for free).

Art by Rick Troula - The Displaced.

You can add Int/Wis/Cha modifier if you wish (unless you're already using it for extra spells, since they don't really affect spellcasting under the usual B/X rules).

In any case, MUs learn one new spell per level, and don't have to "memorize" them - nor can they change it in the wild.

This is a bit harsh for MUs (and clerics) at higher levels, but slightly better for low-level casters. I still do not think they'll be weak compared to fighters, etc. And high-level MUs can cast los of magic missiles instead of using darts... with a small chance of failure.

A note on clerics: I have written extensively about them (here is one alternative) and I'm treating them as  a "2/3 caster", which means they get two spells for every three levels and add a smaller bonus to avoid losing them. They do not get access to all spells, but they can choose any while in camp; they are just slightly worse magic-users with different spells, better armor, faster advancement, better weapons, and turn undead.

BTW: Most of my OSR books are included in the Halloween sale! Including Teratogenicon,  Dark Fantasy Basic, 100 Undead, The Wretched Hive and others. Check them out!

(A new) Old School Feats review!

Here is a new review of Old School Feats:

https://leicestersramble.blogspot.com/2022/10/mini-review-old-school-feats-by-eric.html

Check it out!

The review touches some interesting points. "Multi-classing feats" for example, that look too powerful to some readers. They might be - I might even tone them down in a future revision (if play-testing and feedback point this way) - but I have been trying them and I haven't found them too powerful, ESPECIALLY if compared to the classic multi-classing rules from AD&D (or OSE advanced for that matter).

Here they are: let me know if you can make an unbalanced PC taking one of this feats, and I'll try to fix it (the goal of these feats is to easily create paladins, war clerics, thugs, gishes, shadow mages, etc.).

1.       Dilettante cleric. You can cast spells and turn undead as a cleric half your level (e.g., if you are level 10 you can turn undead and cast spells as a 5^th level cleric), but you’re limited to 3^rd level cleric spells (See notes on page 19).

2.       Dilettante fighter. You can use any weapon and armor. You can cast spells and even use thief skills in armor, although your ability to climb, move silently and hide is halved in plate armor.

3.       Dilettante mage. You can cast spells as a magic-user half your level.

4.       Dilettante thief. You have access to all the skills of a thief half your level, including read languages (when you get to level 8).

The most powerful of the bunch, IMO, is Dilettante mage, but at most it still weaker than a 10th level elf (same for dilettante fighter). The ability to wield any weapon might make the cleric a bit more powerful... but clerics can raise dead from level 7, so wielding magic swords is a minor feature in comparison!

By the end of the review, he also mentions a couple of other books on OSR feats. I'll have to check those too - they look very good!

Anyway, a good review overall, take a look... and if you like the idea of OSR feats, get the book and see for yourself!

Old school weapons are terrible (armor too!)

This is a rant... as you noticed from the title.

I complained about 5e weapons, fixed them, and even wrote a couple of books on the subject. Now that I'm playing OS and OSR games, I must say they are equal or worse than 5e when it comes to weapons.

Let's get "unrealistic" out of the way, since "realism" is really hard to get and to measure. Weapons are too heavy, armor is too cheap, everything is too expensive (and that might be a good idea), but let's leave that aside. I'll not even dwell on the fact that plate armor costs the same as 12 garlic because I believe this is a typo (that nonetheless gets repeated in OSR clones).

The problem is that many weapons are useless or redundant (e.g., the short sword is identical to the mace in every aspect, except it is more expensive and cannot be used by cleric, while the spear is just better and cheaper; the battleaxe is slightly cheaper than the sword but it is slow, two-handed, a terrible weapon in comparison... and it's lighter, which is baffling). This is from B/X, BTW.

I think the problem has a lot to do with the evolution of D&D. I explained it here (and now I notice I'm repeating myself a bit. You know what, you can read THAT post and skip the next four paragraphs if you prefer).

---

In chainmail, all weapons dealt 1d6 damage, but you had a weapon versus armor table to differentiate weapons and make some weapons different better in some circumstances. also, when you're dealing with troops, price might be important (when you need 2000 gp to get to level 2, price is definitely not important).

Then you have Holmes, which showcases all the problems in a glaring manner. All weapons deal 1d6, but some of the biggest, heaviest, most expensive ones are also slower, for example, making them not only entirely pointless but also detrimental to characters that do not want to use a dagger.

B/X has an optional rule to allow some weapons to deal more damage, so it fixes some issues: expensive, heavy weapons are more effective.

AD&D uses different damage dice too, but tries to keep other traits to make weapons diverse, including  speed, space, and a weapon versus AC table with glaring arithmetical errors that not even Gygax used. AD&D 2e has a better, somewhat simpler table, IMO.

---

3e and 4e are not my favorite editions, but their weapons work a lot better than old-school D&D. Even 5e with all its flaws is better than any of the TSR editions in that aspect.

And I'm not even saying that you need much complexity. On the contrary. It is obvious to me that removing the "slow" aspect from Holmes or B/X would improve the game. You might use 1d6 for all I care - this is just an abstraction, period.

So, I'm done complaining. Should we try to fix it?

It shouldn't be hard. First, let's make slow weapons only gives you -1 initiative. This is a rule I added to my (free) OSR Minimalist document. Add a "fast" tag for some weapons and voilà: even someone with a dagger can occasionally have an advantage over a mace. With a couple of words and a single digit (slow 2, fast 1) you add another dimension to the system - and I bet I don't even need to explain you what slow 2 means!

[Notice that this is not perfect, either, as longer weapons should have an advantage at least on the first round. Unless you're backstabbing, as it should be - in fact, adding speed bonus to back-stab would be great, as it gives thieves a reason to use daggers. There is an entire post to be written about how weapon speed and initiative do not work together for precisely this reason, but we'll leave that for another time]

As you can see, we could go either way: easy or complex.

This is from Dark Fantasy Basic (OH means off-hand, etc. - see below):

There is a lot more to it, but basically heavier/expensive weapons deal more damage. That might be enough. The rest adds fiddly bits that I enjoy but increase complexity a bit. I'll paste the entire page below so you can judge for yourself.

Of course, you could go even deeper, with an usable weapon versus armor table and various special effects for each weapon. This might even justify a Manual of Weapons for OSR games. Of course, it would be shorter (probably including weapons and armor) and simpler than my 5e manuals. What do you think?

For now, I'll be using The Basic Fantasy Equipment Emporium for my B/X-like games. It is free and awesome (it even corrects the price of garlic, lol), which makes me reconsider if it is worth writing another book on the subject. But I might try. A "fixed" version of 5e has simple weapon tags that could work for OSR games. We will see.

Click to enlarge.

A d20 reaction check (OSR)

The original D&D reaction table is one of the most important components of the game, and it is often ignored in modern versions (starting on 3e). I feel this table is fundamental because it "activates" other parts of the game, such as Charisma and languages, and adds an entire new dimension to monsters: they are not only bags of XP, but individuals who are as likely to be helpful and to attack on sight.

Teratogenicon has an entire chapter on roleplaying monsters. Here is my version of the B/X table, included there. It's basically the same thing as the original, with a few additions to account for various circumstances (for example, a weak monster shouldn't usually attack a bigger one on sight):

Anyway. As you can see "attack on sight" is very rare - one chance in 36. Which is good, IMO - it leaves for room for interaction before combat. Bribery, distraction, negotiation, etc. "Immediately helpful" is equally rare. So, in most circumstances, you have to evaluate what to do.

It works perfectly. 

Well, with some caveats.

In B/X, this roll is modified by your Charisma. From the OSE SRD: 

First, the "-2 to +2" modifier breaks the elegance of the "-3 to +3" in almost every other ability. 

This is necessary, however, as most abilities modify d20 rolls, and this one modifies 2d6. A -3 or +3 here would be HUGE; a +5 (which is possible if you're playing Dark Fantasy Basic, for example) is basically impossible to use, as it would turn every monster into an ally or a neutral creature at worst.

Second, you have to be careful when using this. OSE, attempting to explain B/X, says this on the matter:

Monster Actions

The referee determines monsters’ reaction to the party. Sometimes, circumstances make it obvious how a monster will react. Otherwise, the referee may roll on the table below to determine how a monster reacts to the party.

Charisma: If one specific character attempts to speak with the monsters, that character’s NPC reactions modifier due to CHA (see Ability Scores) is used to modify the monster reaction roll. 

This is sensible. It doesn't mention languages, but should be obvious: it is hard to communicate if you don't know the monster's language. What's more, it is probably hard to talk to a monster that attacks on sight. So, even with a positive Charisma, there is a chance of immediate attack.

But then there are some issues.

First, negative Charisma means a PC should never attempt to communicate - it might make helpful monsters turn on him immediately.

Second, if the reaction determined by circumstances, as suggest above, Charisma doesn't affect the reaction at all - at least if you use rules as written. 

The reason that this still works is because interactions are represented through roleplaying, not die rolls. But sometimes it might be cool to play a silver-tongued character, such as bard, mountebank or leader... without necessarily being a silver-tongued player.

The solution, IMO, is tackling this from a different angle: Charisma doesn't affect reaction rolls. Reaction rolls are for the GM alone. Charisma affects attempts to change the monster's behavior.

Which method you use to handle it is a matter of preference. I might use target 18, with -3 to +3 from Charisma, and the usual +4 to -4 from circumstances. Offering food or treasure definitely helps. A success means the reaction improved by one step (from hostile to neutral, for example). Further negotiation is needed to improve it further. A d20 roll also leaves space for class bonuses, feats, or skills (see Persuasion in DFB, for example).

Now, this is important: most of the process is still role-playing. It is only when the GM is unsure of the result that the dice come out. But when they do - then the charismatic PC has a decent advantage.

This has another upside: charisma only "activates" when players want to make an effort. The roll is delayed, sometimes ignored (if the offer is good enough). This feels more natural and useful - there is a space between "see how the monster feels at first" and "see how the monster reacts to the PC's offers". The second roll is informed by the PCs approach - a threat, for example, may cause a monster to be "helpful", but this is completely different than being helpful at first sight.

Finally, this leaves 2d6 rolls for the GM, with some exceptions (turn undead, morale, loyalty). come to think of it, morale and loyalty might benefit from a similar approach. But that's the subject for another post.

The simplest critical hit table (OSR etc.)

I'm running a Dark Fantasy Basic campaign and I'm messing with critical hits a little. This is a simple solution I came up with, but it seems to hit all the goals I'd want for such a system:

- It makes crits meaningful.

- It causes "extreme" results, possibly turning the tide of battle.

- Extreme results are uncommon.

- It takes the the attacker's ability and weapon into account.

- It takes armor into account (and makes armor more meaningful).

- It is very easy to remember even without a table.

- It usually replaces the damage roll, instead of adding another roll.

It has some cool "side effects" too, as you'll notice after you read it:

- It can make 1d6+1 weapons meaningfully distinct from 1d8 weapons, for example.

- You can add a "brutal" or "fast" tags to your weapons that only activates on crits, making a 1d6 axe feel very different than a 1d6 rapier (for example, an axe has +1 damage but a rapier has +1 when attacking again).

- If your character is a tough fighter crits on a 19-20 (for example, using Old School Feats), or even on lower numbers, a natural 20 is still "special" because the margin is higher.

Here is how it goes: a natural 20 causes a critical hit (increased damage) AND allows you another attack (against the same target or other target within reach).

When you crit, roll a d20 and add the margin of success. For example, if you had a +7 to hit and the target AC is 15, your margin is 12 (27 minus 15). Then, compare the results with the following table.

 

9 or less: normal damage.

10+: maximum damage.
20+: max damage x2.
30+: max damage x3.

40+: max damage x4.

Natural 20: roll again with a +10 bonus "ad infinitum".

[Easy to remember: 10 means 100% damage, 20 means 200% etc. If you want to reduce damage a bit, you could keep 10 as maximum damage, and let 20, 30, 40, etc. for double, triple, quadruple damage; notice that double damage is slightly higher on average than maximum damage, especially if you have a positive Strength modifier].

Notice that "normal damage" is an uncommon occurrence, only happening with a clumsy attacker against plate armor or something similar. If you are unarmored, then EVERY crit will deal maximum damage... or more! Nice!

The second part of the crit (...AND allows you another attack) pretty much guarantees that a crit will rarely be wasted.

The combined effects are devastating.

If that's too much for you, a simpler alternative is letting player choose: roll in the crit table OR get a free attack. 

Or even better: deal maximum damage, PLUS choose another attack or roll on the crit table (with a +10 bonus). It allows you to "cleave" through foes if they are weak enough.

Spell points for B/X and OSR systems

This is an excerpt from various sections of Alternate Magic. I leave it here for easy access when people ask me how to implement spell points in OSR systems.

---

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.

If you use this optional rule, the number of spells learned is simply equal to caster level (minus one for clerics). For example, a 5th-level magic-user knows five spells. Spells only need to be memorized once, and they are automatically remembered daily. With the exception of first level spells, each caster can only learn two spells per spell level (a 10th level MU knows 10 spells, usually 2 for each spell level from one to five).

The maximum spell level that spellcasters can cast are unchanged*:  for elves and magic-users, maximum spell level is equal to half their level (round UP), while clerics is the same but round DOWN, to a maximum of five. Clerics do not rely on grimoires but can only memorize a limited number of spells, like other casters.

(*except for the cleric; see here if you want to know some of the reasons).

A 5th level magic-user, for example, can cast 3rd level spells. A 10th-level cleric can cast 5th level spells.

---
Spell points

Spell points (SP) are the first alternative to spell slots. Under this system, casting spells require spending SP equal to the spell's level; a 3rd level spell, for example, requires 3 SP to cast. Check the table below to see how many SP each class gets.

If you do not want to use a table, calculating SP is easy: for odd levels, it is maximum spell level times itself (for example, 9 SP for a 5th level magic-user). For even levels, just add your maximum spell level to the previous total (for example, 12 SP for a 6th level mage). If you reached your maximum spell level, you only gain a number of SP equal to your maximum spell level for every new level. 

Spell points are fully replenished after a full night of sleep.