Currency, precious metals, taxes, and training

I'm currently writing the equipment section for my "minimalist OSR" game. I've recently gone back to XP per gold spent. Hopefully, that will encourage PCs to donate to church, sleep indoors, carouse, or whatever is appropriate to their alignment and personality. But that's a whole other discussion.

What I want to talk about today is precious metals, and specifically a problem I keep coming back to: gold's value is severely degraded in D&D. On one hand, I want to be more or less faithful to the original rules. On the other, I like to maintain at least a minimum of internal coherence, and I can't shake my discomfort with the idea of any common weapon being worth almost its weight in gold (or, in the case of a bow, more than its weight in gold). At that point, gold is too heavy to even be considered a viable currency, and copper starts to feel less like medieval coinage and more like the Weimar Republic, with people hauling wheelbarrows of coins just to buy bread.

I've heard various explanations for this, the most common being a kind of gold rush that inflates prices across the board, so a sword ends up costing ten to a hundred times more than it would in actual history. Then there's the coin size problem: ten coins weigh about a pound, which is absurdly impractical (in my current system I am considering 100 coins to weight about a couple of pounds, which improves things somewhat).

The other issue is player wealth. If characters earn more than half their XP from gold, a fighter reaching level six might already be sitting on 10,000 gp or more. He can essentially buy every piece of available equipment (and wagons to carry it, with horses to pull it...), even at inflated prices, and hire several retainers on top of that (which isn't necessarily bad). The problem is that my players, specifically, start treating wealth accumulation as the point of the game. They stop spending, the pressure to go out and find more treasure starts to feel increasingly artificial and forced, and the whole economy becomes more and more implausible, even if the adventures keep coming.

There are several standard fixes for this. Many people suggest draining gold through taxes, maintenance fees, making PCs targets for bandits, or (as AD&D recommends) requiring them to pay for training to level up. 

None of that appeals to me. I can hardly imagine Conan or Elric paying for a trainer (although they must have been trained according to their culture in status in the past). And my players, being perfectly rational (and I mean this is a fantasy, setting, of course...), will dodge every tax and respond to any tax collector with disproportionate violence. Worse, constantly handing out gold just to take it back makes me spend even more time focused on wealth, which is the opposite of what I want.

Then I read some Gorgon's Grimoire posts about the subject (like this), and an idea clicked into place; one that solves several of these problems at once, by letting the things I dislike cancel each other out.

Here's how it works: imagine that the legitimate local currency is whatever is stamped with the official seal of the local lord or empire (as suggested in conversation by Gorgon's Grimoire - thank you!). The coins the PCs pull out of dungeons are "frontier" coins; recovered from lost empires or inimical creatures, unregulated, unofficial, not recognized within current civilization. Any merchant who accepts them still has to exchange them for official currency before they can use them to buy anything inside the normal economy, which means they'll charge a heavy premium to cover that conversion cost.

This explains inflated prices without requiring an extreme gold rush. It's not only that goods are (notably) more expensive, it's that the PCs' money is worth less because of what it is and where it came from. They can't be bothered paying taxes or regularizing their hoard, and the prices they pay reflect that. Some merchants might try to smuggle the coins or find workarounds, but that's not the PCs' problem. Most will simply take the treasure to the appropriate authorities, pay the conversion fees, and pass the cost along.

It's a solution that feels organic rather than punitive, and it actually fits the fiction.

Of course, the occasional tyrannical ruler might start thinking the PCs are still not paying enough taxes, and some criminal guilds might consider a heist followed by forgery to make the coins legit... but then again, only occasionally. Money is not the main focus of the PCs or the game.

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

Smash the ability scores

The "Smash" maneuver from the Rules Cyclopedia has always intrigued me, not only because it's one of those small idiosyncrasies of that book absent from other versions of D&D, but also because it's one of the rare cases outside roll-under situations where the attribute is used in full, point by point, rather than just a modifier.

It goes like this:

Smash
This is a Fighter Combat Option maneuver, first available at 9th level to fighters and mystics, and at other experience point totals to demihumans (see their experience tables). With this hand-to-hand maneuver, the character automatically loses initiative and takes a - 5 penalty to the attack roll (he still gets his Strength and magic adjustments to his attack roll). 
If attack hits, the character adds his Strength bonus, magic bonuses, and his entire Strength score to his weapon's normal damage. 
For example, a Strength 17 fighter ( + 2 to attack and damage) using a sword +2 ( + 2 to attack, 1d8 + 2 damage) would perform a smash this way: He rolls to hit with a net penalty of -1 ( + 2 + 2-5). If he hits, he rolls ld8 + 21 (17+ 2+ 2) for damage!

The smash maneuver is also a solution to various combat situations, but I'll set that aside to focus on the matter of ability checks.

A persistent problem in D&D is that there are few mechanics that interact directly with the full attribute score instead of just the modifier. 

The obvious answer to this dilemma is, well, ability checks. The problem is that good examples of them are nearly absent from published D&D modules. Most are simply Dexterity tests used as if they were saving throws — which, in my view, only adds confusion. The example in Moldvay is climbing a rope, which has the odd consequence of making the thief better at climbing sheer walls than ropes. 

AD&D offers some inspiration for broader uses: though it never says so explicitly, the attribute tables include chances to learn spells and resurrection survival odds — both of which could reasonably be framed as ability checks. Strength checks have a few obvious uses — for example, open doors, which unfortunately is treated under a different mechanics, with similar results.

None of this helps much with the harder problem: finding situations that naturally call for a Wisdom or Charisma check.

Using ability checks with skills, non-weapon proficiencies, etc. seems to be a good solution. In a game like AD&D, where abilities average 12.2, it might be as simple as giving a −10 penalty to anyone untrained (minimum 1), and adding level if trained. 

So a thief with Dex 14 might start with a skill of 5, so 25% chance of success (14+1−10), reaching 90% by level 14. A warrior with the same Dex might have only 4 for all his career - and the GM might decide certain tasks are impossible for the untrained.

It doesn't matter whether you prefer roll-high or roll-low. You simply add this to a 1d20 and try to meet or beat 20 (gaining an extra 5% chance in the process, which is a good tradeoff in my opinion). So our thief would go from 30% to 95% over the course of his career.

[I'm more inclined to go roll low, but since the math is the same I'll probably ask around to see what people prefer.]

That's probably what I'll go with, because it's a lot simpler than the idea that got me writing this in the first place.

I was thinking of keeping the modifier as the standard for skills, but allowing certain situations to let you add the entire ability score instead. What would be the equivalent of Smash for other abilities? Anything done slowly could fit... maybe it could be the old-school equivalent of "taking 10":

Taking Your Time

When the character is not in a rush and is not being threatened or distracted, they may add their entire ability score — rather than just the modifier — to the check.

This brings to mind Siegfried using his prodigious strength to forge a sword despite little blacksmithing training. And it still leaves some chance of success and failure.

Another idea: allow a natural 20 to trigger a "roll again, adding the entire ability score" — letting PCs accomplish nearly impossible tasks if they're talented enough.

I may develop these further down the line, but for now I think I've found my next skill system.

BTW, I'm working on my "Old School Minimalist" again, and this time I think I'll go all the way and publish a 20-30 page PDF, after I share the whole thing here.

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.

The fireball hand grenade

You might have heard me complain about fireballs a couple of times, so I hope you'll forgive me for trying a new fix to a problem some of you might share. The fix is really simple and does not significantly nerf MUs (in fact, I'm not sure it is enough).

Usually, when an MU throws a fireball at a group of goblins, things like saves and damage rarely matter - goblins within blast radius are toast. Which is fine, but it gets weirder and weirder to me when the MU can instantly kill a group of orcs, lizard men or even bugbears.

What if we just roll damage as usual (say, 7d6 for a 7th-level MU), but that is the TOTAL damage dealt. So, against a group of goblins, a weak damage roll (say, 20 points) and a successful save would reduce the number of goblin casualties to only two or three.

The damage is distributed as the GM sees appropriate - think of the fireball like a hand grenade! Most of the damage hits the center, shrapnel spreads outward.

This logic seems to work for groups. Against a single creature, the fireball remains equally effective. If you want to change that, you can just decide that, like a grenade, the main target gets most of the damage but a part of it (say, half of the damage, round down) is spread around.

Lightning bolt could function similarly, but maybe I'd let the MU concentrate all damage into a single creature or create a "line" of damage that diminishes as each creature is hit in a straight line. This spells has not been as common in my games, however. I'm even tempted to treat dragon breath in similar way (well, as a flamethrower) and let fighters jump with their shields in front of wizards when needed.

Anyway, I like this idea because it makes a 10d6 fireball very different from a 5d6 fireball against a group of lesser foes, which gives the wizard a real sense of progression without making him overpowered in comparison to fighters. Thinking of them as grenades makes them feel more grounded and tactically interesting, giving MUs interesting choices of where to aim - and it is also reminiscent of the original Chainmail origins that treated wizards like artillery.

Maximum Damage

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

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

This has several benefits before we get any deeper:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Affiliate link.

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...