Talk:Combat Specialist (5e Class)

Notes

Skirmisher

It stands in the weird spot of a mobility support subclass, but it has the unmatched potential of being an assassin that can hide in the middle of combat. There are still may doubts as to what exactly this subclass is supposed to be, with the only concrete aspects being speed/mobility and the ability to perform hit-and-runs reliably.

Knight

Though it is the most defensive subclass, it was entirely built for that purpose after all, the Knight is still odd and probably incomplete in one way or another. It has the AC, it has the HP, it has a taunt and even a way to reduce damage, regardles if said damage is being applied to him or an ally nearby. It does, however, sound a bit too good, especially considering how easy it is for a Knight to reduce damage.

At max level, a Knight can reliably deal with up to 6 attacks (or spells) every round, reducing the damage (by itself) of said attacks by an average of ~11, which may transform that damage to 0 if its reduced below their treshold. The only visible weakness of this subclass are massive amounts of damage, like a few fireballs to the face for example. Reducing the damage reduction, however, feels lackluster... and replacing it by an AC increase isn't satisfying, as this subclass is supposed to soak up the damage, not slap it away.

Channeler

Probably still a work in progress, working with spell points rather than spell slots is out of the norm but provides flexibility. The channeler's ability to empower its spells has went through a lot of changes: From additional spell points, to extra cast time requirements, now landing in self-damage. The point of this subclass was probably lost somewhere along the way, but if anything it should probably be the control or more ancient spells, from when magic could be cast more freely, perhaps before the cast of the first ever 12th level spell by Karsus... but since that's not possible, mechanically speaking at least, it compensates that fact by allowing the empowerment of spells and cantrips in other ways, such as self-damage, while boasting a reasonably small amount of spell points.

One way or another, it probably has a little too many spell points for that purpose. 22 spell points, at 17th level, matches the Eldritch Knight's spell slots, at 19th level, in a direct conversion, but the Eldritch Knight weaves in martial prowess with spellcasting, while the Channeler has the martial prowess, spellcasting AND can modify spellcasting. It'll need some revision soon, maybe.--NamiraFerskil (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2022 (MDT)

Something from Sparky

Hi... I have been taking a look at this class and it looks like your level 2 unarmed fighting technique is quite obviously stronger than the other level 2 techniques, considering it allows your unarmed strikes to do 2d10+DEX damage with a crit range of 18-20 if paired with Skirmisher. (Max average damage of 16 on regular hit and 27 on crit)

Compare that to TWF, where the largest damage you'll get from a normal one-handed weapon is 1d8+DEX (assuming non-magical). Even the extra weapon attack, slightly larger critical range, and slightly larger AC do not seem to help... unless you are assuming that the character has both weapons at +3 by then. (non-magical - Max average damage of 9.5 on regular hit and 14 on crit with rapier... that's a huge gap that an extra shortsword attack won't fill)

My suggestion: instead of having both an additional die and a step increase for unarmed fighting, have one or the other.  :)

--SparkiousX (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2022 (EST)

Oversight from my part. Unarmed strikes aren't a thing I explore often so I overdid it, probably thinking it needed that much to be compared to the others. I appreciate your suggestion (which I did implement on the additional die size side).

Now it should deal just as much damage as a monk when considered individually (10.5 average/16 crit) but is weaker than a monk when taking in account the totals (31.5 average/48 crit vs 42 average/64 crit when all attacks hit).

I thought about increasing the die amount rather than the die size, which would make this stronger individually when compared to a monk (13 average/20 crit vs 10.5 average/16 crit) but would still be slightly behind in the total (39 average/60 crit vs 42 average/64 crit when all attacks hit) but I assumed the damage would be too high so I went the other way.

--NamiraFerskil (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2022 (MDT)

Undo Logs

Recently undid a total of 6 entries done by "2600:6C63:657F:1882:9CA4:7CBC:9509:7087". Unsure who that is.

Each edit performed by the user was nonsensical to the extreme, aiming to make the class absurdly overpowered for no reason, with no justification, and without providing any information whatsoever in the discussion tab. As much as the page is publicly available for general criticism, suggestions for changes, and edits, that would still require some information provided in the discussion tab... and, again, the changes were nonsensical.

For the purposes of recording the event, here are the undone changes:

• Heavy Expertise modified to grant an additional 15ft of reach, rather than the original 5ft provided by the improved fighting style, and an additional +5 AC, rather than the original +1 AC provided by the improved fighting style. Has been returned to original values.
• Guard Break modified for no aparent reason in particular. Unsure why it was modified in the first place, as the edit simply removes the exact wording "is reduced by half your proficiency bonus". Potential attempt to make the class seem unfinished, unpolished, or otherwise broken. Nothing concrete. Has been returned to original wording.
• Extra Attack modified to grant 3 attacks at 5th level, instead of the original AND standard 2 attacks at 5th level. Interestingly enough, the remainder of the wording wasn't altered, meaning that the feature, at the adulterated state, would have provided the exact same amount of attacks at 5th and 13th level. Has been returned to original values.
• Great Weapon Fighting modified to increase the critical range by 1. It is noteworthy that such change deviates from the standard Great Weapon Fighting style. Has been returned to original values.
• Hit-and-Run modified to increase walking speed by 5ft times the class level, rather than the original 5ft times proficiency bonus. Has been returned to original values.
• Hit-and-Run modified to provide all of its bonuses at all times without a constraint, rather than having the original constraint of "no armor or light armor". Has been returned to original values.

Note: All modifications bear a strange resemblance to a specific combat style revolving around two-weapon fighting and great mobility, with the notable exception of the modifications done to Guard Break that don't make much sense. The user possibly modified the class as to gain a stupidly powerful edge during their game or to attempt to sneak an awfully powerful class in their game. While I am no authority to influence how one would play their game, I would much prefer that the changes were done to a variant of this class, rather than the class itself, or simply homebrewed in the user's game without altering the original material it came from. If you want something like this class but slightly different, either create a variant or work out with your own game master "2600:6C63:657F:1882:9CA4:7CBC:9509:7087". --NamiraFerskil (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2023 (MST) (Forgot to sign earlier)

Yeah, people do this sometimes. It's frustrating but it's also sorta the whole point of the wiki to have it completely open. Unless these sorts of things persist, you don't really haveta make sections for this, you can just undo them all in a batch and leave it. And I mean hey, even if it's the wrong attention, it shows someone's interested in your material. --SwankyPants (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2023 (MST)

Its the first time it happened to me, which is why I made the entire log thing and etc, but if it is bound to happen in the future i'll just not do logs (Unless it becomes repetitive in a short period of time, of course). I guess I should look at the positive side of the event, just like you said... good attention, bad attention, the fact that is attention means that interest on the material was shown. Thanks for the input though, I probably would continue with pointless logs without it. --NamiraFerskil (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2023 (MST)