Here's a fun one...If I hold my bladed staff in one hand it's a staff, but if I hold it in two hands it's a halberd. So does it count as a bounded object when I hold it in both hands? :)
|
You only need 1 hand to wield a bow.
You need a second hand to *fire* that bow, but that also involves drawing the ammunition and notching the arrow.
I believe arcane archers are just fine here.
-James
You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size.
I'm not sure it supports your statement, and still doesn't answer if the Imbue Arrow's wording 'can fire the arrow as part of the casting' allows you to use somatic components at the same time.
Arcane archer may need a little help in the somatic arena for this one.
You only need 1 hand to wield a bow.
You need a second hand to *fire* that bow, but that also involves drawing the ammunition and notching the arrow.
I believe arcane archers are just fine here.
-James
Then where is the distinction between 1 handed and 2 handed use? Both are labeled 2 handed weapons, and by the logic of the sword, you must be able to attack in order to be weilding. This would imply that you would need an arrow nocked and drawn to me.
|
Are we actually agreeing on something in this thread?!? :) .Did I mention that somatic casting feat REALLY should have been core? If that feat was considered too overpowered, why the hell is natural spell in?It's not considered overpowered (if done right). In fact... it kind of IS already done: Still Spell.The problem here is that gishes already have reduced casting, and now you're saying they essentially lose an extra spell level of spellcasting if they use anything but a single one handed weapon (as their bond, at least).
It just seems a messy and unintuitive way to do things, and it punishes someone who, well, doesn't really need to be punished :/. It's like going out to reduce the power of monks.
yep. And you were right. It appears, that while grammar and implications were on my side, Jacobs and an official ruling was on the other. I hesitate to call it your side, as it looks like we all lost on this one. I am bummed about this ruling, as it does basically remove a lot of appeal from bonding your weapon. Back to the ring it is, i guess.
btw, has anyone made a list of all Wizard spells without somatic components to examine the viability of James' assertion that bodning a 2h weapon is still playable? What constitutes 'playable'? Is it mechanically possible but hopelessly gimped, or doable?
Are we actually agreeing on something in this thread?!? :) .Did I mention that somatic casting feat REALLY should have been core? If that feat was considered too overpowered, why the hell is natural spell in?It's not considered overpowered (if done right). In fact... it kind of IS already done: Still Spell.The problem here is that gishes already have reduced casting, and now you're saying they essentially lose an extra spell level of spellcasting if they use anything but a single one handed weapon (as their bond, at least).
It just seems a messy and unintuitive way to do things, and it punishes someone who, well, doesn't really need to be punished :/. It's like going out to reduce the power of monks.
yep. And you were right. It appears, that while grammar and implications were on my side, Jacobs and an official ruling was on the other. I hesitate to call it your side, as it looks like we all lost on this one. I am bummed about this ruling, as it does basically remove a lot of cache from bonding your weapon. Back to the ring it is, i guess.
btw, has anyone made a list of all Wizard spells without somatic components to examine the viability of James' assertion that bodning a 2h weapon is still playable? What constitutes 'playable'? Is it mechanically possible but hopelessly gimped, or doable?
Mechanically possible but hopelessly gimped, according to the sorting of the spell database on the SRD.
My biggest issue with the ruling is that it raises the question of "who on earth would ever take a bonded weapon?"
Before, bonded weapon was the perfect and quissential gish idea. Holy crap they channel their magic through their weapon as they fight that's so awesome. Normal wizards were far better off with familiars or bonded non-weapons.
Now though...when would you take bonded weapon? 90% of gish weapons are either two handed or would come with a shield. The archtypical Arcane Archer can't focus his magic through his bow.
I just don't see where bonded weapon will ever be used :/
Swashbuckler gish with a rapier.
You only need 1 hand to wield a bow.
You need a second hand to *fire* that bow, but that also involves drawing the ammunition and notching the arrow.
I believe arcane archers are just fine here.You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size.I'm not sure it supports your statement, and still doesn't answer if the Imbue Arrow's wording 'can fire the arrow as part of the casting' allows you to use somatic components at the same time.
Then where is the distinction between 1 handed and 2 handed use? Both are labeled 2 handed weapons, and by the logic of the sword, you must be able to attack in order to be weilding. This would imply that you would need an arrow nocked and drawn to me.
Yeah, I'm seriously in doubt of the 'can't use/cast with your bonded 2-Handed (non-bow) item if you're wielding it in one hand' ruling. It just doesn't stand up on many levels. A bow held in one-hand (with the other hand busy doing something else) is no more capable of attacking than a heavy 2-Handed weapon held in one hand. The point about Imbue Arrow really gets to the point, I think. For Imbue Arrow to WORK, you have to look at it as one can hold the bow in one hand while casting and while 'holding the charge'/completing the spell, draw the bow/knock the arrow and shoot the arrow. So if one can do that, why can't one hold a Greatsword in one hand while casting a spell? (and subsequently channel a spell thru it's attack if you want)
Basically I can't get behind a ruling that isn't based on the actual RAW, and results in a unjustifiable by balance outcome. If the 'can't use/cast with bonded 2-Handed Melee Weapon' interepretation applies, then to be consistent, Imbue Arrow should just not work. If one interpretation is balanced and means things "work:, and another interpretation arbitrarily punishes choices with no flavor justification and makes Class Features NOT work at all, I'm going to always go with interepretation that DOES work and is balanced. To do otherwise seems absurd.
And it's slightly better than punching people. But only slightly. Of course, d8+7 damage at level 20 is supposed to be "quite capable in melee combat", so what do I know?
MiB, you are either blind or deliberately trying to mislead people.
Looking at the list of feats and the properties of the weapon, this guy could Power Attack and Vital Strike for 3d8+17+(2+2d6 vs Chaotic)+1d6 electrical for an average of 43 damage. On a critical hit that jumps to 4d8+34+(4+2d6 vs Chaotic)+1d10 electrical, for an average 68.5 damage with special effects, and both ignore the first 5 pts of any DR. If he doesn't use Improved Vital Strike but full attacks instead, he loses 9 points from each of these but likely gets second attack in.
This may not be huge for a fighter of this level, but remember this guy is also a wizard. He can soften up with a fireball or chain lightning, then go in with a shield, stoneskin and mirror image running, and with see invisible making sure foes don't hide from him. That makes him extremely hard to hit back, so he can last longer in the fight.
I can see this is hardly even an optimally built character, either, there are probably ways of building it to do more melee damage if that's what you want to do (a spell-storing longsword with a shocking grasp stored in it would add another 5d6 to a first strike, for a start, and Arcane Strike would add another +4 to hit and damage).
Wow, so he should have no trouble entering melee with a CR 18 foe? Shame he hits on a 13 with his first attack without using Power Attack, can't soften up jack needing 14s to overcome SR, and dies to a full attack while he's standing there playing with himself to get those short-duration buffs up.
Four things:
1) True Strike.2) Buff before entering melee.
3) Swap out the shocking burst axiomatic weapon for a holy dragon bane one.
4) Soften the target up with spells first.
Seriously, you called me out when I was making fun of that mess? That was not a great idea.
It doesn't alter the fact that you either didn't read carefully what was written or were attempting to misrepresent it to try and discredit another's argument, a technique known as the 'straw man'. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, but tone is not easy to hear on text so sometimes you will be misunderstood; if I did so I apologise. If you are trying to take part in a serious debate, you should point out the pros and cons of the build in more depth:
Yes, this build is not optimal, and in a situation where it cannot pre-buff and is faced with a lawful, electrical-resistant foe it will have problems. That much is obvious, but then not everyone optimizes to hell and back. It is also obvious that under the vast majority of circumstances it will be doing a lot more than 1d8+7 damage on the occasions it ends up in melee, and any character that smart will always go in prepared against most foes they might encounter.
Now if you really want to test the existing 'gish' rules, the thing to do is try and build a really optimized character and set them up against a foe. The problem most fighter/caster builds suffer from, however, is that they can never be as good at fighting as the fighter or at casting as a pure caster, and they have to choose where to place their feats for best effect for one or the other. This isn't going to go away no matter what we do, which is why one of the best techniques is to make a 'magic enhanced fighter'. The overall best I have seen is the psychic warrior, without a doubt.
Yeah, as "official rulings" go, I think the one James Jacobs made up-thread will be one conveniently ignored by me and my gaming group. It defies too many cool character creation concepts for no reason other than to be restrictive in the name of restrictiveness. I've got a falchion wielding EK in my game and haven't experienced any balance problems with that. (Actually I don't remember if the falchion is his bonded object or not, but I have no problem with it being--he can cast and swing easily, but my NPCs can attempt to disarm or sunder his bonded object. Seems fair.)
|
My biggest issue with the ruling is that it raises the question of "who on earth would ever take a bonded weapon?"
Before, bonded weapon was the perfect and quissential gish idea. Holy crap they channel their magic through their weapon as they fight that's so awesome. Normal wizards were far better off with familiars or bonded non-weapons.
Now though...when would you take bonded weapon? 90% of gish weapons are either two handed or would come with a shield. The archtypical Arcane Archer can't focus his magic through his bow.
I just don't see where bonded weapon will ever be used :/
Well, the new base class I mentioned earlier will now most definitely be of interest to many in this thread, especially given this ruling.
If all goes well ... look for it in a few months ...
Sorry to be so cryptic!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well, the new base class I mentioned earlier will now most definitely be of interest to many in this thread, especially given this ruling.
If all goes well ... look for it in a few months ...
Sorry to be so cryptic!
I don't have a problem w/cryptic. Hope you don't have a problem with getting e-mail 'talking shop' when it sees the light of day ;-)
|
|
I don't have a problem w/cryptic. Hope you don't have a problem with getting e-mail 'talking shop' when it sees the light of day ;-)Well, the new base class I mentioned earlier will now most definitely be of interest to many in this thread, especially given this ruling.
If all goes well ... look for it in a few months ...
Sorry to be so cryptic!
Sure! I saw your post earlier regarding something you had come up with. I'm not familiar with yours, but I certainly will be interested in your thoughts if/when mine 'sees the light of day"!
Four things:
1) True Strike.
2) Buff before entering melee.
3) Swap out the shocking burst axiomatic weapon for a holy dragon bane one.
4) Soften the target up with spells first.All of which boil down to "Spend a bunch of time and resources preparing yourself for a challenge the party should be able to down eight of per day." When level 2 characters need a bunch of prep time to take down an orc, they are generally considered weak. This is similar.
Hmm, buffing up before a major encounter(I'd consider a CR 18 dragon sufficiently major) is considered weak? Holy hell. We're playing different games, man. If the EK was ambushed or caught off guard, then yeah, buffing is wasted actions. But if we're talking a straight up fight, then why on earth would anyone not prepare accordingly?
There are other easy ways around extensive buffing time. Still Spells, Quicken Spells, Extend Spells leftover from a previous encounter, etc. If we're talking a EK who's high enough level to be fighting a CR 18 dragon, then I would hope by that point they figured out the best way to pre-buff most effectively.
[personal abuse and contextless numbers]Wow, so he should have no trouble entering melee with a CR 18 foe? Shame he hits on a 13 with his first attack without using Power Attack, can't soften up jack needing 14s to overcome SR, and dies to a full attack while he's standing there playing with himself to get those short-duration buffs up.
Seriously, you called me out when I was making fun of that mess? That was not a great idea.
You point out that he only has a +13 to hit, but rogues take power attack too, and can have an even lower + to hit. On top of that, you can get greater weapon focus, something rogues don't qualify for.
If you give up 9th level spells, a build with 2 fighter, 8 wizard, 10 Eldrich Knight, you can get some good damage. With a rapier: d6 + 3 str + 4 arcane strike + 4 weapon spec + 10 Power attack, without magic items. You have a +16 BAB, power attacking for +11, with weapon spec and focus bringing you to +13, +16 w/ str. 24.5 Average damage without magic or buffing is not bad. I'm not saying its great or optimized, but its not bad. Add on the fact that this build has the spells of a 16th lvl wizard, and I would consider him ballanced with the rest of the party.
I can't think of a Bard build that can match it without expending resources, and that is the closest class I can think of as far as ballance. On top of that, you have more HP, more feats, and better and more versatile spellcasting than the bard. He does beat you out on skill points and a couple out of combat abilities, and has a couple great buffs, but wizard spellcasting is a great buff itself.
Hmm, buffing up before a major encounter(I'd consider a CR 18 dragon sufficiently major) is considered weak?The level 20 EK. He doesn't do any better against the CR 16 ancient black, and that's a level 1 character needing a bunch of prep time to fight kobalds.
And show me a Bard build that can solo it without buffing.
24.5 Average damage without magic or buffing is not bad.Interesting fact: if you punch someone, you do 22.5 average damage without magic or buffing, and you always get to cast a touch spell at the same time, rather than relying on a crit.
Only if you cast the spells ahead of time, so your attacking every other round. You also don't crit on 15 and do a status effect, and provoke an AoO unless you take a feat. Edit: you also lose 4 damage from arcane strike, since your imbuning your weapon.
24.5 Average damage without magic or buffing is not bad.Interesting fact: if you punch someone, you do 22.5 average damage without magic or buffing, and you always get to cast a touch spell at the same time, rather than relying on a crit.
You know, it is quite possible to two hand that longsword, which changes some of this, although the stat block does not reflect it. What is the action type for changing from a one handed to a two handed grip? I know this option is one that I would frequently take advantage of. I cannot find this action type in the PRD.
And show me a Bard build that can solo it without buffing.Who's claiming a bard is "quite capable in melee combat"? And I didn't suggest he could or should be able to solo it; merely that doing 36 damage on a 13+ to a creature with 350-some HP and the ability to kill him in one full-round attack, a creature who should pose a trivial challenge at his level, is not anything in the same ballpark as "quite capable in melee combat."
But he might get a crit and add 53 damage on top of that... if he makes his SR check, and if the dragon doesn't roll an 8 or better on his ref save. That "can truly be devastating."
The Bard is a well ballanced class that gets casting and melee combat abilities. It is pretty much what people want in a Gish, with the exception of 2 things:
1. An enhanced spell list with appropriate spells. This is mostly buffs and evocations. The Eldrich Knight fixes this2. The ability to combine spells with attacks. I recomended some feats up above that others seemed to like.
Comparing the Eldrich Knight against a full martial class is poor. Its not designed to do as much damage, and it shouldn't. If it did compare favorably, I would be upset, since it would then have full combat capabilities and pretty good casting. It doesn't. It gets decent casting and decent combat capabilities, which is ok in my book.
You know, it is quite possible to two hand that longsword, which changes some of this, although the stat block does not reflect it. What is the action type for changing from a one handed to a two handed grip? I know this option is one that I would frequently take advantage of. I cannot find this action type in the PRD.24.5 Average damage without magic or buffing is not bad.Interesting fact: if you punch someone, you do 22.5 average damage without magic or buffing, and you always get to cast a touch spell at the same time, rather than relying on a crit.
It would up my average damage by 6, but I'm not sure if its a swift or free action to change grips, or if its spelled out in the rules at all. If its a swift action, it interferes with arcane strike and armored casting.
Hmm, buffing up before a major encounter(I'd consider a CR 18 dragon sufficiently major) is considered weak?The level 20 EK. He doesn't do any better against the CR 16 ancient black, and that's a level 1 character needing a bunch of prep time to fight kobalds.
So, we're talking about an ECL 20 EK, which is a fightery, magey combo, who shouldn't need to buff before a fight? Ever? Even when it's not a surprise attack and he has a chance to do so? Again, nothing personal, but we're playing different games.
If he's wasting time buffing, then why on earth would he have spells that do just that? I'm just not getting your logic.
As far as the actual topic of the thread, I am still just not getting why it's so impossible to imagine holding a 2handed weapon in one hand and cast with the other hand. The only time you need 2 hands on it is when you're actually swinging it. I mean, really? If not, then your character can't drink a potion? Scratch his knee or pick his nose? His hands are locked on the weapon like they were frozen to it or something? If the OP's DM is this tough, then why is he even attempting a gish in such a restrictive game in the first place?
Comparing the Eldrich Knight against a full martial class is poor. Its not designed to do as much damage, and it shouldn't. If it did compare favorably, I would be upset, since it would then have full combat capabilities and pretty good casting. It doesn't. It gets decent casting and decent combat capabilities, which is ok in my book.
Thats true, but it doesnt compare well against ANYTHING. There is nothing it does well, it just does a bunch of things poorly. That does not make a good class/character.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Thats true, but it doesnt compare well against ANYTHING. There is nothing it does well, it just does a bunch of things poorly. That does not make a good class/character.
Comparing the Eldrich Knight against a full martial class is poor. Its not designed to do as much damage, and it shouldn't. If it did compare favorably, I would be upset, since it would then have full combat capabilities and pretty good casting. It doesn't. It gets decent casting and decent combat capabilities, which is ok in my book.
You mean besides blasting the snot out of a pure fighter and hacking the snot out of a pure arcane caster? Then yes, it doesn't compare well against 'anything'.
Thats true, but it doesnt compare well against ANYTHING. There is nothing it does well, it just does a bunch of things poorly. That does not make a good class/character.
Comparing the Eldrich Knight against a full martial class is poor. Its not designed to do as much damage, and it shouldn't. If it did compare favorably, I would be upset, since it would then have full combat capabilities and pretty good casting. It doesn't. It gets decent casting and decent combat capabilities, which is ok in my book.
I disagree with you here. Classes don't have to be the best at anything to be good. It performs well enough when fighting, and well enough when casting spells. And as I said earlier, it does these 2 things better than the bard. The bard has the added benefit of being the second best skill monkey and a couple unique class features, but I still fail to see how an EK would not stack up against one.
You may claim that Druids and Clerics get to be better than the EK at casting and fighting. I would say there is room for debate there, but probably agree. I think those classes can be used to a higher max, but wont perform significantly better in most people's hands. I also think the arcane list is better than either the druid's or cleric's, and know people disagree with me there.
You mean besides blasting the snot out of a pure fighter and hacking the snot out of a pure arcane caster? Then yes, it doesn't compare well against 'anything'.
Main argument I can see against this: "But the fighter can kill him before he can cast a spell!" or "What wizard would let him get close enough? Flight and invisibility will keep my wizard safe!"
I have seen these arguments before, and I do not mind them.
But saying an EK can outcast the fighter and last longer than a sorcerer/wizard in melee? Let's look at something here.
Fighter: Has no ability to cast spells. Which means a gnome commoner has a 1 up on him already. Anyone capable of casting a cantrip or orison can outcast the fighter.
Wizard: Has poor BaB and only d6 HD, but has spells like the Beast Shape, Transformation, and Shapechange. And he gets them before an EK will. Just play a Diviner and cast Dragon Shape 3 with a Quickened Transformation(if at a high enough level anyway) and rip your foe to shreds before the Ek can draw his sword!
Comparing the Eldrich Knight against a full martial class is poor. Its not designed to do as much damage, and it shouldn't. If it did compare favorably, I would be upset, since it would then have full combat capabilities and pretty good casting. It doesn't. It gets decent casting and decent combat capabilities, which is ok in my book.So, we're talking about an ECL 20 EK, which is a fightery, magey combo, who shouldn't need to buff before a fight? Ever? Even when it's not a surprise attack and he has a chance to do so? Again, nothing personal, but we're playing different games.Who is comparing him to a full martial class? I am comparing him to the monsters he is supposed to be able to fight, and he dies in one round after doing utterly negligible damage.
How many spells should level 20 Seltyiel have to spend to not die like a chump in one round of full attacking from a CR 16 creature? Not defeat, not threaten, merely not die to. What about two rounds? Three? What's the goal for "quite capable in melee combat", hm? Remember, this is the equivalent of facing dire rats at level 1 or bugbears at level 6.
You mean besides blasting the snot out of a pure fighter and hacking the snot out of a pure arcane caster? Then yes, it doesn't compare well against 'anything'.He dies exactly as fast as a pure arcane caster to level-appropriate melee foes: one round.
Except for that higher AC and higher HP than a pure arcane caster, with all the same other benefits, since they are low level spells by that point. By your logic, bard, rogue, and monk, cleric, and druid also die in 1 round against level appropriate foes, since the EK has about the same AC and more HP than them, and other abilities to not get hit or avoid damage that the other classes do not have.
Except for that higher AC and higher HP than a pure arcane caster, with all the same other benefits, since they are low level spells by that point. By your logic, bard, rogue, and monk, cleric, and druid also die in 1 round against level appropriate foes, since the EK has about the same AC and more HP than them, and other abilities to not get hit or avoid damage that the other classes do not have.You replied to my post without answering the question directed to you, to nitpick a reply to someone else. >:|
Except it does answer the question. He performs the role of a second line melee as well as as any of the other classes I mentioned, and performs about as well.
I have compared him enough to the bard.He doesn't have the damage of the rogue, but has more survivability thanks to buffs.
He doesn't have the manueverability of the monk, unless he buffs, but he deals more damage.
He also fares well when compared to druid or cleric.
None of these classes would be able to go solo and perform well against the dragon without expending resources or having time to prepare. The fact that the EK can't is nothing special
Except for that higher AC and higher HP than a pure arcane caster, with all the same other benefits, since they are low level spells by that point. By your logic, bard, rogue, and monk, cleric, and druid also die in 1 round against level appropriate foes, since the EK has about the same AC and more HP than them, and other abilities to not get hit or avoid damage that the other classes do not have.You replied to my post without answering the question directed to you, to nitpick a reply to someone else. >:|Except it does answer the question. He performs the role of a second line melee as well as as any of the other classes I mentioned, and performs about as well.
I have compared him enough to the bard.
He doesn't have the damage of the rogue, but has more survivability thanks to buffs.
He doesn't have the manueverability of the monk, unless he buffs, but he deals more damage.
He also fares well when compared to druid or cleric.None of these classes would be able to go solo and perform well against the dragon without expending resources or having time to prepare. The fact that the EK can't is nothing special
+1
What makes the EK so different from any of the other classes mentioned above, in terms of getting slain in one round of combat? Enough of the loaded situations and situational-dependent math. Ek is a class not too differnt from anything else. Everything is situationally both powerful and weak.
What I find hilarious are the people using math and loaded theoretical examples to preach at how terrible the class/concept is, and on the other side all the people who have played and witnessed them preaching the contrary.
You don't like it, don't play it.
Cast with a 2 handed weapon til yer hearts content. Let's just roll some damn dice already.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You mean besides blasting the snot out of a pure fighter and hacking the snot out of a pure arcane caster? Then yes, it doesn't compare well against 'anything'.He dies exactly as fast as a pure arcane caster to level-appropriate melee foes: one round.
Until his contingency goes off and dimension doors him to safety. Or until that blink spell makes him miss with his attack. Or until he gets black tentacles off etc.
Likewise with a primary caster of his level, he's going to be able to counterspell with a fair degree of sucess, or just throw up an antimagic shell and use his greater BAB and fighter feats to shred his fellow caster (by your definition, 'in one round').
The fighter/wizard hybred, whether it be Monte's Mage Blade, Tome of Secret's Spellblade, my own Legionary, or Seytel, is trading mastery of one style for competence in another. He's a fool to attack someone with their own style, but can adapt to their weaknesses faster than they to his.
And just to annoy Jared. Against his cr 18 dragon, Gate in a Solar, or time stop and whip up a pack of Vrocs to grapple it or throw heavy objects. One 9th level spell or a 9th level and an 8th level spell. Assuming you get 'just' 3 vrocks that's 36d6 points of damage a round from TK attacks. It can't Breath Weapon them, and they (and you) can stay quite far away. (It can't catch, or get close enough to dispel, your phantom steed.) The right tool for the right job, that's the EK's motto.
You hear answers, Jared, you choose not to listen.
Edit: More fun. Timestop, conjure a pack of Rocs, hit them with Eagle's Splendor, mass, +32 grapple with smite evil, (assuming augment summoning feat) if you get 3 you get a +36 to the main one's grapple. Decent chance to grapple the dragon, and tear it apart with smite. 3 spells.
Except it does answer the question. He performs the role of a second line melee as well as as any of the other classes I mentioned, and performs about as well.
I have compared him enough to the bard.
He doesn't have the damage of the rogue, but has more survivability thanks to buffs.
He doesn't have the manueverability of the monk, unless he buffs, but he deals more damage.
He also fares well when compared to druid or cleric.None of these classes would be able to go solo and perform well against the dragon without expending resources or having time to prepare. The fact that the EK can't is nothing special
How many spells should level 20 Seltyiel have to spend to not die like a chump in one round of full attacking from a CR 16 creature? Not defeat, not threaten, merely not die to. What about two rounds? Three? What's the goal for "quite capable in melee combat", hm?
How much resource expenditure is needed to be "quite capable at melee combat"? What foes should he be able to defeat solo in melee combat? What foes should pose little or no threat to him in melee combat? How many rounds should he be able to go with a CR 12 purple worm, or a CR 10 fire giant?
You keep bringing up other classes, and maybe they also have issues. I'm not asking about other classes.
And players don't get to play the ancient black dragon. They get to play the other classes. If you want to compare the class's performance against a monster, you need a baseline, and that baseline is the other classes. As for the standard CR equivalent, IIRC, a CR-2 should take ~1/8 of a character's resources. I'm assuming a single character is a -2 to party level, but I don't see rules for anything but party < 3. This would be 4 spells of varying levels, including 1 7-8th and 1 5-6th. By that same assesment, a wizard should be using 4.5. I'm not saying when these should be used, but its not unsafe to assume he should get 1-2 buffs before the monster closes, and these would probably be some of the lower level ones.
Now, to compare the challenge of a CR16 to a lvl 20 party is not the same as a CR2 against a lvl 6 party. Monster power is not linear, just like class power is not linear. CR-4 stand no chance of killing a PC in 1 round at low levels, but at high levels its a distinct possibility. Defensive power does not grow at the same rate as offensive power.