Looking at a 3 class system

[Theodoxus]

So, I'm working on making a 3 class system (Mage, Scoundrel, Warrior) and am currently working through the scoundrel line. Currently, I have 3 subclasses: Monk, Rogue and Scout (i.e. spell-less ranger). I'd rather have Scoundrel be a true base class with the PC gaining their subclass at 2nd level and then an archetype to that subclass at 3rd level.

My question to the playground is this: Would removing the extra attack and flurry of blows from the monk, and replacing them with sneak attack either with the swashbuckling provisions, or allowing sneak to be used with any monk weapon (PHB monk weapons, not the UA weirdness) be over or under powered? I was also thinking of allowing the monk to spend a ki point to "flurry" anyone within melee range (akin to the Hunter Ranger Whirlwind attack), where the monk could split the sneak attack dice against any foes they hit.

This would allow me to keep sneak attack as a baseline Scoundrel ability without worrying about delaying sneak a level for rogue and scout only (and making scoundrel a pretty boring 1 level class...)

Thoughts?

[GreyBlack]

So, I'm working on making a 3 class system (Mage, Scoundrel, Warrior) and am currently working through the scoundrel line. Currently, I have 3 subclasses: Monk, Rogue and Scout (i.e. spell-less ranger). I'd rather have Scoundrel be a true base class with the PC gaining their subclass at 2nd level and then an archetype to that subclass at 3rd level.

My question to the playground is this: Would removing the extra attack and flurry of blows from the monk, and replacing them with sneak attack either with the swashbuckling provisions, or allowing sneak to be used with any monk weapon (PHB monk weapons, not the UA weirdness) be over or under powered? I was also thinking of allowing the monk to spend a ki point to "flurry" anyone within melee range (akin to the Hunter Ranger Whirlwind attack), where the monk could split the sneak attack dice against any foes they hit.

This would allow me to keep sneak attack as a baseline Scoundrel ability without worrying about delaying sneak a level for rogue and scout only (and making scoundrel a pretty boring 1 level class...)

Thoughts?

Soooooooo.... I think it'd be fine but I'd like to address a greater point, if I may.

Why are you only focusing on a 3 class system as opposed to a 4 class system? Something like the following:

Scoundrel
- Rogue
- Scout
- Bard

Warrior
- Barbarian
- Fighter
- Monk

Magic User
- Wizard
- Sorcerer
- Warlock

Priest
- Cleric
- Druid
- Paladin

It might be a little easier to structure the classes in the four class system than 3, and I'm curious why you opted for 3.

[AdAstra]

First off, it may be good to relocate this to the homebrew forum since this is an entirely new class system rather than a tweak to one thing.

As for the Monk stuff, it seems fine? You'd have to look at all the features as a whole, though, and compare them to what other classes/subclasses get. It's hard to evaluate something like this in isolation

[MrStabby]

So, I'm working on making a 3 class system (Mage, Scoundrel, Warrior) and am currently working through the scoundrel line. Currently, I have 3 subclasses: Monk, Rogue and Scout (i.e. spell-less ranger). I'd rather have Scoundrel be a true base class with the PC gaining their subclass at 2nd level and then an archetype to that subclass at 3rd level.

My question to the playground is this: Would removing the extra attack and flurry of blows from the monk, and replacing them with sneak attack either with the swashbuckling provisions, or allowing sneak to be used with any monk weapon (PHB monk weapons, not the UA weirdness) be over or under powered? I was also thinking of allowing the monk to spend a ki point to "flurry" anyone within melee range (akin to the Hunter Ranger Whirlwind attack), where the monk could split the sneak attack dice against any foes they hit.

This would allow me to keep sneak attack as a baseline Scoundrel ability without worrying about delaying sneak a level for rogue and scout only (and making scoundrel a pretty boring 1 level class...)

Thoughts?

One thing you could do is look to the middle ground. What if sneak attack were a base feature but progressed more slowly? Then rogue could, as a subclass ability, get more sneak attack dice.

Monk then has some minor sneak attack and can then use flurry to mimic a second attack, possibly with some conditions. Flurrying anyone within melee range seems situational - if the monk has a bundle of different abilities so that if one isn't good they cn use another then this could be pretty powerful. If this is a bit more of a stand alone ability then it might not come up that often (or at least not often than it being better to just have an extra attack).

I think an extra attack as a subclass feature is fine - you could use this to further distinguish the classes. If monk got slower progression on martial arts dice but got a better flurry ability and picked up a genuine extra attack at a higher level (say 13) then they could be landing a lot of low damage attacks. I guess it all depends how you see each class.

[stoutstien]

So, I'm working on making a 3 class system (Mage, Scoundrel, Warrior) and am currently working through the scoundrel line. Currently, I have 3 subclasses: Monk, Rogue and Scout (i.e. spell-less ranger). I'd rather have Scoundrel be a true base class with the PC gaining their subclass at 2nd level and then an archetype to that subclass at 3rd level.

My question to the playground is this: Would removing the extra attack and flurry of blows from the monk, and replacing them with sneak attack either with the swashbuckling provisions, or allowing sneak to be used with any monk weapon (PHB monk weapons, not the UA weirdness) be over or under powered? I was also thinking of allowing the monk to spend a ki point to "flurry" anyone within melee range (akin to the Hunter Ranger Whirlwind attack), where the monk could split the sneak attack dice against any foes they hit.

This would allow me to keep sneak attack as a baseline Scoundrel ability without worrying about delaying sneak a level for rogue and scout only (and making scoundrel a pretty boring 1 level class...)

Thoughts?

I'm working on something similar. Instead of having sneak attack dice for the class I used a dice pool that changed depending on subclass and later prestige class pick. The dice recharge at the start of each of their turns so it's something they can dumb into one action or spread out the round. So while the rouge subclass would get sneak attack the bard gets inspiration with both using the same pool progression.

[NigelWalmsley]

I don't think it makes sense to ask "is this balanced" until you've written more of the system. "Balanced" isn't objective. You should be looking at a more iterative process. Sketch out your classes. Sketch our your subclasses. Sketch our your archetypes. How do they compare to each other? How do they compare to the expected challenges? How do they cover the characters you want people to play? Do they feel distinct? You're probably not going to get all of those right the first time. So you do it again, just with a better idea of how things work. Keep improving on your work, narrowing your goals, and trying again. Eventually you'll get where you want to go (or, from experience, give up and go back to ad hoc fixes).

[Theodoxus]

Soooooooo.... I think it'd be fine but I'd like to address a greater point, if I may.

Why are you only focusing on a 3 class system as opposed to a 4 class system? Something like the following:

Scoundrel
- Rogue
- Scout
- Bard

Warrior
- Barbarian
- Fighter
- Monk

Magic User
- Wizard
- Sorcerer
- Warlock

Priest
- Cleric
- Druid
- Paladin

It might be a little easier to structure the classes in the four class system than 3, and I'm curious why you opted for 3.

The Mage is based on casting style, rather than an Arcane/Divine divide.
Pick if you're going to be Vancian (Int), Spontaneous (Cha), Patron (Wis) or Innate (Con).
They'll be further divided into Full, 2/3, 1/2 and 1/3 casters, gaining more martial capability as they reduce their casting capacity.

Also, Innate (formerly Sorcerer) trades out spells for Spellfire and "Incantations" that mimic spells, but cost sorcery points to generate.

Given the propensity of 5E to "give everyone magic" the Mage class will by necessity, be the largest.

I'm also going back to a 2E style of XP gain, so Mages will progress more slowly than Scoundrels or Warriors... but that's getting into the far weeds at the back of the field.

[Composer99]

So, I'm working on making a 3 class system (Mage, Scoundrel, Warrior) and am currently working through the scoundrel line. Currently, I have 3 subclasses: Monk, Rogue and Scout (i.e. spell-less ranger). I'd rather have Scoundrel be a true base class with the PC gaining their subclass at 2nd level and then an archetype to that subclass at 3rd level.

My question to the playground is this: Would removing the extra attack and flurry of blows from the monk, and replacing them with sneak attack either with the swashbuckling provisions, or allowing sneak to be used with any monk weapon (PHB monk weapons, not the UA weirdness) be over or under powered? I was also thinking of allowing the monk to spend a ki point to "flurry" anyone within melee range (akin to the Hunter Ranger Whirlwind attack), where the monk could split the sneak attack dice against any foes they hit.

This would allow me to keep sneak attack as a baseline Scoundrel ability without worrying about delaying sneak a level for rogue and scout only (and making scoundrel a pretty boring 1 level class...)

Thoughts?

Should be fine? Might need to see a more detailed scoundrel description to be sure.

[Man_Over_Game]

If anything, it'd be underpowered.

In a game where units perform at 100% power until their life is 0, it's more effective to stack all of your damage on a single target than it is to divide it out. The only exception I could see is a scenario where dividing the damage would kill more units than stacking it all on one target. For example, if you had a 100% chance to kill a single target, or a 40% chance each when targeting 3 targets, the multi-target option is better.

Additionally, roguish types are generally ones that don't do well with retaliation. Their goal is to NOT be attacked, and killing a target is a form of mitigation (where softening a target is not). Now, you can go against that trope (I.E. scoundrels have good reactionary effects that prevent burst damage, where Warriors are more sustainable. The Silent vs. The Ironclad, for those who know Slay the Spire), but that doesn't match the 5e stereotypes you seem to be going for.

Lastly, movement is a weird resource, and Monks already have a lot of it. Really consider what movement means in your game, as it's not something that is very well thought-out. For instance, DnD either has a tradition of making movement impossible or too easy, with little balance in-between. Sure, you can move 90 feet in a turn, but what does it do for you?

[paladinn]

If you wanted to get really crazy, you could pare it down to a 2-class system. Scoundrels/rogues could be Dex-based fighters. Then all fighters would get a choice between a wide range of feats and skills. A veritable smorgasboard! The epitome of customization!

Hey, you've already combined the arcane and divine casters, so why not?

This does remind me a bit of the "generic classes" from 3.x, and/or the "sidekick classes" from UA. And True20:) If you want casting rangers, paladins, bards, etc, just multiclass!

[Theodoxus]

Based on feedback from here and my players, the current thought process is thus:

The base class, Scoundrel, will have sneak attack, increasing by 1d6 every 4 levels (1, 5, 9, 13 and 17th level). Rogue and Scout will add to that (increase your sneak attack dice by 1d6 every odd level) - Rogue will be the melee sneaker, while Scout will be the ranged sneaker...Monk, Rogue, Scout will be subclasses available at 2nd level. Scoundrel's sneak will be base PHB (needs advantage or a "flanking" buddy.) Rogue will use the Swashbuckler sneak as a baseline, while Scout will use the Zen Archer's sneak, Distraction specifically, as a baseline.

Spoiler: Zen Archer, Rogue archetype for 5E

Show

Zen Archer

You are on your way to becoming a master archer, seeking to meld roguish arts with devastating archery attacks.
Unarmored Defense

Starting at 3rd level, while you are not wearing any armor and not wielding a shield, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dex modifier + your Wis modifier.
You also gain proficiency in Longbow and Heavy Crossbow.
Distraction

Use a bonus action granted by your Cunning Action to distract an opponent within 60 feet that has no one adjacent to it, allowing you to sneak attack the target.
Zenlike Grace

Starting at 9th level, your speed increases by 5 and if you fall, you reduce the falling damage by 2 times your rogue level.
Arrow Catching

Starting at 13th level, you can use your reaction to deflect or catch the missile when you are hit by a ranged weapon attack. When you do so, the damage you take from the attack is reduced by 1d8 + your Wisdom modifier + your rogue level.
If you reduce the damage to 0, you can catch the missile if it is small enough for you to hold in one hand and you have at least one hand free. If you catch an arrow or bolt in this way, you can make a ranged attack with the piece of ammunition you just caught, as part of the same reaction if you're wielding a bow or crossbow.
Zen Archery

At 17th level, you have mastered the way of the bow. Whenever you successfully deal sneak attack damage, you can make a second ranged attack, adding your Wisdom modifier to both hit and damage.

Based off the feedback, I think Monk will modify sneak in the following manner: While wielding a Monk weapon, any successful hit deals sneak attack damage equal to the weapons' value (basically, the Scoundrel's 1d6 sneak changes to 1[W]). By spending a Ki point, you can attack an additional enemy, up to the number of sneak attack dice you have, moving between attacks.There's additional changes, but this is the sneak attack/flurry change

ETA
Will probably have martial arts be static at 1d6; by 20th level, getting up to 6[W]+Dex on up to 5 attacks should keep Monks on par with other melee classes.Starting at 2nd level, a Monk would deal 2[W]+Dex on a hit; 2d6+Dex with bare hands, 2d8+Dex with a quarterstaff, for instance. Plus they'll gain more uses for their bonus action that will compete with attacking, but they could certainly make a second attack, dealing "sneak" damage on a hit. At 5th level, they'd deal 3[W]+Dex, able to attack 2 enemies for the cost of 1 Ki; each hit dealing 3[W]+Dex...

[Maat Mons]

If you're not picking a subclass/archetype at 1st level, I think 3 classes is too few.

I mean, if you don't pick the "monk" archetype until 2nd or 3rd, were you wearing armor up until then? Or is Unarmored Defense a feature shared by Rogues and Scouts? Do you spend a level or two with unarmed strikes that can't use Dex and deal only 1 point of base damage? Or are all Scoundrels as deadly unarmed as they are with a dagger?

[Kane0]

How's this taking shape so far? Will the three over-classes all break into sub-classes and sub-sub-classes at the same levels?

[NigelWalmsley]

If you're not picking a subclass/archetype at 1st level, I think 3 classes is too few.

If you're picking an archetype at 1st level, you've effectively got more than 3 classes (I mean, yeah, there are overlapping abilities, but that never stopped the Wizard and Sorcerer). I think the core problem is that three is probably just not a big enough number to justify having a classed system instead of a classless system. You don't even have enough classes for every player to be a different class.

[Kane0]

Perhaps six then, taking a page from mass effect's book?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

They'll be further divided into Full, 2/3, 1/2 and 1/3 casters, gaining more martial capability as they reduce their casting capacity.
[...]
Given the propensity of 5E to "give everyone magic" the Mage class will by necessity, be the largest.

Perhaps six then, taking a page from mass effect's book?

Yeah, having a three-class system where one of the classes is much broader than the others is much less elegant and easy to work with than having more and more-specific classes.

Mass Effect is a good comparison, actually, because its Biotics/Tech/Combat setup mirrors the Magic/Skills/Combat setup here, and the six classes are three "pure" classes (Adept = pure biotics; Engineer = pure tech; Soldier = pure combat) plus three "hybrid" classes (Sentinel = biotics/tech, Infiltrator = tech/combat, Vanguard = combat/biotics). By analogy, those partial and half classes that were being crammed into the Mage could easily have their own classes, so the breakdown would look something like this (names chosen arbitrarily):

Mage (magic)
- Full caster
Gish (magic/combat)
- Paladin
- Ranger
Warrior (combat)
- Barbarian
- Fighter
Expert (combat/skills)
- Scout
- Monk [the less-magical subclasses]
Scoundrel (skills)
- Rogue
Mystic (skills/magic)
- Bard
- Monk [the more-magical subclasses]

So now instead of Mage being the overstuffed "everything magic" class, you have classes for 0, 1/2, and 1/1 casting and each could have a separate subclass for Vancian, Spontaneous, Patron, and Innate casting, where e.g. a Vancian Mage looks like a wizard, a Spontaneous Mystic looks like an Arcane Trickster, a Patron Gish looks like a blade-pact warlock, and so on.

[NigelWalmsley]

Perhaps six then, taking a page from mass effect's book?

Maybe. But Mass Effect is a single-player game (IIRC 3 had multi-player, but overall the focus is definitely on the single-player story mode). I think in practice if you want classes, you usually want a bunch of classes.

[Kane0]

Maybe. But Mass Effect is a single-player game (IIRC 3 had multi-player, but overall the focus is definitely on the single-player story mode). I think in practice if you want classes, you usually want a bunch of classes.

In the sense that you have the caster, the warrior, the skilled, and the halfway points between them as six classes. That way you don't have as many problems with casting progressions.

Just don't have a 7th that is 33% of all three...ANDROMEDA.

Edit: Yeah PairO'Dice gets the idea. Bonus points for splitting casting into three types (learned magic as spell slots, granted magic as pact magic, innate magic as spell points) and throwing in the warlord as a pure warrior type. Not sure if I could come up with three different expert types as well as three different warrior-expert types though, may need to do some digging.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Maybe. But Mass Effect is a single-player game (IIRC 3 had multi-player, but overall the focus is definitely on the single-player story mode). I think in practice if you want classes, you usually want a bunch of classes.

It depends on what level of abstraction and customizability a "class" has, really. Back in 1e, Paladin was a subclass of Fighter, in the same way that Druid was a subclass of Cleric and Assassin was a subclass of Thief; in 3e, Paladin was a class of its own, with no explicit subclass(es) or superclass but with lots of alternate class features for customization; in 5e, Paladin is a class with multiple subclasses represented by Oaths. The 1e Magic-User was a class with a single Illusionist subclass; in 3e, the Wizard has the ability to specialize in Illusion; in 5e, the Illusion Tradition is one of several subclass options for the Wizard.

Whether a given thing is called a "class" or "subclass," whether a collection of customization options is called a "subclass" or "alternate class feature" or "prestige class," and so forth doesn't matter, it's the total number of disjoint options on the table for players to use, and having 3 "base classes" with 5 "subclasses" each is equivalent to having 15 "standard classes" with no "subclasses" in that case.

Edit: Yeah PairO'Dice gets the idea. Bonus points for splitting casting into three types (learned magic as spell slots, granted magic as pact magic, innate magic as spell points) and throwing in the warlord as a pure warrior type. Not sure if I could come up with three different expert types as well as three different warrior-expert types though, may need to do some digging.

5e is certainly...lacking in that area, but if you look at 3e for inspiration, the Skills Guy class can have at least three solid subclasses in the Rogue (has more stealth and face skills, has good spike damage and debuffing in combat), the Scout (has more mobility and perception skills, is a skirmisher in combat), and the Factotum (focuses on lots of different skills, has ambush/nova capability but otherwise isn't good at straight-up combat), and looking further back to AD&D you have stuff like the Thief-Acrobat, the Swashbuckler (less combat-focused than the 3e version), and so on.

For warrior-experts, that's the kind of niche filled with things like a nonmagical Ninja/Monk/Swordsage type, a spell-less ranger, a more Bounty Hunter-/Justicar-ish Assassin, and similar concepts that should have been given their own resource system(s) instead of using magic because "When in doubt, just throw spells at them" was the devs' motto for those kinds of classes.

[Maat Mons]

Not to get too far off topic. But for the Mage class, I'd make everything follow spontaneous casting mechanics. Then, I'd differentiate caster by power source: Arcane (Int), Holy (Cha), and Nature (Wis).

Also, are you sure you want to have variants of Mage with slower spell progression? Instead of that, people could achieve the same effect by multiclassing Mag with the other two classes to various degrees.

I mean I'd build multiple casting progressions into classes. But that's because I feel that hybrid concepts should be available from 1st level. I didn't get the impression that you felt the same way.