What's the story here that isn't captured by Fighter (Arcane Archer, Eldritch Knight, Rune Knight), Wizard (Bladesinger, War Magic), Ranger (Fey Wanderer, Monster Slayer), Paladin (Oath of the Ancients, Oath of the Watchers), Warlock (Hexblade, Pact of the Blade), and Artificer (Battle Smith, Forge Adept, Armorer)?
The mechanics look fine for a rough draft to me, though playtesting is always a must. I'm just wondering why we need this class narratively when its story is already told through various subclasses.
I could see this existing perhaps if those subclasses didn't exist first. But as it is, this steps on their toes?
Another way to say this is that it looks like you're trying to combine the three Fighter subclasses Rune Knight, Arcane Archer, and Eldritch Knight into a class that trades some Fighter abilities for some Ranger abilities and a bit more spellcasting. But Artificer also already did this with its martially-bent subclasses and has a narrative hook that is not just "wizard-fighter multiclass character as a class). I don't see why this isn't just a Fighter or an Artificer?
I keep seeing people wanting to create this out of some form of forced symmetry with the Paladin and the Ranger, but narratively speaking, the stories being told here already exist in the game in a balanced and effective manner. They're just not exactly what YOU want out of the build?
5e is about simplification of concepts down to their archetypes, and not repeating those archetypes. WotC has made that mistake a few times (Warlock - The Undying, The Undead is the main offender here), but usually it's because they've abandoned the previous one as it wasn't mechanically effective, was made in collaboration with another publisher (i.e., Green Ronin), and nobody was playing it.