Now, as far as I and most 1E folks I know go, pretty much everything in 1E can be tweaked. Having said that, one of the things I have paid more attention to lately is how damage is dealt out. It seems that more often than not, damage seems to be left "as-is".
For example, a "lite" crossbow bolt is able to do 1d4 (1 to 4) damage while a "heavy" bolt is able to deal 1d4+1 (2 to 5) damage.
Now, there are many variables that are taken into consideration on a roll to hit and to damage. For example, the bolt might hit, but it might have been deflected or minimized somehow by armor, etc.. (low damage roll seems to indicate this). Perhaps the bolt hit direct and solid with little impedance and really nailed the target. (seemingly indicated by a higher dice roll result).
Now, a question from one of my Players recently made me think a bit on the idea that an arrow does 1d6 damage. However, it was observed that there are both short bows and long bows and that arrows fired with long bows seem to be longer, thicker, more substantial arrows. He questioned whether the bigger arrow should do the same damage as the smaller arrow fired from a shortbow would.
I think it's a good question.
Should it be a variation on the lite/heavy crossbow bolt and say the longbow arrow causes 1d6+1 damage?
Should we keep it simple and just call an arrow an arrow regardless of the bow that fires it?
Here's something else we've been talking about. What about crits and craps?
We have discussed allowing a natural 1 on a d20 roll to be a guaranteed miss, no hit, no damage. However, on a roll of a natural 20 with that d20 to be a guaranteed hit with full/max damage done. If we go that way, then we talked that a "To Hit" roll on the d20 that results in the minimum required to hit would automatically result in the minimum damage possible. Anything in between the minimum required To Hit and a natural 20 would be rolled as normal.
We haven't decided anything yet, but it's interesting to think about.