Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6170247" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Thanks Dragonblade.  Its a decent start with several of the flavor elements in play.  However, as happens a lot with attempts to put together a solid "hybrid" character, the mechanics are too fiddly and, quite frankly, the incoherency in the basic class structure is rife.  No Opportunity attacks for a melee wizard should be a fundamental class feature, not a buy-in option...it doesn't even provide any mechanical heft - it just lets the archetype play to its theme.  Without it, it would be akin to a straight melee character suffering OAs for doing its fundamental shtick; melee attacks.  Many of these builds silo away martial combat and spellcasting, thinking the breadth of options makes up for lack of focused potency.  It never does.  I think most of that comes from a process-based class design ethos rather than an outcome-based one.  I would point to the 4e Bladesinger for a great iteration of a functional, non-fiddly, F/M gish.  Hey Ninjapaladin. While I, of course, agree that you don't want an F/M outdoing either base class, what you must accomplish is a functional melee combatant that adequately performs the role it sets out to fill while differentiating itself via its archetypical flavor.  If F and M each equal 4, you also want an F/M that equals 4 in a mechanically synergistic, thematically recognizable way.  Half an F and half an M never equals 4 in terms of what is mechanically actualized during play and it never conjures the coherent archetype of an arcane warrior dueling enemies while enacting wards and deploying blasts of force/fire, etc.  The same dysfunctional design ethos is what typically dooms the Monk to irrelevance.Further, I'm not sure that just giving a Ranger access to a Daily of Blur and a recharge of Shield would be overpowered.  Consider, in its place, its stock feature of Animal Companion.  This one feature provides the Ranger (i) the utility of another creature to control for the considerations of positioning, melee control, damage absorption, (ii) 2 extra recoveries, and (iii) a secondary full suite of actions for his Animal Companion (sans quick....which is irrelevant in this case) on the Ranger's initiative.  This one feature turns the Ranger into a DPR, melee control, damage absorbing machine.   A 1st level Ranger with double attack (ranged or melee) and an Animal Companion will be a monster, I'm sure.  If you took that same Ranger (even with AC 14 as base), gave him Spell Fist, gave him a recharge attack spell in place of his second attack (for double attack) and gave him Blur as a Daily and Shield as a Recharge...he would be very, very, very, very hard pressed to compete with a Double Attacking Ranger with an Animal Companion.  He will get crushed in DPR (moreso in the aggregate as # of combats/day proliferates) and given the damage absorption and melee control of the Animal Companion, may only achieve parity in survivability/control.  At 1st level, sans feats, you're basically talking about a secondary pool of 27 HPs (with a good AC of 17), a 3rd melee attack every single round (with a solid rider to boot), and the melee control of being another creature engaging enemies...that scales well in all respects.  That is potent.</blockquote>

Verification