"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 (?) turn undead, plus a reflection on playtesting

Here is my minimalist version of turn undead, which precludes the need for a turn undead table, and uses 1d6 instead of 2d6 plus another 2d6 plus table:

Turn Undead: Clerics can repel or destroy undead. Turning is attempted once per turn, in lieu of an attack. Turned undead flee by any means available and will not harm or contact the cleric. To turn undead, roll 1d6, add the cleric's level, and subtract the target's HD (e.g., 2 for zombies). A result of 5+ succeeds; 10+ simply destroys them permanently. The roll result also indicates the total HD of undead affected (minimum one creature, maximum 20 HD affected). For example, if you roll 11 against zombies, 5 of them are destroyed; against skeletons, 11 are destroyed.

This is the type of rule I want for my game; maps reasonably close to the original B/X (at least to my liking), but a bit simpler, faster, leaner, easier (it also expands to RC levels).

(BTW I can take no credit for it as apparently Delta wrote something similar more than a decade ago; since I take much inspiration from his blog, I might have read it at some point).

In practice, however, I found that this is not enough for even the simplest games. If using this rule (or even the original B/X rules), the players will certainly ask simple questions like "how often can I turn?", "how far", "for how long", etc. It happened in my last campaign.

And the text simply doesn't say. The Rules Cyclopedia adds a much longer text (and table) - but not many answers either. Same in the AD&D PHB.

5e D&D, on the other hand, clearly answers all these questions (30-foot radius, 1 minute or until the creature takes damage, etc).

I'm probably adding such details to my own game since they were obviously needed at my table. So my version might even look a bit longer than B/X, which wasn't my original goal. 

Old school D&D seems to work very well in practice; people often say it is because Gygax etc. had immense wargaming playtesting experience. But I have a feeling that old school GMs often relied on their experience and rulings over having things spelled out in the book, which some people may appreciate but certainly brings endless problems when you don't have much experience with a system and need to learn from the book.

In other words, these games were likely playtested by people who were familiar with wargames, instead of given to newbies to see how understandable they were.

Modern D&D is much more complex (and even verbose and repetitive at times) but often better explained. And, to be honest, I don't think you can get "minimalist points" by omission and incompletion. If the book needs a "good GM" to work, it is not a great book, as most GMs are average by definition (or, at the very least, the book cannot take much credit for the rules if the GM has to create most of them).

Anyway, I keep looking for my ideal D&D - say, something as simple as B/X but as clear as modern D&D. This, I hope, is one step in that direction.

Single roll combat (and more minimalist mass combat)

I nearly finished a document of about ten pages on mass combat in OSR systems. 

My idea, as I had already discussed a few times, was not to introduce a new/alternate system (Chainmail, Warmachine, etc.) new types of data, replace the d20 with a d6, or rewrite a troop list, but to simply to use the rules/stats as they are written in systems like B/X or AD&D, and extrapolate those rules to cover a much larger group of creatures at once, or to cover a longer period of time. In other words, to try to summarize several rolls into a single one.

I approached this issue through four paths: one versus one, which I thought could simply be ignored; one versus many, allowing powerful characters to attack many weak enemies at once; many versus one, which allows the opposite; and many versus many, which are rules for battles between groups of different sizes against each other.

In the end, I decided to add a small idea about how to resolve any combat with just a single roll. Ultimately, I am concerned that this idea may have made all my other ideas obsolete, since it solves almost any situation. The only caveat is that the combats must be between creatures of approximate power. If you avoid absurd situations like a thousand versus one, it should work in situations up to fifty versus twenty, one versus ten, and so on.

Here are some ideas that might give you the gist of it. And maybe this is already enough that the doc is not needed... But let me know if it sounds interesting.

---

The margin of success

When you make an attack roll, subtract the target number from your result. That difference — positive or negative — is your margin, and it is added directly to damage on a hit. Optionally, a miss works the same way in reverse: a near-miss deals reduced damage rather than nothing, meaning every roll moves the fight forward.

A fighter needs a 10 to hit and rolls a 14. Margin: +4. His sword deals 1d8 — say he rolls a 5 — for a total of 9 damage. If he had rolled a 7 instead, missing by 3, the optional rule gives him 1d8 minus 3 — perhaps 2 damage — a glancing blow that still counts.

The group attack bonus

Ten bandits attacking a single knight roll once, with a +10 bonus, and deal one die of damage plus the margin. No rolling ten separate attacks. One roll, one result.

Conversely, the knight can attack all ten in a single attack with a -10 penalty. If he hits, he damages ALL ten bandits at once (10 is the hard limit; the knight cannot attack 100 at once).

The bandits need a 12 to hit the knight and roll a 9, adjusted to 19 with their +10 bonus. Margin: +7. They deal 1d8+7. The knight is not struck ten times; he is overwhelmed by a sustained press whose worst moment is captured in that single roll.

The knight strikes back. He needs an 8 to hit a bandit and rolls a 14, but with a -10 penalty that becomes a 4. A miss. The bandits' formation holds for now. Next round he rolls an 18, adjusted to 8. He hits, margin 0, deals 1d8 damage with his sword. If the bandits only had 4 HP each and he rolls 5 damage, he might have cut down all ten at once.

Groups of different sizes

When two groups of different sizes fight each other, the larger group gets a bonus and the smaller group gets a penalty, equal to the difference in size. Seven bandits against five knights: the bandits attack with +2, the knights with -2.

In some cases the groups can be reduced to a common denominator. Six bandits against four knights can be treated as three bandits against two knights, keeping the same proportions with fewer units to track. Twelve against eight becomes three against two. This is purely a matter of convenience — the math is identical either way.

The single roll method (optional)

Both sides roll one attack each, simultaneously. Apply the margin to average damage. Compare remaining HP. The side with more left wins; the loser drops to zero; the winner keeps only their remainder. Two rolls, a subtraction, a comparison, done.

Two ogres, 19 HP each, average damage 6, needing a 10 to hit. Ogre A rolls 16, margin +6, deals 12 damage, leaving Ogre B with 7 HP. Ogre B rolls 9, margin -1, deals 5 damage, leaving Ogre A with 14 HP. Ogre A wins. Subtract: 14 minus 7 = 7 HP remaining. Bloodied but standing.

---

Obviously this is intended for NPC fights and mass combat, mostly. Most players do not want their PCs to be killed in a single roll, and that can absolutely happen here. But it can be used in a limited way even for PCs: if your fighter is attacked by a mob of goblins that could never realistically kill him, a single roll quickly tells you how much damage he sustains before cutting through them, and everyone moves on.

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.

Old school swarms/minions (B/X, OSE, AD&D, etc.)

I started playing with these tables in the context of mass combat ideas, but it might be a good way to avoid handfuls of dice when your 8th-level party is fighting a horde of goblins or orcs (or any 1HD creatures that deal 1d6 damage, basically, but see special cases below) - a situation that happened several times in my current campaign.

Instead of rolling each attack separately, just roll damage, using the table below. 

It’s up to the GM to decide (or check the book to see) how many creatures can attack a single PC at once — in melee, this number might be limited to 6 or 8, but archers could potentially be much worse.

I originally wrote this for B/X (unarmored AC = 9 means you have 55% chance to-hit), but see special cases below

The averages are very close to the original, with few outliers. This is most useful and precise when you are fighting many creatures - if there are only 2 or 3 foes, go back to the original D&D system of rolling 1d20 to-hit, then maybe damage, etc.

Example: five goblins attack your AC 3 fighter - just roll 1d6+1 damage. If they attack your AC 6 thief in the next round, the damage is 2d6 instead. 

If 15 goblin archers aim at your AC 6 mage, they deal 6d6 damage!

Special cases

AD&D. Use the AD&D line.

Ascending AC [for B/X, OSE]. Use the AAC line.

Other systems. If your system is similar but the AC numbers are different (e.g. LotFP, BFRPG), you can use the AAC line as "number needed on the d20". For example, if you need 15 or more to hit, check the 15 on the table.

Creatures with different damage. Creatures that cause 1d6-1 or 1d6+1 damage add a bonus/penalty per dice. So 6d6 becomes 6d6+6, for example. Treat 1d4 as 1d6-1 and 1d8 as 1d6+1.

Creatures with different HD. You can use the AAC line with the number needed to hit. For example, a 2+1 HD creature in B/X hits AC 0 on a 17 or more. The easiest way to do that without THAC0 or other tables is just adding 1 to AC for each HD after the first one (remember that 1+1 HD counts as 2 etc.). In other words, a creature with 3 HD attacks AC 0 as if it was AC 3, and AC 6 as if it was 9.

Damaging hordes. This system only deals with the damage that hordes deal, not what they take; we'll leave that for another day, but the fighters would at the very least deserve some kind of "cleaving" power.

HOWEVER. If you give fighters one attack per level against 1 HD creatures (like OD&D), you could use this table for them too! Just substitute the number of creatures for the fighter's level. So a 8th-level fighter attacking AC 6 goblins deals 3d6+1 damage if using an 1d6 weapon; if his damage is 1d8+1, it becomes 3d8+4 instead. No d20 needed.

Creatures with more than 3 HD, 2d8 damage, special powers, etc. This system is for simple creatures that can be treated as swarms. Anything more complex than that defeats the purpose. While in theory you can run swarms of ogres with a similar method, I prefer to keep this system for goblins, orcs, kobolds, cave man, ordinary humans, wolves, and similar creatures.

Memorizing this table. Is easy to memorize that a  group of twenty 1 HD creatures, with 1d6 damage each, deal 2d6 damage per round against AC 0. Just add 1d6 for AC 1, 2d6 for AC 2, 3d6 for AC 3, etc. If there are fewer than twenty creatures, I can usually do a rough estimation on my head without a table - try it and see which method you prefer. 

For example, AC 5 results in 7d6 (2d6+5d6) for 20 creatures, so 6 creatures would deal a little less than one third of that (I'd guess 2d6 or 2d6+1).

20:1 mass combat in practice

Here is one huge simplification of old school D&D combat. I’ve written about this before, and I’m sorry if I end up repeating myself.

[Also, I got a bit carried away in this post, so it might sound rambly... you've been warned! ;) ]

Assuming most creatures have 1 HD, deal 1d6 damage, and hit AC 0 only on a 20, each 20 creatures deal 1d6 damage per round against AC 0 on average. So, we could say that unit damage is 1d6 for a unit of 20 creatures.

[In a game like B/X, where you hit AC 0 on a 19–20, the average damage is 2d6 instead of 1d6.]

However, for each point of the target’s AC, 1d6 is added to damage. So, a unit of 20 archers deals 1d6 damage to a unit of 20 bandits, plus 5d6 if the bandits’ AC is 5, or 7d6 if it is 7, etc. Likewise, if your damage is 1d8, then you start with 1d8 and add 1d8 for each point of AC (you can use 1d6+1 if you don’t have many d8s). 

All very intuitive.

You don’t have to roll to hit—just roll damage. Each roll of 4 or more removes one creature from the opposing unit. Rolls of 1–3 can be added together to remove more creatures.

The “remnants” of each wounded unit are immediately added together into new units if they succeed at whatever morale check you deem necessary. This is an abstraction.

So you can easily run, say, a clan of 60 dwarves attacking a lair with 100 bandits with just a few rolls. Shall we try?

Let’s say the bandits have the initiative. The dwarves have AC 4; so each 20 bandits deal 1d6 plus 4d6 damage, a total of 25d6 for 100 bandits. We roll 25d6* and get:

6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1

[Notice that we could roll each unit separately for more detail; for example, maybe one unit breaks and the other does not, etc.].

16 dwarves are killed immediately from the 6s, 5s and 4s, plus four deaths by adding the rest (3+1, 3+1, 2+2, 2+2; the last 2 is discarded].

20 deaths is very convenient, otherwise we'd have to discuss what to do with units of 17 etc.

But for now, 40 dwarves remain. They pass their morale check and attack. Their damage is 1d8 according to B/X, and the bandits AC is 6. This means 1d8+6d8 for each 20 dwarves, for a total of 14d8:

8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1

Only 10 kills! 90 bandits remain. By this time, it is obvious that the dwarves, having smaller numbers and having lost initiative, are nearly doomed.

If we attack with only 80 bandits next, we'd roll 20d6:

6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1

Another 16 dwarves are dead. Now we have 24 dwarves against 90 bandits. Let's "put aside" 4 dwarves and 10 bandits and continue with 80x20. Twenty desperate dwarves attack (7d8):

8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2

Six bandits killed. 84 left, 80 will attack again:

6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1

16 dwarves killed, only 8 remain.

By this point, you can decide the dwarves are defeated, captured, or routed. You can easy estimate the losses on the bandit's side (about 20%). 

---

And this was not much slower than an usual D&D combat of say, 4 PCs against a dozen goblins. 

This is exactly the goal: you can insert your PCs in this battle, and they could even turn of the tide of the battle.

Assuming the PCs are fighting against bandits, a cleric could cast bless and add 1d8 damage to an unit of 20 dwarves. A mage could fireball 20 bandits in the first turn.

A fighter could kill multiple bandits, although we probably need special rules for that: like in OD&D, maybe give him one attack per level, so a strong level 6 fighter can kill maybe 2-4 bandits per round.

Is this enough to change the tide of battle? Let's try adding a party of three level 6 PCs.

---

The bandits attack first, reducing the dwarves from 60 to 40. A fireball reduces the bandits from 100 to 80, and the fighter reduces them to 77. The 40 dwarves, 20 being blessed, roll 15d8 to attack:

8, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1

68 bandits remain. Since we get 5d6 for each 20 bandits, lets roll 17d6 for the 68. Here the GM is averaging and abstracting a bit.

6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2

About 27 dwarves are left. Let's roll 10d8, assuming a few of them are still blessed. Again, the DM is averaging and trying to get to the right ballpark:

8, 8, 7, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Bandits are reduced to 61. Fighter kills 3, MU kills other 2 with magic missiles, cleric blesses again. Now there are 56 bandits, but let's add a twist: 20 bandits attack the fighter. The fighter's AC is 2, so he takes 3d6 damage. 36 attack the dwarves: let's roll 8d6.

6, 6, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1

21 dwarves are left. Roll 8d8 since most are blessed:

8, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2.

49 bandits left, soon reduced to 42 by the PCs. Roll 10d6 against dwarves:

6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1

14 dwarves left. Roll 5d8:

8, 7, 6, 4, 2

38 bandits left. 20 bandits attack dwarves (5d6) and 18 attack the AC 2 fighter (3d6 or, let's say, 3d6-1). And AD&D fighter is likely to be severely wounded at this point but alive:

6, 5, 4, 2, 1

Only 11 dwarves left, the fighter is severely wounded and the MU out of good spells (of course, if I gave him TWO fireballs they might have won). 

The battle is nearly lost but I want to see it to the bitter end. Let's go!

Dwarves (8, 7, 5, 3) kill 3 bandits. Fighter and mage kill 4 more. Cleric heals fighter. 

31 bandits are left, but now 20 of them decide to attack the cleric. With AC 3, the cleric takes 4d6 damage. Ouch! 11 bandits (6, 4, 2) kill 2 dwarves.

9 dwarves (8, 6, 5, 2) kill 3 bandits. 28 left, reduced to 24 by the desperate PCs. They attack the remaining dwarves, rolling 6d6 (6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 1). 

Only 5 dwarves left, they attack (7, 3) and kill one bandit. the PCs also attack; 19 bandits are left, and they'll finish the dwarves (6, 5, 4, 3, 2). A single dwarf is left.

Now there are 3 PCs and one dwarf against 19 bandits. They manage to reduce them to 15. The fighter, slightly healed by the Cleric, takes 2d6 damage and barely survives. The GM decides the last dwarf falls killing one bandit, and the PCs also attack to reduce the bandits to 10.

The cleric takes 2d6 damage. Bandits are reduced to 7. Fighter takes 1d6 damage, and falls. 5 bandits against cleric and MU. There are two few combatants to keep using 20:1, and at this point I'm guesstimating. Could go either way, but it seems PCs are doomed.

---

So, 3 PCs were not enough to win this battle decisively. An additional warrior (or just another fireball) would certainly change things.

Still, the PCs made a significant difference. Instead of 80 bandits, now only a few will remain. In practice, repeated morale rolls (that I skipped) could win the day for the PCs.

Took me a bit more than an hour to write this and took some abstractions, rulings, etc. Seems that dwarves had little chance, even with better armor and weapons, after losing initiative. Even with the PCs, it was basically 100 HDs against 78, and the loss of initiative was a huge big deal.

It was a fun exercise, but probably would be more fun in an actual table with friends. Definitely deserves a few tweaks. I need to give it a try...

Mass combat: broken units

I had a brief mass combat idea that solved most of the issues I had with PCs fighting a few dozen goblins at once.

This assumes there are only a few (say, one to ten) fighters in one side, and several (say, ten to a hundred) in the other.

We already have the usual combat rules for smaller combats, when there is fewer than a dozen foes on either side.

In addition, if you have 60 knights against 150 orcs, you can just treat it almost like a fight of 6 knights against 15 orcs, adapting as needed.

But when you mix everything together, you might have a small issue - still easily fixable.

Say you have four individual PCs, plus 60 knights against 150 orcs. Ten orcs can attack ten knights with a single roll (treat this as one or against one knight); the knights either die or don't.

Ten orcs can attack a single PC instead, with a +10 bonus.

The problem is if the PCs attack a group of ten orcs. Usually, they can only kill one or two (which might break morale and thus the whole unit, but that is another matter). Let's say they are reduced to nine orcs.

Now they can attack the PCs with a +9 instead of +10 bonus—all very intuitive.

But what if nine orcs decide to attack ten knights?

Simply give them a -1 bonus due to the difference between nine and ten, and give the knights a +1 bonus when attacking them.

But let's say we get into a more difficult situation: there are just four orcs, fighting to the death, against ten knights in plate.

They'd attack with -6, making a hit impossible. Instead, they could choose to make an attack against a single knight, now with +4. Now it is more likely that they'd kill at least one before being wiped out by the remaining knights.

Another option, maybe even easier, is saying that the 4 orcs can attack 4 knights - no bonuses or penalties. Treat this as one orc attacking one knight. Either the ten knights are reduced to six, or remain unharmed [this works somewhat similarly to the game Risk].

Conversely, if 7 knights attack 3 orcs, treat this as a single knight, attacking a single orc, with a +4 bonus. If that single orc is slain, it means all three orcs were defeated.

This system looks a bit complicated until I organize it, but it is very intuitive to me, and the results are not terribly far from the what you'd get but making each single attack separately - or at least close enough for my taste.

My goal, here, is never having to keep track of "minor NPC" HP, and never needing another set of rules - just roll 1d20, consider THAC0 and AC, use damage as written, etc. No need to convert to d6s, roll handfuls of d20s, and so on.

[BTW, if you own handfuls of d20 and d10s, you can easily use them as pawns, altering the digits as the units dwindle - for example, a d20 on 7 means 7 knights, and a d10 on 3 means 3 orcs. But you can also use any chips or counters, including the ones from Risk].

Now I want to playtest this. Looks promising.

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.

Old school dice pools

So, I just had a fast combat/mass combat idea for D&D, probably from  Chainmail or Delta's blog:

Roll 1d6/level for fighters, half as much for clerics, 1/3 for MUs.

1 misses, 2-5 hit/miss depending on AC, 6 always hits. 

Monsters only need one hit per HD and we don't even need d20s. 

The idea is making combat against dozens of opponents a bit quicker.

But come to think of it, it could be pushed into an entire system. Let's see.

Duels

Two 9-HD fighters facing off would each roll 9d6 and cause an average of 3 hits per round (assuming they hit on a 5-6), so combat would be a bit quicker than, say, B/X.

Ranged combat

Both in real life and D&D, ranged combat is not usually as efficient as mêlée combat. Maybe adding 1 or 2 to AC is enough. To avoid treating an archer like a machine gun, you can rule "missed" shots are time spent in aiming, drawing, etc., and only "hits" or 1s waste arrows.

Against a single target, maybe all damage comes from a carefully aimed single arrow; so a very powerful fighter with a magic arrow could kill a dragon immediately, but this is very rare.

Weapons

Certainly there is some nuance lost here. Let's assume everyone is using a single-handed weapon. 2H weapons might add a dice, while maces may remove a point of AC, etc.

Turn Undead

Cleric rolls 2d6/level. 

Rolling 2-5 turns one HD of undead, 6 damages them. You can alter these numbers to make the cleric more or less powerful, or maybe make turn undead a spell (see below).

Spells

Casters have 2d6/level "magic dice" per day. 

When casting a fireball, it works identically as a fighter's attack, but any 6s you roll are removed from your pool until the next rest. 

(I think I got this idea from Necropraxis).

This fixes a number of fireball problems I usually have.

Same works for curing wounds.

But what about spells that deal no damage? Maybe we could still keep the "roll to cast" and "magic dice" aspects. a 4-6 counts as a success; a 1st level spell requires only one success to function, etc.

You can use several dice to cast a 1st level spell, so you can be sure it succeeds in the first try, but that way you'll also roll more 6s and spend more dice.

Skills

Let's use "hear noise" as an example. Non-thieves have 1-in-6 chances, thieves start with 2-in-6.

So let's say a normal PC rolls 1d6, but a thief adds 1d6/level. Rolling a single 6 means success, so the thief start with 30.5% chance. By level 10, he rolls 11d6, with a 85% chance of success. He won't get to 99% until level 19-20 or so, which is nice, so there is always some chance of failure.

Maybe multiple 6s mean extraordinary success, and rolling all 1s means disaster (e.g., falling from a climb or getting caught in a trap).

Backstabbing is easy; a thief simply attacks as a fighter while backstabbing, and maybe lowers the AC by one if you want them to be really deadly.

Saves

Saves can work similarly to skills. Everyone gets 1d6 plus 1d6/level. 

Notice that the progression from 30% to 85% between level 1 and 10 is quite fitting. You can give fighters, dwarves, paladins etc. an extra die or two.

You do not usually "save" against damage; treat this like an attack against AC (see below).

HP

There is no more HP, only "hits". To make things a bit softer, I'd give each PC one hit PLUS level for fighters, level/2 for clerics etc.

Maybe you could do the same for monsters so that a 1 HD monster has 2 hits and so on. 

AC

AC now is 2 (unarmored) to 6 (plate+shield). 

If you want magic armor etc. you could go even higher, but then you'd need special rules. For example, each time you roll a 6 you can roll again and add 5 to get a result from 6 to 11.

In conclusion...

Well, if you like dice pools, you can see that you might was well play old school D&D with them and a little conversion. But you'd lose some nuance in ability scores, weapons, etc. Maybe just sticking to the d20 is easier.

Still, we have some nifty systems for mass combat, and maybe skills, spells and saves, to experiment with.