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).

How minimalist can D&D characters be?

As I've said before, this is the amount of information I'd like D&D characters to have — and that would have to be enough in actual play for something like 80% of the rolls, to minimize the time spent doing math and checking the book:

Nice, huh? Class, level, abilities, a couple of magic items or spells, and you're good to go. Most PCs have a little more than a dozen pieces of information (Name, Alignment, Level, Class, 6 abilities, AC, HP, weapons, and armor), plus spells for some.

Realistically, however, even the lightest versions of D&D need more information than that. For example, can you recall each saving throw from memory? Unlikely, but this is easily solved by reducing all of them to a single saving throw (say, roll 1d20 + level, target 20, or 16, etc.).

What about THAC0? Same thing. I'm happy with leaving the attack bonus equal to level for fighters, half level for everyone else, which is a huge simplification from D&D. But that's two extra bits of information. And usually, you need ranged and melee values, which rely on more information than just level (so you need to add strength modifier).

And ability scores? You have the six of them, but you need modifiers. You could commit the modifiers to memory, but you use them often enough that is is easier if you write them down. Well, maybe not all of them; since you already have AC, HP, and languages, you can ignore Dex, Con and Int modifiers most of the time (which is, by itself, an interesting idea - why keep these modifiers in the character sheet?). But you need Charisma mods for reaction, at least in theory, and Wisdom for saves.

Strength modifiers are needed to attack and damage - and in AD&D, this can mean two additional numbers. Notice these stats lack weapon damage too, something you'll use all the time.

Notice tat at the very least we could ignore all "+0" modifiers so we'd only need to add two or three digits, not six new ones.

We do not have much equipment here either; it is likely that a real PC has at least half a dozen items or more, not only weapons and armor. I'm counting "sword +2" as a single piece of information, not two.

[On a side note, maybe in a low magic D&D setting, "sword +1" could be a personal trait for a warrior instead of a magic weapon. This could incorporate your strength bonus and make "weapon specialization" a lot easier.]

So maybe we'd have a minimum of 30 pieces of information for each PC... but there is more!

Spellcasters have spells, which is straightforward enough (if not for the fact that they could in theory pick new ones every day, and clerics have access to their whole list - notice that the cleric here has no spells memorized). Thieves have skills - again, a bit hard to memorize, but can be easily replaced by rolling 1d20 and adding level (once you get some customization, more information is needed). Fighters have their weapons specializations and extra attacks - and they need this stuff.

And that is assuming each PC can only have one class.

In the end, we could have more than 100 pieces of information. Look at this AD&D sheet:

Of course, much of it is redundant, or rarely used, but it still muddles the sheet.

Sigh.

In the end, this post ended up doing the opposite of what I intended when I wrote its title...

The answer, I think is that D&D characters could be a lot more minimalist than they are, but it is not an easy task.

We could start by cutting all ability scores in half (only one number, no modifier), reducing all saves to one single save, and streamlining all skills... but I've been to this road before. There is no end to this, other than ending with something that doesn't resemble D&D anymore.

Maybe this much complexity is fine if I let the players handle it. 

I guess I have no easy answers today.

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.

Undead types and NPCs

I recently remembered the similarities between death knights and skeleton warriors. Both are powerful undead creatures, clad in decayed flesh and ruined armor, big swords, with ominous red dots for eyes.

[Wraiths also have red dots for eyes in their descriptions. And decaying flesh. Wights are similar].

One major distinction is that skeleton warriors are typically enslaved by a wizard, compelled to serve without autonomy. Death knights retain their will and intelligence—although, theoretically, they could be bound by a powerful spellcaster, like ANY undead could.

[I'm remined of "The Empire of the Necromancers" by Clark Ashton Smit. Go read it, it is awesome. Some undead retain some memories by accident, not because a wizard decided to create a specific "type" of undead].

So they look similar and serve similar purposes. It is unlikely that PCs would be able to tell them apart.

This speaks to a broader Dungeons & Dragons trend: the proliferation of nearly identical monsters.

Personally, I’d prefer a “powerful undead” template with variations instead of dozens of creatures that mostly feel the same. Imagine, for example, a system where magical users become liches, warriors evolve into death knights, and thieves fade into shadows or something similar.

Maybe they can keep (some of) their levels, so you'd have undead of all levels of power. These can be individuals, not simply monster types. Whether they are enslaved or not, or if they lead other undead, or if they wear armor or carry a sword, depends on their circumstances.

Not all liches must be super powerful! Some minor wizards could take a chance and botch the process a bit. Same goes for other types of undead.

In my book, Teratogenicon, I describe three fundamental types of undead:

• Mindless – Purely animated bodies, like zombies and skeletons. These do not need personalities or many details.

• Bodyless – Entities of mind and soul, but no physical form (ghosts, wraiths). Some will have interesting personalities and traits.

• Soulless – Powerful creatures like vampires, liches, and death knights. While they retain their physical and mental abilities, they are somehow estranged from their souls. Maybe it is stored somewhere safe, maybe it is lost, or maybe just forgotten and they could be redeemed (but that'd probably cause their physical/mental demise). "Soulless" is a more poetic than practical description. They definitely deserve some history, personality an and traits!

This categorization offers a simple and effective way classify undead though a body/mind/soul divide. Undeath creates a fissure—some beings lose their autonomy, some exist only in spirit, and some are something else entirely.

Of course, there could still be liminal undead: creatures that keep some of their mental faculties, like ghouls, or protoplasmic shapes that are just echoes of souls and no actual souls, poltergeists that can affect the physical world up to a point, or dead bodies inhabited by spirits that belong somewhere else.

As you can see, I have nothing against undead types; in fact, I wrote a PDF with one hundred of them and ideas on how to create even more ("glowing red eyes" are there, but there are more than 100 traits to choose from!) . 

But I think some types of undead, specially the most powerful ones, should be seen as individuals (NPCs) rather than monster types.

Magic Item inflation in AD&D

Modern D&D is sometimes accused of turning PCs' into "superheroes". 

I have been accused of similar transgressions for daring to add feats to my OSR games.

"Hero, not Superhero", from Matt Finch's primer, is a popular motto. 

Of course, you cannot take it at face value - "superhero" PCs were in Chainmail, even BEFORE D&D (they are roughly equivalent to 8th-level fighters).

Likewise, a 8th-level magic-user can fly, cast fireballs, turn himself and other into frogs, etc. Clerics can raise the dead by this point!

Finch says PCs become Batman, but not Superman (he must be referring to fighters - not even Superman can turn people into frogs or raise the dead. Also, Batman is a superhero. But I digress).

Maybe Iron Man might be a better example.

AD&D PCs, even fighters, become spectacularly powerful due to their equipment.

The problem starts on level one. As @ericbabe noticed, in "Lord of Darkness", a classic AD&D module:

For defeating 12 skeletons and a 5-hp crazy woman the first level party earns:

- a ring of invisibility

- a ring of feather falling

- two maces +1

- 800 gp

I noticed a similar (but less extreme) pattern when running classics module in my own campaign. 

[And OSR adventures seem to follow this trend too - I've noticed in in BFRPG, DCC and LotFP modules].

It is difficult to have a precise measure of a high-level PC's power, since so much depends on which modules you run and how well the players do.

The DMG has some guidelines on creating high-level PCs in Appendix P. The rules are generous, albeit not as generous as the example above. For example, a 2nd level PC has only 20% chance of having a +1 magic weapon, plus 30% chance of magic chain armor.

I would guess reality is much more plentiful for surviving PCs, not only using published modules but also using the random item tables from the same book (the 1e DMG). Gygax himself recommend GMs to limit the number of magic items found, IIRC.

There is an easier way to analyse high-level AD&D PCs, however: using the pre-generated characters from classic modules. There is a great compilation in Dragonsfoot.

Let's look at some examples:

The A series has level 4-6 PCs with +1 or +2 weapons and armor, plus some potions and scrolls. Looks reasonable to me.

In the D series, we have PCs from varied levels (around 7-10). Now each PC has several magic items, usually AT LEAST +2 weapon and +2 armor, and we start to see negative ACs.

In the G series, PCs are around level 10-12. There is a level 14 fighter ("Frush") with 104 HP and -5 AC, and a level 12 cleric with -1 AC. The Level 9 Dwarf Fighter has AC 0, a Dwarven Hammer +3, Ring of Invisibility, Boots of Striding and Springing, among other things.

[There are also a few intelligent swords int here. They allow fighters to cast magic spells.]

These PCs would win against an army of OGRES, and I mean that quite literally: even Frush by himself can easily defeat one hundred of them if only ten can attack at once. 

Now, I have never seem -5 AC in any of my games. That is because, despite using feats, I am not as generous with magic items.

How about other editions?

I think B/X might be slightly better less generous in this regard. You can play with this cool generator to see for yourself. I wont say this is ideal because I think B/X fighters are too weak and you shouldn't nerf them.

I am not sure about others; I remember 4e giving away lots of magic items but in hindsight maybe it is not that different from other editions. 

Old-school players sometimes complain about "HP inflation" which is kinda true, but nobody talks about magic item inflation.

5e has tried to limit magic items in important ways.

This is from Xanathar's (5e):

A party gains one hundred magic items during level 1-20, but most of these are consumables.

While this sounds similar to Appendix P, I think it is likely that some AD&D PCs might get even more using random treasure, and definitely a lot more if they get a few magic items for every dozen skeletons they face (OTOH, if they also get 800 gp, they'll level up quickly...).

One important aspect of 5e is attunement. Some powerful items require a certain "bond" with the user, and you cannot have more than three of those. These include bracers of defense and rings of protection, for example.

On the other hand, 5e PCs have a lot more features than AD&D PCs. There is a some balance there; some of the PCs' powers are intrinsic, other are form items, while in AD&D most special powers come form items (at least for fighters).

I must say I'm not a fan of having that many magic items.

Characters like Conan, Fafhrd or John Carter (Appendix N) are heroic (or even superheroic?) because of their own prowess, not because they carry many magic items.

[One noticeable exception is Moorcock's characters, who do get several].

That's why I prefer feats. And they can be very simple: just give a PC "+1 to swords" instead of a "sword +1", or "+3 block" instead of a "shield +3". Like magic items, feats can be distributed randomly if you want.

In short, even old-school PCs can become superheroes with amazing power. They also have their "builds" and "powers" that they create with magic items. Whether you want these powers to be intrinsic, extrinsic, or both, is up to the DM, who will decide what is best for his style.

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

Three-dimensional growth and thieves

 As I've mentioned before, mages gets better in three "dimensions" as they level up.

- They get more spells.

- They get better spells.

- The spells they already have (e. g., magic missile) become more powerful.

To do something similar, the fighters need:

- Better attacks (i.e., bigger "to-hit" bonus).

- More attacks.

- The attacks get better (i.e., more damage per attack).

Not hard to do at all, especially if they get magic swords and other weapons.

(Although these things are not exactly the same - spells can attack and open doors and deceive and carry stuff, while attacks can only attack. OTOH spells are limited by spell slots while attacks are not, although the MU gets more slots as he levels).

But what about thieves? I guess they should get:

- More skills.

- Better skills.

- Improve the skills they already have.

This is a bit harder to do. 

The B/X thief gets better at their skills. They do get a couple of extra skills as they level up (reading languages and casting from scrolls - which don't get better), but these are rare (the MU gets new spells every level).

Giving thieves "skill points" like LotFP is helpful - now they can distribute them freely between "new skill" and "get better at skills you have" (well, to be precise, they don't really get new skills, since every skill starts with a 1-in-6 chance, but... it could be done if you add new skills to the game that you can only access through "points").

Still, while you get better chances of success, your successes are always the same. 

So, you get better chances of hiding or climbing - but you don't usually get to hide more people nor do you climb faster as you level up. You open locks more often, but not any faster, etc.

This is "fixed" in modern versions of D&D, but not B/X or AD&D.

One easy way to change that is adding "critical successes" of some kind for thieves' talents.

For example:

If you're using 1d100, "doubles" are now criticals. For example, if you can climb twice the distance or at twice the usual speed, and if you hide you can attack once and remain undetected.

Conversely, you could just add modifiers to these skills. "Attack and hide" imposes a -30% penalty, for example.

Even better, you could use some kind of synergy for thief skills, allowing some skills to affect others.

More minimalist classes (OSR) - Thieves

In my endless quest for minimalist OSR systems, I've been thinking of minimalist classes lately. At the risk of repeating myself, here is how it goes:

- Mages get ONE new spell per level, and get +1 to spellcasting.

- Fighters get +1 to attack per level, but they also get extra attacks and, indirectly, more damage.

- Thieves get ONE new skill per level.

The LotFP method of using "skill points" works well, but this is even more minimalist and simple. I think I got the idea from a Brazilian YouTuber, DM Quiral.

Now, you either have a skill or you don't. If you do, you will occasionally succeed automatically. If numbers are necessary, you get a +10 bonus. But, mostly, you don't roll: you can simply be able to do ventriloquism, juggling, appraising, etc.

E.g., B/X suggests an ability check for climbing a rope (which RAW indicates the thief has better chance climbing sheer walls...). If you have "climbing", you get a +10 bonus, which often means automatic success.

If you prefer X-in-6 chances, +10 translates to +3. E.g., the thief has 4-in-6 instead of 1-in-6 chances of hearing noises.

For challenging stuff (climb "sheer walls"), the GM may require a skill check... Other PCs get a -10 penalty, but you roll your ability as usual, since your +10 bonus compensates that.

This simple system addresses some of the common problems I have with skills:

- How can a 1st-level PC be really good in a given skill.

- How non-thief characters can try to do thief stuff.

- You do not have to write a bunch of skills into every thieves' sheet, let alone other PCs.

HOWEVER it loses some of the compatibility with the original thief.

One alternative is, instead of giving ONE +10 skill, you give the thief TEN +1 skills. The usual ones: hear, climb, hide, traps, read languages, scrolls, back-stab, etc. By level 2, you get a +2 bonus and so on, until level 10.

This still leaves the thief behind the mage. Remember, the mage gets:

- More spells (i.e., variety).

- New spells that ARE BETTER.

- Old spells GET BETTER.

So, maybe the thief deserves some equivalent to "critical hits". Not only he is more likely to succeed, he succeeds BETTER than an untrained PC.

Meaning: if you succeed by 10 or more, your results are particularly impressive. Maybe you can "climb silently" or help your allies. Maybe you sneak so proficiently that you get a bonus on top of your back-stab. Etc.

Still, the thief should maybe get both more skills and better chances - especially if using the same XP table. 

Anyway, its a start.

Same XP for all classes (B/X)

Despite being inspired mostly by B/X, I prefer using the same XP for all classes in my games. This is how Dark Fantasy Basic works, for example.

I heard some arguments to the contrary - that different XP tracks are important. I think there's some merit to this idea, but for now I prefer doing things my way. 

In theory, I wanted a 10th-level Fighter (or "F10") to be roughly as powerful as a 10th-level Magic-User (M10). Which is hard to do.

In B/X, you might be tempted to think the idea is that a F10 is close in power to a MU9, since the XP requirements are somewhat similar. 

I think this is doubtful, at best. 

But if that was true... could we still have B/X with same XP for all classes? 

I have read many attempts to " reverse engineer" B/X classes. I do not think they were as engineered as one might think, but I like playing with that idea. 

Today, I'll be referencing BX Options: Class Builder, which looks very cool (I've only read the first few pages).

The idea is that you can create a stronger Fighter or Thief by requiring more XP. So, giving the thief better saving throws (as a fighter) would "cost" 300 XP. Could we make everyone share the same XP to get to level 2, for, example? Let's try. 

Fighter: Leave it at 2,000 XP for now. Let's try to make other classes the same.

Magic-user: We'd have to bring the MU down to reach the fighter. There is no easy way to do that without giving him even more restrictions. 

The class builder suggests one could get extra spells for 100 to 200 XP. Maybe we could do the opposite, giving the MU fewer spells - at most one per level. 

Notice the MU starts getting more than one spell per level only by level 7. If we change that, the starting MU is not any weaker (good!) but at level 10 he is significantly less powerful (also good), especially because he can never get three fireballs.

This gives the game a somewhat more S&S/low-magic vibe, which I like.

Let's say:  

			Spells
MU level	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	1
2	2
3	2	1
4	2	2	1
5	2	2	2
6	2	2	2
7	2	2	2	1
8	2	2	2	2
9	2	2	2	2	1
10	2	2	2	2	2
11	2	2	2	2	2	1
12	2	2	2	2	2	2
13	3	2	2	2	2	2
14	3	3	2	2	2	2

Cleric: I do not think the cleric deserves any further boost. They are very powerful, in my experience. I'd just require 2000 XP like the fighter. The spells and turn undead makes up for the difference. Please let me know in the comments if you disagree.

Thief: this is my main concern because it is a class that I find very weak, despite the low XP requirements (1,200 XP to level 2). The thief deserves 1d6 HP IMO, plus better saving throws (let's say the sneaky thief is as elusive as the strong fighter). This brings him to 1,700 XP. 

There is not much more to give a thief. Infravision or a couple of extra skills could work to get him to 2,000 XP, or maybe give him fighting capabilities similar to the fighter - when you compare the B/X thief with similar XP as a fighter, the attack bonus is not that different.

I wont include elves, halflings and dwarves because I don't use race-as-class.

Is this worth the effort? I'm not sure. Tweaking classes like that assumes there is some balance to begin with, which might not be the case. 

As I've mentioned in my last post, I'd prefer starting with very simple classes and then adding some feats as you go. 

Spell-less classes would get more feats than spellcasters, to improve their versatility, since they don't get to choose spells.

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