D&D 5E New Class Brainstorming. Magekinght.

[Satyrn]

Think I will go with the "if you hit you can cast a spell thing". Not sure if I will have it for free, use the reaciton or bonus action.

When I first read [MENTION=6801226]MechaTarrasque[/MENTION]'s suggestion, it looked like she was suggesting that casting the slell required the spell's normal casting time. Like for a 5th level character (with extra attack):

Round 1: Take the attack action, hit twice, receive a 2nd level spell slot.
Round 2: cast a 2nd level spell.


And:
Round 1: Take the attack action, hit twice, receive a 2nd level spell slot.
Round 2: Take the attack action, hit once, that slot increases to 3rd level.
Round 3: cast fireball!

 

[MechaTarrasque]

When I first read [MENTION=6801226]MechaTarrasque[/MENTION]'s suggestion, it looked like she was suggesting that casting the slell required the spell's normal casting time. Like for a 5th level character (with extra attack):

Round 1: Take the attack action, hit twice, receive a 2nd level spell slot.
Round 2: cast a 2nd level spell.


And:
Round 1: Take the attack action, hit twice, receive a 2nd level spell slot.
Round 2: Take the attack action, hit once, that slot increases to 3rd level.
Round 3: cast fireball!

The first sequence was as I envisioned it. Round 2 of the second sequence would be hit twice, the slot increases to 4th level (assuming you can cast a 4th level spell, otherwise you have 1 3rd level and 1 1st level). Round 3: cast fireball as a 3rd level spell and have 1 1st level slot left for next round or cast it as a 4th level spell. Although you could do Round 2: take the attack action, hit once, the slot increases to 3rd level, and cast a cantrip as well. [In general casting a cantrip is a less optimum idea unless you really need a ranged attack, so where for the EK, hit with weapon plus zap with cantrip is the ideal action, here it is not.]


If I was playing this type of PC, the second sequence is what I would go for. The length of combat and your odds of hitting something are the only limitations on how many highest level spells you can cast.* It is a gamble, the traditional spell slot classes know they will be able to cast their highest level spell (at the PC's level) a set number of times per day; the mage knight may not get to cast any at all, but on a day with a lot of rounds of fighting, he/she could cast the highest level spell more than the traditional spell slot classes. For me, I would expect to cast far fewer spells than the wizard (even excluding cantrips), but, on busy days, I would expect to cast more (relatively) high level ones. In some ways it arrives at the same place the sorcerer does when he/she turns low level spells into points so that he/she can cast more relatively high level ones, even though the mechanism is different.



* For the mageknight, the level limiter is more about what you can learn. A 1st level mageknight can no more cast wish than a 1st level wizard, not because he/she lacks a 9th level slot, but because he/she can't grasp the intricacies of the spell until they become a more skilled caster.

 

[Zardnaar]

The first sequence was as I envisioned it. Round 2 of the second sequence would be hit twice, the slot increases to 4th level (assuming you can cast a 4th level spell, otherwise you have 1 3rd level and 1 1st level). Round 3: cast fireball as a 3rd level spell and have 1 1st level slot left for next round or cast it as a 4th level spell. Although you could do Round 2: take the attack action, hit once, the slot increases to 3rd level, and cast a cantrip as well. [In general casting a cantrip is a less optimum idea unless you really need a ranged attack, so where for the EK, hit with weapon plus zap with cantrip is the ideal action, here it is not.]


If I was playing this type of PC, the second sequence is what I would go for. The length of combat and your odds of hitting something are the only limitations on how many highest level spells you can cast.* It is a gamble, the traditional spell slot classes know they will be able to cast their highest level spell (at the PC's level) a set number of times per day; the mage knight may not get to cast any at all, but on a day with a lot of rounds of fighting, he/she could cast the highest level spell more than the traditional spell slot classes. For me, I would expect to cast far fewer spells than the wizard (even excluding cantrips), but, on busy days, I would expect to cast more (relatively) high level ones. In some ways it arrives at the same place the sorcerer does when he/she turns low level spells into points so that he/she can cast more relatively high level ones, even though the mechanism is different.



* For the mageknight, the level limiter is more about what you can learn. A 1st level mageknight can no more cast wish than a 1st level wizard, not because he/she lacks a 9th level slot, but because he/she can't grasp the intricacies of the spell until they become a more skilled caster.

I don't want to make it to complicated but I think it will b something like this.

"When you hit with an atack as a bonus action you may cast a spell.

Probably have to make this alevel 2 ability, level 1 maybe 2-3 cantrips and at level 2 "battlemmage" ability which is this and hand free casting, level 3 is subclasses.

We have the hunter ranger ability of hordebreaker to compare it with but this is easier to trigger hence why it might use the bonus action. It also will scale unlike hiordebreaker as you can cast cantripos so in a way its like the warmage ability for a level 7 EK but not as reliable. Using GFB would be the biggest abuse but things like Rangers can already stack up a lot of damage at level 3 anyway but I don't want hunter ranger levels of damage in the base class.

 

[cbwjm]

Then why do you need a new class rather than just a fighter/wizard multiclass? That's the point.

If mechanics are all that matters, then just use the paladin or ranger as-is and just say "all this stuff is arcane magic!". Because if the story doesn't matter, then why even bother refluffing anything?

I'll define the how of magic a little more. I want a half caster that uses wizardry. Paladin spells can be reflected to cane but they don't feel like wizardry. A multiclass fighter mage has the problem that it is multiclass. Features like ASIs and extra attack therefore end up far behind a single class. Just because you need some special story doesn't mean everyone does.

 

[Gadget]

There is some good advice here. I would just like to add one little mechanical facet to the whole affair. The spell list makes a difference. The more successful gish classes have seem to have their own spell lists (Paladin, maybe Ranger though I'm not sure how successful that class is, yet it has its own spell list that gives it flavor). If you are just going to go with the wizard spell list, the class abilities and mechanics need to give it some pizzazz to set it apart from the multi-class.

On of the problems with the Eldritch Knight is being pseudo-limited to Evocation and Abjuration spells. While the limitation itself is not really a problem, it is more that Evocation spells in this edition really need to be cast at about character level to really be generally useful. With the EK's delayed access, you can end up bringing a knife to a gun fight in many instances. Besides which, hit point attrition (the main effect of Evocation) is generally better accomplished by using the EK fighter features through weapon attacks, area effects against groups of mooks excepted of course. A better choice would have been to give the EK, say, Transumation & Abjuration.

Just some thoughts to keep in mind with this new class.

 

[Zardnaar]

There is some good advice here. I would just like to add one little mechanical facet to the whole affair. The spell list makes a difference. The more successful gish classes have seem to have their own spell lists (Paladin, maybe Ranger though I'm not sure how successful that class is, yet it has its own spell list that gives it flavor). If you are just going to go with the wizard spell list, the class abilities and mechanics need to give it some pizzazz to set it apart from the multi-class.

On of the problems with the Eldritch Knight is being pseudo-limited to Evocation and Abjuration spells. While the limitation itself is not really a problem, it is more that Evocation spells in this edition really need to be cast at about character level to really be generally useful. With the EK's delayed access, you can end up bringing a knife to a gun fight in many instances. Besides which, hit point attrition (the main effect of Evocation) is generally better accomplished by using the EK fighter features through weapon attacks, area effects against groups of mooks excepted of course. A better choice would have been to give the EK, say, Transumation & Abjuration.

Just some thoughts to keep in mind with this new class.

Its more work though, I want a class that will do for now and we can work on a unique spell list later. Its more work basically but tweaking the spell list is easy enough.

 

[Jester David]

Instead of casting a spell and then attacking as a bonus action, what if you when cast a spell that uses a melee spell attack, you can replace that with a weapon attack, dealing the weapon attack’s damage before or after the spell?

That’s neat, simmilar, but doesn’t just replicate the eldritch knight’s feature.

 

[Jester David]

The catch with basing such a class off the paladin is that they don’t get cantrips. It will rely on “basic melee attacks” for the most part. Which is fine: it differentiates the class from the eldritch Knight and spellsinger.

Another issue is that many of the proposed “cast spells and attack” features require spells, so they’re not effective until level 2.
That leaves the class lacking at level 1. It *could* get cantrips as it’s level 1 feature, but that seems kind of lacking and unoriginal.
(Getting more spells and cantrips might be an excellent subclass though).

So, what’s a magical class feature unrelated to spells?

Right away it needs something magical and martial.

 

[Zardnaar]

Rangers , Paladins and fighters don't get too much at level 1. The combat casting thing can wait to level 2 or 3. Probably give it some cantrips lvl 1.

Basically don't want to design a dip class. As I said would rather have something functional than cute.

Instead of smiting a magical aegis ability reducing damage could be a thing. The attack, hit cast spell thing might be better off on a subclass.

Instead of extra damage vs fiends and undead you get bonus reduction vs spells.

 

[ClaytonCross]

"Moar damage" is okay for 2 of the 10 class features. And it's a passable hook for a subclass. But the class still needs an identity for the remaining 80% of its options.


Yeah, but nobody plays a class solely because it's "mechanically good".
Mechanically good is nice, but the majority of players look for other reasons to play a class.
And there's not some sort of limitation on creativity. A class can be flavourful and have strong story hooks and be solid mechanically.

Plus, the class needs out of combat options and ribbons. Several levels should just be new spells, with features that support the interaction and exploration pillars. And without a solid story foundation, you can't create those options.

I am sorry but that just not always true. Some people DO in fact choose a class because it is mechanically good then come up with a story of an epic X to support it. You working on the assumption that all players are story player first, but while I see players that choose story and support with mechanics, I also see players who choose mechanics and support with story, On top of those I have also seen players pick a party job the support it with mechanics&story. None are wrong, they are just different types of play. We have 5 players in our group and all types are represented our group alone.
We have one "power gamer" who always try to be some awesome DPR build but does little to nothing out side of combat because he doesn't care, we have a player that wants a great story build but will not except anything with out some skill talent which makes them mechanically exceptional to support a "Justifiable arrogance" because he can support that arrogance in game by being actually good at something consistently, I picked a role (scout) then a less optimal class (because I like to go sub-optimal but make it still more than good because its the road less traveled and unique) the back it up with story, We have one player that's just says here is a class I have not played lets see how this goes, and we have a player that is all story based and did not care if the character worked mechanically or had a role he just wanted to be a "scoundrel rogue" and basically picked all stats and skills based on being smart and likable... more "Face" than actual rogue. The players who like combat but don't like story don't even use out of combat skill if they have them or want then, generally considering them class waste...

... And guess what... even with all these "cardinal sins" we play and have a great time with virtually no player problems. Most of the times when we have issues its between our story GM and player who actually know and care about the rules more than he does..... Still not really a big problem. Been playing for years and having fun.

So if Zardnaar want a mechanically stronger build as his priority. Their is nothing wrong with that. Its just his play style.