Fast OSR Character Creation: d120 Bonus Tools and Trinkets

Here's how you generate characters in my game. The priority is speed at the table, while still giving every character something small and unique. Nothing super involved or gonzo like alien technology or slime pheromones; almost all of the items are based on real history. The assumption is a "standard" D&D setting.

0. Generate stats

3d6 in order, swap one pair if you want, start over if sum of modifiers is negative.

(Maybe max HP at 1st level, not quite sure yet.)

1. Roll for starting equipment

Use the random table for starting equipment over at Sword & Scoundrel:
Web link, PDF link.

2. Add bonus starting gold equal to Charisma score.

(If they don't know how good hirelings are, everyone will dump Charisma.)

3. Roll once on the following d120 table for a useful item or memento.

Or click here for a handy 1-page PDF version of the table.

(There are ~6 entries that directly deal damage, plus two entries with spell scrolls. The DM rolls for a random 1st level spell for the scrolls. #75 will also require the DM to scribble up a little map at some point.)

4. If they want quick hirelings, roll some up.

Use the fantastic Meatshields hireling generator for Barrowmaze.

d120	Additional items
1	Dog (terrier)
2	Cat (d4: 1 black, 2 golden tabby, 3 silver tabby, 4 white)
3	Chicken
4	Rat (d3: 1 trained pet, 2-3 picked from a gutter)
5	Red squirrel (with collar and lead)
6	Magpie in cage
7	Falcon, trained
8	Two frogs in glass jar
9	Bees in a glass jar (d4: 1 dead, 2-3 alive, 4 actually wasps)
10	Smoking pipe and 1 lb. bag of hobbit’s leaf
11	Herbs, calming
12	Herbs, stimulating
13	Censer and incense
14	Salted meat, 1 lb.
15	Rotten meat, 1 lb.
16	Animal feed
17	Eggs x 12
18	Bar of soap
19	Lard
20	Jar of honey
21	Jar of syrup
22	Bottle of milk
23	Bottle of vinegar
24	Bag of malted barley
25	Bag of sugar
26	Bag of carrots
27	Bag of turnips
28	Bag of seeds
29	Bag of flour
30	Bag of salt
31	Bag of sand
32	Bag of earth
33	Bag of sawdust
34	Bag of powdered chalk
35	Chalk pieces x 5
36	Chunk of coal
37	Chunk of ore
38	Magnetic lodestone
39	Scrap metal
40	Brick
41	Calendar staff, 1 foot (see image below)
42	Horseshoe
43	Sledge hammer
44	Crowbar
45	Hand drill
46	Pickaxe
47	Shovel
48	Riding crop
49	Fishing pole
50	Fishing net
51	Butterfly net
52	Razor
53	Tweezers
54	Tongs
55	Chisel
56	Chain, 5’
57	Manacles
58	Padlock and key
59	Padlock, no key
60	Hunting trap
61	Grappling hook
62	Bag of caltrops
63	Vial of acid
64	Vial of poison
65	Vial of holy water
66	Jar of glue
67	Glass vials, empty x 5
68	Bucket, metal
69	Bucket, wooden
70	Glass jar, empty
71	Air bladder
72	Scroll case, empty
73	Scroll case with divine scroll
74	Scroll case with arcane scroll
75	Scroll case with map
76	Small bells x 5
77	Mirror, steel
78	Mirror, silver
79	Mirror, glass
80	Makeup
81	Candles x 10
82	Quill, ink and parchments
83	Thread, linen, 50’
84	Leather strips x 5
85	Bag of wooden beads
86	Bag of glass beads
87	Small urn, sealed
88	Human(?) bone
89	Shrunken head
90	Severed finger
91	Severed hand
92	Severed nose
93	Lock of hair
94	Small wooden vessel of powdered mummy
95	Rabbit’s foot
96	Shark’s tooth
97	Fish jawbone
98	Tusk
99	Dice set
100	Playing cards
101	Chess set
102	Dominoes set
103	Toy, wooden
104	Toy, clay
105	Lute
106	Small drum
107	Flute
108	Pan pipes
109	Ocarina
110	Whistle
111	Hunting horn
112	Gloves, heavy
113	Gloves, fine
114	Hat, wide-brimmed
115	Hat, colorful
116	Cape, fur
117	Cape, silk
118	Apron, leather
119	Mask, wooden
120	Small mat

Death rules for OSR games: Three Critical Conditions

I was inspired to adapt Eric Diaz at Methods & Madness's nice idea for a death mechanic to 5e. Here a version for OSR games. I think it could be a nice system that's relatively simpler than some of the other ones out there that use chits, dice pools etc.

This version is somewhat more deadly, to be more in tune with the typical OSR baseline and playstyle. Though I reckon it's less deadly than, say, LotFP's default death rules, which, in turn, are less deadly than the original "dead at 0 HP, period" rules.

Death saving throws have been replaced here with rolls under Constitution. Perhaps you prefer using saves vs. Death, or a straight 50% chance, instead.

The Weakened condition raises you from e.g. lightly encumbered to heavily encumbered, and since in LotFP chases you roll 1d20+speed, it might lead to some interesting choices.

---

Variant death rule: Critical Conditions

There are no negative hit points. When you are reduced to 0 hit points, you suffer one of the following critical conditions of your choice that you are not already suffering from: Bleeding Out, Weakened, or Knocked Out. If you take any damage while at 0 hit points, you suffer another critical condition.

Bleeding Out. Each round, roll under Constitution or suffer another critical condition.

Weakened. You have -4 penalty on all d20 rolls and -1 penalty on all d6 skills. You count as one tier of encumbrance higher. If you cast a spell, roll under Constitution or suffer another critical condition.

Knocked Out. You are unconscious. If left alone, this condition ends after 1 hour.

Death. If you have all three critical conditions at the same time, you die. You also die instantly if excess damage at 0 hit points equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.

Healing at 0 hit points. If an effect would restore hit points to you, you instead remove one critical condition with the following priority: first remove Bleeding Out, then Weakened, and lastly Knocked Out. You cannot gain hit points until all critical conditions have been removed.

---

Death's door part 5: Three Strikes And You’re Dead

Go to Part 4

Six months since I last wrestled with the death & dying rules in D&D 5e, having played some 5e and some LotFP in the meantime, the time has come to start yet another 5e campaign. Which means I am once again wrestling in my mind with the death & dying rules, probably my least favourite part of 5e.

My previous attempts to solve the problem are unsatisfactory, and that is even more clear looking back at them through the separation of time. To be totally honest, none of the rule variants have been playtested. Part of the reason for founding this blog was to have a place to write down these ideas for potential solutions to problems, in a cleanly edited format. This allows getting them off my mind, taking a step back to judge them and possibly getting some external feedback, and only then iterate, playtest, and iterate.

The problems with the variants that I can see are complexity, and difficulty of balancing. A good rule shouldn’t take a dozen or more bullet points to lay out. And the knockout table, while tense and fun, is impossible to balance. A random table with not only many different kinds of consequences with variable probabilities, but also with a dynamic probability that scales with the amount of damage taken? That is an equation with far too many variables.

So while I think those ideas did solve the problems I set out to solve, they didn’t satisfy the criteria of simplicity and balance. And thus, I’m attempting to solve the same problem once again. I was inspired by this post by Eric Diaz at Methods & Madness. He suggests a system where you have three boxes to tick representing three different status effects, ticking one at a time, and a character being dead when all three boxes are ticked. However, the rules presented are undeveloped. I present my own adaptation of the idea for 5e below.

---

Variant death rules for 5e: Three Strikes

When you are reduced to 0 hit points, you fall prone, lose concentration, and you must make a death saving throw (10+ is a success, 1 and 20 are not special). On a failure, you suffer one of the following conditions of your choice that you are not already suffering from: bleeding out, weakened, or knocked out. If you take any damage while at 0 hit points, you automatically suffer the effects of a failed death saving throw.

Bleeding out. You must make a death saving throw at the start of each of your turns.

Weakened. You have disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks. If you cast a spell, you must make a death saving throw after casting it.

Knocked out. You are unconscious (see PHB p. 292). This condition ends after 1 hour.

Death. If you have all three conditions at the same time, you die. You also die instantly if excess damage at 0 hit points equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.

Healing at 0 hit points. If an effect would heal you or otherwise stabilize you, remove one of these conditions at a time with the following priority: first bleeding out, then weakened, then knocked out. You cannot gain hit points until all of these conditions have been removed.

---

Rationale

You will notice the rules are relatively lenient. You get a save at 0 HP before suffering any conditions, and you only suffer one failure from taking a hit, even critical hits. This is intended, in order to solve one of the original problems in 5e: you’re unconscious a lot (not fun), but you almost never die (not tense). Here, those probabilities are pushed in the opposite directions.

Although you're less likely to become unconscious or start dying, it is far more difficult to stop the process in the middle of battle: instead of a single heal getting you up and running as usual, each heal now just removes one failure-tick. Emergency room-style situations where you're racing with death to resuscitate someone should happen more often now. Even after removing all ticks and bringing you to consciousness, you are at 0 hit points, so taking damage means an automatic death save failure. After all, one of the goals with these houserules was to make retreats more of a consideration, instead of every battle being one to the bitter end. Thus, these rules are more fitting for a sandboxy campaign where getting out of there and going somewhere else instead is an option. If you are playing a plot-based railroad where every encounter is mandatory, these may not work for you.

The element of player choice introduces some strategy. Do you take a hit to your combat capability and attempt to flee? Do you grit your teeth and keep fighting at full strength through the pain, but risk dying - going down in a blaze of glory to save your comrades? Or do you fall unconscious on the ground? Well, the last one of these is clearly the worst option. However, consider that different enemies behave differently. Some intelligent foes may always prioritize the greatest threat, thus leaving you alone when you’re lying motionless. Some, like zombies, may keep clawing at the closest fleshy thing. And some animals looking for a meal may just try to drag you back to their lair and avoid the other threats. A good DM should always roleplay the enemy’s tactics, and you should take that into consideration when choosing how you go down.

These houserules have not been playtested, but will be in the coming weeks. If it is found that they are too lenient and no one ever (almost) dies, the difficulty will be tuned upwards by making automatic failures more common, or by increasing the target number of death saves, or adding critical death save failures. Or maybe it would be fun if dashing while weakened would cause you to fall prone at the end of your move - a bit of risk-and-reward for chase situations? We shall see.

OSR Fighters: Combining Cleave and Extra Attack

You’re probably aware of the multi-attack abilities fighters have had over the years.  There’s the “Melee attacks per round” table, where Fighters in AD&D could have 1/1, 3/2 or 2/1 attacks per round. That fractional value of 3/2 means your number of attacks alternates each round: twice in one round, then once in the next, and so on. Sure, it’s not hard to understand - but it’s still an additional thing to remember in the heat of battle, which I don’t want in my game. Newer editions call this Extra Attack, but omit the fractions.

Then there’s the “one attack per level against creatures with one/less than one hit die”, originating from Heroes in Chainmail having the fighting ability of four men. This rule is sometimes called "cleave". The same ability is also pointed at underneath the “Melee attacks per round” table in AD&D, referring mysteriously to the COMBAT section, which offers no explanation on the matter.

A rather popular rule for “cleaving” weak foes that doesn’t require you to track the number of attacks is what I have just decided to call “If They’re Slain, Swing Again”. It grants a free attack each time you slay an enemy, continuing as long as you either fail to score a kill or there are no more enemies within reach. The less hit dice the opponents have, the more likely you are to get multiple attacks off.

Here is yet another option I came up with which combines aspects of both extra attacks and cleaves:

---

Ability: Fighter's Focus

If you hit an enemy with an attack on your turn, you can attack one more time. If this second attack is a miss or a non-killing blow, your turn then ends. However, if it is a killing blow, you can attack again, and keep attacking as long as you keep landing killing blows, or until there are no more targets within range.

---

Rationale

The condition of Fighter's Focus means that you get a sort-of-an-extra-attack, but not always - only when the first blow lands. It’s like gaining momentum in the melee. Then on the second blow, you really get into the zone and potentially start mowing everything down. Perhaps you could give these two "modes" of focus different names to help players remember how they work. (If I have to draw a flowchart, or nobody remembers how it works, then it must be a bad rule.) It also means that you don't need to keep track your alternating rounds like in AD&D.

Obviously, the second stage of focus still works best against low-HD creatures, while the first part gives more of an advantage against mushy enemies with poor AC. Thus it will sometimes give you an edge against high-HD creatures, too. All in all, the ability should end up being less powerful than straight up giving Fighters two attacks, but more powerful than the “If They’re Slain, Swing Again” rule by itself. It’s somewhere in between.

I’ve been exploring these different options recently since I’m looking to change some rules for the next game I run. Specifically, breaking from LotFP, I want to give non-Fighters the increasing to-hit that they get in B/X. But I still want Dwarves and Elves (and Paladins etc. that I may add) to have the improved combat options, as they do in LotFP, and have no equipment restrictions. So with Fighters losing their only niche, what do you give them so they don’t fall behind? Well, more attacks, of course.

LotFP Hybrid Classes Expanded 2: Shamans and Sages

Go to part 1. We continue on the track started by Jackson Malloy's post about hybrid classes at Sword and Scoundrel. This is a separate post because it's a bit more out there than the first, and is hungrily eyeing a couple sacred cows.

Malloy's system starts with the axiom that Clerics and Magic-Users cannot be combined. This seems reasonable. After all, they are of opposite alignments, and have their own niches; traditionally, wizards have not been granted the ability to heal as a check to their power (as well as for thematic reasons).

But... what would happen if we broke those rules? Apparently, James Raggi's recent playtest of the next version of LotFP also combined Clerics and Magic-Users into one class, or at least gave Cleric spells to the Magic-User. What if we went further with the hybrid classes and included a Cleric-MU-hybrid - or even a tri-class-hybrid, a Cleric-MU-Specialist?

With our XP formula from part 1, it would take the Cleric-MU - let's call it a Shaman - 3,000 XP to reach second level, and the Cleric-MU-Specialist - let's call it a Sage - 3,700 XP. For spellcasting, they are half a Cleric, and half a Magic-User, but separately, so their caster level is halved, and they know spells as a caster of half their level. But when combining two casters, it makes more sense to combine the spell slots into one pool, so that they start with spell slots at lvl 1, but perhaps still have to divide their prepared spells between the two lists. For some reason, I'm attracted to the idea of forcing the Shaman to strike a balance between Cleric and Magic-User spells. (That might be just due to the Goblin Shaman class in Warhammer Online, who had a charge-up meter that empowered their their healing magic when they cast damage spells, and vice versa.)

The Shaman has a d6 hit die. But our Sage is clearly a scholarly type, so let's lower its hit die to d4 and limit their skill selection to non-movement skills. In return, we'll reduce its XP costs to 3,000, since the only thing it now has over the Shaman is knowing a bit more about secret doors and languages.

Shaman

Hit die: d6
Saves: as Cleric
Base XP: 3,000.

You have spell slots equal to a Magic-User of your level. You can cast both Magic-User and Cleric spells, and you are considered a caster of half your character level (minimum of 1). However, when you prepare spells, half of the spells for each level must be Cleric spells, and the other half Magic-User spells. If you have an odd number of spell slots for a given level, you can choose whether to prepare a Magic-User or Cleric spell in the last slot. For example, if you have three 1st-level spell slots, you can prepare one Cleric and two Magic-User spells of 1st level, or two and one.

You can not cast spells if you are more than Heavily encumbered. Like an Elf, you must have one hand free (or clutching a magical focus) to cast spells.

Sage

Hit die: d4
Saves: as Magic-User
Base XP: 3,000.

You have spell slots equal to a Magic-User of your level. You can cast both magic-user and Cleric spells, and you are considered a caster of half your character level (minimum of 1).

You can not cast spells if you are more than Lightly encumbered. Like a Magic-User, you must have both hands free (or clutching a magical focus) to cast spells.

Additionally, you have two skill points at 1st level, and gain one more skill point each time you level up. These skill points cannot be used for movement-based skills (Climb, Sleight of Hand, Sneak Attack, Stealth, Tinker), but only mental ones (Architecture, Bushcraft, Languages, Search, and any other ones you may have in your game such as Medicine or Arcana).

Learning Spells

In LotFP, Magic-Users learn one random spell of a level of their choice on level-up, and can add spells from scrolls and spellbooks they find. They start with Read Magic and three random spells. Clerics learn all Cleric spells automatically. So, how do we reconcile this for our hybrids? Here is a fine opportunity to add some flavour and differentiate these classes. If you wanted to introduce new mechanics or subsystems, this would be an appropriate place, since it's not something that has to be referenced in every session.

For example, the Shaman might not use a spellbook, instead starting with two random spells from each spell list, learn one spell from each spell list on level-up (of a level of the player's choice), and be unable to transcribe spells. You could add a mechanic for the Shaman to influence the choice of spells learned, or a mini-game - as long as it's something that is quick to resolve since it is only engaging a single player!

The Sage should use a spellbook, of course. They could start with Read Magic, one random Magic-User spell (or Identify) and two random Cleric spells. They would learn one random spell on level up from a spell list and level of their choice, and in addition be able to transcribe Cleric spells (from scrolls) as well as Magic-User spells into their spellbook.

This results in two classes that have more versatility than either of the core casters, through being able to either learn or transcribe a greater number or spells, while casting them at a lower power, in addition to the increased XP costs.

If you decide to use hybrid classes at your table, you may not want to include every one, what with so many redundant spellcasters. Decide based on the flavour you're going for. The Shaman and Sage step on some toes, so you might want to pick only one of them, depending on whether the written or spoken word is more improtant in your setting. Personally, I might only include the Ranger, Paladin, Sage and possibly Assassin for my current medieval setting. For a "Nordic barbarians" vibe, I'd go with the Ranger and Shaman instead. What do you think?

Simple jousting rules for 5e

   Attacks. Each jouster wields a shield (+2 AC if proficient) and a lance (1d12, use Strength for attack and damage rolls). On each pass, each jouster rolls an attack with their lance.
   Hits. If a jouster is hit, they must make a brace check (see below) with a DC equal to the damage taken. On a failed check, they are unhorsed and lose the joust.
   Brace check. A brace check is a Strength (Animal Handling) check.
   Initiative. Attacks happen simultaneously, and it is possible for two jousters to unhorse each other.
   Rules of the match. A jousting lance is destroyed when it hits. New lances are handed out and passes are repeated until one or both participants are unhorsed. Additionally, a limit may be set for lances broken; for example, the first jouster to break three lances (score three hits) wins if neither has been unhorsed.
   Passes. On each pass, a jouster may attack normally, or choose one of the following maneuvers:

• Aggressive: +5 to attack, -5 to AC. 

• Defensive: -5 to attack, +5 to AC.

• Braced: -5 to attack, +5 to Animal Handling.

• High in Saddle: +5 to attack, -5 to Animal Handling.

• Eyes Fixed: +5 to attack. If you are hit, roll a d20. On a 1, you lose your left eye if you have it, and on a 2, you lose your right eye if you have it. On a 3-4, you gain a Horrible Scar, and on a 5-10 you gain a Minor Scar. (See the DMG p. 272 for the effects of these injuries.)

The same information in table format:

Maneuver	Attack	AC	Animal Handling	Special
None	-	-	-	-
Aggressive	+5	-5	-	-
Defensive	-5	+5	-	-
Braced	-5	-	+5	-
High in Saddle	+5	-	-5	-
Eyes Fixed	+5	-	-	See above

King Henri II of France was mortally wounded by a splintered lance in the eye from the hand of Gabriel Montgomery, the captain of his own guard, in a jousting match in 1559.

Optional rules

Reading opponents. When a PC is jousting against an NPC opponent, if you wish, you may allow the PC to attempt to make a read. First decide the NPC's maneuver for the pass, and then allow the player to make a Wisdom (Insight) check contested by the opponent's Wisdom (Animal Handling) check. If the player wins the contest, they learn which maneuver the opponent has chosen, and can then choose their own maneuver based on this information.

LotFP Hybrid Classes Expanded: Pseudo-Rangers, Paladins and Bards

So, you want to start DMing Lamentations of the Flame Princess, but your players are complaining about how the system is "lacking" because there are only four classes that aren’t race-as-class. They want more options, for whatever reason. Maybe they want to play a ranger. Normally I’d tell them that a ranger is just a specialist with a bow and Bushcraft skill, or perhaps a halfling. But maybe this hypothetical player wants their ranger to be fighty. Maybe you need some shiny bait to get them hooked on the OSR. Here’s how you can trick customization-obsessed players with the appearance of breadth, while using only existing mechanics and adding no special class features.

Jackson Malloy at Sword and Scoundrel has blogged about a houserule for hybrid classes in Lamentations of the Flame Princess here: https://swordandscoundrel.blogspot.com/2015/07/lotfp-multiclassinghybrids.html
The work here expands on those ideas, with some additions, modifications, and clarifications. If you don't already have the free rules for LotFP, grab them at RPGNow, DriveThruRPG or DMsGuild.

In short, under Malloy's system, you can combine any two of the four human classes into a hybrid class, with the exception that combining two spellcasting classes is not allowed. Picking Fighter gives you +2 attack bonus (non-increasing) and their combat options (Defensive Fighting, Press, Parry +4). Picking Specialist gives you half the amount of skill points, and you are locked to two skills you pick at the start. Picking Magic-User or Cleric gives you spellcasting as if you were a spellcaster of half your character level. Saving throws are as either one of the two classes (player chooses at the start).

While there have been some attempts to add Paladins and the like to B/X games, such as the holy character in the Basic Fantasy RPG Quasi-Class Supplement, I really like the simplicity of Malloy's system. It's the minimal mechanical change you can make to add classics like Paladins to LotFP (an extremely focused and precisely-crafted game). There's no Lay on Hands bolted-on here - a Paladin is literally a nerfed Fighter with divine spells, and a Bard (if that's what you decide to call it) is a skillmonkey with arcane spells.

However, Malloy’s system is not quite complete - glaringly, nothing is said about hit dice/hit points, or about spellcasting encumbrance limits. More on that later, but first, let’s map out the hybrids available. (From hereon, I’ll be abbreviating Fighter, Specialist, Cleric and Magic-User as FTR, SPE, CLE, and MU for my own sanity.) The five combinations are:

• FTR-SPE (“Professional”: Ranger, Assassin or similar)
• FTR-CLE (Paladin)
• FTR-MU (Spellblade, or whatever other nonsense term for a gish)
• CLE-SPE (Seeker)
• SPE-MU (Bard, inevitably).

Now, instead of introducing a "player-facing" mix-and-match system, let’s pre-mix the options and write them out into complete classes or archetypes. Because we want to limit the complexity we present to players, and want them thinking about minmaxing the system as little as possible. So instead of letting the player choose the saving throw tracks, I will make the decision on which is appropriate for each archetype. For example, a Ranger is a FTR-SPE hybrid with Bushcraft and Stealth skills and saves as a Fighter. Assassin has Stealth and Sneak Attack and saves as a Specialist. If you want, you can add more: a FTR-SPE with Search and Tinkering could be a Tomb Raider (saves as a Specialist). In case you’re wondering what a Seeker is, it’s what I’m calling what is essentially a grave-robber in the service of a church, who goes out to recover religious relics.

(Protip: if you're reading on mobile and tables on Blogspot look awful, try the "reader mode" on your browser.)

	Fighter	Specialist	Cleric	Magic-User
Fighter	-	Professional	Paladin	Spellblade
Specialist	Professional	-	Seeker	Bard
Cleric	Paladin	Seeker	-	-
Magic-User	Spellblade	Bard	-	-

Hit dice

For hit dice, I think the way to go is to split the difference and round up, so a hybrid of a d6 and d8 class would have a d8 hit die, and a MU combined with anything else would have a d6. Thus, though both are half-casters, the Paladin has more hit points than the Spellblade, which is what I would expect to see.

Experience

Then there is the matter of experience. XP required to level up in Malloy’s system is equal to the higher of the two classes, plus 50%. For example, CLE-FTR: 2,000 x 1.5 = 3,000. FTR-MU: 2,250 x 1.5 = 3,375.

However, let’s examine what a Spellblade (FTR-MU hybrid) gets over the Elf (who requires only 3,000 XP). Elves cast practically as a MU of their level. Spellblades cast at only half their level. Since I’m giving them a d6 hit die, they don’t win over the Elf in hit points or saves either. Plus, Elves have other special characteristics. Though I think it’s fine for the Elf to be as good as it is, I still think we should aim for the best possible balance when adding these new options, so the Spellblade should not cost more experience to level than the Elf - in fact, it should cost less.

On the other end of the scale, the hybrid class should certainly cost more XP than either of its constituent classes. And I believe it should also cost more XP than the Fighter, even in the case of the CLE-SPE, just because. So, we have a range of XP to aim for with our base XP (experience required for level 2, which is what all subsequent levels are calculated from) formula: more than 2,000, but less than 3,000. This is the equation I came up with for the XP required for level 2:

Hybrid class base XP = (Class 1 base XP + Class 2 base XP) * 2/3

To keep the tables clean, I rounded the results to the nearest 100.
This results in the following XP requirements for level 2:

Cleric/Specialist	Fighter/Specialist	Fighter/Cleric, Specialist/Magic-User	Fighter/Magic-User
2,200	2,300	2,500	2,800

A nice spread, in my opinion.

Side note: In case you're wondering, the formula in B/X for calculating the experience required to gain level X is: Base XP * 2^(X-2), for X>1.

Casting spells

The maximum encumbrance levels for spellcasting in LotFP goes like this: light - heavy - any. (MU - Elf - Cleric)

For our new classes, let’s say heavily encumbered is the default limit, and having FTR or CLE shifts it one level up, and MU one level down. The result: Paladins (FTR-CLE) and Seekers (CLE-SPE) can cast at any encumbrance, Spellblades (FTR-MU) at heavy, and Bards (SPE-MU) at light. The only strange result here is the Seeker, who usually wouldn’t be wearing armor, since they need to be unencumbered to use their movement skills. But for the Paladin, Spellblade and Bard, I think this conforms to expectations.

Cleric hybrids can prepare any spell, as normal. Magic-User hybrids learn Read Magic at 2nd level, when they gain spell slots. As for learning and researching spells, here's where you can add unique mechanics to make the flavour of world you want. Perhaps Bards don't write spells down, but record them in their head, and research spells by listening to songs and stories. Perhaps Spellblades don't write their spells into books, but etch them onto their weapons and armour.

Skills

On a minor note, I think locking FTR-SPE hybrids to two skills is right, and helps protect the Specialist’s niche a bit. But for the Seeker and Bard, I would probably allow them to allocate the points as they want to represent their more scholarly disposition. What would you even lock Bards into if you had to pick two skills? Languages and Sleight of Hand?

Final List

Here are the final classes in a dense format that should give you all the information to make a full class table for any that you like. Let me know if like these and if you want me to lay out a PDF with the full class tables. For more interesting ideas from Sword and Scoundrel, check out Lateral Advancement.

Class	Combat	Skill points	Spells	Saves	Base XP
Ranger	+2 AB, all combat options	Bushcraft 2 and +1 at even levels, Stealth 2 and +1 at odd levels	-	As Fighter	2,300
Assassin	+2 AB, all combat options	Stealth 2 and +1 at even levels, Sneak Attack 2 and +1 at odd levels	-	As Specialist	2,300
Tomb Raider	+2 AB, all combat options	Search 2 and +1 at even levels, Tinker 2 and +1 at odd levels	-	As Specialist	2,300
Paladin	+2 AB, all combat options	-	As a Cleric of half your level, any encumbrance	As Fighter	2,500
Seeker	-	2 skill points at start, +1 at each level	As a Cleric of half your level, max. heavy encumbrance	As Cleric	2,200
Bard	-	2 skill points at start, +1 at each level	As M-U of half your level, max. light encumbrance	As Specialist	2,500
Spellblade	+2 AB, all combat options	-	As M-U of half your level, max. heavy encumbrance	As Magic-User	2,800

Alternative initiative systems: 'Split-side' and 'guerrilla' initiative

If you want to read the new rules rather than me rambling about a unified theory of initiative, skip on to the end.

The variables of an initiative system

The most common division made between initiative systems is in the granularity: individual initiative versus side initiative.

In individual initiative (the default in 5th edition D&D), the initiative order is written down, with each character acting on their own initiative count. Sometimes in battles with several types of monster, the monster types are grouped to act on the same count, but the key part is that each PC gets their own count, and their individual traits (Dexterity score, feats) affect that count. The benefit is that players get to feel the rewards of investing in those aspects of their character. The drawback of individual initiative is the need to constantly consult the initiative track, and the process of writing it down takes long enough to take us out of the exciting "combat is happening" moment.

In side initiative, the players and monsters make a contested roll to see which faction gets the first turn. This is then repeated (either in the same order, or re-rolling at the top of each round). Players are free to choose in which order they want to act during their side's turn. The benefit of side initiative is that it's fast, simple, and there is no need to write anything down, so it doesn't take us out of the moment. The drawback is more apparent in systems where action economy is important; if all the monsters focus-firing a single PC can down them in a single turn, fights can become even more swingy than they already are, with the first turn deciding it all. 

But this "side/individual axis" is only one variable of initiative systems. As an example of another variable, you could disregard rolling entirely, instead using the characters' passive initiative modifiers to determine their order (the 5e DMG presents this variant as "initiative score). This speeds things up, but only slightly, as the initiative order still needs to be written down. It also makes it rather static for the players, who end up acting in the same order relative to each other every time. It probably depends on your players whether they would be bummed out by that, or enjoy using it to discover trademark strategies.

This presents a second axis along which to customize initiative systems: the contested/passive axis. You can even introduce a hybrid of the two, in which only one side rolls, using the other side's passive score as a target number, but I see no particular benefits in this and only mention it as a curio.

Setting-specific initiative

To recap, the default 5e initiative system is a "individual + contested" initiative, in which everyone rolls, contested by everyone else, and the DMG presents an "individual + passive" variant. Many old-school games such as Moldvay Basic use a "side + contested" system as the default. But to really add flavour to our initiative system, we can create a "side + passive" system, and make the deciding factor something other than Dexterity score.

Veins of the Earth has "Lamps are Initiative", which has only the people with the brightest lights roll initiative - but if you decide that those with the brightest lights always go first, no rolling, you've got something interesting going. To give another example, consider what I'm calling "guerrilla initiative". Under this system, instead of rolling initiative, the side with the smaller numbers always has initiative. The players storm the lair of a solitary dragon? The dragon reacts first. The lair has a dozen kobolds in it? The players go first. The rule communicates something about the world: it really emphasizes the stealth in small numbers and the overhead of organizing as a larger group. You can come up with an infinite number of ways to decide which group has initiative in each setting.

Putting that aside, the system that I feel like combines the most strengths with the fewest drawbacks is something that, strangely, I haven't seen in any books. I call it split-side initiative.

Presenting split-side initiative

Like Moldvay and 5e, this is a contested roll, but it sits between side initiative and individual initiative.

The DM rolls a single initiative check for the monsters's side. The players then all roll initiative individually, using the monsters' roll as a target number. Players who roll equal or greater than the monsters' number are in group A. Those who do not are in group B. The turn order for a round then goes: the players in A, the monsters, the players in B. The player side is "split" in two. Each group of players acts as they would in side initiative.

This system is very simple, almost as simple as the old side initiative. But it also allows player characters to differentiate (rewarding high Dexterity scores), and reduces the impact of the "everyone focus-firing down a single character" problem. It's equally usable in old-school games, and games like 5e with a variety of feats and class features that interact with initiative rolls.

What do you think? Do let me know if this variant has been included in any books. It must have, seeing as there's no such thing as an original idea, right?