Swords & Wizardry: Great Design

The more I read Swords & Wizardry Revised, the more I like it. There is this fascinating use of "negative space" in some ways modifiers are applied, in that not everyone gets every modifier. D&D and B/X have been too generous with ability score modifiers for too long, and the inflation of hit points, character stats, and the overall numeric range of the game has suffered.

It is like someone making a mod for Monopoly and giving the car a +2 movement to all dice rolls. Okay, fine, as long as the other pieces have equal benefits. Well, in the game's next version, that bonus is the car rolling 3d6 for movement instead of 2d6, and, well, since dogs can be fast, the dog gets the +2 movement modifier. After a few game versions, all the pieces roll 6d6 for movement, different properties have different "movement point" costs for various pieces, and people still wonder why the game takes so long to play and why movement phases are terrible.

This didn't improve the game at all. This was a "shell game" with the math, which worsened the game.

In Swords & Wizardry, the to-hit and damage bonuses from a high STR score are exclusive to the fighter class, maintaining a balance in the game. All classes get a missile-fire to-hit bonus from a high DEX, which further stacks with the STR bonus for fighters. This means the only positive to-hit modifier for every other class comes from leveling, ensuring a fair playing field. You mostly roll an unmodified d20 versus AC for all to-hits, except for magic weapons and attacks from behind (or elevation, which can give up to another +/-2 for to-hits, p41).

The modifiers in Swords & Wizardry are straightforward and not universal, split into different categories. The highest to-hit modifier for STR is a +2 (17-18), and for DEX, it is a +1 (13+). An 18 STR gives a +3 damage modifier. CON modifiers to hit points are capped at a +1 per HD for a 13+.

The modifiers are far less than B/X, AD&D, 3.5E, and 5E.

AD&D started the "ability score stat inflation" by making ability score bonuses too good, and the 4d6 and drop the lowest ability score generation method. B/X and BECMI simplified modifiers to appeal to a younger market and simplify math. They gave bonuses to everyone since that was "fair," and that was a mistake.

In other words, zero-edition had "bounded accuracy" long before 5E did, and using the term "bounded accuracy" is just a polite way of saying, "We got the math wrong since 3rd Edition, and we still can't get it right." The original math was perfect. There was no reason to change it in AD&D other than to break compatibility for royalties, and it has been downhill ever since.

If you keep overall to-hit modifiers low, there is little reason for AC values to surpass 20. Suddenly, all armors work better now! Also, the to-hit bonuses from leveling and magic items mean much more. Letting fighters have this massive buff makes them the "lords of battle," which is how it should be.

If damage modifiers are kept low, a d4 damage dagger still means something. When 5E characters do d4+4 damage, there is little point in keeping that die around. A die roll modifier equal to or larger than the die means your design is broken, and the point where it reaches half the die is a warning sign.

Will players complain about rolling flat d20 versus AC to hit? This is how it will be for most classes until level three, when the first +1 kicks in. Yes. This is a more demanding game. Just because you are getting a +5 to-hit in 5E versus that AC 15 goblin does not mean you are getting that modifier in S&W, which is a +0 versus AC 13.

Notice the goblin's AC bump in 5E? Remember the Monopoly example?

The ancient red dragon in 5E has an AC of 22. In S&W, it is 17.

There is a curve in S&W where a 20th-level fighter gets a +13 to-hit, so assuming an STR bonus of +2 and a +2 magic weapon, this is a total +17 to-hit versus that dragon. You are not doing multi-attacks, and your highest damage modifier possible with that +2 weapon is a +5, so your damage will not be in the hundreds of hit points per turn, it will average ten points of damage per hit. 5E, we will probably have a +12 to +14 to hit modifier, so they are on par with each other, but the AC values in S&W are lower.

This is how it was in the older editions. The low levels are tricky. But the higher levels start getting better and better. Damage output in 5E is artificially scaled, with high hit points and a flat to-hit curve, combined with a logarithmic damage curve. In S&W, damage output stays flat, but your ability to hit increases, thus increasing damage output.

The difference is that a d4 dagger versus an adult red dragon with 44 hit points in S&W is still a threat. In 5E, there are 256 hit points for that adult red dragon. Who cares about a dagger? You need a +8 damage modifier and multi-attacks to even be noticed. More die rolls, rules references, attacks, long turns, and certain classes limited to smaller weapons become worthless. Lower hit points mean the weapons and attacks you make stay powerful and mean something, and the original die shapes hold value longer. Higher hit points only mean more time spent in the rules (and during your turn) figuring out how to nullify Wizard's hit point scaling.

Remember the Monopoly example?

I would rather be a thief in S&W backstabbing that dragon than a thief in 5E doing the same thing. Even if I am "doing more damage in 5E," the amount of character building, rules references, stacking bonuses, and special subclass powers needed to get there means I spent "more time in the rules" than the S&W thief.

The S&W character, by comparison, is more powerful.

And players spend far less time in the rules.