B/X weapon list remade

Continued from last post.

Here is a list of B/X weapons (adapted from OSE) with small changes in weight and the addition of speed factor. I think I've managed to distinguish every weapon with its own niche. No weapon is identical or simply better or worse than all others (if I've missed something, let me know).

The "slow" tag is removed and replaced by Speed Factor.

Notice that if you want to simply ignore speed factor and all the house rules below, the list below is still a bit more balanced (and sensible, IMO) than the original.

Assuming you're you are running the B/X as written, this is how you use speed factor (thanks Sleeper for the suggestion): whenever initiative is tied, and both sides are attacking, the weapons will indicate who attacks first. If you are not engaged with your foe, the longest weapon* attacks first. If you are already engaged, the quickest (lower SF) weapon attacks first.

[*when in doubt, the longest weapon is the one that does more damage; if they do the same damage, spear beats sword beats axe beats mace - or treat them as identical, if you find this hard to memorize].

Optional rule: when initiative is tied, roll 1d10. Every weapon that has a SF equal lower than this result also gets to attack twice (to make things even easier, you can just roll initiative with 1d10).

In addition, whenever you roll a natural 20, you get the chance of dealing a brutal hit: make another attack against the same target with a bonus equal to your SF.

[I like this solution because it makes the right weapons good against armor. If you want something faster, a natural 20 will give you more damage instead - maybe equal to half your SF, or equal to SF if you beat AC by 10 or more].

I reduced weapon ranges to their maximum range (e.g., "missile (30’)" instead of  "missile (5’–10’ / 11’–20’ / 21’–30’ )", to better fit the blog format - but it is something I plan to change too.

Weapon	Price	Wt.	Dmg.	SF	Properties
Axe, battle	7	50	1d8	8	2H
Club	3	50	1d4	4	Blunt
Crossbow	30	50	1d6	10	Missile (240’), Reload, 2H
Dagger	3	10	1d4	2	Thrown (30’)
Axe, hand	4	30	1d6	4	Thrown (30’)
Holy water (vial)	25	-	1d8	5	Thrown (50’), Splash weapon
Javelin	1	20	1d4	5	Thrown (90’)
Lance	5	120	1d6	6	Charge
Long bow	40	30	1d6	6	Missile (210’), 2H
Mace	5	30	1d6	7	Blunt
Oil (flask), burning	2	-	1d8	5	Thrown (50’), Splash weapon
Pole arm	7	120	1d10	10	Brace, 2H
Short bow	25	30	1d6	4	Missile (150’), 2H
Sword, short	7	20	1d6	3	-
Silver dagger	30	10	1d4	2	Thrown (30’)
Sling	2	20	1d4	7	Blunt, Missile (160’)
Spear	3	30	1d6	5	Brace, thrown (60’)
Staff	2	40	1d6	4	Blunt, 2H
Sword, long	10	60	1d8	5	-
Torch	1/6	-	1d4	4	-
Sword, great	15	100	1d10	8	2H
War hammer	10	20	1d6	6	Blunt

As we have seen on the last post, the simple system has a lot of positive , "hidden", consequences: for example, axes and maces are better against heavy armor, while swords and daggers become even more deadly against unarmored foes.

Well, it is a start. But I feel that there is still work to do. I'd like to see:

- More weapons.
- More balance and diversity in weapons.
- More sensible weights.
- Interrupting spells!

- Dual wielding.

- Fighting one and two-handed with the same weapon.

- Sensible rules for dwarves and halflings. Their limitations aren't limiting if  they can just pick the best weapon (the sword).

- More weapon details ..  WITHOUT making things difficult! Including, maybe, space required, backstabbing, large foes, fighting dragons and oozes, and so on.

So this is what I'm trying next! Stay tuned!

AD&D DMG cover to cover - Part III, pages 23-37 (alignment, money, armor, hirelings, henchmen)

We are reading the original DMG - the ultimate DM book! - but from a B/X and OSR point-of-view.

Check the other parts of this series here.

In part III we will tackle:

ALIGNMENT 23
— ALIGNMENT LANGUAGE 24
— CHANGING ALIGNMENT 25
MONEY 25
— PLAYER CHARACTER STARTING MONEY 25
— PLAYER CHARACTER EXPENSES 25
— VALUE AND REPUTED PROPERTIES OF GEMS AND JEWELRY 25
— NOTE REGARDING THE MAGICAL PROPERTIES OF GEMS, HERBS, et al 27
ARMOR, ARMOR CLASS, & WEAPONS 27
— TYPES OF ARMOR AND ENCUMBRANCE 27
— DEXTERITY ARMOR CLASS BONUS 28
— WEAPON TYPES, “TO HIT” ADJUSTMENT NOTE 28
HIRELINGS 28
— STANDARD HIRELINGS 28
— EXPERT HIRELINGS 29
HENCHMEN 34
— LOYALTY OF HENCHMEN & HIRELINGS, OBEDIENCE, AND MORALE 36

ALIGNMENT

This part describes what the various alignments mean. It contains a simple explanation; law/chaos are groups vs. individuals, and good/evil is respect for human rights versus might makes right. Neutrality means balance. It doesn't really put an end to the discussion (I'm not even sure that this it's possible),  and it is not perfectly faithful to Anderson nor Moorcock, but it's a good start.

It adds a few notes on planes and their alignments, and stresses the importance of keeping tracks of PC's actions and change their  alignment accordingly. "It is of utmost importance to keep rigid control of alignment behavior with respect to such characters as serve deities who will accept only certain alignments".

Next, we have a section on alignment language that aims to avoid player abuse, once again, and one more section describing the penalties for changing alignment. 

Makes me wonder - if alignment is so prone to player abuse, maybe we should try some other approach?

I am not a big fan of alignment, nor do I think this solves most questions (such as nepotism, euthanizing evil creatures, unjust laws, individual rights against the group, etc.) - see " additional reading" for my take on alignments. 

This is still better and clearer than most modern takes.

MONEY

The section on money starts by saying "the amount of funds which each player begins with is kept low to prevent the game from becoming too easy". I think I'm seeing a trend here. Then, we have player character expenses ("not less than 100 gold pieces per level of experience per month") - possibly for the same reason. You must consider the maintenance of henchmen, strongholds, taxes and tithes. I'm not sure I'm particularly interested in running a game about accounting, and I certainly dislike dealing with taxes.

Next, we have a whole page on gems - their size, color, value, quality, and so on. It also describes their magical properties, and adds some fantastical examples ("Star Ruby: translucent ruby with white “star” center") that I didn't know (but they actually exist!). I find this extremely flavorful and interesting. It is by no means essential to your games, but very cool. This is top-tier "random table" stuff.

ARMOR, ARMOR CLASS & WEAPONS

A detailed account of various types of armor and shields, and some notes on Dexterity as it relates to AC. Can basically be used as written for B/X, if you care for this much detail. There's also an important note about a subject we've been discussing lately:

WEAPON TYPES, “TO HIT” ADJUSTMENT NOTE
If you allow weapon type adjustments in your campaign please be certain to remember that these adjustments are for weapons versus specific types of armor, not necessarily against actual armor class. In most cases, monsters not wearing armor will not have any weapon type adjustment allowed, as monster armor class in such cases pertains to the size, shape, agility, speed, and/or magical nature of the creature. Not excluded from this, for example, would be an iron golem. However, monsters with horny or bony armor might be classed as plate mail if you so decide, but do so on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, monsters wearing armor will be subject to weapon type “to hit” adjustment. 

HIRELINGS

The cost and description of various types of hirelings, including experts (alchemists, armorers, spies, and, of course, gem-cutters). The most interesting part here, in my opinion, is the list of troops and their organization. For example:

Captain: A captain is nothing more than a capable leader, a fighter of 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th level (according to the d10 score, 1-4 = 5th, 5-7 = 6th, 8-9 =7th, 0 = 8th) but NOT capable of working upwards. A captain can command as many scores of troops as he or she has levels, i.e., 4th level enables command of 80 men, 5th level enables command of 100 men, etc. In addition, the level of the captain dictates the number of lieutenants which can be controlled. This is exclusive of serjeants and any auxiliary types such as servants, cooks, etc. The monthly cost of a captain is 100 gold pieces per level.

This makes high-level fighters a lot more interesting in mass combat - and they get a clearer place in society. Even tough these are not PC fighters ("NOT capable of working upwards"), they both indicate the potential capabilities of fighters and also sketch how an old school "warlord" class could look like (my version is a lot simpler, but not as focused on mass combat).

Likewise, the book contains a very detailed (two pages long!) description of another expert, the sage. Again, extremely interesting and could perfectly be a class of its own. It would be a fine addition to B/X and AD&D games. As most things you'll find is this book, it is unnecessarily complex, but full of inspiration.

HENCHMEN

Henchmen are individual adventurers, not merely laborers, employees or experts. They have PC classes, go to dungeons with the PCs and get a share of treasure, so they get more attention/detail. This section describes their classes, levels, races, costs, and hiring process. Their personality traits are described in other part of the book (PERSONAE OF NONPLAYER CHARACTERS). The organization is still strange, but at least we know where to look.

This section finishes with an entire page of modifiers to henchmen loyalty, obedience and morale. Each individual entry is interesting - I specially like the idea, for example, that while most creatures prefer to follow lieges of similar alignment, chaotic creatures make bad leaders and followers in general. However, keeping track of all these things looks like a nightmare. I prefer the much simpler 2d6 checks of B/X. Anyway, here is a good summary:

What have we learned today?

 

Once again - "lots of cool tables, but everything seems a bit unnecessarily complex, sometimes redundant". We have gems that we can use as written if you want that kind of detail, various troops for mass combat games, and two potential new classes waiting for a B/X adaptation: the commander and the sage.

Coming next... TIME! SPELLS! (prepare yourself: part IV is my favorite part of the DMG so far!)

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

Additional reading (on alignment):

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/05/languages-alignment-or-otherwise.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/07/dark-fantasy-basic-one-page-hacks-and.html

AD&D weapon SPEED and ARMOR PIERCING made EASY!

Continued from last post. 

The "weapon versus armor" table (page 37) is probably one of the least used in the PHB, as we've seen. However, it contains some cool ideas. Basically, it makes weapons more distinct and more balanced. And, well, much cooler. 

Notice that the table contains not only "weapon versus armor", but also length, space required and speed factor. The first two are probably ignored as often as weapon versus armor, but are quite simple and easy to understand. Speed factor, however, is intertwined with the cryptic AD&D initiative rules. It ultimately means that you can attack first and more often with a fast weapon (the lower the speed factor, the quicker the weapon). 

Finally, certain weapons can dismount and disarm, and weapons deal differnte damge agasint large opponents. We will leave that for another time.

Could we use this information for something cool in our B/X games? Or at least try to reduce it to B/X levels of complexity? 

I think we can! 

First, take a look at the table. I added color, an "average" column for the weapon versus armor values, and repeated the speed column by its side to show something that should be more or less obvious: speed in inversely proportional to to-hit bonuses (the blue/red colors almost never match in these columns). This means heavier/slower weapons hit more often, even if they attack less often. 

Here's the same table with some outliers eliminated (fists, staves, clubs, an whatever the awl pike is) to increase contrast.

Now speed is reduced to 1-10 and to-hit bonuses are reduced to -3 to +3 (but the average for each weapon is just -1 to +2).

I wouldn't want to check a table for every attack, nor use the AD&D initiative system in my games. But what if we only had one single number per weapon, meaning both "speed" and "strength against armor"? They'd need to be inversely proportional. 

Here is my fix: When you roll a natural 20, your deal normal damage and roll again to see if your attack was a brutal hit. This is resolved as a regular attack, but with a bonus equal to your speed factor. 

Hit or miss, you can now make another attack ("fast hit") against the same target or an adjacent foe, IF the number on the d20 is GREATER than your speed factor, but with no bonus.

In practice, this means someone using a heavy weapon deals double damage on a natural 20 very often, regardless of armor. On the other hand, quick weapons often get another attack - which is particularly deadly if you are unarmored.

Example: Aleena gets a natural 20 using a mace (SF 6). She rolls again with a +6 bonus (which makes a huge difference against heavy armor), potentially damaging the original target even further. AND she gets a second attack if her roll is higher than 6. 

Example 2: a lowly bandit attacks a knight in plate (AC 3) with a dagger. He gets a natural 20, and can roll again (with a +2 bonus), and very likely attack again (no bonus). Still, his chances of hitting are very low. Had the target been unarmored, he would have a decent chance of doubling or tripling the original damage. 

I do not mean necessarily that I would use AD&D numbers - I should probably come up with my own and maybe even create some exceptions. But the procedure looks sound, it seems to achieve what I intended: 

- Weapons are distinct in both "speed" and "strength against armor". 

- Every weapon can potentially have its own niche. 

- A single digit is added to weapon stats. 

- Even that single digit can be safely ignored 95% of the time. 

- You can assign any number to speed factor on the run, not only because the 1-10 skill is intuitive, but also because it is fair (every number has its pros and cons).

- You can easily fit this in the Dark Fantasy Basic scheme of t/s/m/l/g weapons, by assigning SF 2/4/6/8/10 (plus one or minus one for maces, spears, etc.).

- Crits are meaningful, but not enough to be "too deadly". Doubling damage is rare if you're wearing armor, tripling it very unlikely - and memorable!

Now let's see some numbers.

 

Table 1 calculates the chances of a brutal hit (we NEED to do something cool with those cases that beat 100%, of course - they should probably cleave or carry over somehow).

Table 2 calculates the chances of a quick hit (THAC0 19 means you usually hit 20% of the time against AC 2; SF 1 means you get a second attack 95% of the time, multiply both to get 19%, etc.).

Table 3 is just the sum of both tables. It illustrates that, while slower weapons are better overall, the difference is much more significant with low AC - AND low AC affects fast weapons much more. Exactly as we wanted!

I love these tables - they remind me of FASERIP/Tagmar. But here, they are just illustrations - you do not need to look at any tables to play the game, just a single number per weapon!

So, the dagger (SF 2) has about 30% of a brutal hit against AC 2, AND a 14% chance of landing a fast hit. The chance of triple damage (assuming a new attack against the same target) is very low (I think less than 5%, but it isn`t easy to calculate, since a successful roll increases both chances). But against AC 10 the chances are 70% for a brutal hit and 52% for a fast hit.

A two-handed sword has 70% chance of a brutal hit against AC 2, plus a 8% chance of  fast hit. Against unarmored foes, a brutal hit is certain, and a fast hit happens 30% of the time.

The chance of dealing triple damage against unarmored foes is similar for both weapons.

The exact numbers are not most the important part, of course. We are here for the FUN: swinging a huge weapon that crushes your enemies even inside armor, or stabbing your unarmored foes repeatedly with a dagger.

Of course I want these to be multipurpose mechanics. You can use the same number for all kinds of things - initiative, backstabbing, maybe weapon size/length ("weapon size" sounds better than "speed factor" BTW - or maybe "leverage"?), etc. 

But this is fine tuning - for now, I'm very happy with the general idea.

In the next post about this subject, I'll try to give you a table that is ready to use with B/X...

Weapon versus armor - from AD&D to B/X

As you might know, I'm into B/X (using my own clone, and also frequently using modules from other basic systems), but I have been reading lots of AD&D lately.

In the last few days, I've been looking at the weapon versus armor table in AD&D. 

Now, according to Delta's blog, the weapon versus armor table in AD&D contains mathematical/revision errors. It is a simple "lost in translation" mistake. I've heard some good arguments saying that there is no error (i.e., the revision was done on purpose). But I think he makes a good point. Go read it and decide for yourself.

In any case, I also think there's cool stuff to learn from both chainmail and AD&D. And this is what matters to me. 

[BTW, Delta - one of the best old school D&D bloggers out there IMO - has done all the hard work putting this stuff on a sheet. I'm only playing with the numbers, and literally adding some color. Any mistakes you find below are probably mine, however - please let me know in the comments].

In chainmail, to hit someone in plate and shield (AC 2 in AD&D) with a dagger, you'd need to roll 12 using 2d6, for example. A 2h-sword would only require 7.  I added and "average" column to compare the overall effectiveness of each weapon.

Notice that green/blue means good (chances of hitting), red means bad. The spear is a "bad" weapon against armor on average.

If you calculate the chances of hitting with 2d6, you'll find that rolling 12 happens about 3% of the time - while rolling 7 or more happens about 60% of the time. 

This means the 2h-sword is TWENTY TIMES better than the dagger against plate and shield - but if your target is unarmored, they are nearly identical! 

Likewise, the mace is about FIVE TIMES better than a regular sword against AC 2, but the sword is a bit better against unarmored foes.

Notice that all weapons deal the same damage in Chainmail.

Now, let's check the Greyhawk table. It might contain a "translation error", but this doesn't matter for our purposes. There is no perfect way to convert from Chainmail to D&D, for various reasons. What we are doing here is looking at certain tendencies and making generalizations (e.g., "maces are good at defeating heavy armor, daggers are terrible for that unless the target is prone").

These tables show that:

- Almost all weapons are good against unarmored and bad against plate and shield; i.e., armor is even more important than AC would indicate (on average, there is a 10-point spread between AC 9 and AC 2).

- On the other hand, most modifiers are positive, which means you're hitting more often against anything but plate. 

-  The biggest difference is against low ACs. In practice (because THAC0 and statistics), this means choosing the right weapon could double or triple your damage against heavy armor, but barely matters  (damage output raised by less than 20%) against unarmored foes.

- Heavy and unbalanced weapons are good against heavy armor, and just better overall.

As you can see this solves a number of issues with B/X weapons, for example. The sword stops being simply the best weapon (1d8 damage), and faces some difficulty against heavy armor. The spear is in a similar situation (long, good against charges, but bad against armor). Big weapons, such as the lance and 2H sword get a well-deserved boost. The hand axe is no longer simply cheaper and better than the mace.

In addition, it makes wearing armor more relevant. This is also a much deserved boost to plate armor, which is heavy and restrictive. Plate gives you great protection against a sword or dagger, maybe making you invulnerable (unless you're prone - see below!).  

While this is much simpler and a bit more sensible than the AD&D table, it is still a bit fiddly for my tastes. Of course to see the whole picture, we'd have to consider speed factor and space required - which is much worse. And we'd also need to consider variable weapon damage, a popular rule in B/X and basically every version of D&D.

But maybe we can extrapolate some cool ideas from here? 

Let's see... 

The easiest way of simplifying this is just giving a bonus to hit to certain weapons (from 0 to +2 ti avoid negatives). Instead of calculating it, we should judge on a case by case basis.

Or we could get more detailed.

Light, balanced weapons (dagger, hand axe, spear, short sword, club) have a hard time against heavy armor. Let's say, -1 to hit against chainmail (AC 5[14]) or better (but see "daggers and penalties", below).

[Wouldn't it be nice if these lighter weapons gave you a small bonus when backstabbing? Now, the thief can still backstab with a heavy weapon, it is just not optimal. And Chainmail also gives pointy weapons a bonus against prone targets in armor. Neat!].

Heavy/unbalanced weapons (two-handed, with the "slow" tag) are more likely to cause damage: +1 regardless of armor.

I used to ignore the "slow" tag, but maybe give it a -1 to initiative puts things back in the right place.

Everything else is unchanged. I'm not particular fond of "small bonus against medium armor" that some weapons get, and I don't quite agree with some of the conclusions (e.g., why is a 2H sword so much better than a lance against armored opponents?).

This is a radical simplification, that brings me back to an old idea of having a few weapon traits: brutal/unbalanced, fast/balanced, and everything else.

Now, I have so many small problems with D&D weapons that if I were to recreate the list (again) I'd probably start from scratch (or from 5e - at least the weights make sense). But it is fun to see that the original system makes a lot more sense once you actually take the time to understand it - which includes understanding what AD&D got wrong.

Come to think of it, rewriting the entire thing is doable. Not sure if it is worth the effort. Let me know in the comments.

---

Notes.

The 1e table

While using the 1e table fixes some B/X weapon problems, it creates issues of its own. A 2H-sword is better against AC 8 than AC 10 (i.e., the unarmored target is more protected!). Same happens occasionally for shields (i.e., having a shield HURTS YOU against a mace).

This is - assuming you're only using a few armor types. Because if you're using all the armor types available, the table becomes impractical, as "AC 5" means different things (sometimes you'll have AC 5 with a shield, sometimes without) - but should ALWAYS protect you more than AC 6, for example.

Still, it is a good place to start.

The 2e table

I feel I should mention the 2e table, which is simpler and more manageable, but still not ideal to me. 

Maybe there's some merit to the idea of separating damage types, but I think we would still have to consider weight/balance to differentiate spears from picks/warhammers, and axes from swords. Maybe add chop (axe) and thrust or impale (spear)?

Looking at this from the armor side - rather than the weapon side - also simplifies things a bit.

Daggers and penalties

I'm a bit unsure of giving any penalties at all. Daggers are already weaker than most weapons because they do 1d4 damage. And, while a dagger should indeed be ten times less effective against plate in a battlefield, players want to use daggers and look cool. 

The sword, on the other hand, gets 1d8 damage. But it is an iconic weapon that I wouldn't like nerfing.

Penalties in general are just bad - they will discourage you from picking a weapon, and could even make hitting an enemy impossible. Players will not care for them in my occasionally "forget" them.

Maybe giving a boost to weaker weapons (such as the mace) is enough.

The "armor bonus" trait

B/X ranged weapons have three ranges: short (+1 to hit), medium (0), and long (-1 to hit). OSE uses this notation: "Missile (5’–10’ / 11’–20’ / 21’–30’)"

Could we do the same with armor for some weapons? E.g. Dagger, "Armor bonus (9/7/5)", meaning +1 against AC 8 and 9, and -1 against AC 5 or better. Seems easy enough if we add it only to a few weapons, but too fiddly if applied across the board. 

I prefer one of the generalizations suggested above.

Monsters and high-level play

One problem of giving weapon bonuses against heavy armor is that powerful monsters will have good armor very often. Should high level heroes ALWAYS carry heavy weapons, since they are expected to face tough monsters?

This problem is not as big as it seems. High level PCs will hit a lot more often against heavy armor anyway, making the difference less relevant. In old school D&D, there are still powerful monsters with not-that-great AC. And finally, one important aspect of making things balanced, I think, is not only throwing powerful monsters at the PCs, but letting them eventually face hordes of minions - which is fun and genre appropriate. 

Still, if you're fighting a dragon, you'd better bring a big sword!

Critical hits

I still think Critical Hits are the best way to deal with these differences. You can just ignore all little details until you roll a natural 20, and then your mace smashes the enemy, despite being worse than the sword most of the time. And everyone loves crits!

I feel Critical Hits are on of those ideas that Gygax didn't include in AD&D because it was too fiddly or "realistic", but in reality could make the game a bit SIMPLER. 

But let's leave that to another post. I think I could balance all weapons using only critical hits. (We don't need to make them perfectly balance, but we should find at least ONE USE for each weapon). AND maybe I can make speed factor easy. Wouldn't this be cool?

Minimalist OSR + Manual of Arms

All these ideas are being progressively incorporated in my minimalist OSR game, which you can get for free here. All feedback is welcome!

I'm also considering adapting my Manual of Arms books to OSR rules - including weapon versus armor. Let's see how this goes.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/old-school-weapons-are-terrible-armor.html

https://trekhead.livejournal.com/93653.html

http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-big-mistake-in-weapon-vs-armor.html

d100 skills for B/X and AD&D

One thing that drives me crazy about old school D&D is how random skills checks are - to the point of the same character having two different methods of making the same check (e.g., B/X Halflings having 90% chance when hiding in the wild and 2-in-6 elsewhere).

Lamentations just uses 1d6 for most checks, while Dark Fantasy Basic uses only the d20. Labyrinth Lord uses the d100 for all thief skills, but other methods for other checks. 

I like the d100 - could we use that for everything?

Let's try to convert existing checks to a d100... while keeping vaguely similar chances.

Ability checks - just use 5% per point for ordinary tasks. Strength 12 means you succeed 60% of the time. Multiply the stat by a different number if the task is too hard or too easy. For example:

- 1% for the nearly impossible (e.g., bend bars, identify potions and magical items without trying them).

- 2% when the game says you have a 1-in-6 chance (should be 1.5% but let's keep it simple).

- 3% when the game says you have a 2-in-6 chance.

Saving throws - 20% plus a level bonus. You can use 5% for everyone but 3/4/5 (or 2/3/4 in B/X) for mages/others/fighters is even better. Demihumans add 20% or something.

Thief skills - 2% per ability point for everyone, but thieves also add 5% per level. 

Turn Undead - 50%, plus 10% per cleric level, minus 10% per undead HD. 

Attacking - 3/4/5 per level for mages/others/fighters (or 2/3/4), plus 1% per point of Str (melee) or Dex (ranged). Armor reduces this by 5% per point of armor (10% for leather, 20% for chain, etc.).

Open doors - use ability checks (Str). 

Reaction rolls - use ability checks (Cha) to change reaction by one step. Cha no longer affects reaction rolls. 

Survive Resurrection/ Raise Dead/System Shock - 20% plus 5% per point of Con.

Magic - Int/Wis check (1%), plus 5% per mage level (3% for clerics, etc.). You need at least 10% to cast 1st-level spells, 20% for second-level, etc.

But why?

There are certain things we can do with a d100 that are harder to do with a d20.

- A "35% chance" or similar is always very intuitive to anyone.

- Critical hits and fumbles when you roll doubles (11, 22, 33, etc.). If a thief fails to disarm a trap, he only gets hurt 10% of the time. Likewise for climbing and falling, etc. In combat, a critical hit can either double damage, ignore armor, give you a free attack, or something else.

- Ability scores: each point matters! I love that!

- An easy solution (1%) for very hard tasks.

- Great granularity, you can play endlessly with 1% increments. You could even add 1% per level to ALL adventuring checks that are normally unaffected by levels, as PCs should get better at not getting lost, etc.

Would I use this?

Not really - it is still too fiddly for my tastes. Unless you use a spreadsheet to calculate these things automatically. Maybe it could work with a bit more streamlining... Maybe letting PCs assign a number of points to combat, skills and magic (and HP) per level... But we already have Runequest (or Mythras) for that. 

These are fine systems, BTW. But I guess I'm sticking with the d20 (and my minimalist OSR game) for now.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/12/granularity-ideal-level-of-detail.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/08/the-unsolved-conundrum-of-d-ability.html