Last Column I talked about some basic changes to older editions of D&D that don't the things that make it old-school D&D. As I said last column, “These aren't necessarily “needed” changes so much as customizations that a group might want in order to make the game suit their temperaments and preferences a little better.” I want to repeat this: D&D isn't broken. These aren't fixes. They're ideas for modifications or customizations.

This column I'll talk about making some similar changes with the aim of increasing the tactical choices available to players, especially players of Fighters. Sometimes you hear complaints that fighters lack the tactical choices of mages and clerics. At first level, mages constantly wonder “do I use my one spell now, or will I need it more later?” Later, they have to figure out when to use which spell. Clerics are similar. Thieves can try to backstab or just hide and stay out of trouble.

Fighters can feel a little rote or automatic sometimes, though that doesn't always happen. If you have inventive players and a cooperative DM, Fighters can improvise gambits and terrain maneuvers all over the place. This could be described as using rulings, not rules, in combat.

I first saw these described in “A Quick Primer for Old-School Gaming” by Matthew J. Finch of Swords & Wizardry fame, on page 5, “The Ninja Jump (Old Style),” and throughout the GM's section of that same article. I really wish my players and I had understood this way back when we were kids playing Red Box D&D. We'd have had more fun.

Essentially, since early D&D left so much up to GM Rulings, rather than looking things up in rulebooks, there wasn't any reason to invent long lists of combat maneuvers. If a player wanted her character to try something out of the ordinary, the GM assigned odds and the player rolled for it.

In Finch's example, a fighter leaps off a ledge to attack an opponent. If he'd hit, he'd have done double damage. But he missed, so he fell prone, knocked the goblin down, and had to roll to hit against himself to see if he fell on his own sword on the way down.

It wasn't in the book. The player wanted to do something original, so the DM decided what the results of the PC's non-standard action, and they all went with it. The DM's section of the primer has even more ideas.

Here are some gambit ideas, meant only as examples of what could be done, not as the beginnings of an “official feats list” like you have in later edition and other games.

Power attack: Using terrain or a wild charge to do extra damage. Success gives double damage or a set bonus. Failure gives the opponent a free attack against you, possibly with a bonus to hit OR makes you roll to-hit against yourself, to simulate falling on your weapon (DM discretion).

High-Risk attack: Make yourself vulnerable to try to hit a hard-to-hit opponent. You gain a bonus to hit, but the next time that opponent attacks you, the opponent gets the same bonus to hit. Player chooses how much to risk.

Driving opponent back: Success drives the opponent back (maybe 2 feet per damage done?). Failure either gives the opponent a bonus to hit on its next attack or the opportunity to circle around, putting your back against whatever it was you were trying to push them into (DM's choice as to which occurs).

Defensive flurry: if you hit, the opponent has a penalty to hit on its next attack. If you miss, the opponent gets that number as a bonus to hit. Player chooses how much to risk.

These are just a few of the things that can be handled on the fly without an official feats list, although, to be honest, none of the books I read really gave me the sense that this was “to be done.” And I honestly don't know how widely it was observed back in the day. I certainly didn't know about it.

Still, it was possible, and at least some groups were doing it, so specific mechanical options for fighting maneuvers weren't actually necessary. That said, adding a few small tactical choices couldn't hurt.

Duelist or Brute Squad or Shield Wall?

Duelist: This would give fighters the ability to “Lock on” to an opponent, which means the fighter has to keep fighting that opponent until either that opponent is down, the fighter is down, or the group retreats. This would give a bonus to hit and damage against that opponent, possibly +1 at 1^st level, +2 at 5^th, +3 at 10^th, +4 at 15^th, and +5 at 20th.

Brute Squad: This would give fighters the ability to take multiple attacks against weaker opponents. Two options I've seen include giving a fighter a bonus attack immediately upon defeating an opponent and giving fighters multiple attacks against significantly weaker opponents, such as 1 HD monsters, or a combination of the two.

The latter option could come with an escalation to monsters with 2 HD at 5^th level, 3 HD at 10^th level, 4 HD at 15^th level, and 5 HD at 20^th level, meaning that a 20^th level fighter can carve up two or more ogres in a single combat round, hitting each one multiple times until it drops.

Combining the two group-fighting abilities would make mid and high level fighters absolute buzz saws against weaker opponents. It would also go a long way toward evening out fighters and mages in personal power at higher levels.

Shield Wall: the fighter may get an AC bonus on the same scale as the “Lock On” bonus, but only one attack with no bonuses. The real focus is not letting opponents pass him and get to the weaker characters behind him. In this mode, the fighter could “hold” an area twice as wide as he normally could.

Of course, none of this is necessary. In many games, it wouldn't even be advisable. But it is a simple, non-game-breaking way to add a greater level of tactical choice for the fighters. And that's all I've got. See you next month.