I’ve started tinkering with Swords & Wizardry (4th printing), and I’m noticing some areas that are ripe for my special brand of OCD treatment. First up is the to-hit bonuses by class. What struck me is that that the progression (1) is non-linear, (2) doesn’t differentiate class enough for me, and (3) seems too powerful at higher levels.
OCD aside, I’m working from a few assumptions:
- Fighters get the best to-hit bonuses, ever. Because they’re fighters. S&W reflects this, though the non-linear progression doesn’t “feel” right to me.
- By contrast, thieves and magic-users are the worst at fighting, though I’d like to differentiate them and give thieves a bit of an edge.
- Clerics, as fighting crusaders, should be somewhere in between. But given their spell use and undead banishing, I suggest that they should be farther behind fighters than the Core Rules advises.
Taking these factors into account, I submit the following:
| "To-hit" Bonuses by Class | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level | Cleric [1] | Fighter [2] | Magic-user | Thief [3] |
| 1 | +1 | +1 | +0 | +1 |
| 2 | +1 | +1 | +0 | +1 |
| 3 | +1 | +2 | +0 | +1 |
| 4 | +1 | +2 | +0 | +1 |
| 5 | +2 | +3 | +0 | +1 |
| 6 | +2 | +3 | +1 | +2 |
| 7 | +2 | +4 | +1 | +2 |
| 8 | +2 | +4 | +1 | +2 |
| 9 | +3 | +5 | +1 | +2 |
| 10 | +3 | +5 | +1 | +2 |
| 11 | +3 | +6 | +2 | +3 |
| 12 | +3 | +6 | +2 | +3 |
| 13 | +4 | +7 | +2 | +3 |
| 14 | +4 | +7 | +2 | +3 |
| 15 | +4 | +8 | +2 | +3 |
| 16 | +4 | +8 | +3 | +4 |
| 17 | +5 | +9 | +3 | +4 |
| 18 | +5 | +9 | +3 | +4 |
| 19 | +5 | +10 | +3 | +4 |
| 20 | +5 | +10 | +3 | +4 |
|
||||
In summary, fighters get the best to-hit progression: +1 every 2 levels. Clerics are second, with +1 every 4 levels (i.e., they’re half as good when it comes to smiting). Thieves are slightly worse, getting +1 every 5 levels; magic-users fall behind that, also gaining +1 every 5 levels, but unlike the other classes who start 1st-level at +1, they start at +0.
These values are almost universally lower at all levels than suggested in S&W, but I feel better about the standard progression. One thing you’ll note is that clerics and thieves are closely matched at lower levels. I rationalise this by assuming the thief’s physical acumen does for him what the cleric’s limited martial training provides to the cleric. However, at higher levels, the disparity is more pronounced because the thief’s combat practice is less disciplined (and probably deprecated in favour of more intense study of all things stealthy).
Now, those who know me will accurately predict that this tweak is just a precursor to a broader set of house rules. Too true…the table above will dovetail nicely with the combat mods I’m cooking up. Stay tuned for that bit.