I've got a base class table and features for the Magus. Here is a bit of what I have so far. Warning: I've never played in a TTRPG that has a Magus class, I'm going off what I've heard. 

Magus

I'm definitely still working on it, as you can see. 

All I get is a blank screen?

Okay, that's weird. It's a homebrewery document. Here's the class table and information so far.

Here is an idea for a shaman as a Druid subclass - just allow them to use their Wild Shape for something else, like Bardic Inspiration is used for a Blade Flourish. I personally like the fetish idea mentioned in this thread that can provide certain bonuses. In fact, these bonuses can upgrade at higher levels, giving you more options and greater power, similar to how Wild Shape progresses itself. Thus, you will have a full caster with the Druid spell list and two uses of a support option between short rest.

if the spell list doesn’t feel enough, you can add an expanded spell list to include more spells thematic to a shaman (though I feel it may be overpowered). Also, if two uses per short rest of that fetish ability seem few, just add an additional use through subclass features. So there, you can do a lot within the existing framework. I believe a full-caster template fits a shaman better, which means that to achieve balance, their hit die should not be higher than d8, according to 5e design concepts.

Regarding an arcane-based warrior - sure, I guess that it has its uses, but apart from flavour, it feels like a lesser version of a Paladin, without divine smite. It feels somewhat ... underwhelming, in my opinion. I get it why some people are unhappy with Eldritch Knight being a 1/3 caster, but I’d argue it’s due to balance, as a Fighter is just too powerful martially to make a half-caster out of that template. I personally consider EK to be just fine.

Regarding the reverse approach, a martial-based arcanist, I guess the Artificer technically fits that role, but their class features are too heavily ingrained with the Eberron setting. If the class were more generic, then it would open up a lot more options. Thus, I guess there is an option to put a new class there, an arcane-based half-caster with some martial abilities, but without the tinkering focus and infusions.

Quote from zhivik >>

Here is an idea for a shaman as a Druid subclass - just allow them to use their Wild Shape for something else, like Bardic Inspiration is used for a Blade Flourish. I personally like the fetish idea mentioned in this thread that can provide certain bonuses. In fact, these bonuses can upgrade at higher levels, giving you more options and greater power, similar to how Wild Shape progresses itself. Thus, you will have a full caster with the Druid spell list and two uses of a support option between short rest.

if the spell list doesn’t feel enough, you can add an expanded spell list to include more spells thematic to a shaman (though I feel it may be overpowered). Also, if two uses per short rest of that fetish ability seem few, just add an additional use through subclass features. So there, you can do a lot within the existing framework. I believe a full-caster template fits a shaman better, which means that to achieve balance, their hit die should not be higher than d8, according to 5e design concepts.

Regarding an arcane-based warrior - sure, I guess that it has its uses, but apart from flavour, it feels like a lesser version of a Paladin, without divine smite. It feels somewhat ... underwhelming, in my opinion. I get it why some people are unhappy with Eldritch Knight being a 1/3 caster, but I’d argue it’s due to balance, as a Fighter is just too powerful martially to make a half-caster out of that template. I personally consider EK to be just fine.

Regarding the reverse approach, a martial-based arcanist, I guess the Artificer technically fits that role, but their class features are too heavily ingrained with the Eberron setting. If the class were more generic, then it would open up a lot more options. Thus, I guess there is an option to put a new class there, an arcane-based half-caster with some martial abilities, but without the tinkering focus and infusions.

The thing is Paladin is designed as the perfect gish. Half caster, solid in combat, works its magic into its fighting via smites, rather than simply casting one turn and hitting the next. The smite spells even work a lot like the spellstrike class feature of the duskblade/magus.

This then prevents there being the design space for a classic arcane gish.

The trouble with paladin is it's completely consumed with its theme. Not matter the subclass, it will always have healing, it will always use a divine spell list, it will always do radiant damage, it will always be detecting evil and smiting undead. And it will always have an oath which many DMs will tie you to.

It's why I'm unhappy with DnD 5e's class/character design as a whole. You're given a set of chess pieces to play with and expected to like them, rather than truly being able to build the character to imagine.

Quote from Comrade_Jenkens >>

The thing is Paladin is designed as the perfect gish. Half caster, solid in combat, works its magic into its fighting via smites, rather than simply casting one turn and hitting the next. The smite spells even work a lot like the spellstrike class feature of the duskblade/magus.

This then prevents there being the design space for a classic arcane gish.

 Eh, they haven't had that much issue with doing some duplication, it's just that all their attempts at arcane gish setups (Swords bard, Valor bard, Eldritch Knight, Hexblade) all fail to really balance the two halves (the EK is too much fighter/too little spellcaster, the other three are the reverse).

Quote from LothrandAxehand >>

Everything being suggested could reasonably be answered with subclasses of existing classes.

 

 
This keeps coming up and it shows a complete misunderstanding of the problem. 

The problem is that for it to be a subclass it means that everything must be balanced around and fit within the base classes architecture.

Any fighter subclass must be balanced around the fact the class will have access to second wind, action surge, and four attacks by 20th level. That is very restricting. This goes for every other class.

New classes mean new base mechanics that can offer different styles of play and different restrictions.

I don't understand why this keeps being missed.

Quote from zhivik >>

Here is an idea for a shaman as a Druid subclass - just allow them to use their Wild Shape for something else, like Bardic Inspiration is used for a Blade Flourish. I personally like the fetish idea mentioned in this thread that can provide certain bonuses. In fact, these bonuses can upgrade at higher levels, giving you more options and greater power, similar to how Wild Shape progresses itself. Thus, you will have a full caster with the Druid spell list and two uses of a support option between short rest.

if the spell list doesn’t feel enough, you can add an expanded spell list to include more spells thematic to a shaman (though I feel it may be overpowered). Also, if two uses per short rest of that fetish ability seem few, just add an additional use through subclass features. So there, you can do a lot within the existing framework. I believe a full-caster template fits a shaman better, which means that to achieve balance, their hit die should not be higher than d8, according to 5e design concepts.

Regarding an arcane-based warrior - sure, I guess that it has its uses, but apart from flavour, it feels like a lesser version of a Paladin, without divine smite. It feels somewhat ... underwhelming, in my opinion. I get it why some people are unhappy with Eldritch Knight being a 1/3 caster, but I’d argue it’s due to balance, as a Fighter is just too powerful martially to make a half-caster out of that template. I personally consider EK to be just fine.

Regarding the reverse approach, a martial-based arcanist, I guess the Artificer technically fits that role, but their class features are too heavily ingrained with the Eberron setting. If the class were more generic, then it would open up a lot more options. Thus, I guess there is an option to put a new class there, an arcane-based half-caster with some martial abilities, but without the tinkering focus and infusions.

 I suggested the use of wild shape to fuel the shaman features as well, similar to the spores druid. But I did that as a workaround that would work within the current framework. Working within the current framework as a druid limits much more than creating a new class would.  Sure many of the common tropes of Shaman would include many druid aspects, even if you disguised the wild shape, but there is a bunch of other baggage that goes with it. As you mentioned, a d8 instead of a d10 hit die. The unnecessary discussion about metal armor or the disclaimer required in the subclass to avert that. The spell slot progression. 

I like the focus on subclasses.  I think the base classes have /most/ things adequately covered.  What I would like to see is a decent gish (I like EK, but it doesn't really scratch the itch for a variety of reasons).  A ranger subclass that opens up the sorcerer spell list I think would be pretty on-point.  Back in the 1e days, rangers could use arcane magic, so I think that thematically, it's a decent fit and would likely make people happy who want that in your face melee user who blends blade and arcane magic.

Quote from crzyhawk >>

I like the focus on subclasses.  I think the base classes have /most/ things adequately covered.  What I would like to see is a decent gish (I like EK, but it doesn't really scratch the itch for a variety of reasons).  A ranger subclass that opens up the sorcerer spell list I think would be pretty on-point.  Back in the 1e days, rangers could use arcane magic, so I think that thematically, it's a decent fit and would likely make people happy who want that in your face melee user who blends blade and arcane magic.

 But that wouldn't be the same as a class built from scratch. You're still bringing all the ranger baggage over. You'd still have favored terrain, favored enemy, tracking, and such. That's not a parallel to say a Magus from Pathfinder.

Not that a Ranger subclass that could grab some arcane spells from the wizard spell list and was some sort of arcane tracker sort wouldn't be fun. But it's not comparable to a dedicated class for an Arcane gish.

The subclasses, as they are, aren't the problem. The problem is that you cannot just use them to crowbar in a class from previous editions, because the base class always shows through. Druids subclasses always have to have wildshape even if they can use it for other things, fighters always have four attacks and action surge, and second wind, barbarians always have rage. 

The game is "missing" several archetypical classes, as others have mentioned: A martial-focused, arcane, half caster (like the paladin and ranger are to divine and nature respectively). A spell-focused, nature, half caster, and a spell-focused, divine, half caster. I personally also miss the roles of support focused, martial, and defense-focused, martial, ala the Warlord, and the Warden. Which cannot easily be crowbarred into the fighter. There are other things as well, like a Witch, as an Int based mirror to the Warlocks charisma focus.

The fact that subclasses don't overhaul the base class to an extent only modify it at specific prechosen intervals is a fine limit, but it cannot be ignored. For example, if subclasses could modify the base class directly it would be easy enough to make a Witch subclass for the Warlock that uses Int in place of Charisma.

One issue I have with the EK compared to paladin is the ability to weave magic and combat into a single action.

Paladin has a ton of bonus action spells which you place on your weapon. They get these at 2nd level making them a core feature of the class.

EK doesn't have this. You get a pair of scagtrips, and then you can hit on a bonus action if you have cast a spell all the way up at 7th level. But you're still just hitting or you're casting. It's also limited to lower level spells compared to ranger and paladin.

I would love it if paladin was a flavorless base class, and the subclasses were what added the flavor. It would open up the class so much more to people who didn't want to be a holy warrior but still wanted to empower their weapon with a large variety of magical effects that the smite spells allow.

Quote from Durog25 >>

Quote from crzyhawk >>

I like the focus on subclasses.  I think the base classes have /most/ things adequately covered.  What I would like to see is a decent gish (I like EK, but it doesn't really scratch the itch for a variety of reasons).  A ranger subclass that opens up the sorcerer spell list I think would be pretty on-point.  Back in the 1e days, rangers could use arcane magic, so I think that thematically, it's a decent fit and would likely make people happy who want that in your face melee user who blends blade and arcane magic.

 But that wouldn't be the same as a class built from scratch. You're still bringing all the ranger baggage over. You'd still have favored terrain, favored enemy, tracking, and such. That's not a parallel to say a Magus from Pathfinder.

Not that a Ranger subclass that could grab some arcane spells from the wizard spell list and was some sort of arcane tracker sort wouldn't be fun. But it's not comparable to a dedicated class for an Arcane gish.

The subclasses, as they are, aren't the problem. The problem is that you cannot just use them to crowbar in a class from previous editions, because the base class always shows through. Druids subclasses always have to have wildshape even if they can use it for other things, fighters always have four attacks and action surge, and second wind, barbarians always have rage. 

The game is "missing" several archetypical classes, as others have mentioned: A martial-focused, arcane, half caster (like the paladin and ranger are to divine and nature respectively). A spell-focused, nature, half caster, and a spell-focused, divine, half caster. I personally also miss the roles of support focused, martial, and defense-focused, martial, ala the Warlord, and the Warden. Which cannot easily be crowbarred into the fighter. There are other things as well, like a Witch, as an Int based mirror to the Warlocks charisma focus.

The fact that subclasses don't overhaul the base class to an extent only modify it at specific prechosen intervals is a fine limit, but it cannot be ignored. For example, if subclasses could modify the base class directly it would be easy enough to make a Witch subclass for the Warlock that uses Int in place of Charisma.

 Let me be clear...when I said that I think the bases are covered that means I do not think we need more base classes.  The only thing that we really /lack/ is a psion, and that lack is entirely debatable.  I think that the classes that we have, with appropriate subclasses can fit nearly every niche necessary.

For 6e would really like them to give us basically 6 'flavorless' base classes (magic guy, skills guy, fighty guy, gish, skirmisher, and whatever the half skills guy and half magic guy equivalent is. These would contain some core mechanics.

From there archtypes can provide the theme and more in depth mechanics. e.g. pick fighty guy and barbarian archtype for a barbarian. After that more exact features can be picked to make variants of that. e.g. berserker or storm herald. Or pick the 'gish' class, choose divine archtype for paladin, then narrow down to oath of devotion subclass.

Okay, I've heard a few people say that the Paladin's Smite Spells are similar to the Magus's Spell Strike. Would this work as a possible Magus Spell Strike ability in 5e? 

Spell Strike

At level 2, you can imbue magic weapons you hold with your spells. When you cast a magus spell that has a casting time of an action that targets another creature with a harmful effect, you can instead trap it in your weapon instead. This temporarily delays the spell's effects, trapping them inside one magical melee weapon you are holding. The effects of the spell are unleashed the next time you hit a creature with the weapon. The spell remains inside the weapon for 1 minute, until you lose concentration, or until you hit a creature with this melee weapon, whereupon the spell is released and come it comes into effect. 

If the spell required a saving throw, the creature you hit with this magical melee weapon while the spell is trapped inside automatically fails its saving throw. If the spell required an attack roll, if you hit a creature with the initial attack, you do not have to attack that creature again, and it becomes the target of one of the spell's attacks. If the spell required more than one attack roll, one of these attacks must be targeting the hit creature, and the others come into effect as normal. If the spell creates an area of effect, you can designate your weapon or the hit creature (your choice) as the origin of the area of effect.

If the spell would immediately cause damage when you cast it, this damage is added to the weapon attack's damage. 

You may use this feature an amount of times equal to your proficiency bonus, regaining all uses at the end of a long rest. (I know some people don't like proficiency bonus based class abilities, but this one is fine. No awful multiclassing exploits with this, the spell has to be a magus spell.)  

Any thoughts? I've added this to my magus class features posted above. 

Quote from Third_Sundering >>

Okay, I've heard a few people say that the Paladin's Smite Spells are similar to the Magus's Spell Strike. Would this work as a possible Magus Spell Strike ability in 5e? 

Spell Strike

At level 2, you can imbue magic weapons you hold with your spells. When you cast a magus spell that has a casting time of an action that targets another creature with a harmful effect, you can instead cast it as a bonus action, trapping it in your weapon instead. This temporarily delays the spell's effects, trapping them inside one magical melee weapon you are holding. The effects of the spell are unleashed the next time you hit a creature with the weapon. The spell remains inside the weapon for 1 minute, or until you hit a creature with this melee weapon, whereupon the spell is released and come it comes into effect. 

If the spell required a saving throw, the creature you hit with this magical melee weapon while the spell is trapped inside automatically fails its saving throw. If the spell required an attack roll, if you hit a creature with the initial attack, you do not have to attack that creature again, and it becomes the target of one of the spell's attacks. If the spell required more than one attack roll, one of these attacks must be targeting the hit creature, and the others come into effect as normal. If the spell creates an area of effect, you can designate your weapon or the hit creature (your choice) as the origin of the area of effect.

If the spell would immediately cause damage when you cast it, this damage is added to the weapon attack's damage. 

You may use this feature an amount of times equal to your proficiency bonus, regaining all uses at the end of a long rest. (I know some people don't like proficiency bonus based class abilities, but this one is fine. No awful multiclassing exploits with this, the spell has to be a magus spell.)  

Any thoughts? I've added this to my magus class features posted above. 

it needs to be an action 100%, other than that, I like it. Also while you are holding it, you should have to concentrate on it, like a spell smite.

exactly that is what im wanting. And if they made the Gunslinger not homebrew

Added concentration, but I think I'll keep it as a bonus action. In order to create the spell's effects, you have to use a bonus action and then have to hit with an attack from a melee weapon. Up until you get extra attack, it's basically taking a bonus action and a whole action to cast a spell, assuming you hit with the attack. If it's really a problem, I'll change it to be an action at level 2, and then become a bonus action at later levels. 

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Note: the Arcane Archer is objectively terrible, significantly and strictly worse than just playing a Battlemaster with a bow, and the Gunslinger is not actually an official subclass.  It's an Exandrian Mercerism DDB supports because they support Critical Role, but many throughout the overall D&D community have cited it as wildly overtuned, wildly undertuned, and also Literally The Worst Thing Ever.  Nobody except CR fans seems to dig the Exandrian Gunslinger.

 Yes exactly. If they made a really balanced archer/gunslinger class im betting many people would use it. I just recently made a undead cowboy gunslinger, so i will be testing the gunslinger

Quote from Third_Sundering >>

Quote from drag0n_77 >>

Quote from Cindrellic >>

I think if they made a new range fighter. A subclass could be archery or guns, sling shots, etc.

 Er...  There's already the Arcane Archer Fighter, and the Gunslinger Fighter...

There's no generic non-magical archer in D&D 5e, though. And, the gunslinger is homebrew. 

 There's the UA sharpshooter: https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/2016_Fighter_UA_1205_1.pdf

Quote from Third_Sundering >>

Added concentration, but I think I'll keep it as a bonus action. In order to create the spell's effects, you have to use a bonus action and then have to hit with an attack from a melee weapon. Up until you get extra attack, it's basically taking a bonus action and a whole action to cast a spell, assuming you hit with the attack. If it's really a problem, I'll change it to be an action at level 2, and then become a bonus action at later levels. 

 but you are basically allowing a free spell as a bonus action each turn??? you BA fireball and then take the attack action, doing both in one turn......