A few columns ago, I talked about the tendency to house rule older editions of D&D, and the tendency for people to (perhaps unintentionally) house rule out the things that make the game special. Since then, I've been playing with house rules and changes that could be made without changing (what I consider to be) the “essential” elements of D&D:

• The first-level meat grinder
• Dungeoneering (including the wilderness treks that often go along with it)
• Importance of player skill
• The necessity of PC's working in groups
• Experience points come from finding treasure more than from killing
• Focus on exploration and heist more than “kill them and take their stuff”
• Not an epic, world-saving adventure, but a grittier, low-fantasy game
• Unfair, unbalanced, unpredictable (luck matters)
• The PC's have to be cautious, even at higher levels.

Let me repeat what I said before: These aren't necessarily “needed” changes so much as customizations a group might want in order to make the game suit their temperaments and preferences a little better.

D&D isn't broken, and it doesn't need to be fixed. But let's face it, a lot of us are game designers and rules-fiddlers at heart, and we're going to change something. This series is about making those changes without breaking the game's heart.

Last column, I talked about fighters, and some ways to give them a few more tactical options. I've sort of moved on to gear this month, with an emphasis on weapons.

But before I get there, let me mention one idea I heard of (I can't recall where; possibly multiple places) for increasing the one-on-one power of fighters:

Have them fight like monsters.

In Red Box D&D and OD&D, monsters have a THAC0 of 19 minus their Hit Dice, so a 1 HD orc has a THAC0 of 18. Fighters don't get a THAC0 of 18 until 4th level. Both use the same size Hit Dice.

So in theory, a 1st level fighter is a significantly worse fighter than a 1 HD orc. Second and Third level fighters aren't any better, except that they have more hit points. In practice, teamwork, strength bonuses, and better armor usually even things up, but it seems a little odd to me that fighters always lag so far behind the monsters in actual ability to fight.

If fighters got a THAC0 equal to 19 minus their level, they'd hit a lot more often, even against much tougher foes. Sure, they'd never throw a 10d6 fireball and incinerate a room full of trolls, and they still couldn't hit a creature that can only be affected by magic (unless they have the proper magical weapon), but at least they'd rarely miss. It would make them closer to being equal to a wizard or cleric at mid to high levels.

On to Equipment:

Case One: Weighty Reading

I never understood how a magic user who knows one spell has to carry around a book that weighs more than the party's halfling. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but the book is ridiculously heavy and bulky, and is (at least at game's start) filled with blank pages. Surely the mage could carry around a smaller book that might hold only a few spells?

I'd honestly allow a wizard to keep a traveling book that's a specially made map case, about as large and heavy as a torch, with up to three spells rolled up in it in loose leaf form. That would hold most magic-users up until third level.

I just can't see the point of carrying that massive book into a dungeon, or of requiring a mage who knows one spell to have a massive tome full of blank pages. Well, actually, I can. The point is to give the mage a heavy, useless thing she had to carry so she couldn't carry much more loot out than the heavily-armored fighter … and to weigh her down so she couldn't move as swiftly or easily as the party's thief. So I guess I can see the point. I just don't agree with it.

Low-level mages have precious little to do other than wait for the right time to throw their one spell. I'm all for giving them secondary abilities. Heck, I'd consider giving them some of the traditional thief abilities, like detecting traps, picking locks, ventriloquism, etc., just to give them more to do.

To compensate the thief class, I'd increase its hit die and the percent chances of doing almost everything.

Case Two: Making Weapon Choice a Tactical Choice

In “three books only” White Box OD&D, the weapons all do the same damage, though this was changed in some of the later books/expansions. I've seen a few options on the internet for easily changing this, most of which involve dividing weapons into three categories: small, medium, and large, and applying a damage bonus to large (two handed) weapons and a penalty to damage for small (knife, club, etc.) weapons.

Red Box D&D has different damages for a different weapons, with blunt weapons (clerics' weapons) doing, on average, 1 point less damage than edged weapons of the same general size. But otherwise, there wasn't much reason to choose one weapon over another that did the same damage.

In this section, I'm trying to differentiate between weapons that do the same average damage. The way to do these is usually to have one weapon have a wider range (1d10, for example), with a lower minimum and a higher maximum, and have the other have a narrower range (1d6+2, for example), with a higher minimum and a lower maximum, even though they both average 5.5 damage per roll.

In this case, the sword family has the wider range, while the ax family has the narrower range. You could easily reverse that, if you wanted. Blunt weapons (clerics' weapons) are less damaging, as per D&D tradition.

Small weapons, average 3.5 damage:

• Short Sword 1d6
• Hatchet 1d4+1 (can be thrown)
• Club 1d4 (only averages 2.5. blunt weapon)
• Hurlbat 1d4 (metal club designed for throwing. Only averages 2.5. Blunt weapon)

Medium weapons, average 4.5 damage:

• Arming (Long) Sword 1d8
• Falchion 1d4+2
• Battle Axe 1d6+1
• Flanged Mace/War Hammer 1d6 (only averages 3.5. blunt weapon)
• Spear (used with 1H) 1d6 (can be thrown for 1d8, can strike from the second rank if used with 2H)

Large weapons, require both hands to use, average 5.5 damage:

• Great Sword 1d10
• Halberd 1d8+1
• Great Axe 1d6+2
• Iron-Shod Great Club* 1d6+1 (only averages 4.5. blunt weapon)
• Lucern Hammer 1d8 (only averages 4.5. blunt weapon)
• Quarterstaff 1d6 (only averages 3.5, but it's just a wooden staff)
• Spear (used with 2H) 1d8 (can be thrown for 1d8, can strike from the second rank is used with 2H)

*I know this is traditionally a Japanese weapon, but it was used in medieval Russia, as well, so there is a European precedent. Not that that matters too much for D&D.

Daggers still do 1d4. Slings and arrows are unchanged.

This give characters a choice: higher minimum (better for facing weaker foes) or higher maximum? Should they use a spear, and trade damage for reach?

If you expand the list of weapons that reach to the second rank to include pole arms, you could then allow other two-handed weapons to do other things. One possibility would be “holding” (blocking enemies from passing through the PCs' forward “line”) a wider area, maybe 10' across rather than 5', or 6' instead of 3', or two squares as opposed to one. This could be very useful, since the fighters could occupy twice as wide a corridor, and prevent monsters from getting back to the vulnerable spellcasters.

This would end up nerfing spears a little, but that's okay. They're still good cheap weapons for hirelings and followers, and they can be thrown. They'll still get used.

Case Three: Two Handed Weapon, Weapon and Shield, or Two Weapons?

You can even extend this to the question of whether to use a two-handed weapon, two weapons, or a weapon and a shield.

Large weapons that require two hands do, on average 1 extra damage per hit, and may be able to strike from the second rank. That's their bonus.

Note: two-handed weapons should NEVER have an initiative penalty unless the user is in a cramped space that prevents full use. Anybody who's even read a book about medieval and renaissance combat knows that one of the main advantages of a two-handed weapon was the ability to hit first by keeping the opponent at bay. Initiative penalties (like Dungeon Crawl Classics' -4 for two-handed weapons) effectively say it's easier to slip past a spear and stab the wielder with a dagger than it is to just stab with the spear. Thousands of years of history say the opposite, and I don't really care how much time the game's authors have spent playing with foam-wrapped “boffers.”

Using a weapon and a shield gives +1 Armor Class, as per every edition of D&D ever. That's its bonus.

Using two weapons has always been a bit of a gray area. I've heard a number of ideas, including one that gives a +1 to hit only on rounds in which the PCs' win initiative (Swords and Wizardry, I believe). That sounds more complicated than I want to deal with, but I understand the instinct to avoid giving a flat +1 to hit.

I understand the instinct to think of +1 to hit as being more effective than +1 damage, but it really isn't.

I ran the numbers through Libre Office Calc, using 1d6 (3.5 average) as the base damage, and comparing the average damage per attack with no bonus, and I found that the to-hit bonus leads to more average damage per attempt if the attacker needs a roll of 18, 19, or 20 to hit the defender. The two are virtually identical if the attacker needs a 17 to hit. The damage bonus is more effective if the attacker needs a 16 or less to hit. I ran it with 1d8 and 1d10 and came to the same conclusion. The two bonuses are different, but effectively equal.

So there's no reason to think that giving a blanket +1 To Hit for using two one-handed weapons is going to break the game. It just gives fighters another option. And it's a lot simpler than trying to allow an extra attack every two turns, at a penalty, under certain circumstances, etc.

Well, that's all I've got for now. I'm having fun brainstorming customizations and changes that keep the essential core of D&D intact. None of these are needed, or would be considered an improvement for all groups. These aren't fixes, because classic D&D isn't broken. It doesn't need a new engine, but it is fun to play with the rims and paint job.