Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7025641" data-attributes="member: 996">The job of the fighter is 'best at fighting' (with weapons; without magic), and the mechanical expression of that is high DPR and good toughness.&nbsp; A Wizard should be able come up with some adequate melee competence/toughness without rivaling fighter DPR &amp; toughness, especially while using magic (and thus not technically horning in on the fighter's shtick).&nbsp; What's to break?&nbsp;&nbsp; Bland or not has more to do with what your character does, how he does it, and how that paints a picture of who he is - than it has to do with when he applies what mechanic or exactly how big the numbers are.&nbsp; &nbsp;So, outside the hobby, it's fair game to call something a 'unicorn' to get across the idea that it sounds great, but you're never going to find one.&nbsp; Obviously that'd be ironic in this context.&nbsp; But, yeah, &quot;balanced hybrid or gestalt?&quot;&nbsp; Who are we trying to kid?&nbsp; Those para-3.x gestalts were broken as all heck, and hybrids (assuming were talking 4e) tended towards underwhelming.&nbsp; There's really no balance point for best-of-both worlds - it ends up better than each world, or not as good as either.Well, it is a neo-Vancian caster.&nbsp; So, you're talking the perks of 3.x prepped casting, plus those of 3.x spontaneous casting, plus 4e unlimited at-wills in the 'plus column' and fewer restrictions than casting has ever faced in the history of the game in the other 'plus column.'&nbsp; Aside from that, though?&nbsp; Compared to other wizards, say?&nbsp; Meh.&nbsp; Probably.&nbsp; But not so's it'd matter.&nbsp;In context, that sounds like 'bardy' is a synonym for 'quixotic' or 'spoony.'&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;It wouldn't be any more balanced than the Wizard &amp; Bard already are, probably a little less.&nbsp; If the Valor Wizard in question gained known spells like a Bard, it might well be 'balanced' with the Bard &amp; other Traditions.&nbsp; Well, maybe between the Bard &amp; Wizard...It's not just the spell list, it's the casting method.&nbsp; Bards have fixed known spells and cast spontaneously.&nbsp; Wizards have theoretically unlimited known spells (and by default know more spells than the bard), prep as many spells as the bard knows, and cast spontaneously.&nbsp; The Wizard's casting is strictly superior, even if the lists were identical.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7025641, member: 996"] The job of the fighter is 'best at fighting' (with weapons; without magic), and the mechanical expression of that is high DPR and good toughness. A Wizard should be able come up with some adequate melee competence/toughness without rivaling fighter DPR & toughness, especially while using magic (and thus not technically horning in on the fighter's shtick). What's to break? Bland or not has more to do with what your character does, how he does it, and how that paints a picture of who he is - than it has to do with when he applies what mechanic or exactly how big the numbers are. So, outside the hobby, it's fair game to call something a 'unicorn' to get across the idea that it sounds great, but you're never going to find one. Obviously that'd be ironic in this context. But, yeah, "balanced hybrid or gestalt?" Who are we trying to kid? Those para-3.x gestalts were broken as all heck, and hybrids (assuming were talking 4e) tended towards underwhelming. There's really no balance point for best-of-both worlds - it ends up better than each world, or not as good as either. Well, it is a neo-Vancian caster. So, you're talking the perks of 3.x prepped casting, plus those of 3.x spontaneous casting, plus 4e unlimited at-wills in the 'plus column' and fewer restrictions than casting has ever faced in the history of the game in the other 'plus column.' Aside from that, though? Compared to other wizards, say? Meh. Probably. But not so's it'd matter. In context, that sounds like 'bardy' is a synonym for 'quixotic' or 'spoony.' ;) It wouldn't be any more balanced than the Wizard & Bard already are, probably a little less. If the Valor Wizard in question gained known spells like a Bard, it might well be 'balanced' with the Bard & other Traditions. Well, maybe between the Bard & Wizard... It's not just the spell list, it's the casting method. Bards have fixed known spells and cast spontaneously. Wizards have theoretically unlimited known spells (and by default know more spells than the bard), prep as many spells as the bard knows, and cast spontaneously. The Wizard's casting is strictly superior, even if the lists were identical. [/QUOTE]

Verification