Thanks for sharing your thoughts! That’s an interesting methodology, though it might actually be more formulaic in practice.

I tend to view attacks as potential rather than guaranteed attacks. The attack rolls (and any modifiers) already determine the potential, and sometimes the griffon simply doesn’t get the opportunity to attack for whatever reasons. This keeps combat simpler and more natural, without needing extra mechanics or percentages. How you describe the attacks to the party can add realism without complicating the system.

If you don't already do so, you can add extra detail to combat, such as critical hits, fumbles, or situational modifiers for specific weapons, armor, or attack types. I incorporate some of these optional rules in combat, which gives the same sense of nuance as more complex systems without overhauling the core mechanics.  The critical hits/fumbles was published in Dragon #39, but it was also released later in Best of Dragon Magazine Vol. V.

There are systems that track attacks in even more granular detail, like Rolemaster or GURPS, where combat resolution includes hit locations, attack modifiers, armor penetration, and critical results by default. They are more complex overall and can sometimes bog down combat with technical details.  If you don't mind that, they can be possible alternatives.

1E combat is necessarily abstract, and so, while I like realism, I have to take what the system gives me. That is, in each one minute round there are all kinds of strikes, parries, dashes, leaps, etc. The die rolls are only indicating the strikes that are the most meaningful - the ones that have potential to score physical or metaphysical damage. The DM is free to add or take away from those breakthrough chances.

That's diminishing returns for me, but to each their own - some prefer extremely abstract combat, such as BECMI, others like more involved systems (from what I hear, 3E). I use encumbrance, weapon speeds. weapvac, individual initiative, custom shield rules, etc., so there's enough for me to handle as it is.

Thanks, Bart, I'll check it out. I had P&P long ago but never checked it out. I use several other homemade variations on 1E such as weapons doing less base damage when used by non-combat classes, saving throws being a base number modified by relevant stat etc. I created a purely skill-based system which does away with classes, and while it is insanely realistic and flexible it is a bit intensive as far as tracking skill points; I haven't tested it yet but initial reactions are positive. Why shouldn't a "fighter" be able to learn to pick locks? The one are I am still struggling with is magic. I don't care for the Vancian system; I currently use a spell point-based system and make things such as scrolls rare. 1E is still the most brilliant game system ever designed, but the changes over the years have weakened the game IMO since, as I said, I strive for as much realism as possible. My players are the same way.

Another thing I add is armor proficiency, same as weapons. If you've ever worn armor, it makes perfect sense.

Yes:

Jockstrap
Armor Type: Light
Armor Class (AC): 9
Maximum Dexterity Bonus: +6
Armor Check Penalty: –1
Movement Rate: 12"
Weight: Negligible

Description:
A basic leather-and-cloth support for the nether regions. Offers minimal protection (mostly moral support) while allowing maximum agility. Favored by athletes, bards, monks, and any adventurer who values comfort over full coverage.

Notes:
Slightly protects the groin; grants +1 morale bonus vs. surprise attacks from behind (only if the wearer is conscious of the danger).
No protection from swords, axes, arrows, or polearms aimed above or below the waist.
Can be worn under other armor without penalty.
Fully non-magical.  Do not attempt to enchant - it will fail.

Wow, great idea. If I had thought of that with my ex we might still be together.
In all my decades of DMing and playing I don't recall anyone ever taking a groin shot. Not a lot of crit tables have them.

Another alternative, to work within the existing game system, is to permit fighters (or fighter types) to strike as many times as they have levels against creatures where level difference is five or greater (rather than just against those with less than 1 hit dice), or when their normal attack roll is 5 or more than necessary to hit (normally limited to when weapon speed differences are larger and tied initiative).

With that said, I don't think fighters need any more benefits. Besides, two-weapon fighting is already an option.