I don’t ever play S&W White Box anymore, at least not the ‘official’ version. I play the much-improved S&W White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game (FMAG), and have since it was released in 2016. I’ve never done a review, only because it has some of my material in it – namely the ‘essential adventuring rules‘, but suffice it to say that Charlie Mason did a great job putting together the needed improvements – errata, rules, layout and art.
Anyway, I thought I’d share my house rules for the game (which can, of course, be used for ‘official’ White Box, or even OD&D). They are a streamlined version of my original house rules for S&W White Box. Encumbrance is very simple – I stole the idea from Pits & Perils that PCs can carry what is ‘reasonable’, plus 1200 coins in a large sack – no more. Adding the maximum coin weight just drops the character to the next lower movement rate. This, I think, embodies the spirit of the original game that gold equals XP, and this should influence your goals as far as avoiding combat and seeking out treasure (of course it also mirrors the original game that provided all equipment weights in coins).
New to the rules are the equipment packs. I think they will be a good way to speed up character creation (not that it was slow already, but even still, equipment selection is probably the slowest part). I’m a bit stingy with the starting gold – I think this enhances the treasure hoards during that first adventure or two that might include the more expensive armor and weapons, like long bows or silver arrows. It might also encourage the PCs to pool their resources if they absolutely must have that mule or lantern or whatever. You’ll also notice Magic-Users can choose between a first-level scroll, or 50GP. I removed my rules on scroll creation, so this is a nice boon for the starting mage, if they choose it. There are two thief packs, for those who allow thieves.
Here is a link to the google doc with the player and referee house rules, I left it in this format so you could download it however you like, and edit it to your taste. Or, click on the image below.
~
Smoldering Wizard 
Man I totally dig White Box FMAG. What a wonderful little system. Had 3 questions as I’m somewhat new to OD&D:
1. I know Fighters are the only ones who get to add their strength bonus to their damage rolls. What about the bonus “to hit”. Is that for fighters only as well?
2. On the morale check table the 9-11 entry says “Fights for Advantage”. What exactly does that mean?
3. In combat are you allowed to move AND attack or do you simply get one action only?
Thanks!
Hey Charles- No problem on the comments, they were in my approval queue so I deleted the second one. To answer your questions –
1) This is up to you, in the original game’s Greyhawk supplement, only fighters got the bonuses but all PCs got the penalties for low STR. Some people like to give the bonus to all PCs, my own preference is to save any STR bonuses just for fighters.
2) I think of that table as a continuum, from a total rout at the low end to fanatical, never-check-morale-again at 12. In between are varying levels of aggressiveness or cowardice. I’d treat ‘fight for advantage” to be a pretty aggressive attack, but still allow another morale roll later if conditions changed.
3) In the standard method, movement is listed as a single action to mean move OR attack. I always allow a full move as the one action, or a half-move and attack together. The alternate sequence has movement as a separate step, after any attacks.
Hope that helps! If you like, head over to the forum and I am sure others would join in any house-rules discussion if you started one.
Doug
Thanks Doug,
Let me make sure I’m understanding you. So in the standard method do you follow the steps in order? In other words whoever is using a ranged weapon goes first, followed by someone casting spells, followed by movement and finally by melee. Or can a character take whatever action they want in any order they want? It sounds like there aren’t any pre-defined steps in the standard method?
Okay so the alternate sequence would be as follows:
After the initiative roll the party that won each can take one action in this order:
1. Cast Spells
2. Fire Missiles
3. Melee
4. Movement
Now the party that lost initiative takes their turn following those 4 steps. Am I correct?
When I use the standard method I’ll just go around the table (or virtual table) and ask each player what their action is. They can do or try whatever they want – move, attack, flee, drink a potion, change weapons, etc. What constitutes a single “action” is up to you, but combat in these older editions is meant to be very abstract, so it’s best not to overthink it and just use common sense based on whatever action the player is trying. For the alternate method, each step is in initiative order – so first the spellcasters representing the side that won initiative cast spells they have prepared, then the losing side casts spells, then the winning side fires missiles, then the losing side, etc. In practice this doesn’t happen in all four phases in a row though, for example once two sides move into combat, they can’t cast spells or fire missiles, so the only choices left are to melee or to move.
Thanks Doug for the clarification. It makes sense now. Which method do you recommend?
Nowadays for my white box games I like to use the standard method, with the addition of spells having to be prepared in advance (it takes a round to prepare a spell), and I also allow players to add their DEX bonus, if any, to the group initiative roll. That allows players with a 15 or higher DEX to go before everyone else in the event of an initiative tie. But to start, I’d just stick with the standard method as written to keep things simple.
Thanks again. When you say a spell takes a round to prepare does that mean “preparing” is essentially an action? So say the heroes announce their intentions. Initiative is rolled and the heroes win. The Wizards action for that first round is preparing say sleep. The rest of the heroes take an action. The monsters go next taking their actions. Initiative is rolled again and the heroes win. Now the wizards spell goes off. Is that correct?
Yep, that is it exactly.
Cool. I just did a few mock combat scenarios to get used to the sequence. One thing I noticed is that if you’re a melee combatant and win initiative, your more than likely not going attack first. You spend your action to move into melee to only be attacked by the enemy that lost initiative.
It probably makes sense to allow a move and attack in that situation, otherwise no one would move into melee. Or allow a half-move and melee attack. Treating a full move as one action makes more sense in the context of missile fire outside of melee, where you can move or fire missiles, but not both. There are also house rules that allow a longer weapon to attack first in that “move into melee” situation, but only for the first round. But the rules as-written don’t address any of that, so you can pick whatever solution you like (or none!).
My background is primarily in B/X D&D. The combat sequence for BX I think would work quite well. It allows both moving and attacking but missile fire and spells come first. What do think?
Here it is…
Declare spells and retreats
Initiative: Each side rolls 1d6.
Winning side acts:
Monster morale
Movement
Missile attacks
Spell casting
Melee attacks
Other sides act: In initiative order.
In BX casting a spell is the only action that can be taken. Maybe apply that as well for Missile attacks since they have a higher rate of fire.
I just realized my suggestion wouldn’t work since movement takes place first. This would basically nullify ranged attacks entirely…oops. :) So yea I think it just makes sense to allow characters or monsters to move and attack.
So basically something like this:
Declare spells and retreats
Initiative: Each side rolls 1d6.
Winning side acts:
Cast or Prepare Spells
Missile attacks
Movement
Melee attacks
Other sides act: In initiative order.
B/X combat would work well, especially if you are already familiar with it. I think the Moldvay Basic book sample combat has the PC with a ready bow fire on a rushing opponent even though they lost initiative, which I guess is just a common-sense exception to initiative order.
Hey Doug, I’ve been experimenting with some of the various combat sequences for S&W to see how they all play out since I’m most the familiar with BX. I tried the standard version in the complete book which is somewhat similar to BX except that each sides takes their turn during each sequence. While that was okay it basically removed the uniqueness of when you rolled the same numbers during initiative which would cause both sides to act at once. That situation stands out more when you go with a BX or Core style of combat which I like. So it sounds like the only real guideline you want to stick to is NOT allowing moving and spellcasting or shooting missiles. So in other words if you cast a spell or fire a bow you can’t move. Is that fair to say?
There are some situations where it gets weird when you follow a strict pattern of actions. That’s why in my own house rules I allow a full move by itself, or a half move taken before or after a combat action (including casting a spell or firing a bow). However, once you are in melee your movement choices are restricted anyway to a fighting or a full retreat, and you can’t cast spells or fire missiles. Free movement only occurs outside of melee. For initiative I’ve settled on the “roll one d6 per side”, but with individual “virtual” modifications by DEX score (so +1 or -1). That allows some PCs to attack first in the event of a tie, if they have a high DEX.
The standard S&W method is this:
Check for surprise
Declare spells
Initiative
Movement or Missile Fire
Melee and Spells
This works pretty well though as I said it makes initiative ties not as interesting. Let me ask you a question Doug, does this method allow casting a spell AND moving? It seems to imply it since casting of the spell comes during the melee phase.
I would say yes, it does.
Doug, I need some advice on something. I wasn’t sure which article to post under so I hope this okay. My question is concerning theater of mind when dealing with character positioning in relation to the room size. I’m currently DMing a S&W game and an issue came up.
Here’s what happened:
I’m running Grimmsgate with a party of 4 characters. They came into a room that is about 15 ft wide and about 30 ft long. They arrive in this room from the north and there were 5 baddies at the bottom of the room to the south. Marching order was Fighter, Cleric in the front with Thief, Elf F/M in the back. Party lost initiative and the baddies charged forward. There is where I got confused. Is 15 ft enough room for all 5 baddies to be up front and attacking? And the thief in the party wanted to try and sneak around behind. Is there enough room for that? I just had no idea what to do. The room size seemed too small for all these people. Do you have any tips on how approach this from a theater of the mind perspective? Or is it simply best to not overly analyze it Thanks!
Hey Chuck, that is a bit cramped and in those situations I restrict who can attack/defend. My general rule is 1 person needs 5 feet of space to attack without getting in someone else’s way. So 3 people in a 15-foot wide space. Same for man-sized monsters. In your situation, I’d allow 3 of the monsters to rush forward and attack the party’s front rank. The others have to wait or do something else, like try to go around and flank opponents by some alternate route. I use some house rules based on Chainmail/OD&D, however. Creatures with spears/polearms can attack from the second rank. In your scenario, if the Elf had a spear and stayed in the second rank, he could attack along with the fighter, cleric, and thief in the front rank. Same for the monsters. I also like to play the monsters as smart, if they are humanoids. So the 5 baddies might first fire a volley of missiles, then charge. The players need to also think tactically, maybe a partial retreat to a doorway could bottleneck the monsters (only 1 or 2 could come through at a time) and make them vulnerable to missile fire, causing them to retreat. There are all sorts of possibilities, other than just all-out melee in a tiny room.
On the thief – usually in cramped rooms where melee is going on, a thief who tried to sneak to the rear of the enemy force would be seen, and even attacked since they would be putting themselves into melee distance of opponents. There would need to be a larger room, where the edges or corners were in shadow for that to work. But – maybe there is an alternate path to the other end of the room, using some other tunnel and the thief could try sneaking around that way. Again, players need to think tactically, and you can encourage that by stating the movement restrictions they are under.
Like all house rules, you can make exceptions for large opponents or for PCs with small weapons like daggers. Maybe 3 PCs can attack in a 10-foot wide corridor if they all use smaller weapons. But only one of two Ogres can attack that same group of 3 PCs in that 10-foot wide corridor, just because Ogres are so large. Maybe 4 Kobolds could attack in that same 15-foot space, instead of 3. You get the idea.
Very helpful Doug, thanks. I’m more used to using minis on a battle map. But with most of these OSR maps, 1 square is ten feet. But it sounds like the ol’ 1 figure per 5ft square still applies. So that helps. And it sounds like in order for my thief to Hide in Shadows he has to be at least 10 ft from a baddie to even have a remote chance of moving behind anyone. Of course in S&W you’re in melee if you’re within 10ft of your opponent instead of 5ft. Not sure what I think about that.
Hey Doug, wasn’t sure where to post this question. But I just realized something and wanting to verify the ruling on it: Fighter’s Combat Fury when using a Long Bow. Say you have 3rd level Fighter who gets 3 attacks against 1HD monsters. If using a bow would he basically get a total of 6 attacks? If so can he spread those 6 attacks around anyway he pleases? Yikes!
The multiple attacks are for melee weapons only, otherwise you are correct that could get out of hand :).
Hey Doug, according to your house rules do Elves get the +1 to hit with bows in addition to the +1 hit or damage against hereditary foes? What does the +1 to hit OR damage mean anyway? lol
Yes in addition to. Also, that hereditary foe rule represents the special abilities Elves had in Chainmail towards certain enemies on that game’s fantasy combat table. But a success on that table was an auto-kill, so it does not translate well to what became the alternative combat system in OD&D. I give Elves both bonuses, since I think it should at least mean “more likely to kill or wound” and adding +1 to both attack and damage rolls does this. But as with anything OD&D, there is no correct answer except what you think would be fun for your games.
Pingback: White Box FMAG House Rules | Regarding the Game