To me, the Witcher has become the iconic "flavorful" arcane warrior in fantasy today. It is first and foremost a weapon-user above anything else (just like the Ranger and Paladin are)... and it has a very specific reason for its existence, in that it is a monster hunter that uses arcane magic to defend itself against the magics of the monsters it hunts. Now some people would say that the Ranger should technically fall under this umbrella (being the prototypical hunter class), but I would disagree. Rangers are very specifically about wilderness survival and protecting animals and nature from those that would destroy them. Any "monster hunting" would be purely an extension of that. Whereas Witchers are only about tracking down and killing aberrations and monsters on behalf of the regular citizenry that hire them. And their use of arcane magic specifically goes to and enhances that. It's not just a fighter that casts spells (your prototypical Eldritch Knight)... the Witcher's flavor is specific.So how would you go about making them flavorful? curious I like to think that a subclass does that.
it is the making of functions for sub classes and other threats as monster is a versatile termTo me, the Witcher has become the iconic "flavorful" arcane warrior in fantasy today. It is first and foremost a weapon-user above anything else (just like the Ranger and Paladin are)... and it has a very specific reason for its existence, in that it is a monster hunter that uses arcane magic to defend itself against the magics of the monsters it hunts. Now some people would say that the Ranger should technically fall under this umbrella (being the prototypical hunter class), but I would disagree. Rangers are very specifically about wilderness survival and protecting animals and nature from those that would destroy them. Any "monster hunting" would be purely an extension of that. Whereas Witchers are only about tracking down and killing aberrations and monsters on behalf of the regular citizenry that hire them. And their use of arcane magic specifically goes to and enhances that. It's not just a fighter that casts spells (your prototypical Eldritch Knight)... the Witcher's flavor is specific.
Now granted... parts of the Warlock leans in that direction, and the Witcher concept also gets covered to a certain extent by Darrington Press's Blood Hunter class (the closest mutant Witcher/monster hunter archetype WotC/D&D Beyond probably has.) So the reasoning could be made that a Witcher class isn't necessary, and I honestly can't argue with that (especially if the whole/only reason someone wants an "arcane warrior" class is merely because of the symmetry aspect of adding it to the Ranger's primal and Paladin's divine "half-caster" status, which seems to be the clarion call for many people's desire for it to be a thing.)
But I'll be honest... right now there are what I would call three "generic" classes-- ones with little to no flavor or fluff in the base class-- it's pretty much purely all just mechanics-- and who gets all their identity from their subclasses. The Fighter, the Rogue, and the Sorcerer. And honestly I just don't think a "generic" arcane warrior class is really useful or adds to the game on top of those three. If you already have a generic warrior in the Fighter, and a generic arcane caster in the Sorcerer... my instinct is to just throw more magic into a Fighter or more weapon-use into a Sorcerer, rather than create a whole new class that splits the difference. But that's just me.
What do I like about Laser Llama's Magus class?what is it you enjoy about it anyway?
The Illusionist (as far as I can remember, and I'm talking over 40 years ago...) had its own spell list, albeit with overlap from wizards, and the spells literally allowed you to change reality to suit your aims. They were almost unlimited in scope and allowed for immense creativity. Things like Programmed Illusion and Permanent Illusion were so flexible, and Phantasmal Killer was terrifying in the days of save or die.no as that class seems to have the role adventure it does not make sense as no other class is the adveturer class if that makes sense they are all something else the thing that makes them or builds them.
what was it like more or less?
what's the bolded supposed to mean? i'm genuinely curiousMonk (1e/3e): My very first PC, and one of my favorite secondary classes in 3.X. It's not so much that I love the Monk archetype, as the Monk class is the only class that does what I think every D&D character should be able to do.
what's the bolded supposed to mean? i'm genuinely curious
ah, mechanics I see where you coming from, the mechanics are not the bit I feel is lacking.What do I like about Laser Llama's Magus class?
1. It's take on the Two-Weapon Fighting style. Unlike the PHB version of Two-Weapon Fighting which has you using a Bonus Action to make an attack with your offhand weapon, LL's take on the fighting style has it where you can make your offhand attack a part of your Attack action. So this essentially frees up your use of the Bonus Action for something else like spellcasting or using another Magus feature that might need the Bonus Action. At 1st level, the TWF Magus can put both of his light weapons into his Arcane Armory and use a bonus action to summon both of them into his hands. They will also count as something magical for the purposes of overcoming resistances and immunities to non-magical damage. By 2nd level, the weapons in his Arcane Armory could be used as a spellcasting focus for his spells and perform the somatic component of his spells with them. He can also use a bonus action at 2nd level to place a spell into one of his Arcane Armory weapon for a Spellstrike. Any spell placed with an Arcane Armory weapon will stay there until he actually hits an opponent. So I am thinking that I could take a spell such as Chromatic Orb, use up two spell slots and load with both of his light weapons for a damage combo. Thunder and Lightning (very, very frightening). Fire and Cold. Radiant and Necrotic. Etc. When the TWF Magus reaches 5th level and gains Extra Attack, he'll be able to make four melee attacks instead of the three if he was using the PHB version of TWF.
2. The Magus' Aegis ability. It sounds like a good way to reduce the amount of damage caused any damage-dealing spell, including those with an Area of Effect. If you can completely reduce the amount of damage down to zero, the hostile spell is dispelled and doesn't harm you or your party. You can even upscale the amount of damage you want to reduce by sacrificing a spell slot at a particular level. And you can do all of this as a Reaction.
3. Spellsunder. You can sunder a magic spell at 10th level. How cool is that?You are literally attacking a magic spell with a physical weapon.
My favorite Magus subclass is Order of the Blade Dancers. I like this subclass because I like DEX based combatants. I like the idea of my character 'dancing' across the battlefield, dodging blows while landing his own in rapid succession.![]()
Even at low level, what you can do with Phantasmal Force (1st level spell), Improved PF (2nd level) and Spectral Force (3rd level) can get quite metal. The differences:The Illusionist (as far as I can remember, and I'm talking over 40 years ago...) had its own spell list, albeit with overlap from wizards, and the spells literally allowed you to change reality to suit your aims. They were almost unlimited in scope and allowed for immense creativity. Things like Programmed Illusion and Permanent Illusion were so flexible, and Phantasmal Killer was terrifying in the days of save or die.
Yes, I think they and Humans were the only species that could be effective Illusionists.IIRC there was also a thing about gnomes being illusionists a lot.
Isn't that niche what Arcane Trickster is there to fill?I'm a Forever DMTM, and have been since 1994 or so. My go-to concept when I have managed to NOT be DM been has been "competent person who can cast a few spells" for basically ages. The character concept is typically patterned off characters like Harry D'Amour and John Constantine, so there's a specific way I need the whole thing to work. In 2e it meant a bard (ignoring the music/performance aspect of the class) or multiclass mage/thief. In Basic D&D and DCC it means an elf, really. In the WotC D&D era it's been trickier, since there hasn't been an option for a 1st level mage/thief since the 3.0 DMG had a sidebar on the subject.
In 5th Edition it basically means a Rogue/Thief with the Magic Initiate feat plus convincing the DM to allow me to take Magic Circle as a ritual (which for some reason it isn't one already).
If so, it does a real sh*t job at it, and similar classes (like the 3.5 Beguiler) have been just as bad.Isn't that niche what Arcane Trickster is there to fill?
I agree with this, I've been thinking of providing eldritch knights and arcane tricksters the spellbook feature from the wizard and allowing any spell school.If so, it does a real sh*t job at it, and similar classes (like the 3.5 Beguiler) have been just as bad.
Firstly (and least importantly), I don't like the name. I don't want my character to be a "trickster."
Secondly, limiting a character to the "spells known" mechanic kneecaps it to an untenable degree IMO. One of the major advantages of the mage/thief and even the bard in 2e was access to many useful low-power spells thanks to having a spellbook. As I mentioned there's a specific flavor I'm going for - a kind of crafty academic if you will. Part of that concept is the ability to access an every-expanding array of low power magic, and limiting the character to a handful of spells and/or only certain spell schools just doesn't fit the bill.
It's amazing how a minor change makes such a huge difference, isn't it?I agree with this, I've been thinking of providing eldritch knights and arcane tricksters the spellbook feature from the wizard and allowing any spell school.
Okay. I spend more time trying to figure what I can get out of a particular class/subclass feature. I am a bit of a min-maxer. While I find the description and role of the Magus somewhat interesting, I don't think too much about it. It's mostly there to give you ideas for your character's backstory.ah, mechanics I see where you coming from, the mechanics are not the bit I feel is lacking.
I have nothing aginst optimisation but role play is the bit no one can get to work hence why it has not crystallised into a thing yet.Okay. I spend more time trying to figure what I can get out of a particular class/subclass feature. I am a bit of a min-maxer. While I find the description and role of the Magus somewhat interesting, I don't think too much about it. It's mostly there to give you ideas for your character's backstory.![]()