Kryx's Magus (Draft)

[Kryx]

I've been working on an arcane half caster as part of my houserules (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxGh_mU9ihaPbXMtclcwWTlsM1U).

Recently I was encouraged to finish it by some fine folks on a thread about my houserules:

Kryx, I've told you before, but I just want you to know I think you're a genius at designing this kind of stuff. Please make the Magus (and let me know if you do!). I love Gishes and 5e seriously lacks a good Arcane Gish at the moment.


I regard you and your work highly enough that I would pretty much pay to have you include just a part of my Int halfcaster.


Kryx's Magus (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxGh_mU9ihaPQWduQ0FiLVZqRTg) (Draft)

The class is an arcane half caster that encompasses class ideas such as Swordmage, Arcane Archer, Eldritch Knight, and several more. It closely follows the structure of the Paladin so it should be balanced as long as I have not made any individual features too strong.
I haven't decided what styles of play the Arcane Orders will take on, though I expect Abjurant Order won't be the last time that I borrow and refluff features from the Wizard and Paladin.
There is currently only one Arcane Order and the spell list isn't fully complete, but I'd like some feedback while I continue to expand the Arcane Orders and narrow down the spell list.

Thanks for any feedback provided.

[PhantomSoul]

Haven't yet gotten through all of it and thought it over (I'll probably look at integrating this [potentially with modifications, TBD] into a campaign that's coming up!), but one thing jumped out at me:



War Magic
Starting at 11th level, when you use the Attack action, you can cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action or 1 bonus action in place of an attack.

How I'm reading it is that you can replace a 'weapon thwack' with a spell (Action / Bonus Action) -- do you mean to have a "once per turn" or something similar to ensure that Extra Attack isn't being abused alongside this to cast two spells with a single Action? (I'm guessing it's intended to be limited like that, but can see people using the ambiguity in their favour!)

[Kryx]

How I'm reading it is that you can replace a 'weapon thwack' with a spell (Action / Bonus Action) -- do you mean to have a "once per turn" or something similar to ensure that Extra Attack isn't being abused alongside this to cast two spells with a single Action? (I'm guessing it's intended to be limited like that, but can see people using the ambiguity in their favour!)
I had it worded as "one attack", but thought "an attack" had the same meaning. While it does, it isn't explicit enough. I'll change this to "one attack". You only take the Attack action once so that should clarify the wording.

The reason I don't use the EK wording is to allow it to work with haste or other abilities. Without that modification I think haste is a rather poor choice for Magi.

[PhantomSoul]

I quite agree with the reasoning and think it's a nice way to improve upon the "you can make a Bonus Action Weapon Attack when you cast a spell/cantrip" types of abilities! (I'd use it how you describe, but figure that, if it's something I'd feel I should specify/clarify to players, it might be a good thing to be explicit about!)

[Kryx]

if it's something I'd feel I should specify/clarify to players, it might be a good thing to be explicit about!
Exactly. I want to be explicit as I can be so thanks for pointing it out!

[Mith]

I am far from the best judge of classes, but I like the feel of what I see. I appreciate that you have made "smite" spells baked into the class abilities. I also like the support for TWF.

[Terra Reveene]

I have only one request: Can you include the capstone of the UA Psion in one of the subclasses? Specifically the last part of it is what I really like. Perhaps an "Eternal Order"? I just really like the idea of disappearing and coming back instead of dying. Has this whole Dr Manhattan feeling over it. I mean if you decide not to I will just go ahead and add one myself, so it doesn't really matter. Just throwing an idea at you.

As for the rest, let's see...

Eldritch Charge I'd love to see changed to just a flat out normal teleport. This restriction of only being able to teleport closer to an enemy brings odd things into games. Who needs to consider something an enemy for you to teleport to it? You? The GM? Would a snake count as an enemy creature? Could you throw a snake across a 30 ft pit and teleport to the other side? If yes then why can't you just let them teleport over to the other side anyways? Why can't they charge to the other side of the pit?

Stuff like that can be annoying to deal with depending on who you're playing with, and I think the restriction is unnecessary.


I really like the Arcane Channeling, more so than the Arcane Strike. It feels a lot less wordy (probably because they're closer to cantrips, and most cantrips are less wordy in nature by being 0th level spells). I think listing all the different strikes at the end of the Magus description under different headers like "1st level strikes", "2nd level strikes" etc. And then having something similar to the spellcaster feature to just bring them all together under the same kind of rulesset would be best

(I'm reading this again and I'm pretty sure I made the least amount of sense possible, so I'll give you a practical example)
The spellcasting feature tells you how you can use spell slots to cast spells, and then each individual spell only states its level and what it does at higher levels. Meanwhile, each arcane strike has to actually tell you what level spell slot you have to use.
This coupled with the fact that it's not clear when you can use an arcane strike (that is, at what level it becomes available) as the spell slot required to use it isn't stated until somewhere in the middle of its description.

Now as for Arcane Channeling itself, I have to wonder, do you get all of those powers and can choose a different one for each attack or do you get to choose only one? I'm hoping for the former, as having to choose between one of them seems a bit... I don't know, it feels like you could give out the option of using either one of them. That or you need a lot more options and let us pick a couple of them (similar to the fighter and its maneuvers).


I hope some of this made sense. It's very late for me, and I get very rambly when I'm tired, apologies for that. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Magus will develop, and I wish you the best of luck! I have little time right now, but I could throw more ideas into this thread for you to fish through at a later point in time if you'd wish (I could perhaps provide ideas for more Arcane Channeling options and the likes).

[Kryx]

I have only one request: Can you include the capstone of the UA Psion in one of the subclasses? Specifically the last part of it is what I really like. Perhaps an "Eternal Order"
Here is the feature: "If you die, roll a d20. On a 10 or higher, you discorporate with 0 hit points, instead of dying, and you fall unconscious. You and your gear disappear. You appear at a spot of your choice 1d3 days later on the plane of existence where you died, having gained the benefits of one long rest."

The theme fits with Arcana Unbound's raw arcane energy. I'll add it there.


Eldritch Charge I'd love to see changed to just a flat out normal teleport.
Done. This feature is based on EK's "Arcane Charge". I wanted to amp up the charge aspect (either into battle or away), but perhaps you're right.


I really like the Arcane Channeling, more so than the Arcane Strike. It feels a lot less wordy (probably because they're closer to cantrips, and most cantrips are less wordy in nature by being 0th level spells).
Arcane Strike is basically built in smite (see my paladin) based on the Arcane Archer UA. Those features are listed at the point they are given, not at a later point so I think listing them that way on the Magus makes sense as well. These features can't really get less wordy, but if you think there is room to clean up then let me know.
Arcane Channeling is totally different and is basically the theme of the magus class. It's effectively cantrips on an attack.


I think listing all the different strikes at the end of the Magus description under different headers like "1st level strikes", "2nd level strikes" etc. And then having something similar to the spellcaster feature to just bring them all together under the same kind of rulesset would be best
This coupled with the fact that it's not clear when you can use an arcane strike (that is, at what level it becomes available) as the spell slot required to use it isn't stated until somewhere in the middle of its description.
I have moved the spell slot to the beginning of the description on Magus, Paladin, and Ranger. Thanks for the suggestion!
Hopefully that should clear up the features more.


Now as for Arcane Channeling itself, I have to wonder, do you get all of those powers and can choose a different one for each attack or do you get to choose only one?
You gain all 4 powers, yes. How they are used is specified in the feature:

Arcane Channeling
Starting at 3rd level, once per turn, you can channel arcane power into your bonded weapon.


I could throw more ideas into this thread for you to fish through at a later point in time if you'd wish (I could perhaps provide ideas for more Arcane Channeling options and the likes).
Please, give me more ideas! Your suggestions above are great and I'd like some subclass ideas.

Though I'm not sure I want more ideas for either Arcane Strike or Arcane Channeling.
Arcane Strike has about the same amount of options as Paladin's have to smite with a similar level variance in the options. (Magus has 7, Paladin has 7 + divine smite). Expanding beyond the current options would break from my UA source and can possibly be too many options/too powerful. It could be done, but I want to add to that list very carefully.
Arcane Channeling is similar. By my math (See Arcane Channeling at the top of Magus on my DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=666841381)) each of the four features provides a pretty comparable amount of damage with lightning lure providing less for the utility it offers. Like Arcane Strike I'm hesitant to expand the options as it moves away from SCAG/4e's Swordmage and can possibly be too many options/too powerful. It could be done, but I want to add to that list very carefully.

I've updated the class with the changes I mention above.

[Terra Reveene]

Though I'm not sure I want more ideas for either Arcane Strike or Arcane Channeling.
Arcane Strike has about the same amount of options as Paladin's have to smite with a similar level variance in the options. (Magus has 7, Paladin has 7 + divine smite). Expanding beyond the current options would break from my UA source and can possibly be too many options/too powerful. It could be done, but I want to add to that list very carefully.
Arcane Channeling is similar. By my math (See Arcane Channeling at the top of Magus on my DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=666841381)) each of the four features provides a pretty comparable amount of damage with lightning lure providing less for the utility it offers. Like Arcane Strike I'm hesitant to expand the options as it moves away from SCAG/4e's Swordmage and can possibly be too many options/too powerful. It could be done, but I want to add to that list very carefully.

That's true, though I can't help but feel like some people would like to have their Magus wield different kinds of powers. Limiting the Arcane Channeling to Force, Fire, Lightning and Thunder damage feels like... You know, not a whole lot. Maybe add one additional option for each/some of the subclasses? To make them stand out a bit more. I just feel like there's a lot of room for the class to grow in terms of theme. What if I want to create a Magus that can very regularly imbue his weapon with ice? You see what I mean? If you have fire, thunder and lightning in there, I think you may as well cover all the energy/elemental types (or whatever you'd want to call them). Which'd be acid and cold, so two more (I don't think necrotic, psychic, poison, or radiant damage really fits with an arcane fighter, personally).

Acid could easily just be added acid damage (have it be the option that trades AoE/utility for just some more damage, the single target dps option if you will), cold damage could provide a slow effect (reduced movement speed would be fine).

As for smites, I think just having an option for each school where possible (divination might be a little difficult to do) is just fine (which is exactly what you have (I think)).

I'll see if I can't get some actual features/rulings/subclass ideas down tomorrow. I have a few, but I'd rather get them more organized than I am currently capable of (too tired, going to sleep).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Generally, quite nice. I really like it as an Arcane paladin replacement. Some random feedback:

The purple text is confusing. Sometimes it seems to be marking changes to common 5e language, other times it seems to be marking stuff that's specific to your overhaul, and other times it seems totally random.
Warding jumps out at me as an odd feature. The +2-if-you-could-have-a-shield-but-don't is neat, and solves a complaint I have with a lot of D&D characters (I want to have a free off-hand for thematics but the option is so weak!), but why the +1 AC? Medium armor and a pseudo-shield is already pretty good.
Fighting Stance is... I'm guessing an edit to the default to fit in with the rest of your overhaul?
Arcane Channeling is neat; I like that it sort of gives you the gish cantrips for free. (Although it amuses me to think that, by RAW, you could double up)
Arcane Strike... concerns me. I see where you're going with it, but it feels rough, and it feels like a step up on the Paladin's smite spells. Was there a reason you didn't want to stick with the class-features-as-spells paradigm, maybe grant them as bonus spells known, to track with the Paladin's smites?

[Kryx]

If you have fire, thunder and lightning in there, I think you may as well cover all the energy/elemental types (or whatever you'd want to call them). Which'd be acid and cold, so two more (I don't think necrotic, psychic, poison, or radiant damage really fits with an arcane fighter, personally).

Acid could easily just be added acid damage (have it be the option that trades AoE/utility for just some more damage, the single target dps option if you will), cold damage could provide a slow effect (reduced movement speed would be fine).
I agree that supporting all elements is a good goal. I'll see if I can add acid and cold options that make sense.


As for smites, I think just having an option for each school where possible (divination might be a little difficult to do) is just fine (which is exactly what you have (I think)).
That is indeed what I have.


Generally, quite nice. I really like it as an Arcane paladin replacement.
Thanks!


The purple text is confusing. Sometimes it seems to be marking changes to common 5e language, other times it seems to be marking stuff that's specific to your overhaul, and other times it seems totally random.
The fuchsia text is to indicate anything that has changed from RAW or the source for where it came. I use it quite a bit on my houserules and here to make it clear to people what I have changed so they don't have to compare features word for word.

What, specifically, do you find confusing?


Warding jumps out at me as an odd feature. The +2-if-you-could-have-a-shield-but-don't is neat, and solves a complaint I have with a lot of D&D characters (I want to have a free off-hand for thematics but the option is so weak!), but why the +1 AC? Medium armor and a pseudo-shield is already pretty good.
For balance purposes you can just assume that +2 for no shield is basically the same as giving the class proficiency with shields. +2 for no shield is an idea that dates back to the Swordmage that has the intention of allowing for a free off-hand mechanic. The wording I use is actually really similar to the 4e version of the swordmage.
+2 for no shield is somewhat like the Barbarian's Unarmored defense: it is worthless for any build not using it. That means it is worthless for TWF, GWM, Polearm, and any build that doesn't use a single weapon.

+1 AC again comes from the swordmage. The magus class has some defensive features, but compared to the Paladin he'll be a fair bit squishier (1 less AC than heavy armor, and without lay on hands). The +1 AC is meant to make up for that loss in AC. Overall the Magus should have comparable AC to a Paladin at all tiers.


Fighting Stance is... I'm guessing an edit to the default to fit in with the rest of your overhaul?
Correct, fighting stance is changed in my houserules for all classes that had a fighting style. It allows for much more dynamic weapon choices and the ability to adapt to situations better (by turning on defense for example)


Arcane Channeling is neat; I like that it sort of gives you the gish cantrips for free. (Although it amuses me to think that, by RAW, you could double up)
Double up?
As in with SCAG cantrips? I purposefully did not include them in the class as I've rewritten those into the class via Arcane Channeling. Those cantrips don't exist in my games. For other games if you're talking about acquiring them via a feat.. I'm not sure how I can explicity prevent that without adding verbosity. I think rewriting those cantrips into Arcane Channeling makes it mostly clear..
As in with another Arcane Channeling? It's listed as once per turn.
As in with Arcane Strike? That's intended. See Paladin and multiple smites per round plus spell smites plus multiple attacks that deal 1d10 extra damage at level 11+.


Arcane Strike... concerns me. I see where you're going with it, but it feels rough, and it feels like a step up on the Paladin's smite spells. Was there a reason you didn't want to stick with the class-features-as-spells paradigm, maybe grant them as bonus spells known, to track with the Paladin's smites?
See the UA for the Arcane Archer for the source of these features. What I have is very very similar to those (balanced for damage though).
Paladin smite options as spells was a failure in design imo - especially with the concentration issues. There have been a few threads about this topic. My Paladin has the smite options wrapped in a class feature and most users that have provided feedback seem to prefer that option. It's much more transparent and clear what options are available imo.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The fuchsia text is to indicate anything that has changed from RAW or the source for where it came. I use it quite a bit on my houserules and here to make it clear to people what I have changed so they don't have to compare features word for word.

What, specifically, do you find confusing?
Mostly its use with original abilities


+1 AC again comes from the swordmage. The magus class has some defensive features, but compared to the Paladin he'll be a fair bit squishier (1 less AC than heavy armor, and without lay on hands). The +1 AC is meant to make up for that loss in AC. Overall the Magus should have comparable AC to a Paladin at all tiers.
It just seems a little redundant. You might not have heavy armor or healing, but you've got top-notch defensive spells.


Correct, fighting stance is changed in my houserules for all classes that had a fighting style. It allows for much more dynamic weapon choices and the ability to adapt to situations better (by turning on defense for example)
This touches on a somewhat persistent... issue sounds harsh; concern, maybe? I'm not a big fan of homebrew classes written only for use with other homebrew-- it's harder to use piecemeal, which I think is a much more likely situation. You're a pretty prominent guy 'round these parts, and I think a lot of people would trust a class like this coming from you. With that in mind, I suggest sticking to the formula you were using with Proficiencies: write the default form as if for use in a vanilla game, then put a note in pink for people using your houserules. Or at the very list, maybe a sidebar for people not using 'em? The Fighting Style at the least; it's a massive versatility advantage, on a class that's already really strong on that front.


Double up?
As in with SCAG cantrips? I purposefully did not include them in the class as I've rewritten those into the class via Arcane Channeling. Those cantrips don't exist in my games. For other games if you're talking about acquiring them via a feat.. I'm not sure how I can explicity prevent that without adding verbosity. I think rewriting those cantrips into Arcane Channeling makes it mostly clear..
With the SCAG cantrips, yeah. I wouldn't worry about doubling up from a balance perspective or anything, I just think it's mildly amusing that you could do it.


See the UA for the Arcane Archer for the source of these features. What I have is very very similar to those (balanced for damage though).
Aahh, did not know that.


Paladin smite options as spells was a failure in design imo - especially with the concentration issues. There have been a few threads about this topic. My Paladin has the smite options wrapped in a class feature and most users that have provided feedback seem to prefer that option. It's much more transparent and clear what options are available imo.
As long as it matches the Paladin, you're good. Like I said before, I might include a note for people not using your housrules, perhaps with a suggestion on how to turn them into spells. (Or write them as spells, with notes to turn them into class features if using your Paladin rewrite). As-is, I'd be a little concerned; your spell list already makes you a fair chunk more versatile than a Paladin, and your smites even moreso.

[Zman]

My initial response is overwhelmingly positive. I may have my disagreements with the general scope and implementation of your main changes, but this is pretty solid. Honestly, this class does right out the box a lot of what I painstaking multiclass and build characters to do.

My biggest gripe are...

Warding. Now, I know why you did it, but it feels like forced balance. What if it were a reaction like parry? Essentially the shield Spell for a single attack. Using shield spell is still better, but it would give a no resource drain reaction. I'd maybe keep the general +1 AC, and necessary a free hand and no physical shield. Equivalent AC defense in aggregate effect, but more interactive and less passive. What if it was Reaction for Int Mod to AC and a general +1?

Arcane Channeling. Does this mean when you have multiattack you attack for 1d8<Longsword) + 1d8(Booming) +Abikity for each strike? This would appear to be significantly outpacing the Paladin's damage at levels 3 by a d8, 2d8 at 5th+. When the Paladin gets Improved Smite the Magus is getting +2d8 with a Rider.

Smites. Any particular reason you've broke from the Paladin's smite and smite spell structure? Isn't this more powerful by flexibility. I mean this class looks like it'll deal more damage and be more versatile with its spell list and smites than the Paladin.

[Kryx]

Mostly its use with original abilities
Such as? Weapon Bond comes from EK, Fighting Stance comes from Fighter, Arcane Strikes come from Arcane Archer UA, Arcane Ward and Antimage come from the School of Abjuration from the Wizard. Without any indication that the features are changed a person would see TWF and think "Ah, that's the normal TWF fighting style", but it's not so the coloring is there to indicate that.


It just seems a little redundant. You might not have heavy armor or healing, but you've got top-notch defensive spells.
Without going into subclasses:
The Paladin has 18 AC, Lay on Hands, immunity to disease, +cha to all his saves, immunity to frightened, ability to end one spell and all his defensive spells: Bless, Cure Wounds, Heroism, Shield of Faith, Aid, Lesser Restoration, Protection from Poison, Aura of Vitality, Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, Aura of Life Aura of Purity, Death Ward, Circle of Power, Dispel Evil and Good.
My Magus has 18 AC (Light or Medium + dex + 1), advantage to saves vs magic, ability to end one spell and based on his spells: Absorb Elements, Shield, False Life*, Blur, Enhance Ability, Invisibility, Levitate, Mirror Image, Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Protection from Energy*, Fire Shield, Freedom of Movement, Greater Invisibility, Stoneskin.
spells marked with * are ones I'm considering

The Magus is a slight step behind in defensive capability in comparison to the Paladin, mainly due to Lay on Hands and Aura of Protection vs Spell Ward. The spells are rather comparable with the Magus having a lead in versatility. It's quite comparable in terms of power imo.


I'm not a big fan of homebrew classes written only for use with other homebrew
The class is perfectly usable in any RAW game. The only thing changed from the "template" is Fighting Style which can easily be replaced if someone thinks that feature is too strong. The Magus would fit totally fine in a RAW game just as it is though.


I suggest sticking to the formula you were using with Proficiencies: write the default form as if for use in a vanilla game, then put a note in pink for people using your houserules. Or at the very list, maybe a sidebar for people not using 'em? The Fighting Style at the least; it's a massive versatility advantage, on a class that's already really strong on that front.
The fuchsia is there to indicate the change. If someone doesn't want that change then they can quite quickly understand the difference and choose to use the PHB version of the common feature instead.
I have added fuchsia to make it more clear that the words at the start of the feature have also changed.


With the SCAG cantrips, yeah. I wouldn't worry about doubling up from a balance perspective or anything, I just think it's mildly amusing that you could do it.
I have added "When you take the Attack action" to each Arcane Channeling option to prevent this.


As long as it matches the Paladin, you're good. Like I said before, I might include a note for people not using your housrules, perhaps with a suggestion on how to turn them into spells. (Or write them as spells, with notes to turn them into class features if using your Paladin rewrite).
People could choose to modify my creations as they choose, but using these features as spells is not how WotC intended the Arcane Archer (see Arcane Archer UA (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-RevisedSubclasses.pdf)) to use them and it is not how I intend the Magus to use them.


As-is, I'd be a little concerned; your spell list already makes you a fair chunk more versatile than a Paladin, and your smites even moreso.
Spell versatility differences is natural for Arcane vs Divine. Arcane has always had more options - that's true dating back multiple editions. The two classes are pretty comparable with the tradeoff being that the Paladin is more defensive and has a fair amount of healing ability while the Magus has more versatile spells.



My initial response is overwhelmingly positive. I may have my disagreements with the general scope and implementation of your main changes, but this is pretty solid. Honestly, this class does right out the box a lot of what I painstaking multiclass and build characters to do.
Nice! Great to hear!


Warding. Now, I know why you did it, but it feels like forced balance. What if it were a reaction like parry? Essentially the shield Spell for a single attack. Using shield spell is still better, but it would give a no resource drain reaction.
This feature is inspired from 4e swordmage:
http://i.imgur.com/zD2nGI9.png
It is intended as a flavorful feature. Swordmage and similar style arcane casters are not typically depicted in heavy armor due to previous edition's restrictions on armor + arcane spellcasting. This feature should be considered on the same level as Unarmed Strike is for Barbarian and Monk as it gives comparable AC while maintaining the desired flavor. It must be an AC formula adjustment to accomplish that.
The AC for a Stength build still comes at a cost by RAW as the Magus would have to invest at least 14 into Dexterity for decent armor. My armor houserules manage this better, allowing for both a Strength build and a Dexterity build without giving Plate.


I'd maybe keep the general +1 AC, and necessary a free hand and no physical shield. Equivalent AC defense in aggregate effect, but more interactive and less passive. What if it was Reaction for Int Mod to AC and a general +1?
This doesn't capture the shield-less concept and a reaction is already available via the shield spell.

The flavor is purposeful: The Magus maintains a bubble of force around himself that can deflect blows. Sometimes he can use his arcane power via the shield spell to add an even stronger bubble (on top or adding to, depending on your desired flavor).

My only concern with it currently is the ability to multiclass dip for +1 AC, but that option already exists on the Fighter as a 1st level dip as one could choose the Defense style and it stacks with other styles.


Arcane Channeling. Does this mean when you have multiattack you attack for 1d8<Longsword) + 1d8(Booming) +Abikity for each strike? This would appear to be significantly outpacing the Paladin's damage at levels 3 by a d8, 2d8 at 5th+. When the Paladin gets Improved Smite the Magus is getting +2d8 with a Rider.
No. See the DPR I linked (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=666841381) and my reply to this above (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?534447-Kryx-s-Magus-(Draft)&p=22327792#post22327792) or the feature itself:

Arcane Channeling
Starting at 3rd level, once per turn, you can channel arcane power into your bonded weapon.
Arcane Channeling is usable one per turn. Extra Attack does not grant additional uses for it.

The Magus and the Paladin have nearly identical DPR across all the fighting Styles.


Smites. Any particular reason you've broke from the Paladin's smite and smite spell structure? Isn't this more powerful by flexibility.
They aren't smites. Apparently no one has read the Arcane Archer UA (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-RevisedSubclasses.pdf). :(


I mean this class looks like it'll deal more damage and be more versatile with its spell list and smites than the Paladin.
It looks like more damage due to the misreading above. The versatility comes at the cost of defensive options that the Paladin has.


Thank you both for the feedback. On second read my post feels rather definitive. Please don't take it as such - there is always room for discussion and changes.

[Kryx]

I've added the Order of the Diviner which has some features from the Diviner Wizard. I have a few more in the works as well.

[Terra Reveene]

Alright, new day. For Arcane Channeling's cold damage strike I suggest using something similar to 4e Swordmage's 'Frigid Blade'. I suggest 1d6 additional cold damage and halving the creature's speed on a hit.

For the acid damage I suggest 'Acidic Strike'. I origianlly had the idea of it simply adding a d10 acid damage to the strike, giving it higher damage than booming blade if the target doesn't choose to move, but I've thought about having it deal less damage and cause any attacks/the first attack the creature makes to have disadvantage, or something similar. It'd then be the defensive option, which there currently are none of.

You could also make it similar in function to Melf's Acid Arrow, if you don't like it just adding more damage straight up and don't want there to be any defensive options. Make it deal a d6 in damage on hit and then an additional d6 at the end of its turn if it's hit.
Or you could perhaps combine the two ideas, having it deal damage twice and adding the debuff to its first attack roll whenever it takes damage from the attack (you could then run out of its reach and the opportunity attack would be made with disadvantage while still applying disadvantage on the first attack it makes during its own turn). I am not sure how much damage would be fair for it to deal with such a debuff though. d4? d6?

EDIT: helping with descriptions:

***Acidic Strike.*** When you take the Attack action and hit a creature with a weapon attack with your bonded weapon, it leaves a mote of acid on the creature, dealing 1d4 acid damage immediately and 1d4 acid damage at the start of its next turn. Each time the creature takes this acid damage, the next attack roll it makes before the end of its next turn is made with disadvantage. This effect’s damage increases when you reach higher levels. At 11th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d4 acid damage to the target, and the damage the target takes at the start of its turn 2d4. Both damage rolls increase to 3d4 at 17th level.
(I remembered Melf's Acid Arrow wrong. It does its damage at the end of the turn. That is probably stronger than what I'm suggesting here. I'm not sure how the balance would work out)

***Frigid Strike.*** When you take the Attack action and hit a creature with a weapon attack with your bonded weapon, frost erupts from the strike, dealing an additional 1d6 cold damage and covering the creature in frost, reducing its movement speed by 10 feet until the end of its next turn. This effect’s damage increases to 2d6 at 11th level and 3d6 at 17th level.

Use them if you'd like, if you prefer using something of your own then that is completely fine by me.


EDIT 2: Also, I just had a thought. Have you ever thought about adding a Fighting Stance for unarmed combat? I know it doesn't sound particularly useful, probably isn't, but I think it could be very flavorful. Give them (fighter, barbarian, others) a d4 for damage die with unarmed strikes. If they ever lose their weapon for any reason, I think it'd be cool if they had an option to enter some sort of hand-to-hand fighting stance, give them some extra punch over your average strength bloke. They're trained warriors after all! (or at the very least experienced)

[Kryx]

Magus changes

Arcane charge removed, added an Arcane Order feature at 10th level to replace it.
Spells finalized
Sword Burst moved back to a cantrip
Added Acidic Strike, Frigid Strike, and Poisoning Strike to Arcane Channeling. (thanks Terra Reveene for some of the ideas)

Abjurant Order

Antimagic moved to 10th level
Damage resistance of Antimagic moved to Improved Spell Ward which has the damage resistance apply to all creatures affected by your spell ward

Divinest Order

The Third Eye moved to 10th level
Added Augurer at 7th
Seeking Sense added as the 15th level ability

Nomadic Order

Nomadic Order added




EDIT 2: Also, I just had a thought. Have you ever thought about adding a Fighting Stance for unarmed combat? I know it doesn't sound particularly useful, probably isn't, but I think it could be very flavorful. Give them (fighter, barbarian, others) a d4 for damage die with unarmed strikes. If they ever lose their weapon for any reason, I think it'd be cool if they had an option to enter some sort of hand-to-hand fighting stance, give them some extra punch over your average strength bloke. They're trained warriors after all! (or at the very least experienced)
5e's stance on it is good enough for me. Punches do 4 damage for those people, compared to 8.5 for a typical weapon. I think that's entirely reasonable. If someone wants to train their first they're either a monk or spend the feat for tavern brawler imo.

[Kryx]

Magus changes

Spells prepared increased to Intelligence modifier + your magus level. Otherwise it would've been 15 spells prepared which is 10 less than both Paladin and Ranger (Based on latest UAs with spells). Overall Magus will lag behind the paladin by 1 spell prepared at several points in the level progression, but his spells are all his choice so that makes up for it. See Caster Comparison (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wJAnGX7qgsPqpXv3h76QGGn5vmPgjU1bCzU-7kgBjvw/edit#gid=2077828504)

[Kane0]

*Rubs hands* Alrigty, time for some disassembly.

HP & Proficiencies: OK, I can see right away we're going for a frontliner chassis. Why two mental saves though, and not a unique pair like Con + Int?

Arcane Sense: Pretty much detect magic a couple times per day. Pretty standard stuff, I wonder why full caster classes don't get this. That said most can grab it as a ritual where you don't but you beat that with casting time.

Weapon Bond: Much like EK, but also acts as focus (which I always thought should have been the case).

Cantrips: Funny that the other half casters don't have them. I always figured that was to encourage more weapon use than caster spamming. Regardless good to have.

Warding: Dipalicious, but otherwise not a problem

Fighting Style/Stance: Stackable with warding which may be a problem, but otherwise standard stuff. Perhaps limit the options available to differentiate between Fighters, Pallys, Rangers and Magi

Casting: Int casting, prepped with spellbook (level + int). Thats a lot of options looking at the list. Spellbook is fine if a bit odd compared to the Wiz/EK difference but the amount of spells prepped might need to be toned back.

Arcane Strike: Lots happening here, I assume this is the meat of the class. These essentially appear to be a bundle of packaged smite abilities with riders. These look like a straight upgrade from paladin smites and smite spells. Do you get all these by default, or only a few? I'm guessing all of them since you don't add more later and there are options only available later on because of slot requirements. This is potentially very powerful since you can dip 2 levels then go full caster to get those good strikes real quick.

Order: Here's the subclass, will get to these later.

Arcane Channeling: Add a cantrip to the attack action. Autoscaling and stackable with strikes. I think we're tipping the power curve at this point.

ASIs: Standard allotment, nothing to see here.

Extra Attack: Carry on citizen.

Spell ward: Comparable to pally auras.

War magic: Assuming this interacts with Channeling and strikes now I can swing twice, adding a cantrip effect into one and replacing the other with a spell while leaving my bonus action free for perhaps another spell. This can lead to rapid slot depetion but is also pretty powerful. It also carries the same name as the EKs ability which can be confusing and maybe a little unfair to them.

Spell Recall: 1/SR cast spell that you don't have prepped as if you did. Not actually a recovery mechanic despite the name, and you will probably have a ton of spells prepped anyways (see above).

Arcane cleansing: Direct analogue to the pally again, removing spells with a touch. Seems a little copy-paste, we don't want to just make an arcane paladin do we?


Arcane Orders:

Abjurant Order: Is the intent one for each spell school? I'd advise against it, unique subclasses is something I always prefer but thats just my bias.
Arcane/projected ward/antimagic: Much like the abjurer abilities. Mechanically effective even if it's pretty poachy
Improved ward: Nice touch, i like it.
Arcana unbonud: I'm conflicted wheter I like subclass based capstones or core class capstones, I supose it depends on the angle of the class presented. Regardless, this mimics the pallys subclass capstones, powerful but limited use. Hey, at this point you're level 20, go nuts.

Divinest order: as my thoughts on the abjurant order, I think the magus would be better served with its own subclasses rather than taking those of the wizard (or any other class)

Nomadic Order: this looks more like it!
Temporal Acceleration: Action surge, but no casting. Potentially broken powerful when coupled with strike, channel and/or a dip into fighter for action surge (they aren't the same and theres nothing saying you can't stack them)
Benign transposition: One of my favourite abilities, swap place with a teammate. I can't hate it, balance be damned, so my bias prevents me from commenting.
Temporal step: Powerful stuff, once per day free teleport of your choice. Can be used to set up permanent TP circles actually.
Jaunter: See arcana unbound

Spell list: Seems a bit too broad. Slightly worries me that its bigger and better than the sorc list, but the sorc list sucks and everyone knows it. Whats the theme/niche?


Overall, well presented and strong base setup with the caveat of being an extremely powerful dip IMO. There is also the concern of ranged combat being pretty compatible with the magus compared to the pally. Will probably need fine tuning and my recommendation would be to find a niche for him rather than just taking bits from or improving on other classes (namely pally & wiz but also EK). Magus needs something to call his own and be proud of, give the feeling of standing on his own two feet.

Edit: Oh, I also vote for Venom Strike over Poison(ed) strike.

[Kryx]

Please see my replies above which directly discuss several of the topics you raised. Those posts and the DPR linked on the first page of my document cover your damage concerns.

I'll reply to the other topics tomorrow.

[Final Hyena]

Only skimmed it so far and it looks rather fun, will definitely come back later to give it another look over, the only immediate thing I can see is that the features indicate that you get cantrips at second level, however the magus table shows you with 2 cantrips known at level 1.

Edit: Another nitpick, the Abjurant order has "Improved spell ward" that improves your "spell ward" feature, except the feature is called Arcane ward.

[Kryx]

@Kane0: Thanks for the feedback!

The niche of the magus follows the subclasses and classes it is replacing/modeled on:

5e:
Eldritch Knight: Arcane power channeled through a blade. Utility and some damage spells.
Arcane Archer: Arcane power channeled through a bow. No actual spells.

Old:
Swordmage: Arcane power channeled through a blade. Damage and utility spells aplenty.
Duskblade: Arcane power channeled through a blade. Damage and utility spells aplenty.



Magus: Arcane power channeled through a blade or bow. Damage and utility spells aplenty.
The Magus' niche is to have spell-like feature through his weapon and arcane casting to fill in damage, utility, and other niches. An arcane half caster isn't a revolutionary idea. This is just an attempt to create a solid class out of the concept.


On to specific feedback items:


Why two mental saves though, and not a unique pair like Con + Int?
Constitution as a saving throw indicates a heartiness. Classes like Barbarian and Fighter are known for their hardiness. WotC thinks Sorcerer fits in the same mold, but I wouldn't agree.
The Magus is a mental warrior - it focuses on Strength of mind to empower their body - Similar to how a monk would, but more arcane. Constitution does not fit that model imo. Paladin has Wisdom and Charisma. Int/Wis seems like the correct choice for magus.


Warding: Dipalicious, but otherwise not a problem
Less dipalicious than a Fighter. Fighter gives you +1 AC and Second Wind. Magus would give you +1 AC and Arcane Sense.


Fighting Style/Stance: Stackable with warding which may be a problem, but otherwise standard stuff.
It's the same math as Paladin armor choices + Defense.


the amount of spells prepped might need to be toned back.
Please see my recent update:

Magus changes

Spells prepared increased to Intelligence modifier + your magus level. Otherwise it would've been 15 spells prepared which is 10 less than both Paladin and Ranger (Based on latest UAs with spells). Overall Magus will lag behind the paladin by 1 spell prepared at several points in the level progression, but his spells are all his choice so that makes up for it. See Caster Comparison (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wJAnGX7qgsPqpXv3h76QGGn5vmPgjU1bCzU-7kgBjvw/edit#gid=2077828504)



Arcane Strike: Lots happening here, I assume this is the meat of the class. These essentially appear to be a bundle of packaged smite abilities with riders.
No one read the Arcane Archer UA (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-RevisedSubclasses.pdf) apparently. :(


These look like a straight upgrade from paladin smites and smite spells.
Then looks are deceiving. They have all been balanced to do the appropriate amount of damage/condition for the spell slot level expended. Paladin smites are rather versatile and strong as well. If you see anything specifically out of line I can change it.


Do you get all these by default, or only a few? I'm guessing all of them since you don't add more later and there are options only available later on because of slot requirements.
All of them are provided, but many are not available until later levels due to the slot level expended:

2nd level: Bursting Strike, Grasping Strike, Mind-Scrambling Strike, Piercing Strike, Seeking Strike
5th level: Brute Bane (I'll move this to a 2nd level spell)
9th level: Shadow Strike
13th level:
17th level: Banishing Strike


This is potentially very powerful since you can dip 2 levels then go full caster to get those good strikes real quick.
Note that it specifically says magus spell slot. Even if it didn't it would be no different than a Sorcadin.


Arcane Channeling: Add a cantrip to the attack action. Autoscaling and stackable with strikes. I think we're tipping the power curve at this point.
These are not the power of cantrips. DPR has been linked in the document.


Spell ward: Comparable to pally auras.
Spell Ward is significantly less powerful than Aura of Protection. Aura of Protection is on all saves, this is only vs magic.


War magic: Assuming this interacts with Channeling and strikes now I can swing twice, adding a cantrip effect into one and replacing the other with a spell while leaving my bonus action free for perhaps another spell. This can lead to rapid slot depetion but is also pretty powerful. It also carries the same name as the EKs ability which can be confusing and maybe a little unfair to them.
Arcane Channeling isn't a cantrip. Consider it no differant than Paladin's Improved Divine Smite or Ranger's 3rd level abilities to add 1d6 on attacks.
Beyond that though, you're right. 1 attack + Arcane Channeling (which has some light CC sometimes) + Arcane Strike (which is effectively a spell) + Cast a spell is ridiculous.

2 attacks + Arcane Channeling (which has some light CC sometimes) + Arcane Strike (which is effectively a spell) OR Cast a spell would be acceptable. I'll try to make that work somehow.


Spell Recall: 1/SR cast spell that you don't have prepped as if you did. Not actually a recovery mechanic despite the name
Recall: "bring (a fact, event, or situation) back into one's mind; remember." Based on that definition the name matches the description.


Arcane cleansing: Direct analogue to the pally again, removing spells with a touch. Seems a little copy-paste, we don't want to just make an arcane paladin do we?
I was actually incredibly surprised to see that feature on a Paladin. A Paladin can remove any spell? That seems entirely the domain of the arcane casters. If a Paladin could remove any condition (ala greater restoration) then that would make sense, but any spell? That's definitely more arcane imo.
Based on that train of thought removing any spell seems entirely within the niche of an arcane (half) caster. Similar to counterspell, dispel magic, remove curse, etc.


Is the intent one for each spell school? I'd advise against it, unique subclasses is something I always prefer but thats just my bias.
I haven't quite decided, but probably. As per the fluff I have put forward Magi are often found around and sometimes in the service of Wizards. They would sometimes guard their towers and othertimes learn at their schools. Magi learning those same schools makes perfect sense imo.
The idea may match "follow a certain school" theme, but the implementation will vary quite a bit from a Wizard. See Nomadic Order vs School of Conjuration or Divinest Order's features beyond Portent and The Third Eye.


I'm conflicted wheter I like subclass based capstones or core class capstones, I supose it depends on the angle of the class presented. Regardless, this mimics the pallys subclass capstones, powerful but limited use. Hey, at this point you're level 20, go nuts.
I wish there was a universally expected power level for capstones. Though I quite like the Paladin style capstone structure in general and it seems to work so far for the Magus.


Temporal Acceleration: Action surge, but no casting. Potentially broken powerful when coupled with strike, channel
Arcane Strike and Arcane Channeling are both limited to once per turn so there shouldn't be any concerns within the class I think.


and/or a dip into fighter for action surge (they aren't the same and theres nothing saying you can't stack them)
I'll add some wording to prevent this stacking with Action Surge.


Temporal Jaunt: Powerful stuff, once per day free teleport of your choice. Can be used to set up permanent TP circles actually.
The subclass is based around teleporting and all the teleport spells are beyond the limits of the spellcasting of this class so this feature makes them available (still behind when a Wizard could get them, and only once). The permanent option is only possible if you do it every day for a year - should be plenty fine.


Spell list: Seems a bit too broad. Slightly worries me that its bigger and better than the sorc list, but the sorc list sucks and everyone knows it. Whats the theme/niche?
The theme is an arcane caster that seeks knowledge and has access to most arcane spells - very similar to the Wizard. The difference is that the Magus can't access higher level spells.
Not counting homebrew spells: The Wizard list is 230 spells, the Cleric list is 99, the Druid list is 123. The Magus list is currently 153, the Paladin list is 45+oath=49, the Ranger list is 49+conclave=54. (assuming half of oath/conclave spells are from another class)
Magus is 67% of Wizard
Paladin is 50% of Cleric
Ranger is 44% of Druid

I wouldn't disagree that the magus list could possibly be cut down a little, but I'm not sure if it would fit the niche of the class. Perhaps I can remove some spells like Continual Flame, but there aren't many of those type. Removing spells of other types will leave the class a void. For example removing some necromancy spells will make a necromancer magus weaker as there are already so few necromancy spells. Removing evocation spells wouldn't allow the evoker magus excel as much (though perhaps ditch spells like Melf’s Minute Meteors and Flaming Sphere).
I'm not sure where a drawn line would be acceptable. If you have suggestions let me know, though all schools should be available to the magus imo.


Overall, well presented and strong base setup
Thanks!


caveat of being an extremely powerful dip IMO.
I believe these are mainly due to misreadings of the rules. If a Magus is considered next to several other classes in terms of gains from a dip I think it stands below several. If you see otherwise please point them out.


There is also the concern of ranged combat being pretty compatible with the magus compared to the pally.
Paladin ranged restriction is a flavor choice that WotC made. I wouldn't agree with it, but it is what it is for RAW Paladin. However the Ranger's ranged options aren't nerfed as a result of the restrictions on the Paladin and neither should the Magus' options.


my recommendation would be to find a niche for him rather than just taking bits from or improving on other classes (namely pally & wiz but also EK). Magus needs something to call his own and be proud of, give the feeling of standing on his own two feet.
See the start of this post for the niche of the magus.


Oh, I also vote for Venom Strike over Poison(ed) strike.
While venom is technically correct, "venom" is only mentioned once in the PHB - under the poison damage type. D&D calls it poison so I should call it the same to be consistent.

[Kryx]

Only skimmed it so far and it looks rather fun, will definitely come back later to give it another look over, the only immediate thing I can see is that the features indicate that you get cantrips at second level, however the magus table shows you with 2 cantrips known at level 1.
Thanks for pointing this out! Cantrips are at 2nd level, just like spellcasting. I will update the table to indicate that.


the Abjurant order has "Improved spell ward" that improves your "spell ward" feature, except the feature is called Arcane ward.
"Improved Spell Ward" improves the Magus Class' "Spell Ward" feature, not the Abjurant Order's "Arcane Ward" feature.

[Kane0]

You're very welcome, I know how difficult it can be to get a full and deep look at 'brew.



The niche of the magus follows the subclasses and classes it is replacing/modeled on:
5e:
Eldritch Knight: Arcane power channeled through a blade. Utility and some damage spells.
Arcane Archer: Arcane power channeled through a bow. No actual spells.
Swordmage: Arcane power channeled through a blade. Damage and utility spells aplenty.
Duskblade: Arcane power channeled through a blade. Damage and utility spells aplenty.
Magus: Arcane power channeled through a blade or bow. Damage and utility spells aplenty.
The Magus' niche is to have spell-like feature through his weapon and arcane casting to fill in damage, utility, and other niches. An arcane half caster isn't a revolutionary idea. This is just an attempt to create a solid class out of the concept.

Fair enough, maybe that just feels a little bland to me. The term 'gish' in itself doesn't strike as flavor packed, that's why I went full-on 'Lost & Forgotten' when I did my Invoker. Also helps stand out from the crowd.



Constitution as a saving throw indicates a heartiness. Classes like Barbarian and Fighter are known for their hardiness. WotC thinks Sorcerer fits in the same mold, but I wouldn't agree.
The Magus is a mental warrior - it focuses on Strength of mind to empower their body - Similar to how a monk would, but more arcane. Constitution does not fit that model imo. Paladin has Wisdom and Charisma. Int/Wis seems like the correct choice for magus.

On the other hand they get d10 Hit die, extra attack, smites, etc. They aren't pushovers, definitely more combat oriented than wizards, who get the same saves.



No one read the Arcane Archer UA (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-RevisedSubclasses.pdf) apparently. :(

I did, I just wasn't a fan. Rubbed me the wrong way that the arcane archer is in no way linked to actual spellcasting with slots and stuff, and it was part of the fighter where I'd argue it would fit much better on a ranger or better yet, an Int half-caster.



Then looks are deceiving. They have all been balanced to do the appropriate amount of damage/condition for the spell slot level expended. Paladin smites are rather versatile and strong as well. If you see anything specifically out of line I can change it.
All of them are provided, but many are not available until later levels due to the slot level expended:
2nd level: Bursting Strike, Grasping Strike, Mind-Scrambling Strike, Piercing Strike, Seeking Strike
5th level: Brute Bane (I'll move this to a 2nd level spell)
9th level: Shadow Strike
13th level:
17th level: Banishing Strike
Note that it specifically says magus spell slot. Even if it didn't it would be no different than a Sorcadin.

Pallies have to use spells known to get the riders and alternate damage types though, but since they get free oath spells and magi don't I suppose that balances out. Fair point on spell slot restriction.



These are not the power of cantrips. DPR has been linked in the document.
Arcane Channeling isn't a cantrip. Consider it no differant than Paladin's Improved Divine Smite or Ranger's 3rd level abilities to add 1d6 on attacks.
Beyond that though, you're right. 1 attack + Arcane Channeling (which has some light CC sometimes) + Arcane Strike (which is effectively a spell) + Cast a spell is ridiculous.
2 attacks + Arcane Channeling (which has some light CC sometimes) + Arcane Strike (which is effectively a spell) OR Cast a spell would be acceptable. I'll try to make that work somehow.
Arcane Strike and Arcane Channeling are both limited to once per turn so there shouldn't be any concerns within the class I think.

I don't doubt the numbers, if anything that's what I have the most faith in. It just seems like you're reinventing the wheel where you could simply make more cantrips along the lines of BB and GFB and have them as spells unique to the Magus. That would solve the free scaling and interaction with other abilities problems, as well as the fact that Magi get cantrips and the other half casters don't.
It also strikes me as odd that the cantrip ability is gained after the smite ability, at the same level you get subclass bonuses.



Spell Ward is significantly less powerful than Aura of Protection. Aura of Protection is on all saves, this is only vs magic.

You are right, I meant that more as 'its of the same calibre' rather than 'identical in power'. It does stack though.



Recall: "bring (a fact, event, or situation) back into one's mind; remember." Based on that definition the name matches the description.

Mostly because the PF magus has an abliity of the same name I think caused that. All good.



I was actually incredibly surprised to see that feature on a Paladin. A Paladin can remove any spell? That seems entirely the domain of the arcane casters. If a Paladin could remove any condition (ala greater restoration) then that would make sense, but any spell? That's definitely more arcane imo.
Based on that train of thought removing any spell seems entirely within the niche of an arcane (half) caster. Similar to counterspell, dispel magic, remove curse, etc.

Yes it is pretty wierd. But there isn't much to gain after level 11 besides capstones so its nice and makes a certain sort of sense as an improvement to LoH.



I haven't quite decided, but probably. As per the fluff I have put forward Magi are often found around and sometimes in the service of Wizards. They would sometimes guard their towers and othertimes learn at their schools. Magi learning those same schools makes perfect sense imo.
The idea may match "follow a certain school" theme, but the implementation will vary quite a bit from a Wizard. See Nomadic Order vs School of Conjuration or Divinest Order's features beyond Portent and The Third Eye.

To my mind AA makes for a perfect subclass, enabling ranged magi. The mobility based one is also an excellent choice, and I'd advocate for a tanky subclass to act as its counterpart. For a fourth i'd suggest a utility focused one to round it out, for those less interested in being a combat powerhouse and wanting to be more a bit of this + bit of that without resorting to valor bard.



The theme is an arcane caster that seeks knowledge and has access to most arcane spells - very similar to the Wizard. The difference is that the Magus can't access higher level spells.
Not counting homebrew spells: The Wizard list is 230 spells, the Cleric list is 99, the Druid list is 123. The Magus list is currently 153, the Paladin list is 45+oath=49, the Ranger list is 49+conclave=54. (assuming half of oath/conclave spells are from another class)
Magus is 67% of Wizard
Paladin is 50% of Cleric
Ranger is 44% of Druid

I wouldn't disagree that the magus list could possibly be cut down a little, but I'm not sure if it would fit the niche of the class. Perhaps I can remove some spells like Continual Flame, but there aren't many of those type. Removing spells of other types will leave the class a void. For example removing some necromancy spells will make a necromancer magus weaker as there are already so few necromancy spells. Removing evocation spells wouldn't allow the evoker magus excel as much (though perhaps ditch spells like Melf’s Minute Meteors and Flaming Sphere).
I'm not sure where a drawn line would be acceptable. If you have suggestions let me know, though all schools should be available to the magus imo.

That is triple what the ranger and pally get. None of the Magus' abilities are tied to particular spell schools so you are free to cut whatever you please. The dual focus of utility + combat is whats bloating it IMO, perhaps remove a bundle of damage spells since you already enjoy free smites and add-on elemental damage, so you have the choice of mostly debuffs (for use with attacks) and utility for out of combat.



Less dipalicious than a Fighter. Fighter gives you +1 AC and Second Wind. Magus would give you +1 AC and Arcane Sense.
It's the same math as Paladin armor choices + Defense.
I believe these are mainly due to misreadings of the rules. If a Magus is considered next to several other classes in terms of gains from a dip I think it stands below several. If you see otherwise please point them out.

Fighter 2: Action surge, second wind, Fighting style. Thats three solid bonuses.
Pally 2: Divine sense, LoH, Fighting style, smite, +1 Caster level. Thats four solid bonuses plus a ribbon.
Rogue: Expertise, SA +1d6, thieves cant, cunning action. Three solid plus a ribbon.
'Lock 2: Patron, 2x cantrips, 2x invocations, +2 Pact magic caster levels. Four solid bonuses.
Magus 2: Arcane sense, weapon bond, warding, fighting style, arcane strike, 2x cantrips, +1 caster level. 2 Ribbons and 5 bonuses.
Definitely i bit too much, and much of what they get stacks. Something else to ask: Why take EK Fighter 3 when I can take Nomadic Magus 3?



Paladin ranged restriction is a flavor choice that WotC made. I wouldn't agree with it, but it is what it is for RAW Paladin. However the Ranger's ranged options aren't nerfed as a result of the restrictions on the Paladin and neither should the Magus' options.

I'm not convinced it is just for flavor. In play paladins are powerful, a limitation on using them in ranged combat makes sense when you consider rangers, the other half casters, as well as archer EKs and actual full casters that like to sit at the back. It encourages pallies to get up front and balances their potent abilities by encouraging their use (and therefor expenditure).
Rangers appear to be envisioned as capable of both melee and ranged combat and not particularly tailored to either one by default, thus no such limitations but enjoying less raw power in either situation.
Also ranged combat makes for a fantastic Arcane Archer subclass niche, much like many a paladin fan has asked for out of UAs.



While venom is technically correct, "venom" is only mentioned once in the PHB - under the poison damage type. D&D calls it poison so I should call it the same to be consistent.

I know, I just think it sounds cooler.

Objection on spells known is also withdrawn, level + stat is pretty normal.

[Kryx]

Fair enough, maybe that just feels a little bland to me. The term 'gish' in itself doesn't strike as flavor packed, that's why I went full-on 'Lost & Forgotten' when I did my Invoker. Also helps stand out from the crowd.
My goal isn't to stand out from the crowd, my goal is to make a solid arcane half caster based on the wizard as the paladin is based on the cleric and the ranger is based on the druid.


On the other hand they get d10 Hit die, extra attack, smites, etc. They aren't pushovers, definitely more combat oriented than wizards, who get the same saves.
Paladins have d10 and heavy armor, and yet are Wis/Cha. Int/Wis is what fits this class imo.


I did, I just wasn't a fan. Rubbed me the wrong way that the arcane archer is in no way linked to actual spellcasting with slots and stuff, and it was part of the fighter where I'd argue it would fit much better on a ranger or better yet, an Int half-caster.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying here, but these are complaints about implementation. I'm taking those ideas and greatly improving the implementation. I don't dispute that the options that the arcane archer provided are quite similar to smites. I'm disputing that they are copies or stronger than smites. Channeling spells into martial ability is what both the paladin (via smite) and the ranger (via ensnaring strike, hail of thorns, zephyr strike, and lightning arrow). It's what all the classes I'm basing my class on do as well so it's only fitting that my class does it as well.


It just seems like you're reinventing the wheel where you could simply make more cantrips along the lines of BB and GFB and have them as spells unique to the Magus.
I am reinventing many ideas that are poorly executed. That's what this whole class is about. Those ideas includes arcane archer and EK as well as GFB and Booming Blade.
I did exactly as you're suggesting, except changed the power level and structure of GFB and Booming Blade as they are prone to abuse, are overpowered, and do not allow me to maintain the extra attack class feature as they currently exist.


Magi get cantrips and the other half casters don't.
In my rules other half casters do. I think it's very fitting for them all, but you're free to remove them from the magus if you feel otherwise. Not much would be lost besides some small utility and possibly some ranged options.


It also strikes me as odd that the cantrip ability is gained after the smite ability, at the same level you get subclass bonuses.
This shouldn't seem odd if you understand class structures:
- Paladins receive smites at 2nd level. Divine health at 3rd is a bit weaker and more defensive, but you also have to consider the strength of lay on hands that grows every level.
- Rangers receive pseudo smites at 2nd level. At 3rd level they get subclass features for +1d6 damage.
- Magus receive arcane strikes at 2nd level. At 3rd level they get lesser cantrips.


You are right, I meant that more as 'its of the same calibre' rather than 'identical in power'. It does stack though.
As do 2 paladin aura of protection features by RAW..


To my mind AA makes for a perfect subclass, enabling ranged magi.
Practically all of the early subclasses are designed to accommodate all fighting options. Only later do you see options that I would consider poor design. Options like Arcane Archer, Sharpshooter, and others that limit the class to only fighting in melee or ranged are terrible options imo. That same flavor can be achieved while keeping both melee and ranged an option (see how Arcane Archer's ideas work perfectly fine as melee or ranged in my arcane strike feature).
Besides, the idea of being able to cast and shoot magic is covered by the base class - that's all there really is to the Arcane Archer.


I'd advocate for a tanky subclass to act as its counterpart.
Abjurant fulfills this role. Focus booming blade, lightning lure, and keep the ward up.


For a fourth i'd suggest a utility focused one to round it out, for those less interested in being a combat powerhouse and wanting to be more a bit of this + bit of that without resorting to valor bard.
Diviners, Enchanters, or Illusionists will fulfill the more utility based roles.


That is triple what the ranger and pally get.
And the wizard is 2.5x the Cleric. You're missing the point. Arcane casters have more spells, so percentage based comparisons to the full caster are much more telling than straight number comparisons.


None of the Magus' abilities are tied to particular spell schools so you are free to cut whatever you please.
I could, but as I said: I'm planning on supporting all schools of magic. You can't do that by cutting out a school or two or all the evocation spells. Supporting all schools of magic is a design goal. You may not share it, but ideas that break that goal aren't ideas I'll consider.

As I mention I think some bits and pieces can probably be cut down, but not much. I'll explore that if someone provides ideas that align with my design goals or when I'm done with the subclasses and can fully examine the impact on each.


Fighter 2: Action surge, second wind, Fighting style
Pally 2: Divine sense, LoH, Fighting style, smite, +1 Caster level
Rogue: Expertise, SA +1d6, thieves cant, cunning action
'Lock 2: Patron, 2x cantrips, 2x invocations, +2 Pact magic caster levels
Magus 2: Arcane sense, weapon bond, warding, fighting style, arcane strike, 2x cantrips, +1 caster level
Definitely one of the more powerful dips, and much of what they get stacks.
See above about cantrips - either add them to ranger and paladin as I have or strip them from the magus - your call.
Magus is one of the middle ground options in that comparison. Paladin is far better as a dip due to smite usable on other classes spells and lay on hands. Warlock is a better dip due to eb. Revised ranged is quite strong. Fighter and rogue are weaker dips.
Out of the gishes I would say Paladin/Warlock > Magus/Revised Ranger


Why take EK Fighter 3 when I can take Nomadic Magus 3?
This class would remove the need for both EK and Arcane Archer as subclasses. As I've said above those ideas are not implemented well and are a reason I've created this class. If I was happy with them then I wouldn't have created this class.
I'm not going to balance my class based on poorly implemented or weak options.

[Kane0]

This class would remove the need for both EK and Arcane Archer as subclasses. As I've said above those ideas are not implemented well and are a reason I've created this class. If I was happy with them then I wouldn't have created this class.
I'm not going to balance my class based on poorly implemented or weak options.

Fair points all round, but I think this is where my difference of opinion stems from.

Like Grod I think I'm looking at this coming from the stock PHB where you are gauging from the position of your existing houserules.
Nothing wrong with that, but they aren't really compatible/comparable after a certain point.

[Kryx]

Like Grod I think I'm looking at this coming from the stock PHB where you are gauging from the position of your existing houserules.
EK is a natural comparison, but it's not a fair comparison. If you choose to aim all classes at the balance level of EK then you'll need to nerf paladin and ranger because they are stronger than an EK.

If you want a full RAW experience:
- remove cantrips
- fighting style instead of fighting stance
- limit the number of arcane strikes known and progress them (this would practically only cut off about 2 options).

That's it. You don't need to touch anything else.

[Kryx]

Magus changes

Temporal acceleration does not work with Action Surge (or Haste): "On your turn, if you have not taken more than one action this turn, you can take one additional action"
War Magic changed in to "Arcane Strike improvement" which is listed under Arcane Strike: "Starting at 11th level, you can use the following option: Spell Strike. When you hit a creature with your bonded weapon you can cast a 1st-level or higher magus spell with a casting time of 1 action or 1 bonus action without expending your action or bonus action."
Arcane Strike: Reworded abilities to start with "When you hit a creature with your bonded weapon you can" where applicable.
Arcane Strike: Brute Bane moved to 2nd level.
Arcane Strike: Piercing Strike now works with melee attacks as well and the line starts at the creature hit.

[nickl_2000]

Kryx, I've yet to see anything you have written that I didn't want to pick up and play immediately. I love the feel of this class, this is how I feel a GISH should be.



Piddly typo stuff
Page 2: (a) Hide armor, (b) chain mail, or (b) chain hauberk - A, B, or B.


Questions:
Arcane Sense
Does arcane sense use up your concentration slot, also can you use this if you are concentrating on something else?
I would assume yes, but it would be decent to make this clear. There are several other places where this same thing can be asked (Banishing Strike, Grasping Strike, Mind Scrambling Strike, Shadow Strike)

Weapon Bond
If it is on the same plane of existence, you can summon that weapon on your turn, causing it to teleport instantly to your hand.
Is this a free action, an object interaction, or a bonus action?

Banishing Strike
A creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each turn, returning on a success.
I don't see a saving throw that they repeat? When do they make the initial throw?

Seeking Strike
The strike ignores half and 3/4 cover, but if it is moving around corners and finding a target that you don't know the location of it should ignore all cover

Portent
This begs to be a reaction (at least in my mind). You see someone doing something, and in reaction to seeing that you give them advantage/disadvantage. Then you can remove the one use a turn
phrasing

[Kryx]

Kryx, I've yet to see anything you have written that I didn't want to pick up and play immediately. I love the feel of this class, this is how I feel a GISH should be.
Thanks for expressing your appreciation for my work! It's nice to hear!


Page 2: (a) Hide armor, (b) chain mail, or (b) chain hauberk - A, B, or B.
Will fix, thanks!


Arcane Sense
Does arcane sense use up your concentration slot, also can you use this if you are concentrating on something else?
It does. Self review: Divine Sense doesn't which surprises me a bit. Ranger Primeval Awareness doesn't, but the Revised Ranger Primeval Awareness does. Detect Magic does. Therefore this should keep concentration.


There are several other places where this same thing can be asked (Banishing Strike, Grasping Strike, Mind Scrambling Strike, Shadow Strike)
Yes, anything that says it requires concentration does require concentration. Features using concentration exist in 5e in several areas:
Bard UA distracting Motley, Trickery Cleric Invoke Duplicity, Ranger UA Primeval Awareness, Fey Warlock Dark Delirium, Transmutation Wizard Minor Alchemy, and probably several other places.


Weapon Bond
If it is on the same plane of existence, you can summon that weapon on your turn, causing it to teleport instantly to your hand.
Is this a free action, an object interaction, or a bonus action?
There is no action required. This type of feature exists in several places, though it has no specific wording so it's hard for me to search for offhand. Portent is one of them.


Banishing Strike
A creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each turn, returning on a success.
I don't see a saving throw that they repeat? When do they make the initial throw?
Ah, that's a mistake. I'll change it to "They can make a saving throw against your CLASS spell dc".


Seeking Strike
The strike ignores half and 3/4 cover, but if it is moving around corners and finding a target that you don't know the location of it should ignore all cover
Should it?


A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.
A target with three-quarters cover has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a portcullis, an arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk.
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.

Seems like the current wording is appropriate. It moves around corners to avoid cover, but it can't go through walls or anything.


Portent
This begs to be a reaction (at least in my mind). You see someone doing something, and in reaction to seeing that you give them advantage/disadvantage. Then you can remove the one use a turn phrasing
Nit pick: Reactions always happen after the action that triggers them. A reaction would only work with portent if it was keyed to offer a reaction to something before an attack, ability check, or saving throw. It wouldn't work by how 5e defines a reaction.
The PHB feature doesn't have a reaction so I don't have it. Bend Luck does have it and if the wording could work I wouldn't mind adding it, but I don't think the reaction structure would work. Maybe.

Thanks for providing feedback!

[nickl_2000]

There is no action required. This type of feature exists in several places, though it has no specific wording so it's hard for me to search for offhand. Portent is one of them.

This was more of a clarity request. I have no issue with it being a free action, but I like clarity so I don't need to argue with the DM about it. A bonus action makes sense, an item interaction makes sense since you are interacting with an item, and a free action makes sense since you are simply thinking "come here blade" so it's the same as talking to someone.



Ah, that's a mistake. I'll change it to "They can make a saving throw against your CLASS spell dc".


Nah, that isn't what I'm worried about. I don't see a save at all in the ability. Are they making an initial save against being banished? What happens if they succeed initially? What ability are they saving with?



Should it?

Seems like the current wording is appropriate. It moves around corners to avoid cover, but it can't go through walls or anything.


My opinion, yes it still should. You are imbuing a magical projectile to bend around corners and hit someone you can't see. If they are around a corner and you can't see them, then they inherently have full cover and thus you can't attack them (or cast spells where they are the target). However, the point of this is that you can still hit them. Your other wording makes sure that it can't go through walls "there is a path large enough for the weapon or projectile to travel to the target," If they are behind a door and there is no path it fails. Still, just my opinion on how it should work.






Nit pick: Reactions always happen after the action that triggers them. A reaction would only work with portent if it was keyed to offer a reaction to something before an attack, ability check, or saving throw. It wouldn't work by how 5e defines a reaction.
The PHB feature doesn't have a reaction so I don't have it. Bend Luck does have it and if the wording could work I wouldn't mind adding it, but I don't think the reaction structure would work. Maybe.

Thanks for providing feedback!

Solid point, I try to make custom stuff fit into pre-existing normal rules as much as possible for simplicity sake. I may have tried to over-reach on this.

[Kryx]

This was more of a clarity request. I have no issue with it being a free action, but I like clarity so I don't need to argue with the DM about it. A bonus action makes sense, an item interaction makes sense since you are interacting with an item, and a free action makes sense since you are simply thinking "come here blade" so it's the same as talking to someone.
It is intended to require no action, not a bonus action. What you're asking for is a different rule.

There are several features that are usable, but do not require an action, bonus action, or reaction:

Portent
Several of Battlemaster's Manuevers
EK's Arcane Charge

I'm sure there are many more, but they'd take time for me to find.

None of those have any indication that there is no action, bonus action, or reaction. This is one of those features.




Nah, that isn't what I'm worried about. I don't see a save at all in the ability. Are they making an initial save against being banished? What happens if they succeed initially? What ability are they saving with?
I've changed the rule.
How it was intended to work: auto banish if below 50 hp, cha save every round to come back.
How it will work on next version: banish if they fail a cha save and can repeat every round to come back.



My opinion, yes it still should. You are imbuing a magical projectile to bend around corners and hit someone you can't see. If they are around a corner and you can't see them, then they inherently have full cover and thus you can't attack them (or cast spells where they are the target).
I believe you're misunderstanding the feature. It already moves around corners in the description. You aren't attacking a creature with full cover - you're shooting out your arrow/weapon and it moves around corners. The inability to attack a creature with full cover doesn't apply here.

It ignores some total cover if it can be circumvented by going around a corner or other getting to the creature via other methods. It does not have the ability to move through walls and other solid objects which would be the result of ignoring all total cover.




Solid point, I try to make custom stuff fit into pre-existing normal rules as much as possible for simplicity sake. I may have tried to over-reach on this.
Portent isn't really custom. See the Diviner Wizard. I've adjusted parts of it, but the base mechanics are still the same.

[DresdenforHire]

I've been browsing this forum for quite a while and finally had to make an account to be able to thank you for your hard work in creating and balancing this half-arcane caster class because without any change on my part, you gave me a way to finally roll up the Iron Kingdom's one and only Allister Caine, Gunmage of the Arcane Order of the Tempest.

Hand crossbows reskinned as Magelock pistols, take crossbow expert and then the Nomadic Order at 3rd, and I'm slinging thunderous, arcane death from a rune-covered smoking barrel as I blink about the battlefield. I'll take misty step and mirror image and have a blast the whole campaign. (and thats before 3rd level spells!)

Thanks again for your homebrew and being awesome.

[Kryx]

Gunmage
I'll ... have a blast the whole campaign.
Ha! :biggrin:

Thanks for the feedback and appreciation!

[Strill]

Looking over it, it seems pretty solid. I can't help but think that it would be nice if it had another ribbon, but maybe that's just because I haven't internalized all the abilities it gets.

The one thing about it that seemed off, however, is the fact that the class gets cantrips at level 2. I can see balancewise why you'd do that, in order to avoid making level 1 too tempting a dip, but storywise, how is the player supposed to explain their level 1 Magus? They've spent all their backstory learning magic, but they're only just learning cantrips shortly after starting their adventure? Flavorwise, Prestidigitation is supposed to be a tool for practicing basic magic, so it seems kind of strange that a Magus would learn Warding or Arcane Sense first. Similarly, they start out with a spellbook that they can't even use.

[Kryx]

The one thing about it that seemed off, however, is the fact that the class gets cantrips at level 2. I can see balancewise why you'd do that, in order to avoid making level 1 too tempting a dip, but storywise, how is the player supposed to explain their level 1 Magus? They've spent all their backstory learning magic, but they're only just learning cantrips shortly after starting their adventure? Flavorwise, Prestidigitation is supposed to be a tool for practicing basic magic, so it seems kind of strange that a Magus would learn Warding or Arcane Sense first. Similarly, they start out with a spellbook that they can't even use.
Cantrips are part of spellcasting, which half casters (Ranger, Paladin) get at level 2. Similar to a Ranger or Paladin the Magus does not study magic until 1 level later than full casters. They do not learn cantrips until they study magic. Arcane Trickster doesn't learn them until 3rd level.
They start with a spellbook to add to later. Otherwise a character would be expected to drop 50g at level 2 which isn't possible in all games.

[Strill]

Cantrips are part of spellcasting, which half casters (Ranger, Paladin) get at level 2. Similar to a Ranger or Paladin the Magus does not study magic until 1 level later than full casters. They do not learn cantrips until they study magic. Arcane Trickster doesn't learn them until 3rd level.
They start with a spellbook to add to later. Otherwise a character would be expected to drop 50g at level 2 which isn't possible in all games.

So then a level 1 Magus whose backstory is that they studied magic, is an invalid character concept?

I would personally argue that it's different for the Ranger, Paladin, and Arcane Trickster because spellcasting is not an integral part of the Ranger concept, and most Ranger spells can be handwaved as mundane, the Paladin starts out with Lay on Hands to represent their divine power at level 1, and the Arcane Trickster's spellcasting is a relatively small part of the overall class compared to the base rogue chassis.

[Kryx]

So then a level 1 Magus whose backstory is that they studied magic, is an invalid character concept?
It's not invalid, no. They've studied it, but haven't put it into practice yet.

I can swap cantrips to 1st and Warding to 2nd.

[Kryx]

Magus changes

Cantrips moved to 1st level
Warding moved to 2nd level
Arcane Strike: Banishing Strike damage changed to align with my spell balance (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N4QC6EmXE0avgk8jK1aubJcaFoZDYw8b_DuPHh8aBTc/edit#gid=806594176). Also changed to have a charisma save instead of less than 50 hit points.

Transmuting Order

Added order. Mostly based on Wizard Transmutation school besides 3rd level. I haven't decided on a capstone yet.


Transmuter looks like a fun subclass and didn't require many changes from the wizard version.

[Kryx]

Magus changes

Warding removed in favor of "Arcane Deflection". It retains the +2 to AC when not wielding a shield, but the rest of the feature is based on Zman's idea of a reaction. The mechanics are from the UA War Wizard.

Illusionary Order

Added order. Based on Wizard Illusion school for 3rd, 10th, and 15th level abilities (some combined). 7th level is a new idea and Shadow Lord is based on my Shadow Sorcerer which is based on the Oathbreaker Paladin capstone.

Necromantic Order

Added order. Based on Wizard Necromancy school for 3rd, 7th, 10th, and 15th level abilities (some rearranged) and the Oathbreaker Paladin for the capstone.

[Kryx]

Magus changes

Spell Strike listed separately from Arcane Strike for clarity

Divinest Order

Moment of Clarity (capstone) renamed Foresight and duration changed to 8 hours (it matches foresight).

Evoking Order

Master Evoker added as the Evoker capstone. It provides access to some higher level evocation spells

Nomadic Order

Temporal Jaunter (capstone) replaced with Master Chronologist. It provides access to Time Stop.

Transmuting Order

Shapechanger renamed to Minor Metamorphosis
Master Metamorphosis added as the Transmutation capstope. It provides access to Shapechange.


I still am looking to finish the enchanter subclass and then review the spell list.

[Kryx]

Magus changes

Proofreading clean up of wording
+2 AC while not using a shield has been moved to weapon bond

Ilusionary Order

Mirrored Shroud replaced with Vanish
Illusory self has a line added that the next attack before your next turn is made with disadvantage.

Nomadic Order

Temporal Step now occurs before the attack hits and prevents it from hitting.

[Terra Reveene]

I'd love to see some zombie+skeleton buffing in the Necromantic Order. I think at the very least replacing the capstone's "cause overwhelming dread" effect with a "cause your zombies and skeletons to go berserk" effect would be far better. I'm imagining a commander of a zombie army here!... Or, well, at the very least a squad.
Perhaps have a "once on your turn, you can cause zombies and skeletons raised by your animate dead spell to enter a frenzy. Each zombie and skeleton may immediately make one weapon attack or move up to its speed."
I think it'd be way more thematic.
EDIT: or just "undead" instead of "zombie and skeleton", if you want to allow the "command undead" feature to work with it.

[Kryx]

The wizard is a master necromancer, not a magus. I don't want to make the magus outshine the wizard in that regard.

Not that I've put this in my houserules please taken all further feedback to that thread.

[Terra Reveene]

Roger that. Though I disagree with the Magus outshining the Wizard in that regard. The Wizard can control far more zombies and skeletons than the Magus ever could. Even with my suggested change, the Wizard would still be better (or at the very least more consistently better. The Magus might pull ahead a little bit for that one minute he has the aura on. I don't think it's the end of the world if you let the Magus get that 1 minute of glory to be honest).

[Kryx]

It feels like too much. The feature the magus currently uses is quite similar to the oathbreaker 20th level feature. It fits the niche without risking any outpacing of a wizard necromancer. The magus already can do great DPR and control many minions which would make classes like the beast master hunter jealous. I don't want to make it more powerful with minions than it already is.