Swords & Wizardry Complete: Review

A few days ago, Frog God Games released the Swords & Wizardry Complete Rulebook. While I was initially underwhelmed at the idea of another version of the S&W rules (“who needs more than S&W:CR and S&W:WB?”) I bought the PDF as soon as it was available in Paizo’s store and was so impressed that I subsequently ordered both the soft- and hard-cover rulebooks.

Swords & Wizardry is written to emulate the original Dungeons & Dragons game; whereas WhiteBox emulates the first three books and Core Rules emulates the first three books and “some” of the supplements, the Complete Rulebook attempts to emulate the first three books and all of the supplements. In that respect, it strikes me as something of an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1e “light”, which is supremely cool in my book.

Essentially attributes in the Complete Rulebook remain the same; they’re rolled on 3d6 with a -1 penalty for scores under 9 and a +1 bonus for scores above 12, except for Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma which all have expanded tables. Enhanced Strength bonuses are allowed only for the Fighter class, which is a nice benefit for that class; basically, if you wish to play a Strength 18 Cleric you’re more than welcome to do so, but you’re not going to get that +3 damage modifier.

Classes have been significantly expanded.  The Complete Rulebook includes the Assassin, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Magic-user, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Thief classes.  Races remain largely the same (Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Human) although Dwarves can now be Fighter/Thieves, Elves can be Thieves or Fighter/Magic-user/Thieves, and Halflings can be Thieves in addition to their normal classes. Also, the Half-Elf has been added and they can be Fighter/Magic-users or Fighter/Magic-user/Clerics. Of course, expanded rules covering dual- and multi-classing are included.

Surprisingly, alignment is covered with the three basic choices (Law, Chaos, Neutral) given as options. This, I think, is an improvement as it gives a base-line from which to begin houseruling, as opposed to being told something like, “if you want to use alignment, great… if not, well, that’s great too.”

Equipment and combat remain largely the same, although both have been clarified and explained to much greater detail.  Three different combat sequencing methods are included, as are rules for specific situations which were relegated to the realms of “DM adjudication” in S&W:CR and S&W:WB.

Spell lists go up to Level 9 for Magic-users and Level 7 for Clerics and Druids. The spell lists look to have been expanded but I have not yet had the opportunity to compare the Complete Rulebook spell lists to those of the Core Rules.

The “For the Referee” chapter, however, is where I think that the Complete Rulebook really starts to shine. In this this you’ll find complete and comprehensive sections on designing dungeon and wilderness adventures, siege combat, arial combat, ship combat, monsters, and treasure.  While the monster and treasure sections have been expanded, the sections on designing adventures and special combats are both new and well-written.

Finally, there is the layout and artwork. I must be honest, here, it was the layout and the artwork in the PDF which really grabbed my interest. Were it not for the layout and artwork, I probably would not have taken the time to delve into the Complete Rulebook to discover all the expansions and improvements over the previous Swords & Wizardry releases, and that would have been a shame.

So. In summary, if you’re a fan of Swords & Wizardry, old-school D&D, old-school RPGs, or RPGs in general, get the Complete Rulebook. Really. Now. Why are you still reading this when you could be heading over to Frog God Games and ordering the Swords & Wizardry Complete Rulebook? Sheesh.

Swords & Wizardry: the Commoner

My favorite “fantasy” scenarios are those where the protagonists come from humble beginnings and, through many trials and tribulations, rise to the level of well-known and powerful heroes. I once played in a D&D 3E game which simulated this concept – quite well, I thought – by starting each PC in an NPC class. The NPC class was considered a “favored class” for purposes of multi-classing and, when the time was right, the PCs switched to a different class.

With that in mind I present the Commoner, a new Swords & Wizardry: WhiteBox PC class for starting characters.

The remainder of this post is designated Open Game Content as outlined in section 1(d) of the Open Game License.

The Commoner
Commoners are those people in your campaign who have the potential to become something more than they are, and teeter on the precipice of doing exactly that.  They work the fields, ply their trade, and go about their normal day-to-day routine until something happens which ignites the spark that slumbers deep within them and sends them spiraling off into wild heroics.

Commoner Advancement
Level	Exp. Points	Hit Dice (d6)	Saving Throw
1	0	1	15
2	1,000	1	15
3	2,000	2	14

Commoner Class Abilities
Weapon and Armor Restrictions: Because commoners are not trained to fight, they are proficient in one simple weapon only (axe, club, spear, or dagger). Further, being completely untrained in the finer points of heavy armor, commoners may only wear leather armor and may not use shields.
Level Limit: Commoners may never rise above the third level of experience.

Class Switching: Upon reaching second or third level, a commoner is able to switch to either the Fighting-man, Magic-user, or Cleric class. The commoner keeps his current hit points (unless the roll for hit points in his new class exceeds his current hit points), but is otherwise identical to a first level character of his new class.

Kismet: Once per game session, a commoner may use a single, minor class ability of another class as if he or she were a first level member of that class. This ability should come from the class to which the commoner is likely to switch.  This could be a saving throw bonus, use of a weapon or magic item not normally allowed, or the like.

Experience Bonus: The commoner receives no experience point bonuses.

Sample Commoner
Bill the Blacksmith
Strength: 11
Intelligence: 10
Wisdom: 11
Constitution: 10
Dexterity: 12
Charisma: 9

Race: human
Class:  commoner
Level/Current XP: 1/90
XP Bonus: 0%
Saving Throw: 15
Hit Points: 4
Weapon: hammer (1d6-1)
Armor Class: 8 [10] (leather apron)
Gold: 131

For most of Bill’s younger years, his entire village thought he would grow up to take over his father’s trade, find a willing woman to marry, and rear lots of children.  Bill seemed on-track to do exactly that until a trio of goblins began terrorizing the village.  The young apprentice smith took it upon himself to go after the goblins and much to everyone’s surprise, he systematically isolated and killed each of the goblins.

What the villagers didn’t know, however, was that the goblins had done this before and had collected up quite a bit of treasure, somewhere in the area of 60 gold pieces in value; almost double that of Bill’s life’s savings.  Bill hid the loot and has not spoken of it to this.

The days of Bill’s heroics have passed and life in the village has largely returned to normal, but Bill’s thoughts often return to his goblin-slaying excursion and his just rewards, and he secretly longs for another adventure to come his way.

Swords & Wizardry: OD&D Style Saving Throws

In a recent discussion on the Brave Halfling forums, I commented that it would be fairly easy to use the S&W:WB saving throw as a base number and extrapolate a list of saving throws more compatible with original D&D’s saving throw matrix.  To release it under the open gaming license it would need to be a… “re-imagining” of the matrix to avoid any copyright entanglements.

My original idea was just to determine the difference between the WB saving throw and the OD&D saving throw for each level, calculate the average difference across all levels, and apply that as a modifier to the WB saving throw based on the category of saving throw being made.  After doing the calculations I discovered that wasn’t feasible because, for instance, the Magic-user wound up with a +5 modifier versus breath weapons.  Augh, could you imagine the poor 1st level Magic-user trying to save versus a 21?

So what I’ve created is a per-class and per-level saving throw matrix which lists the modifier applied to the base WB saving throw for each OD&D style saving throw category.  The matrices appear below.

The remainder of this post is designated Open Game Content as outlined in section 1(d) of the Open Game License.

Cleric Saving Throw Matrix

Level	vs. Death	vs. Wands	vs. Turn to Stone	vs. Breath Weapon	vs. Spells
1	-3	-2	0	2	1
2	-2	-1	1	3	2
3	-1	0	2	4	3
4	0	1	3	5	4
5	-1	0	2	4	2
6	0	1	3	5	3
7	1	2	4	6	4
8	2	3	5	7	5
9	0	1	3	5	3
10	1	2	4	6	4

Fighting-man Saving Throw Matrix

Level	vs. Death	vs. Wands	vs. Turn to Stone	vs. Breath Weapon	vs. Spells
1	-3	-2	-1	0	1
2	-2	-1	0	1	2
3	-1	0	1	2	3
4	-2	-1	0	1	2
5	-1	0	1	2	3
6	0	1	2	3	4
7	-1	0	1	1	3
8	0	1	2	2	4
9	1	2	3	3	5
10	0	1	2	2	4

Magic-user Saving Throw Matrix

Level	vs. Death	vs. Wands	vs. Turn to Stone	vs. Breath Weapon	vs. Spells
1	-1	0	-1	2	1
2	0	1	0	3	2
3	1	2	1	4	3
4	2	3	2	5	4
5	3	4	3	6	5
6	2	3	2	5	3
7	3	4	3	6	4
8	4	5	4	7	5
9	5	6	5	8	6
10	6	7	6	9	7

How to use the Saving Throw Matrices
Cross reference the type of saving throw being called for with your character’s level on the correct matrix for your character’s class.  Add or subtract the modifier shown to your character’s base saving throw.  The result is the number you must meet or exceed on a roll of 1d20 to make your character’s saving throw.

Example: Rael, the 5th level Magic-user, has just been subjected to a dragon’s breath weapon.  The referee calls for Rael’s player to make a saving throw vs. breath weapon.  Rael’s player checks the chart above and adds the +6 modifier to a 5th level Magic-user’s base saving throw of 10 for a total of 16.  Rael’s player rolls his 1d20 and the result is a 17; he made the saving throw!  Had Rael’s player rolled a 15, he would have failed the saving throw.

Swords & Wizardry: A Magical Crossbreed

This post is designated Open Game Content as outlined in section 1(d) of the Open Game License.

Orf
Armor Class: 6 [13]
Hit Dice: 1+1
Attacks: fist (1d3) or weapon (1d6)
Special: None
Move: 12
HDE/XP: 1/15

A truly perverse magical crossbreed created by an insane wizard, orfs combine the worst qualities of both dwarves and orcs.  They have short legs, long arms, and an ape-like posture.  Their skin is ashen gray and mottled green, and their hair and beards are stringy, dirty, and tend to be brown in color.  Their pronounced foreheads and outcropping lower jaw complete their primitive appearance.

Most orfs are possessed of only animal-level intelligence, communicating with grunts and growls.  The most promising of them understand basic tool use, although it rarely progresses beyond the realization that smashing things with a club is more effective than smashing things with their fists.  They are curious by nature, however, and will oftentimes attempt to emulate the lifestyles of other races, particularly men.

Orfs are quick to anger and once wounded will lash out in a rage at the source of their pain.  Rarely will an enraged orf back down from an opponent; most orfs so angered will fight until it – or its opponent – is dead.  Luckily, orfs tend to congregate in small, human-like family groups consisting of two or three males (one of whom is dominant and has figured out how to use a simple weapon like a club or axe), a female, and whatever children the group has managed to produce.

Swords & Wizardry: an Eldritch Horror

This post is designated Open Game Content as outlined in section 1(d) of the Open Game License.

Shab-Ittoq, a Thing Man Was Not Meant To Know

Long before the coming of humans and their ilk, the world was ruled by ancient, eldritch beings from beyond space and time.   These beings were active only when the universe was in a particular alignment; when the universe held a different alignment these beings could not exist as we understand it and passed away eons in a state of pseudo death waiting for the cosmos to right itself.

The last shift in the alignment of the universe heralded the coming of men and their humanoid cousins, who happily assumed stewardship of the world in the absence of these alien beings.

As the universe shifted, the great island-city wherein most of these entitles lived sank far beneath the waves to settle at the bottom of the ocean; as their high priest retreated into a dark temple, one of its tentacles was severed.  Trapped beneath the rubble of the sunken city and bathed in the otherworldly energies which clung to the ruins, the monstrous tentacle mutated and took on a life of its own.

For some reason, the tentacular horror which became known as Shab-Ittoq is not bound to the same laws as is the being from which it was created, and it is able to exist regardless of how the universe is aligned.  Over the course of time, Shab-Ittoq has freed itself from its prison under the rubble of the sunken city and now it carries out the will of its parent which is made clear through powerful, psychic dreams.

Shab-Ittoq is not the only being who receives the twisted dreams of its creator; from the moment man reached a level of self-awareness, some men have been cursed with a sensitivity to the alien being’s dream-sendings.  Unable to bear the mental brunt of such alien thoughts, these men go mad, worship the eldritch beings as if they were gods, and recruit others into cults which actively work to prepare the world for when the universe is once again aligned and the monstrous beings return to re-establish their rule.  Shab-Ittoq often acts as a proxy and herald to these cultists, making appearances and accepting sacrifices on behalf of its maker.

Being composed of unearthly material and not subject to the laws of matter as we know them, Shab-Ittoq can never truly be killed.  If it is reduced to 0 HP, Shab-Ittoq will dissolve into a viscous, slimy goo which seeps through the ground to eventually find its way back to the sunken city.  Once it reaches its home,  it slowly re-forms and emerges with full HPs by the next full moon.

Shab-Ittoq: HD 10; AC 0 [19]; Atk 1 smash (3d6) ; Move 12; Save: 6; CL/XP: 10/1400; Special: swim

Swords & Wizardry: HACZ

This post is designated Open Game Content as outlined in section 1(d) of the Open Game License.

What is HACZ?
A character’s HACZ (Hit Armor Class Zero; pronounced “hacks”) value provides an easy way to determine if an attack was successful against a given armor class, without having to reference charts or tables mid-combat.

Using HACZ
To make an attack, the player rolls a d20 and applies any modifiers (from ability scores, magic, etc.) to the die roll. The total is subtracted from the character’s HACZ value. The result indicates the lowest descending AC for which the attack would be successful.

Alternately, subtracting a descending armor class value from a character’s HACZ value will reveal the number an attack roll needs to meet or exceed in order to successfully hit that armor class.

Determining HACZ
To determine a character’s HACZ value, reference the character’s class and level on the following chart:

Level	Cleric	Fighting-man	Magic-user
1	19	19	19
2	19	19	19
3	18	18	19
4	18	17	18
5	17	17	18
6	17	16	17
7	16	15	17
8	16	14	16
9	15	13	16
10	14	12	15

For values beyond 10th level, please reference the Attack Matrix for the class in question.

Swords & Wizardry: Count Krugerov

Many years ago I introduced Count Krugerov into one of my D&D games.  Krugerov was a very bad man who was far too well versed in the necromantic arts for his own good, and in my head I always pictured him to look like Jafar from Disney’s Aladdin.

Krugerov wielded a “signature” weapon: a magical curved dagger (which I later discovered was actually called a jambiya) which increased its magical bonus with each killing blow that it landed.  I never considered the weapon to be intelligent or have an ego, nor did I ever give it an alignment.  If I were to use it in my game again, I’m pretty sure it would remain unintelligent and unaligned but it would definitely carry with it some sort of lingering malignancy; maybe its new owner would suffer from nightmarish hauntings at the hands of the blade’s victims or something.

Krugerov had a “signature” spell as well which granted him doppelganger-esque abilities at a disgusting price.

The remainder of this post is designated Open Game Content as outlined in section 1(d) of the Open Game License.

Krugerov’s Dagger: this magical jambiya begins each day with a +0 enchantment.  With each killing blow the weapon lands, it gains a +1 bonus to a maximum of +3.  With the coming of dawn, the weapon’s bonus “resets” to +0.  Krugerov’s Dagger is unintelligent.

Krugerov’s Cannibalistic Mutation
Spell Level: Magic-user, 3rd Level
Range: Caster
Duration: 1 hour or Referee’s discretion
This spell enables the Magic-user to alter the appearance of his or her form to that of another human or humanoid being.  Exacting detail is maintained; even normally hidden or undiscovered birthmarks and blemishes will be recreated by this spell.  The material component for this spell is a chunk of flesh from the human or humanoid who is being duplicated, which must be eaten by the Magic-user as the spell is cast.

Opinion: Clerical Magic

I’ve long looked at Clerics as the “red-haired step-child” of D&D classes.  The number of times I’ve actually played a Cleric can be counted on one hand after a horrible accident with a band saw.  I think this comes down to two fundamental idiosyncrasies with the class.  Namely:

• Clerics cannot use piercing or slashing weapons.
• Cleric spellcasting is too derivative of the Magic-user’s spellcasting.

The prohibition against piercing or slashing weapons is understandable; while I think that Clerics should only be able to use weapons typical of their deity or faith, freely allowing them use of any and all weapons would largely obsolete the Fighting-man.

I guess that my issue with Clerical magic is that Clerics shouldn’t really be using magic a la Magic-users.  Granted they have a different selection of spells, but other than that there are no real differences between Clerical magic and Magic-user magic.  And that ain’t right; Clerics should not be doing “magic”, they should not be “casting spells”.  Clerics should be invoking and channeling the power of their deity, faith, and beliefs.

According to Clerical magic as written, every morning Clerics must pray or meditate to their diety or faith to get their spells.  Not only is this mechanically no different than Magic-users re-memorizing forgotten spells, it’s also – in my opinion - completely nonsensical.

"Dear Geoff the god of biscuits; it is I, your humble servant Eddie, humbly requesting that you allow your servant to heal light wounds once this day and to protect your followers from evil once this day.  As well.  Because I’m a Cleric and that’s what I do.  Yeah?"

Yes, Eddie is a 3rd level Cleric, heh.

It seems to me that Clerical miracles should be dynamic, based on invoking the power of your diety through your faith on a more… “as needed” basis.  I’m considering doing away with the whole “pray for spells” idiom, allowing a Cleric’s player to choose what miracle the Cleric invokes as it is being invoked.  So, for instance, Eddie the 3rd level Cleric could invoke 2 1st level miracles each day, chosen by the player as the miracle is invoked based on what’s going on in the game.  If the Cleric has been true to his faith, the miracle will be delivered as per the rules as written.  Something like...

DM: *rolls damage* Oooh, Bill the Fighting-man took an arrow to his chest.  He falls to the ground and is gurgling blood.  

Eddie’s player: Eddie can still invoke 1 more 1st level miracle today!  I run over to Bill and invoke a… *checks spell list* Cure Light Wounds!  “In the name of Geoff, the god of biscuits, BE HEALED!” 

DM: Ok, let’s see… *rolls dice for the CLW*… Geoff, the god of biscuits, hears your plea and the arrow pops out of Bill’s chest!  The wound is still open, but it looks more like a small scratch than a puncture.  He climbs back to his feet, ready to fight once again.

Swords & Wizardry: the Necromancer

On the Beyond the Black Gate blog, the author put forth a PDF of several variants to the Fighting-man class for Swords & Wizardry.  I was quite impressed with what he had done, and immediately set to work on creating variants for the Magic-user class following his examples.  The first I came up with was the Necromancer, which is presented below.

Please keep in mind that this is a work in progress.  I posted this on the Swords & Wizardry forums, but I did not receive much feedback.  Oh well, heh.  I have a similar variant in mind for the Demonologist; look for it to grace these “pages” soon.

Necromancer
The Necromancer is a Magic-user who focuses his arcane powers upon death and the dead. Necromancy is a taxing and challenging path to tread, and is not undertaken lightly. Necromancy is generally studied only by humans; while Elves are able to tread the path of the dead, there are no recorded instances of an Elvish Necromancer.

Prerequisites: Con 13+, non Lawful or Good alignment (if alignment is used.)

Banish Undead: Necromancers can banish undead as if they were a cleric of half their level (ignore fractions). “D” results are treated as if the Necromancer were Chaotic or Evil regardless of his or her actual alignment.

Servitor Zombie: Using a special ritual known only to necromancers (and unique to each necromancer), a necromancer can create a number of servitor zombies whose total hit dice do not exceed the necromancers level.  So a 2nd level necromancer could have one 2 HD servitor zombies, two 1 HD servitor zombies, four 1/2 HD servitor zombies or any combination thereof so long as his servitor zombie’s total HD did not exceed 2.

Spell Casting: Necromancers cast spells as per regular Magic-users, but because so much of the Necromancer’s studying is devoted to death and the dead, Necromancers use the Cleric tables to determine how many spells they can cast per day.

Designation of Open Game Content: all text in this post under and including the heading "Necromancer" is designated Open Game Content as outlined in section 1(d) of the Open Game License.

Opinion: Magic Missile Etymology

From Swords & Wizardry Core Rules:

There are two versions of the magic missile spell, and your Referee will specify which version (one or both) is available in his campaign: in the first version, the magic user must roll to hit the target with a +1 bonus to the roll. The missile inflicts 1d6+1 points of damage. In the second version of the spell, the missile hits automatically, doing 1d4+1 points of damage.

I read the above quote after talking to one of the players in a S&W PbP I'm running; he wanted to know how much damage the spell did and I couldn’t remember if it was 1d6+1 or 1d4+1.  I was surprised to see the two versions listed therein; S&W is based on original D&D but I couldn’t remember there being two different versions of the spell.  Especially in OD&D itself.

I had to investigate this.

I made a post to the S&W forums and, with the information gleaned from the replies, I was on my way.  I pulled out my OD&D PDFs, my Holmes, Mentzer, and Moldvay Basic Sets, my Rules Compendium, my 1E PHB, my 2E PHB, and a copy of the d20 SRD.  Here’s what I discovered:

• OD&D Supplement 1 (Greyhawk) says that MMs do 2-7 points of damage, with two additional missiles every 5 levels.  No comment is made about rolling to-hit or not.
• Holmes Basic D&D says that MMs do 2-7 points of damage, with higher level casters firing more than one missile.  A to-hit roll must be made as if it were fired from a long bow.
• Moldvay Basic D&D says that MMs do 2-7 (1d6+1) points of damage, with two additional missiles every 5 levels.  They automatically hit any visible target.
• Mentzer Basic D&D echoes Moldvay Basic D&D.
• The D&D Rules Cyclopedia echoes Moldvay Basic D&D.
• The AD&D 1E PHB says that MMs do 2-5 (1d4+1) points of damage, with one additional missile every 2 levels.  They unerringly strike their target.
• The AD&D 2E PHB echoes the 1E PHB.
• The d20 SRD echoes the 1E PHB.

So it appears that there are two different “standardizing moments” in the Magic Missile spell’s history: Moldvay Basic and AD&D first edition.  Prior to Moldvay the spell might have been consistent but it’s too vague in OD&D to be sure.  Given the Holmes clarification, I’d like to think that Mr. Gygax intended for a to-hit roll to be made in OD&D.

My answer to my player?  He could cast either version of the spell as chosen at time of casting, an answer taken straight from the S&W forums.