Quote from: Marleycat;802148Just asking given you seemed shocked you're players are complaining. Hint for you count yourself lucky you're not physically injured... yeah don't mind the snickering in my corner over your awesome fix that never worked the first time it was done.

Honestly the Rogue shouldn't even be a standalone class but what can you do?

You have experienced/witnessed violence in your sessions? Over how-to-pretend games? I've seen some dice chucking in frustration and accidents (and the uncommon "let's pull out martial weapons and kata, because I'm feeling a raging martial arts boner now,"), but hopefully you are not playing with people who lack perspective.

:confused:

The complaints from my players were from a mere fraction of their numbers, and it was from those who worried about between class comparisons with solely high level encounters. Which is my opinion is just as white room theoretical as just about anything out there. No one obliges 12+ lvl characters to go live among the megadungeons, dick measuring DPS between long rests. That's a video game experience, in my experience, and nothing I run as a campaign.

What was hit point advancement like previously?

Quote from: Will;802560What was hit point advancement like previously?

2e Rogues were d6+CON (with a very different bonus progression and large average middle) for HD levels (IIRC 10 lvls each for the wizard & thief) and then +2 HP from then on.

I'm toying with either not having hit point progression at all or making it much slower.

Like, oh, 'you have Proficiency hit dice' or something.

But that crosses the line firmly to totally different balance, and I'm still debating that line.

Well you then have to ask yourself what do HP represent and why am I bothering with a level-based system. Then you have a better sense why you are changing things, and thus hopefully have better design precision.

What sort of setting conceits are you trying to emulate for that campaign?

Eh, this is more an esthetic 'I think I'd like to do a stripped down 5e.' I don't have any venue to play or run anything right now.

So my considerations are more ... theoretical.

(Yes, for at least another 6 months I'm one of those skerry armchair gamers)

Well the DMG recommendation for grittier games was something I liked. They had a suggestion about Short Rests for camping in wilderness and Long Rest a 7 day rest in the city. Makes quite a bit of those Short Rest recharge abilities way more valuable.

I also liked the Healer's Kit ideas. One was can't have natural healing without it. Another was it took more time to dress wounds. There's some good brainstorming in that book.

As for keeping HP flat, it might work well in retaining the lethality of firearms, both modern and futuristic, in a Modern or Sci-Fi setting. A flat HP total that never expands is quite lethal. Keeping the pool of HD as a means to Short Rest heal might give that mix of lethality plus high adventure some people want.

Quote from: Will;802587I'm toying with either not having hit point progression at all or making it much slower.

Like, oh, 'you have Proficiency hit dice' or something.

But that crosses the line firmly to totally different balance, and I'm still debating that line.

My heart-breaker has very slow HP progression.

It uses a wound/HP split. First damage comes of HPs which recover at a rate much like 5e. After HPs are used up damage comes off wounds which recover at a rate of 1 per week and impose -s on rolls.  
A PC has 1-11 wounds (3+ str and con bonus on a -1 to +4 range)
Depending on class at first level they then get 6,8,or 10 HPS + con bonus.

Now as they level a Warrior gets 1 HP per level and may use some of their improvement points (you get 10 per level) to buy 1 more HP.
A Rogue gets 1 HP per 2 levels a Mage 1 per 3 and each may buy a HP per level but at a higher cost.

So a 5th level Mage probably has 4 wounds and 8-10 HP.  A 5th level Warrior has 8 or 9 wounds and 20-24 HP.

Martial weapon damage is currently much like D&D although I have been toying to moving to just d6s (dagger 1d6, longsword 2d6, etc) as in the Sci fi adaption that was how weapons worked (standard blaster 3d6) and it was simpler to have all damage as d6 pools.

So a wizard cam probably use HPs on the first hit then they are taking wounds.

Note Armour absorbs damage in my game so HPs can be lower.
PCs have defense scores that increase as you level.
HPs are effectively a pool you spend to avoid taking wounds.

The effect of Low HPs is everything still seems risky even if you know Plate armour can absorb 8 points from a blow. Criticals and sneak attacks are lethal.

Quote from: jibbajibba;802624The effect of Low HPs is everything still seems risky even if you know Plate armour can absorb 8 points from a blow. Criticals and sneak attacks are lethal.

Based on years of experience with fixed hit points in Runequest and BRP style games and armor subtracting from damage, unless some hits can by pass or do enough damage to smash throuogh Plate Armor, low hit points still won't make everything seem risky.

Quote from: Skyrock;801500It's not an error, it is has been one of the goals of the game at that time. It was very much the intention in 3e to soup up the combat role of the rogue/thief and make him a "squishy glass-cannon" that is better in damage output, at the expense of AC and hitpoints compared to the fighter "tank".

Which is idiotic. A game where the Fighter isn't the best at fighting is stupid.  Likewise one where the fighter is relegated to just being a meatsack while everyone else gets to be special.

If the fighter doesn't get to do more average damage per round in a standard battle than the thief, there's a problem.

The thief should be a class that does a number of other cool things that have nothing to do with fighting as such, that are by no means terrible at fighting but nowhere anywhere close to the fighter, and that have one very special attack that can only rarely be used that can then do a shitload of damage.

The problem here became when the thief's backstab passed from being something that the thief could only ever use as a first-strike on a totally unaware opponent, into something that he can use any time that he has the slightest advantage.

Quote from: RPGPundit;803094Which is idiotic. A game where the Fighter isn't the best at fighting is stupid.  Likewise one where the fighter is relegated to just being a meatsack while everyone else gets to be special.

If the fighter doesn't get to do more average damage per round in a standard battle than the thief, there's a problem.

The thief should be a class that does a number of other cool things that have nothing to do with fighting as such, that are by no means terrible at fighting but nowhere anywhere close to the fighter, and that have one very special attack that can only rarely be used that can then do a shitload of damage.

The problem here became when the thief's backstab passed from being something that the thief could only ever use as a first-strike on a totally unaware opponent, into something that he can use any time that he has the slightest advantage.

The backstab once at start of combat versus the sneak attack on 95% of attacks remains an issue now.

I always thought rogues should be better at fighting than priests, so historically I switched theives and clerics HP and THACO/Combat matrix.
This meant rogues were fair fighters with that backstab option and it worked.

Clerics could wear armour but used d6 HP and theif thaco/matrix. You wanted a tougher cleric then you used 2e modling to reduce spells in return for better HP and/or AC.

5e effectively puts clerics and rogues in the same place in HP terms. THACO/combat matrix is now of course no longer needed

This is precisely why I like Fantasy Craft's take on the Fighter best. It let's everyone be badass in melee (if they pick the appropriate skills/Feats). But the Soldier (their Fighter) - he's going to be badass and top-dog, with Heat-seeking Mjolnir-launcher pods on his shoulders over you in whatever form(s) of combat they decide to focus on.

There are a few mechanical deviations made to allow this that seperate it from standard D&D - specifically Wound/HP system.

@Opaopajr - Yeah the Fighter in 2e with the Complete Fighter (and I'd do you one more with the OA1e Martial Arts system hacked onto it) is my definition of how I kluged my concept of what a Fighter should be mechanically. I think that concept is/was lost after Skills and Options-era going into 3e and beyond. In 5e - it's still wide open to be realized again. Again - I think that FC's Soldier combined with the robust combat options of FC does this very very well.