# Why is/was melee training so bad?



## twilsemail (Aug 9, 2010)

So I’m missing something somewhere and I’m not sure why.  

With the change prefaced in today’s Essentials preview everyone is talking about how much Melee Training needed a hit from the Nerf-Bat.  I’m not at all sure why this is, and I don’t recall hearing this before today.  I honestly thought the opposite was true.  I figured that Weapon or Melee based classes deserved a MBA based on their primary stat even without a feat.

Well, ENWorlders, why do you think that Melee Training was too strong?

Here’s the situation.  Gren, a Battlemind, can swing his hammer all day long, accurately and painfully, as long as it's on his turn.  Half a second later, a goblin walks away from him and Gren as forgotten which end he’s supposed to hit with.  Why does that make sense to most people?  Why was it necessary to make a weapon based character worse at swinging his weapon?

This is a genuine question.  What is it that feels wrong about viable MBAs fro non-Strength classes?  Especially when those classes are Melee or Weapon based?


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 9, 2010)

Melée Training was broken in conjunction with the Knight and Slayer Essentials fighter subclasses.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 9, 2010)

It allowed me to work off an effective five stat spread rather than a six stat spread with very minimal penalties.  I've currently got a Dex 20, Str 8 monk with Melee Training.  An MBA equal to a strength 20 warlord with a longsword.  It was just too much.  (On the other hand I'd love a Psionic Power MBA At Will for the monk).


----------



## twilsemail (Aug 9, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> It allowed me to work off an effective five stat spread rather than a six stat spread with very minimal penalties. I've currently got a Dex 20, Str 8 monk with Melee Training. An MBA equal to a strength 20 warlord with a longsword. It was just too much. (On the other hand I'd love a Psionic Power MBA At Will for the monk).




And you can't dump stat Cha or Int for a Fighter?


----------



## Neurotrash (Aug 9, 2010)

As was already said, it really only became broken with the release of the new MBA-based classes in Essentials.

Using the Slayer as an example, for the price of one feat (melee training) you could make a Slayer with a 20 Dex. This gives you a melee basic attack that does [W] + 10 damage every time you hit (and all your attacks are MBAs), and with hide armor you're walking around with a 18 AC at first level, in addition to the Slayer's defender-level hp. 

With the new fix to the feat, that falls to a [W] + 7, which is a little closer to other first level Strikers in damage output. Without the feat, with 18 Str 18 Dex you can get [W] + 8 damage, and a 17 AC in Hide (the same as if you were just wearing the Scale you're already proficient in). 

Taking Melee training isn't a bad choice, but now it's not a "you're stupid if your Slayer doesn't take it at first level" choice.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 9, 2010)

twilsemail said:


> And you can't dump stat Cha or Int for a Fighter?



No, the point is that the knight and slayer got benefits from two stats (Str for Melee Basic Attacks and Con or Dex for additional benefits). Through Melee Training these classes could get all benefits from a single stat.

A slayer could focus on Dex and get high AC, high attacks and lots of damage on melee and ranged from Dex alone. Without the need to invest in Strength, the slayer could put a few points in Con for extra hp and better Fort.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 9, 2010)

twilsemail said:


> Here’s the situation.  Gren, a Battlemind, can swing his hammer all day long, accurately and painfully, as long as it's on his turn.





Gren, a battlemind, is a fighter known for his methodical unrelenting swings (con attack). Once in the rhythm, he can pound through any defense.

However, his weakness is adaptation. An enemy moving away disrupts the rhythm, and the attack is weaker.


In other words, flavor can explain anything.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 9, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> However, his weakness is adaptation. An enemy moving away disrupts the rhythm, and the attack is weaker.



 Then, Gren should give up the Speed of Thought power!  Or any immediate power like Lightning Rush.

In other words, no it can't.  twilsemail's comment is rhetorical.  There's no good answer you can come up with to explain the crappy mechanics.  Anything you do to try and justify the crap mechanics through flavor is just so much bs.


----------



## twilsemail (Aug 9, 2010)

Klaus said:


> No, the point is that the knight and slayer got benefits from two stats (Str for Melee Basic Attacks and Con or Dex for additional benefits). Through Melee Training these classes could get all benefits from a single stat.
> 
> A slayer could focus on Dex and get high AC, high attacks and lots of damage on melee and ranged from Dex alone. Without the need to invest in Strength, the slayer could put a few points in Con for extra hp and better Fort.




So in fixing an overpowered combination with the new material they're introducing, they've gimped all of the preceeding classes?

If this is a problem with the Slayer (who was just introduced) where did all of this "Melee Training has needed nerfing for a while now" come from?

Wouldn't a better solution have been to give the Slayer a new feature that replaced the standard MBA instead of nerfing every other MBA out there?  

Power "Slaying Strike" Str vs. AC: 1W+Str Counts as an MBA
All new Slayer powers replace MBA with Slaying Strike.


----------



## vaultdweller (Aug 9, 2010)

twilsemail said:


> So in fixing an overpowered combination with the new material they're introducing, they've gimped all of the preceeding classes?




Yup! 







twilsemail said:


> If this is a problem with the Slayer (who was just introduced) where did all of this "Melee Training has needed nerfing for a while now" come from?




Don't know.  People are silly like that. 







twilsemail said:


> Wouldn't a better solution have been to give the Slayer a new feature that replaced the standard MBA instead of nerfing every other MBA out there?




Yup!  But alas, it was not to be.


----------



## renau1g (Aug 9, 2010)

Well, they haven't announced a potential fix so perhaps when essentials comes out the melee classes that need the feat will have that somehow built into their class features (i.e. Cha-based paladin, battlemind, monk, rogue, etc.) and the feat can be done away with.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 9, 2010)

TBH, Melee Training was a too-elegant solution to the problem of stat stacking.

IMHO, There was only one class that "needed" a melee-training power: Rogue. The other Martial Classes (Fighter, Warlord, Ranger) had their primary melee attacks based on Strength, so their MBA was never an issue (except for archer-rangers, but honestly, they could USE a weak-spot). However, rogue was a melee class that used dex primary, creating a guy who one second could use his agility and grace to strike through his enemies armor, and in another swing his sword like a kid wielding a baseball bat. Before MWT, I had a rogue-only feat (similar to Intelligent Blademaster) for rogues that did just that. It was called Weapon Finesse!

Beyond that, every other class that uses weapons primary either has "magic" to describe it (swordmage, paladin) or uses Str anyway (Warden). I liked Intelligent Blademaster, and a similar feat for Paladins wouldn't have broken my heart (if only to fix a glaring problem with defenders), but I'm not sure I needed warlocks beating you down with charisma, clerics whipping you with wisdom, or druids ripping you a new-one with their con. If you want casters with some primary stat basics, do like MM or EB and make a magic-based BA.

Some believability needs to exist. Using any stat you want for MBAs stretched me too thin on that.


----------



## renau1g (Aug 9, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> TBH, Melee Training was a too-elegant solution to the problem of stat stacking.
> 
> IMHO, There was only one class that "needed" a melee-training power: Rogue. .




Don't forget about assassins, we still need some love too...


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 9, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Don't forget about assassins, we still need some love too...




Alas, I quit before that came out, so I can't speak to any of the post-Eberron Player Guide classes.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 9, 2010)

Note this nerfs some warlords or those who took the feat so that they could work better with those warlords. Lets see make the martial classes work better with warlords make it impossible for others to work even half way decently with them.... is that a intentional pattern


----------



## twilsemail (Aug 9, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Beyond that, every other class that uses weapons primary either has "magic" to describe it (swordmage, paladin) or uses Str anyway (Warden).




With the exception of Ardents, Assassins, Battleminds and Monks? Three of those are [W]eapon classes and all three don't use Strength. Heck, the two weapon classes don't even get strength as a secondary.

"Magic" as a descriptor doesn't explain why sometimes the class is awesome at smacking you with a stick and sometimes they're awful.

Does it make sense for a Wizard or a Warlock to have melee training? Probably not (though spending a feat slot to represent training makes sense fluff and mechanics-wise to me). But a Monk should be good at punching people all of the time, not just when it's his turn. An Ardent should know which end of the sword is pointy the other 5 seconds of the turn.

As R1 said, we might see a fix in either the updates or in the new books themselves, though they make no mention of some of the PH3 classes that could sorely use a fix to their MBA.



Remathilis said:


> Some believability needs to exist. Using any stat you want for MBAs stretched me too thin on that.




So, there sholdn't be non-strength based melee classes at all then?


----------



## Insight (Aug 9, 2010)

A simple fix would be that classes make melee basic attacks using their primary ability, whatever that is.  That fixes most classes, except charisma paladin and strength cleric... not sure who else.


----------



## Nichwee (Aug 9, 2010)

As someone who has a Wizard with Melee Training I personally don't mind the new idea of it only getting half-stat damage. I have the feat for RP reasons and my character makes a point of being in melee more than is sensible because of those RP reasons - and buys items/feats to go with the theme often to his detriment. Lowering the damage of his MBA may even help him not get himself into trouble as he would find it less sensible to melee vs use MagMiss/Scorching Burst.

Tho as a Wizard of the Spiral Tower I would like it if Intelligent Blademaster were extended to be available to WotST too (as they were the original Swordmages in 4th ED).

On the idea of why a weapon wielder may suddenly _"get crappy"_ when not their turn: Well a Rogue (for example) can do a cunning trick to rip out his/her opponent's spine when he/she tries to, but an OA or a granted MBA isn't something he/she plans, and finds the right moment for. It is a split-second opening that needs to be taken right then or the chance is lost. Thus the Rogue just _"swings out"_ with his/her sword, using STR,  instead of waiting for the _"sweet shot"_, using DEX. 
Basically if you don't assume Sly Flourish was a _"Oh I want to hit you, best swing my knife"_ reaction but a _"Ok I've been swinging and drawing out your parry for a few seconds and I think I can get you to overextend yourself and get under your guiard"_ effect then the idea of OA and "free action MBAs" being worse doesn't seem so odd. They take no game time (as they are free actions/interrupt other peoples turns) so they are more _"swing and hope"_ than normal attacks. And the arguement that then II/IR's should be _"crappy"_ too is avoided when you note that those are specific responses to specific triggers - i.e. the Rogue trained to have a trick up their sleeve in response to an event they felt certain would arise often - so no "How do I react to this momentary opening just presented. Just swing and hope" as they have practiced how to respond to that specific opening before.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 9, 2010)

twilsemail said:


> So, there sholdn't be non-strength based melee classes at all then?



  Well ofcourse not... in real life the first attribute somebody learns about in fencing is balance and after that you learn how practice and discipline and perception improves your timing and your forms then they teach you how invoking your spirit can really empower your attacks. I probably should find that study which showed how a spirited impassioned attack seemed to deliver half again the force of what a bland methodical one does. 

And just because it takes a 5 strength equivalent in real world terms to kill somebody in one blow with one of these weapons doesnt mean anything.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 9, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Well ofcourse not... in real life the first attribute somebody learns about in fencing is balance and after that you learn how practice and discipline and perception improves your timing and your forms then they teach you how invoking your spirit can really empower your attacks. I probably should find that study which showed how a spirited impassioned attack seemed to deliver half again the force of what a bland methodical one does.
> 
> And just because it takes a 5 strength equivalent in real world terms to kill somebody in one blow with one of these weapons doesnt mean anything.




This may be true, but if you actually look at the people who are top fencers they're all rather strong. Fencing is also a fairly poor analog for what happens in a melee. I'm sure if you ask any expert in martial arts they will tell you that while strength alone is certainly not the be-all and end-all it very much is an important part of weapon use. Greater strength means the ability to more quickly move your weapon around at a basic level, which translates to speed and hitting power. Using a foil or an epee that may be negligible as the weapon is very light to start with, but if you're swinging an 3 pound longsword around it becomes a lot more handy. I'd say even using a dagger there's some significant advantage to being strong. For the most part this is reflected in a lot of martial classes, even many rogues benefit a good bit from strength, perhaps even the majority of melee rogues.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 9, 2010)

I do think that Rogue, Assassin, and Monk all need a MBA At Will.  (Paladins have one, and Battleminds almost do - and Swordmages can use Intelligent Blademaster).


----------



## keterys (Aug 9, 2010)

A lot of characters went from getting, say, +4 attack and +4 damage on their MBAs to +4 attack and +2 damage on their MBAs.

Not exactly a big deal. People are overreacting on both sides of the argument ("nerfed! the world is exploding!" and "it was always a problem!"), in terms of mechanics. Some people don't like melee training due to flavor issues, or felt that it overshadowed the benefit of being a strength primary (instead of almost any other stat primary), and they may or may not be happy, depending.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 9, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> This may be true, but if you actually look at the people who are top fencers they're all rather strong. Fencing is also a fairly poor analog for what happens in a melee. I'm sure if you ask any expert in martial arts they will tell you that while strength alone is certainly not the be-all and end-all it very much is an important part of weapon use.



My martial arts relates to karate and kendo both which is very much a hard style..ie speed and strength sure as heck are useful but you know what the best way to find those unexpected openings that is perception... and one strong technique for getting openings that is deception and agility and perception and yet. Strength can sometimes be used to force openings but while somebody is doing that there strength can be literally used against them.

Strength as made the be all and end all by D&D the fact that "they" do not realize how unrealistic that is makes me laugh (I knew it was silly when I was 15). My kendo teacher was not reeling with huge muscles and pardon me I could mostly stomp the guy who did have them in class. (sure I am not weak either)

In some ways the other attributes allow you to demonstrate how differing styles use a differing emphasis.. sure strength is useful but emphasizing it is only one style of martial activity.


----------



## Shroomy (Aug 9, 2010)

Its hard for me to get angry by this change as within a couple of months, each of the affected classes will likely either get a class specific feat like Intelligent Blademaster or a MBA at-will.


----------



## twilsemail (Aug 9, 2010)

I'm not upset about the update. I'm confused about the sentiment I see behind about half the posts that have an "It's about time someone did something about melee training" tone to them.

I can understand that swinging a sword in the real world is about muscles. You won't see a generic bookworm swinging a buster sword around with proficiency. When that bookworm uses magic to propel that sword, he probably does it all the time, not just every now and again. 

Intelligent Blademaster bothered me from the get-go. A Battlemind needing Melee Training to supplement his skill with a weapon bothers me. If they're updating the feat and changing the mechanics to supplement the melee classes, that's all well and good.

Heck, I'll probably just end up houseruling in another free feat to make room for flavor feats like "Linguistics."

Edit:


Shroomy said:


> Its hard for me to get angry by this change as within a couple of months, each of the affected classes will likely either get a class specific feat like Intelligent Blademaster or a MBA at-will.




Really?  What makes you say that?


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 9, 2010)

Nichwee said:


> On the idea of why a weapon wielder may suddenly _"get crappy"_ when not their turn: Well a Rogue (for example) can do a cunning trick to rip out his/her opponent's spine when he/she tries to, but an OA or a granted MBA isn't something he/she plans, and finds the right moment for. It is a split-second opening that needs to be taken right then or the chance is lost. Thus the Rogue just _"swings out"_ with his/her sword, using STR,  instead of waiting for the _"sweet shot"_, using DEX.
> Basically if you don't assume Sly Flourish was a _"Oh I want to hit you, best swing my knife"_ reaction but a _"Ok I've been swinging and drawing out your parry for a few seconds and I think I can get you to overextend yourself and get under your guiard"_ effect then the idea of OA and "free action MBAs" being worse doesn't seem so odd. They take no game time (as they are free actions/interrupt other peoples turns) so they are more _"swing and hope"_ than normal attacks. And the arguement that then II/IR's should be _"crappy"_ too is avoided when you note that those are specific responses to specific triggers - i.e. the Rogue trained to have a trick up their sleeve in response to an event they felt certain would arise often - so no "How do I react to this momentary opening just presented. Just swing and hope" as they have practiced how to respond to that specific opening before.




This is a stretch at best.  I'm a melee combatant "trained" to use _________ (fill in the blank with your choice of weapon).  I suddenly forget all my "training" under certain circumstances and can't hit the side of a barn unless I get really lucky.  At first level I might be able to go along with this position, but by level 30 you've lost another 20% to hit (assuming you're not bumping STR).  This is a game mechanics flaw pure and simple.


----------



## Shroomy (Aug 9, 2010)

twilsemail said:


> Really?  What makes you say that?




Most obvious needs, unless you're playing a feat-starved changeling that is , are quickly filled by _Dragon_ articles (if not actual sourcebooks).  I expect that changing something that affects existing classes and is an easy fix will results in some no brainer feats or MBA powers being quickly added to future Class Acts, Know Your Role, or Power Play articles (heck, they could errata a MBA rider into some already existing powers with the October update).


----------



## Ardulac (Aug 9, 2010)

As others have mentioned, the nerf to this feat is only cutting the damage bonus from your highest non-strength stat bonus to half of that amount.  It still gives the full bonus to hit, so it will cost most characters 2 (with an 18 at first level) to 5 (with a 30 at 28th level) damage.  This isn't unreasonable since most of the classes that don't use strength as a primary stat are made to be less damaging or have other mechanics to help out their damage.  In addition, rogues may still get their full dex to damage through the Weapon Finesse class feature that hasn't been revealed yet.

I like the fact that it gives melee classes some incentive to keep strength as a secondary if they want better damage (assuming you can choose to use your strength for damage if it is higher than 1/2 of the Melee Training stat) since 18 wis, 16 str with Melee Training would give +4 to hit and +3 damage instead of +4 to hit and +2 damage.  This benefit would also scale nicely as a 28+ demigod would probably have 28 wis, 26 str and would be getting +9 to hit, +8 damage instead of +9 to hit, +4 damage.

Edit: Oh, and I think there is some misunderstanding between the posts on this subject.  I don't think anyone is saying Melee Training should be eliminated completely.  It just needed a slight nerf, and the one it received seems appropriate


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 9, 2010)

I hope it is stated as: use dex for your attack bonus and the higher of strength or half stat bonus to damage...otherwise a stonefist monk or a brutal scoundrel rogue could get into trouble...

otherwise: good fix! (even though other stats are useful and realistic, strength is stil the most important stat, if you just try to crush an opponents head with a club or something...)


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 9, 2010)

Ardulac, *why *did it need a slight nerf?  Because you think some incentive for MAD is necessary?

UngeheuerLich, *why* is it a good fix?

You guys are not answering twilsemail at all.  Look at CovertOps' post if you are not understanding twilsemail's point.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 9, 2010)

Did my Avenger need her damage nerfed... dont think so.


----------



## Solvarn (Aug 9, 2010)

I'm glad my defender has Eldritch Strike.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 9, 2010)

Infiniti2000 said:


> Ardulac, *why *did it need a slight nerf?  Because you think some incentive for MAD is necessary?
> 
> UngeheuerLich, *why* is it a good fix?
> 
> You guys are not answering twilsemail at all.  Look at CovertOps' post if you are not understanding twilsemail's point.



As stated (in Countdown to essentials article): melee training was a too easy way out of dumping strengh in some builds. It makes strngth more meaningful and allows some more interesting builds... -2 (or 3 damage on a main stat 20 build) is IMHO a good nerf. Anything that discourages putting a 20 in a stat is a good nerf in my opinion. This is why it is a good fix. Actually, if it was +1/2 strength, +1/2chosen attribute, i would have been even happier, or if it only changed the attack stat and left strength for damage. In this way, assigning stats is a more meaningful choice. This is, why I think it is a good fix.

With a unified melee stat, multiclassing is easier. Now, a thief can easily use strength primary (if he is not forced to use dexterity by weapon finesse) and multiclass into fighter. I am not sure how multiclassing works with essentials, but i MBA had been used in the inital design in more classes, that used strength as thei primary ability, multiclassing had worked a lot better. Of course, the native stat shold still be superior to the substitute stat, so half damage seems fair.
We have a precedence here: a bard can take a feat where he only gets his cha bonus to attacks on all attacks with multiclass powers. A good feat for a bard that chose to neglect the matching ability score, but a bard, that chose to divde his points between charisma and the stat used by the power is not in a disadvantage.

I really hope melee training is worded in a way, that using 1/2 stat to damage only kicks in if it is still higher than the strength modifier.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 9, 2010)

I think this hurts a lot of existing builds, in an effort to tone down the potency of new builds. It's an inelegant solution to a problem that didn't exist before the introduction of Essentials. If anything, many were hoping for (or playing with) free melee training for battleminds, avengers, rogues, etc.

Fact of the matter is that this was an oversight if they believe melee training to have become too potent. It really wouldn't have been, if the bonus features of the Essentials builds were static or level based, rather than secondary stat based, and if they had features which relied more heavily on their primary stat, and less so on secondary stat.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 9, 2010)

Mengu said:


> I think this hurts a lot of existing builds, in an effort to tone down the potency of new builds. It's an inelegant solution to a problem that didn't exist before the introduction of Essentials. If anything, many were hoping for (or playing with) free melee training for battleminds, avengers, rogues, etc.
> 
> Fact of the matter is that this was an oversight if they believe melee training to have become too potent. It really wouldn't have been, if the bonus features of the Essentials builds were static or level based, rather than secondary stat based, and if they had features which relied more heavily on their primary stat, and less so on secondary stat.



Actually they should have made an ability that relies on strength for the slayer and nerfed melee training...

My goliath bard(barbarian) sucks compared to my human bard(barbarian)... with his lower charisma and higher strength and constitution. It is just, that it bugged me all the time, that increasing strength didn´t do a lot after taking melee training and the bard feat. Somehow it felt wrong, the nerf remedied that feeling a bit...


----------



## twilsemail (Aug 9, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> As stated (in Countdown to essentials article): melee training was a too easy way out of dumping strengh in some builds. It makes strngth more meaningful and allows some more interesting builds... -2 (or 3 damage on a main stat 20 build) is IMHO a good nerf. Anything that discourages putting a 20 in a stat is a good nerf in my opinion. This is why it is a good fix. Actually, if it was +1/2 strength, +1/2chosen attribute, i would have been even happier, or if it only changed the attack stat and left strength for damage. In this way, assigning stats is a more meaningful choice. This is, why I think it is a good fix.
> 
> With a unified melee stat, multiclassing is easier. Now, a thief can easily use strength primary (if he is not forced to use dexterity by weapon finesse) and multiclass into fighter. I am not sure how multiclassing works with essentials, but i MBA had been used in the inital design in more classes, that used strength as thei primary ability, multiclassing had worked a lot better. Of course, the native stat shold still be superior to the substitute stat, so half damage seems fair.
> We have a precedence here: a bard can take a feat where he only gets his cha bonus to attacks on all attacks with multiclass powers. A good feat for a bard that chose to neglect the matching ability score, but a bard, that chose to divde his points between charisma and the stat used by the power is not in a disadvantage.
> ...




You've presented a solid argument as to why a Slayer or Knight shouldn't get any stat. Can you support an argument against the other classes that use a different stat to swing a sword at someone's face?

The solution to the problem you're presenting was not to Nerf pre-existing material, it was to build the new material with the old in mind.

The old Melee Training allowed an Ardent/Assassin/Battlemind/Monk/Rogue to dump Strength? Well Darn. What keeps the Fighter from dumping Charisma or Int?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 9, 2010)

twilsemail said:


> You've presented a solid argument as to why a Slayer or Knight shouldn't get any stat.




Huch, how so? because of a thief beeing able to put a 20 into strength and run around with 12 AC?
Ok, he can buy it back with chainmail training... hmmhmm... maybe there is more about weapon finesse...



twilsemail said:


> Can you support an argument against the other classes that use a different stat to swing a sword at someone's face?
> 
> The solution to the problem you're presenting was not to Nerf pre-existing material, it was to build the new material with the old in mind.
> 
> The old Melee Training allowed an Ardent/Assassin/Battlemind/Monk/Rogue to dump Strength? Well Darn. What keeps the Fighter from dumping Charisma or Int?



Wisdom constitution and dexterity as tertiary stats. Fighters have enough stats which they should not dump.


----------



## shamsael (Aug 9, 2010)

twilsemail said:


> So I’m missing something somewhere and I’m not sure why.
> 
> With the change prefaced in today’s Essentials preview everyone is talking about how much Melee Training needed a hit from the Nerf-Bat. I’m not at all sure why this is, and I don’t recall hearing this before today. I honestly thought the opposite was true. I figured that Weapon or Melee based classes deserved a MBA based on their primary stat even without a feat.
> 
> ...




I think the primary motivation had to do with the Knight and Slayer classes, but it it also has to do with the fact that Melee training as written made Intelligent Blademaster unnecessary.

One one hand, the change to melee training means that Intelligent Blademaster is relevant again.  On the other hand, we're talking about losing 3 points of damage per hit.  It's really not that big of a deal.


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Aug 9, 2010)

Any feat that is a main stay on the Charop boards and is a must take for the majority of the builds there needed to be nerfed for that reason alone.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 10, 2010)

twilsemail said:


> With the exception of Ardents, Assassins, Battleminds and Monks? Three of those are [W]eapon classes and all three don't use Strength. Heck, the two weapon classes don't even get strength as a secondary.
> 
> "Magic" as a descriptor doesn't explain why sometimes the class is awesome at smacking you with a stick and sometimes they're awful.




Cause of the four you have mentioned, absolutely zero of them merely 'smack you with a stick' in instead, imbue it with some sort of psionic power or otherwordly force.

And honestly... it's just melee basic attack.  Imbuing with otherworldly force often takes time and concentration.  Some characters are trained in doing so reflexively, others are not.  Having the character class itself is not the determining factor for this, but a feat is.

I don't see how this breaks versimilitude.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 10, 2010)

twilsemail said:


> So I’m missing something somewhere and I’m not sure why.
> 
> With the change prefaced in today’s Essentials preview everyone is talking about how much Melee Training needed a hit from the Nerf-Bat.  I’m not at all sure why this is, and I don’t recall hearing this before today.  I honestly thought the opposite was true.  I figured that Weapon or Melee based classes deserved a MBA based on their primary stat even without a feat.
> 
> Well, ENWorlders, why do you think that Melee Training was too strong?



Melee Training as a feat effectively delivered a very large attack and damage bonus.  If your STR is 8 and your INT is 20, Melee Training gave you a +6 to hit and damage with your MBA.  OK, it's only an MBA, but still, +6?  No feat gives a +6 to hit.  So that might be a reason to suspect something's wrong, but, it wasn't really as scary as it sounded.  All it did was bring your MBA up even with your other powers.  Effectively, it gave a non-STR builds access to OAs, Charging, and MBA-enhancing items (like bracers of mighty striking).   

Now imagine if there were no OA or Charge Mechanic, but there was a feat that would let you charge.  Wouldn't that be a pretty good feat?  What about one that let you hit anyone that tried to move past you?  Both?  

For characters who dump STR, Charge and OA almost might as well not have existed and gaining those options, plus an effective attack that doesn't provoke in melee (if your regular ranged/area attacks all do) was probably worth more than one feat.

But that's not really it, either.  Those are generally available options, so they're not as valuable as they would be if /on one/ got them without a feat.

The real impact of Melee Training was in the balance between STR builds and non-STR builds.  Before Melee Training a low-STR or STR-dumping build could forget about charging or using an OA or getting a free attack from Commander's Strike.  That was just part of not having a high STR, and the non-STR builds all had plenty of really good powers.  The STR builds, OTOH, often were a little lacking in the Power department.  Consider the STR paladin who lacked /any/ STR power at 9th level.  Or, the STR Cleric, a build that's largely been consigned to the trash heap not just by optimizers, but by WotC.  

I don't think Melee Training, alone, killed those builds - Fighters and Warlords remained viable - but I don't think it was good for them, because it made things available to everyone at the cost of one feat that formerly required the major undertaking of investing significantly in STR.


But, that's not why WotC finally (and gently) nerfed Melee Training.  No, it was because Melee Training as it existed broke the Knight and Slayer.  To maintain the 'backward' compatability of Essentials with 4e, therefor, 4e had to be changed.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 10, 2010)

shamsael said:


> I think the primary motivation had to do with the Knight and Slayer classes, but it it also has to do with the fact that Melee training as written made Intelligent Blademaster unnecessary.
> 
> One one hand, the change to melee training means that Intelligent Blademaster is relevant again.  On the other hand, we're talking about losing 3 points of damage per hit.  It's really not that big of a deal.




Yes, and I'm sure the Essentials Paladin will have this problem fixed for him, as the rogue has weapon finesse as a class feature (I'll take a wager what that does...)

To be honest, I think the new assassin (in Heroes of Shadow) will be an MBA/Essentials rogue-type class, which only leaves the PHB psionic classes. Maybe a single "psionic-only" feat could fix that (like one that allows Wis for MBAs instead of Str?) 

I really just don't want wizards, druids, or warlocks swinging a sword with thier MINDS as accurately as a fighter does with his BODY!


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 10, 2010)

Essentially the issue is this:

A feat was giving the bulk of the benefit of investing points in strength. Feats are relatively inexpensive. Investing points in strength is significantly more expensive.

Now, if battleminds have problems being defenders because of bad OAs, then that's a seperate matter. OTOH, losing 2 to 5(at the absolute maximum for an epic demigod battlemind who started with 20 con) points of damage on OAs is NOT going to stop them doing their job.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 10, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> Essentially the issue is this:
> 
> A feat was giving the bulk of the benefit of investing points in strength. Feats are relatively inexpensive. Investing points in strength is significantly more expensive.




By design, most (I realize not all) classes are based on a single stat. You typically make your at-will, encounter, daily attacks  based on that stat. Why does a basic attack need to be any different? I can understand the range vs melee distinction. As a class feature,  if every melee character gets a melee basic attack they can use with their primary stat, and if every ranged character gets a ranged basic attack they can use with their primary stat, we are set. If they already have an at-will they can use as a basic attack, this is less necessary. Controllers should have this as a feature rather than choice of at-will, since variety is important to the role, and having to spend an at-will on a basic attack is detrimental.

[sblock=sample basic attack feature powers]
Cleric: Wis vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d6+Wis
Paladin: Cha vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Cha (they can pick Virtuous Strike, so not very necessary, but could be given some consideration, since it does take away an at-will, but of course giving this free weakens the at-will, bit of a tough design spot)
Rogue: Dex vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Dex
Wizard: pick one, Magic Missile or Int vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Int
Avenger: Wis vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Wis
Bard: pick one, Cha vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Cha or Cha vs Will, ranged 10, implement, 1d6+Cha
Druid: (they already get an acceptable version of this feature since they have a third at-will, though a ranged basic attack added to the at-will arsenal could be interesting)
Invoker: Wis vs Fort, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Wis.
Shaman: (they already get an acceptable version of this feature through opportunity attacks)
Sorcerer: (they already have multiple ways, and I don't actually care that it takes one of their at-wills)
Ardent: Cha vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Cha
Battlemind: Con vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Con
Monk: Dex vs Refl, melee touch, implement, 1d8+Dex
Psion: Int vs Will, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Int
Artificer: pick one, Int vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Int, or Int vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d6+Int
Assassin: pick one, Dex vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Dex or Dex vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Dex
Swordmage: Int vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Int

If these basic attack features were added to the classes in question, the playing platform would be more uniform, and Strength classes wouldn't have the upper hand for simply being a strength primary class.
[/sblock]


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 11, 2010)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> Any feat that is a main stay on the Charop boards and is a must take for the majority of the builds there needed to be nerfed for that reason alone.




I endorse your position and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 11, 2010)

Mengu said:


> By design, most (I realize not all) classes are based on a single stat.




No, they're not. I don't know of a single class that doesn't get terrible defenses by dumping everything but their prime attack stat. Every class loses hitpoints by having a low CON. Every class loses initiative modifier by having a low DEX.

Every class gets bad charge, opportunity and granted melee attacks by dumping STR.

Every class gets bad granted ranged attacks by dumping DEX.

Now, individual classes have things to compensate for this - classes with basic-attack at-wills, classes with feats to specifically overcome this as an issue.

The major issue comes from those gaping holes where a class obviously SHOULD have some sort of compensation but doesn't. It shouldn't (for instance) be a bad idea for a warlord to grant an attack to a striker over a defender. It shouldn't be a doddle to walk away from a battlemind.

But that should really come down to some specific fixes: strikers should be given "prime stat to granted attacks". Defenders should get "prime stat to OAs". All for free and on a class-by-class basis of course.

But I don't really think that we need to make (for example) charging melee wizards an easy choice. Perhaps possible with some feats, but not easy.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 11, 2010)

Is there a big problem with basic attacks being slightly sub-optimal for some classes?

Oh noes, I'm at -2 to hit when I charge or the Warlord gives me a free attack. FML. 

I mean, not that they can't fix it or whatever, but I don't see the spark that's igniting the nerdrage here.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> But I don't really think that we need to make (for example) charging melee wizards an easy choice. Perhaps possible with some feats, but not easy.




You have a funny idea of easy if you think it is so right now... please explain further.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Is there a big problem with basic attacks being slightly sub-optimal for some classes?
> 
> Oh noes, I'm at -2 to hit when I charge or the Warlord gives me a free attack. FML.
> 
> I mean, not that they can't fix it or whatever, but I don't see the spark that's igniting the nerdrage here.




I dont know must be hate for retro crap causing back fixes/nerfing instead of being designed in ways that are actually compatible.


----------



## scylis (Aug 11, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> I dont know must be hate for retro crap causing back fixes/nerfing instead of being designed in ways that are actually compatible.



So how would you design a couple of builds that focus entirely on enhancing MBAs (or just BAs in general) what wouldn't run into problems with using Melee training for stat swapping?


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

scylis said:


> So how would you design a couple of builds that focus entirely on enhancing MBAs (or just BAs in general) what wouldn't run into problems with using Melee training for stat swapping?




Take that slayer and make sure some of his boosts come from strength... or better invalidating what he gets now .... for instance change the phrase describing how he gets his dex boost to only affect strength based attacks.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 11, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Mêlée ---



FIFY. Feel better?


----------



## scylis (Aug 11, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Take that slayer and make sure some of his boosts come from strength... or better invalidating what he gets now .... for instance change the phrase describing how he gets his dex boost to only affect strength based attacks.



The flavor of the Slayer makes me think some of the higher level class abilities might, in fact, be things keyed off of STR, but unless it's more damage, I doubt people will be bothered by getting a +2 or +3 bonus to whatever they may or may not be and leaving it at that.

As for the second part, while that would reinforce the "STR primary" motif, it would totally kill the idea of using the Slayer to make the ranged Fighter character. Unless they're going to make another separate build for that, that's not a pleasing idea to me (being able to point people at the Slayer when another "I wanna make a ranged Fighter, because Ranger is to treehugger-hippy-like to me" thread pops up pleases me). Other than that, there's something about the phrasing that... I don't know... makes me inclined not to like it. Can't place my finger on it, right now.

Otherwise decent conversation! Yay!

*makes the Elder Sign with hand in case the internets implode*


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

scylis said:


> Other than that, there's something about the phrasing that... I don't know... makes me inclined not to like it. Can't place my finger on it, right now.
> 
> Otherwise decent conversation! Yay!
> 
> *makes the Elder Sign with hand in case the internets implode*




Change it to ranged or strength based and you get your archer, shrug.

*Great


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> FIFY. Feel better?




My keyboard doesn't like them characters. Hides em deep enough not worth hunting for. My French teacher would be annoyed with me, I can picture her face.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 11, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Oh noes, I'm at -2 to hit when I charge or the Warlord gives me a free attack. FML.




The warlord is actually one of the reasons I support better basic attacks. So many warlord powers grants basic attacks...but very few classes can make use of them without some kind of augment (like melee training).

I don't care that a rogue doesn't have a good OA, I do care that a warlord's powers are greatly weakened that the player chose a rogue instead of a fighter.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 11, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> No, they're not. I don't know of a single class that doesn't get terrible defenses by dumping everything but their prime attack stat. Every class loses hitpoints by having a low CON. Every class loses initiative modifier by having a low DEX.
> 
> Every class gets bad charge, opportunity and granted melee attacks by dumping STR.
> 
> Every class gets bad granted ranged attacks by dumping DEX.




I'm not saying they don't have reliance on other stats. Just saying attack stat is one stat. That's it. Wisdom for Avengers, Charisma for Bards and Ardents, Con for Battleminds, Int for Artificers and Wizards. There is no reason for them not to have a basic attack (whether it be melee or range), based on this primary stat. It is their attack stat.

It's not a matter of nerd raging over a change. The issue I take is more fundamental than that. I don't even think the system design warrants that melee basic attacks always be based on Strength. It doesn't work well with the class design that keys of non-Strength based classes, and gives Strength based classes too much of an edge. Why does a Warlord rock with a fighter and ranger out of the box, but suck with a battlemind and avenger?

Either they should have designed all melee classes with Strength as a primary stat, or they need to give the non-Strength melee classes the necessary competency. Melee training was a feat fix. Now they half broke the fix. I simply hope there is some other fix in the pipeline.

Edit: And for what it's worth, I believe a similar problem exists with certain feat requirements such as the weapon mastery feats. Strength based classes win those feats. And any new class that doesn't have a use for those stats, loses out. Try getting heavy blade mastery or Spear Mastery with an Battlemind or a Bard. The system needs maintenance as new material expands into the design space, and I'm hoping Essentials will provide a lot of that maintenance.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 11, 2010)

In my opinion it wasn't broken at all: it was one of the best design options that came out of 4E.

Now that the Essentials books have characters that don't use the power system in the same way, something had to change. I wish it would have been the Essential classes that were written in such a way as to make it unnecessary to make any changes to the existing rules. Alas, 'twas not to be...


----------



## Ahrimon (Aug 11, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Yes, and I'm sure the Essentials Paladin will have this problem fixed for him, as the rogue has weapon finesse as a class feature (I'll take a wager what that does...)




If they make the new melee paladin anything but strength it'll completely ruin the paladin for me.  They've always been the holy warrior schtick to me.  Not the the guy who wails on you with a sword using his mighty wisdom or personality.



Remathilis said:


> I really just don't want wizards, druids, or warlocks swinging a sword with thier MINDS as accurately as a fighter does with his BODY!




I've always had trouble conceptualizing any stats other than strength or dexterity for a weapon attack.  A magic attack of some kind, sure.  I just can't see a weapon attack.


----------



## Noumenon (Aug 11, 2010)

When I saw this thread I was gonna complain because Melee Training was so good for my multi-classed Wizard/Rogue that I brought over from 3.5.  But really, it's only two less damage and I still get the full bonus so I can _hit_ and do sneak attack once in a while -- that's what sucked about being a wizard/rogue in 3.5.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 11, 2010)

Ahrimon said:


> If they make the new melee paladin anything but strength it'll completely ruin the paladin for me.  They've always been the holy warrior schtick to me.  Not the the guy who wails on you with a sword using his mighty wisdom or personality.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always had trouble conceptualizing any stats other than strength or dexterity for a weapon attack.  A magic attack of some kind, sure.  I just can't see a weapon attack.




In that case Avengers, Swordmages, Battleminds, Ardents, Bards, Druids, and Artificers should all switch to Strength because they all have melee powers.

4e is full of abstractions in the name of variety and balance. It keeps things interesting. And a bit of imagination goes a long way in explaining away training. An artificer's sword may be driven by his cunning, his experience, and his analytical assessment of an opponent, while a dwarf avenger may be observing his opponent, using his insight to predict their movements, and strike just at the right time with precision. These are heroes, they can have 10 strength on a piece of paper, but really they are well trained, proficient and strong enough to wield their weapons. There is more to using a weapon than brute strength or agility. As many duels have been decided by sheer luck as those determined by the strength or experience of the duelists.

I look at it this way, a level 30 fighter can beat up a level 1 fighter with his bare fists, wearing no armor. So an Avenger is using his Wisdom like the high level fighter is using his levels, to give him an edge. It's an abstract system. What's most important is relative equality among same level PC's. If there are some melee classes that use strength as a primary stat, and others that don't, equality becomes hard to establish when basic attacks are based only on strength.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 11, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> The warlord is actually one of the reasons I support better basic attacks. So many warlord powers grants basic attacks...but very few classes can make use of them without some kind of augment (like melee training).
> 
> I don't care that a rogue doesn't have a good OA, I do care that a warlord's powers are greatly weakened that the player chose a rogue instead of a fighter.



When the PH hit, there were 8 classes, with a total of 18 builds.  Eight of those builds (the warlocks, wizards, devoted cleric and archer-ranger), were dedicated ranged builds, so shouldn't be candidates for Commander's Striker or anything along those lines (though, all but one could have solid RBAs for the few powers that granted those).  Of the remaining 10 melee-capable builds, 8, the two warlord builds, two fighter builds, TWF ranger, STR Paladin, STR Cleric, and Brutal Rogue had solid MBAs.  So, out of 18 PH builds, there were /two/ melee-apropriate builds, the CHA Paladin and Artful Dodger Rogue, that weren't good choices for Commander's Strike, and one dedicated ranged build that couldn't benefit from a granted RBA. ( Actually, with his +3 prof weapon, weapon talent, and probable combat advantage, even an early heroic level artful dodger wasn't a terrible choice, and, both Rogues /did/ have solid RBAs - which worked particularly well with the Warlord's "Surprise Attack" encounter, which granted CA.)  Really, there was only one build that just plain didn't work with a Warlord granted attack, ever, and that was the Devoted Cleric.  

So, no, the attack-granting Warlord was not particularly borked by lack of Melee Training in the PH.   Melee Training was something of a boon to the Warlord in the sense that you were more likely to be able to walk into a party with an attack-granting warlord and have someone you could work with, without coordinating it ahead of time.


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 11, 2010)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> Any feat that is a main stay on the Charop boards and is a must take for the majority of the builds there needed to be nerfed for that reason alone.



So you're for nerfing Weapon Focus, Toughness, Superior Weapon Proficiency too?


Tony Vargas said:


> Really, there was only one build that just plain didn't work with a Warlord granted attack, ever, and that was the Devoted Cleric.



 Which now has an melee At-will usable as an MBA.


----------



## scylis (Aug 11, 2010)

I'm not gonna comment on Toughness, but if even non-weapon users were taking Weapon Focus, I'd be inclined to say yes. Superior Weapon Proficiency is a bad example because the thing what may or may not be broken is what it grants access to, not the feat itself.

Personally, though, I think a better way to put it would be "feats which are rated gold consistently across the board should be looked at with an eye for getting the nerf bat". That might stir up an "Expertise hornet's nest", but they're a special case, so I'd probably add an addendum about leaving them out of the discussion for sanity's sake (the discussions that would spawn would be... well, I think we all know what they'd be like).


----------



## twilsemail (Aug 11, 2010)

scylis said:


> I'm not gonna comment on Toughness, but if even non-weapon users were taking Weapon Focus, I'd be inclined to say yes. Superior Weapon Proficiency is a bad example because the thing what may or may not be broken is what it grants access to, not the feat itself.




Well then.  I don't see every Wizard build taking Melee training... or archer Rangers... or Psions...

Sometimes a feat is taken across the board because it's necessary to fill a concept or role, as opposed to "it's broke-tasetic."  If you want to be a dude swinging a sword and your class is based on Wisdom... you should probably take Melee Training so that you're not taking a -10 to hit at the end of your career.

Combat is not everyone taking turns.  It's unreasonable to think that everyone stands around except for that half second when it's their turn during those 6 seconds.  Why does someome lose competence for the times that isn't represented by their dice rolls?

I hadn't intended for this to be a mechanics discussion.  I'd inteded to discuss why it seems wrong that a character is basically a farmer with a warhammer for 85% of his career and a God among men on the battlefield the other 15%.  



I'm ineloquent at the best of times on the internet.  This conversation has veered far from what I'd intended, but that's the nature of the beast.  If this is going to be par for the course...



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Oh noes, I'm at -2 to hit when I charge or the Warlord gives me a free attack. FML.




I'll just let the thread ferment.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 11, 2010)

twilsemail said:


> Well then.  I don't see every Wizard build taking Melee training... or archer Rangers... or Psions...
> 
> Sometimes a feat is taken across the board because it's necessary to fill a concept or role, as opposed to "it's broke-tasetic."  If you want to be a dude swinging a sword and your class is based on Wisdom... you should probably take Melee Training so that you're not taking a -10 to hit at the end of your career.
> 
> ...



Because introducing a feat to remedy a fundamental problem is a bad idea...

this is the simple answer. The god among the batlefield should not have to spend a feat to be no farmer 85% of the time.

Why should he train in melee if he already is good at melee?

For other characters, that usually are not in melee the new melee training is good enough. For dedicated melee characters, not so.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 12, 2010)

> I don't care that a rogue doesn't have a good OA, I do care that a warlord's powers are greatly weakened that the player chose a rogue instead of a fighter.




Greatly weakened? Still seems like _a whole extra attack_ that you otherwise wouldn't get. 

The game isn't so precariously balanced that this slight variation ruins everyone's fun, is it? I don't even think I'd notice the difference in actual play.


----------



## scylis (Aug 12, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Greatly weakened? Still seems like _a whole extra attack_ that you otherwise wouldn't get.
> 
> The game isn't so precariously balanced that this slight variation ruins everyone's fun, is it? I don't even think I'd notice the difference in actual play.



Also, if they're true to their word, that Rogue is going to be able to get an _additional_ Sneak Attack in with that hit. Average Sneak Attack damage more than makes up for damage lost to the Melee Training errata _AND_ that attack will most likely target REF from a little into Paragon on.

...bazinga!


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 12, 2010)

I am still puzzled as why 1/2 main stat suddenly cripples characters MBAs. The point with poor MBAs was that you wouldn't hit the broad side of a barn with them if you didn't have strength primary. That is what made them ineffective and the damage was irrelevant in this. 

_Not being able to hit the enemy in the first place is what prompted them to ignore you._

Edit: This doesn't change the validity of the argument that any melee class should have an at-will or similar power that lets them make an MBA anyway. The actual change is insignificant in the long run, because a couple of points of damage is ultimately irrelevant so long as it still enables you to _hit_ the enemy in the first place.


----------



## karolusb (Aug 12, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> No, they're not. I don't know of a single class that doesn't get terrible defenses by dumping everything but their prime attack stat. Every class loses hitpoints by having a low CON. Every class loses initiative modifier by having a low DEX.
> 
> Every class gets bad charge, opportunity and granted melee attacks by dumping STR.
> 
> Now, individual classes have things to compensate for this - classes with basic-attack at-wills, classes with feats to specifically overcome this as an issue.





You start with every class has this, and then go into how most classes in fact don't.  It makes for a shaky point in my mind.  

In truth I would prefer "free" fixes to these problems, but that isn't what we have, what we have is feat fixes.  And we have a working feat fix.  Poor design of the slayer aside.  If you accept the move away from variable primary stat classes (which you must if you don't reject the game past PHB1).  Then accepting OA based on a stat you have a reason to have is a natural progression.  I would prefer a unified rational fix to 50 ad-hoc ones.  I dislike that most characters have to give up one of thier 2 power slots to do what they should do by default, and dislike even worse that a handful of classes aren't given that option.  

Wizards already don't know how to use any weapon worth using, have poor HP, low defenses, bad surges, etc.  There are more than enough reasons to never declare a charge as a wizard (I have never seen a wizard charge), that this doesn't need to be on the list.  

As to it being a +6 to three seperate actions, consider it this way, would you trade expertise for training?  If you would I have to think your grasp of the mechanics is not solid enough for me to be concerned with your opinion.  Excepting a few bizarre builds (that almost certainly aren't using non-power MBA's anyway) charges come up maybe once an encounter, if you win initiative, and start far away, and really want to be in melee.  OA's come up exactly as often as your GM wants (most of my GM's have leaned towards 0 as the optimal number).  And the fact that most people suck at granted attacks doesn't encourage the use of that warlord build in my experience.  

+6 for three types of attacks which you will almost never make.  Really not a very good feat as was (which is why off the Charop boards it is pretty rare on character sheets).


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 15, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> My keyboard doesn't like them characters. Hides em deep enough not worth hunting for. My French teacher would be annoyed with me, I can picture her face.



I was [-]picking on[/-] poking fun at the Charwoman for using one of the French marks but not the other.  

Now, could someone please succinctly sum up how Melee Training was ruining their lives before and what has changed to ruin things worse now? Extra bonus points for keeping it simple.


----------



## Squire James (Aug 15, 2010)

There's no big problem with Melee Training... and nerfing it slightly isn't a big problem either.  Some people fear change, and others fear the people who fear change.  Both are slightly irrational, and as long as none of it boils down into anger both groups will eventually settle down and life will go on.


----------



## keterys (Aug 15, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> So you're for nerfing Weapon Focus, Toughness, Superior Weapon Proficiency too?




*Raises his hand* Yeah, pretty much.

I've never noticed Toughness being a problem, myself, but the other two? Absolutely, I'd love to see them go.

Boring. Straight statistical improvement. Pidgeon holes your treasure and concept. More powerful than most other feats?

Yeah, seems against the design goals of 4e (see the Noble fighter with Diplomacy skill training and Linguist vs. one with SWP + Focus, they're supposed to be on some level of parity...). If SWPs added interesting options, but weren't just 'The same, but +1 attack or +1 damage' maybe, but, meh. Scrap 'em, I'd say.

The worst part about feats like that is you don't see enough variety in feats taken for the first 4-6 levels.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 15, 2010)

I don´t know... diplomacy seems a lot more useful than 1 little point of damage in a non dungeon delve...

charop board seems like a place you should avoid at all costs...

I guess the superior weapon proficiency has more a psychological effect: rolling bigger dice! And high crit weapons especially will make your players happy.

In the end, both fighters are nearly equally effective.


----------



## keterys (Aug 15, 2010)

Sadly, +1 attack and +1 damage per tier generally outweighs being the second or third fiddle to the bard, warlock, or warlord in the group, and even if not... the way the game is setup, you're generally using Diplomacy in situations in which you're happy with either result (for example, Success: You talk your way past the bandits, have some xp! Failure: You fight your way past the bandits, have some xp!), but considerably more is generally on the line with actual combat benefits.

Speaking as someone with a fighter who has, y'know, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Insight. 
And Weapon Focus. 
And Superior Weapon Proficiency


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 15, 2010)

Ok, the per tier is actually an issue here. If it was just a flat +1 bonus, i would really consider it a conditional feat...

The rest is just a DM problem: i.e.: Having a diplomacy check fail where there are no consequences for failure: bad.

If you have to fight your way in, AND fight a second combat after that, before you may even get your short rest, could be a bit harder. (The sound of battle may attract the other guards and encounters could be combined)

This could well save some dailies and healing surges for the last fight of the campaign.

Also you should reward a peaceful solution wth an action point, where i would not let a combat that was a result of a failed check contribute to a milestone...


----------



## keterys (Aug 15, 2010)

Doesn't save it from being second fiddle (or worse) to the folks who get Charisma natively and the skill training natively.

And, yeah, someone from CharOp land would probably laugh at you for considering taking one over the other.

Even at just +1 in heroic tier, if you're swinging for 1d8+4, that's >10% increase in effectiveness. That's pretty darn solid, compared to something like Linguist that might _truly_ help you once per campaign.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 15, 2010)

I don´t like linguist myself... learning 3 languages doesn´t sit well with me... why can´t languages be a general benefit for having high int, as it always has been...?

But back to the "beeing second fiddle to": now i get what you mean. Yes, you are only second fiddle to the bard. But maybe you can still pull your own weight in a diplomatic situation.

10% more effective in combat is just "meh". If your combats are designed for the goup (as 4e suggests), you will not even notice the difference:

were there 10 or 11 Kobolds? Oh, i guess i throw one more kobolds into the equation, since all players took weapon fokus.

Of course, feats can offset lack of proficiency in any departments, be it combat or social skills. Feats can also empower your already good stats. Depending on your group composition and your actual role(play), both feats can be very useful.

And I didn´t want to exclude the possibilities of enhancing your combat abilities. It is just, that charop completely neglect 2 sides of an actual roleplaying game:

1. the DM
2. roleplaying possibilities

there is no way, charop board can give you advise how to make a character effective in a social game, since rulings there depend a lot on the DM and how he handles the situation.

10% more damage is nice to have... but in an actual combat it can be much more useless than it seems, as a single combat will not allow you to roll enoug dice to make this bonus reliable. (Note, that a +2 bonus to hit damage will make this damage increase not only higher, but much more reliable, as the average number of rounds to make a difference drops from 20 rolls to 10 rolls, standard deviation not included)

edit: I went to to hit bonuses on purpose, as here statistics are more easier... you can do an equal analysis for your 1d8+4/1d8+5 example...

edit2: I believe, we had this discussion already... so:

I beliebe, weapon focus as a feat is good, as it allows your players to focus a little bit on a single weapon. I however think it should not scale and superior weapon proficiency should have prerequisites in the basis martial weapons. I also believe, ther should be no transfer item ritual and that not all magic items should be available by default. All these changes will bring those feats back to where they should be. In the hands of a character that has found a single very cool weapon he wants to make use of.


----------



## Psikus (Aug 16, 2010)

keterys said:


> *Raises his hand* Yeah, pretty much.
> 
> I've never noticed Toughness being a problem, myself, but the other two? Absolutely, I'd love to see them go.
> 
> ...




I think Superior Weapon Proficiency is a failure due to the lack of actual options for superior weapons. If there were something like two options for each slot (two superior one-handed swords, two superior bows, and so on), 
and both of them were of a similar power level but still somehow different, it would be a pretty cool feat.

As an example, I'd say the designers nailed it with Superior Implement Proficiency. It is no less mandatory than SWT, but it offers a wide enough array of options as to be interesting. Admittedly, going for an Accurate item will always be a straightforward and excellent choice, but it's far from the only valid one.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 16, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Greatly weakened? Still seems like _a whole extra attack_ that you otherwise wouldn't get.



Well, ignoring potential future alterations to sneak attack, and ignoring difference in weapons you're most likely looking at an attack that's 5 points worse to-hit (+0 str instead of +5 dex) and the same in terms of damage. That's worse than being blinded.

In other words, the warlord is almost certainly better off just not taking those attack-granting powers at all if he's only got a non-str character to grant them to.


> The game isn't so precariously balanced that this slight variation ruins everyone's fun, is it? I don't even think I'd notice the difference in actual play.




The main thing that you WILL notice in actual play is when you've got a rogue a fighter and a warlord in a party, and the warlord never grants attacks to the rogue, because the fighter is always going to be a much better choice.


----------



## keterys (Aug 16, 2010)

Psikus said:


> As an example, I'd say the designers nailed it with Superior Implement Proficiency. It is no less mandatory than SWT, but it offers a wide enough array of options as to be interesting. Admittedly, going for an Accurate item will always be a straightforward and excellent choice, but it's far from the only valid one.




Really? Seems like an extra feat that gets in the way of ones that change your tactics with a raw +1 attack, narrows your choice of treasure - which for implements is even worse since there _are_ actual choices involved, in terms of fiddly bits, and not just how accurate or damaging your attack is.

Honestly, a character choosing between whether to stick with a greataxe or go to an executioner's axe can at least go 'Eh, it's just a couple points of damage', but a +1 attack is far more useful. The wizard goes 'Eh, it's just whether I hit with stun or not'.

End of the day, the game rewards excessive specialization on a particular shape or size of weapon, in raw statistics instead of tactical features (ex: hammers push well, swords have cooler opportunity attacks). In particular, at higher level you really start to see a _lot_ of casters with staves or daggers, accurate with weapon focus cause they're weapliments.

I just don't see it as a feature. If they all just disappeared, I'd be happier. To the extent that the last short campaign I ran, I gave all of the feats for free. As many focus, superior, and expertise feats as they needed.


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 16, 2010)

keterys said:


> *Raises his hand* Yeah, pretty much.
> 
> I've never noticed Toughness being a problem, myself, but the other two? Absolutely, I'd love to see them go.
> 
> ...



 So you want to only offer crap so that at least everyone takes a different crap?


----------



## Zaran (Aug 16, 2010)

You guys keep saying that having a +6 boost to damage is too much for one feat.  That's only if the modifier was to all attacks though.  We're talking about Melee Basic Attacks people.  The only time a class uses those is when the Warlord gives them a free attack or they truelly have no other useful option at the moment.  Melee Training did not break the game.  In fact, one can argue that it's a waste of a feat since most classes hardly ever use MBAs.  There are no wizard builds based around the MBA that makes them more powerful than fighters in melee.   The ONLY reason why the feat was nerfed was because of the Essentials builds (and maybe just the fighter ones) based around the Melee Basic Attack.   It's an easy solution to their problem but not a good one.  If they had based those classes around an at-will and not try to reinvent 4e this wouldn't have happened.  

At the same time, I do not see why the other side is making such a big deal out of it either.  If the warlord is crying out "Wizachu I pick you!" for a melee basic attack instead of someone who actually uses melee based attacks then having a few less points of damage isn't going to hurt anything.  And if that wizard is just wanting to attack with his staff instead of using an at-will attack then they are not really fulfilling their role.


----------



## Victim (Aug 16, 2010)

Our CHA paladin in our first 4e game was basically a joke - at least in part because no OA threat makes for weak defending.  Defender classes not based on STR really need Melee Training or the equivalent IMO.

OTOH, slightly reducing OA damage isn't likely to be make or break.  It's still going to be a good feat for Battleminds and the like.

However, I don't feel that the old Melee Training was a problem either.  Melee Training is being changed because Essentials classes are built around basic attacks instead of powers, so things like the Slayer fighter stop working appropriately with Melee Training.  Without the whole Essentials = basic attacks design philosophy, Melee Training could stay.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 16, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> So you want to only offer crap so that at least everyone takes a different crap?




There is a ton of powerful stuff that's not in that short list. There are many great feats that help out with spike damage, improved defense, more healing, mobility, and other tools.

I have a half-orc thaneborn barbarian whose first four feats are Fullblade, Toughness, Versatile Expertise, and Weapon Focus. I'd be much more excited about feats, if my first few feats were Bardic Dilettante, Skill Power Agile Recovery, Thirst for Battle, and Headman's Chop.

Currently, the first few feats feel pretty much like, what should I pick so I can perform my basic functions in the party. I'd prefer if the feats were more about options and tactics, and less about static bonuses you're expected to have to beat monsters and be of comparable effectiveness to your fellow companions.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 17, 2010)

keterys said:


> End of the day, the game rewards excessive specialization on a particular shape or size of weapon, in raw statistics instead of tactical features (ex: hammers push well, swords have cooler opportunity attacks).



Rewarding specialization at all only makes sense if there is some corresponding down side or some advantage to /not/ specializing.  The 4e guidelines for treasure and items make the default assumption that a highly specialized character will have no more trouble acquiring a suitable magical Bohemian Ear-Spoon than a non-specialized character will have in finding a magic weapon of any type.  In the past, when we didn't have that sort of assumption, there was a real downside to specializing.  You might find yourself still using a MW Ransuer at 8th level because you've been finding magical swords and axes, not pole-arms.



> In particular, at higher level you really start to see a _lot_ of casters with staves or daggers, accurate with weapon focus cause they're weapliments.
> 
> I just don't see it as a feature. If they all just disappeared, I'd be happier. To the extent that the last short campaign I ran, I gave all of the feats for free. As many focus, superior, and expertise feats as they needed.



Nod.  I find the 'weapliment' ruling to have been a mistake.  As long as their issuing massive errata, they could fix that.


----------



## keterys (Aug 17, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> So you want to only offer crap so that at least everyone takes a different crap?




Didn't say anything about removing Skill Power, Battle Awareness, Mounted Combat, Deadly Draw, Cruel Cut Style, Persistent Threat, Mobile Challenge, Shield Push, etc... just to name a few quick feats that I have or would have on a couple characters.

There are lots of decent feats that aren't just another +1 attack or damage.

@Tony-Vargas - Well put, on the specialization vs not argument.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 17, 2010)

> In other words, the warlord is almost certainly better off just not taking those attack-granting powers at all if he's only got a non-str character to grant them to.
> ...
> The main thing that you WILL notice in actual play is when you've got a rogue a fighter and a warlord in a party, and the warlord never grants attacks to the rogue, because the fighter is always going to be a much better choice.




I don't honestly see a problem with either of those things. Fighters are melee masters. Their basic attacks SHOULD be better than anyone else's. And if the warlord has a party of magical, ranged, or agile characters, yes, he SHOULDN'T be granting MBA's then. 

I still don't see the rigamarole, really.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 17, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I still don't see the rigamarole, really.



What about now? Do you see it?








Spoiler



rigamarole


----------



## ak1287 (Aug 17, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> What about now? Do you see it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Look again, the rigamarole is DIAMONDS.


Sorry, had to.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 17, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't honestly see a problem with either of those things. Fighters are melee masters. Their basic attacks SHOULD be better than anyone else's. And if the warlord has a party of magical, ranged, or agile characters, yes, he SHOULDN'T be granting MBA's then.




Why is a Fighter or Barbarian more of a "melee master" than a Battlemind or an Avenger? These are all melee characters. And the monk who is supposedly the best trained class in unarmed combat, needs a feat to take a good opportunity attack? Or when the warlord says "you attack that guy!" the ranger knows exactly what to do, but the monk has to stop and say "sorry boss, I don't know how to do that outside my own turn"?

I just don't see a fluff explanation as to why all classes shouldn't have a competent melee or ranged basic attack feature, depending on their specialty, nor do I see a game mechanical or balance reason why this shouldn't be the case.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 17, 2010)

> I just don't see a fluff explanation as to why all classes shouldn't have a competent melee or ranged basic attack feature, depending on their specialty, nor do I see a game mechanical or balance reason why this shouldn't be the case.




Well, it depends on your horse-cart order. If you have a problem with this, then no fluff will explain it away. If you don't have a real problem with this, then the fluff justifies it nicely (avengers and monks and battleminds rely more on insight and agility and forethought in their attacks, and so can't make spontaneously awesome attacks as well as a fighter or a barbarian, yes). 

I just don't really see why it's so big of a deal, so the fluff can justify it well enough for me.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 17, 2010)

First let me start by saying it's been a long time since I played 3e, but to the best of my memory (other than the Rogue) there were no melee classes that were NOT Strength primary.  Yes I know that Weapon Finesse only granted you DEX to hit, but that is strictly a 3e mechanic.  In 4e this assumption is no longer true since all your classes' attacks are based on your primary stat (whatever that might be).

I think most that have a problem with this are of the mind that being good with a sword is binary.  You're good or you're not.  The idea that under some circumstances you use your "primary stat" and some other times you use STR (no matter if it is your primary, secondary, tertiary or even none of the above) instead just seems laughable.  Mind you I'm not advocating that melee training needs to be "un-nerfed", but what I am suggesting is that a class that uses weapons as their primary attack form should have a class feature that allows them to use their "prime stat" in place of Strength for MBA's (and yes I'd include a class like the Monk as a "weapon using class" even though their attacks are implement based...the flavor is weapons).  The only problem I can see with this is Hybrids.

I don't mind that casters aren't quite as good as melee combatants and if they did this I wouldn't mind if melee training went away completely (downside of being a caster - but some classes have ways around this - Sorcerous Blade Channeling I'm looking at you).


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 17, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, it depends on your horse-cart order. If you have a problem with this, then no fluff will explain it away. If you don't have a real problem with this, then the fluff justifies it nicely (avengers and monks and battleminds rely more on insight and agility and forethought in their attacks, and so can't make spontaneously awesome attacks as well as a fighter or a barbarian, yes).



  You can come up with fluff to explain any bad rule.  But, that doesn't make it a good rule or one you should ignore.

Also, in this specific case, a lot of the fluff descriptions I've read in this thread were about melee.  Read your text that Mengu quoted.  Was it out of context? I don't think so.  You said that fighters are melee masters.  That's an incorrect fluff explanation as he pointed out.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 18, 2010)

> You can come up with fluff to explain any bad rule. But, that doesn't make it a good rule or one you should ignore.




I do agree, but not every rule that has a fluff explanation is a bad rule. Dwarves being tough is story material, so they get a con bonus to reflect that.

Characters that are strong should probably be better at swinging around giant hunks of metal than characters who are not strong. 

Characters who are strong are represented with Strength.

If melee-training as is makes characters with a high Strength better at swinging around giant hunks of metal, that's actually a positive, since it reflects the expected fluff.



> Also, in this specific case, a lot of the fluff descriptions I've read in this thread were about melee. Read your text that Mengu quoted. Was it out of context? I don't think so. You said that fighters are melee masters. That's an incorrect fluff explanation as he pointed out.




I suppose it was too much for me to hope that I wouldn't get called out on specifics in a thread with folks for whom a few points of attack bonus is Serious Business.

Let me be clear: I don't mind the discrepancy of a few points of attack bonus between high Strength characters and everyone else in terms of MBA's. 

In fact, I delight in it, because it creates interesting and evocative variation. Now, not everyone is an equal choice when it comes to the Warlord giving them an extra attack, or in a charge. Now, some characters are better than others in certain narrow situations. That's *awesome*.

I grok that some folks are outraged that this variation now exists, but that outrage still confuses me. It's like being outraged that characters with a high Constitution have more HP, or that characters with a high Intelligence are better at History checks.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 18, 2010)

I will repeat nerfing Gandalf when choosing his fighting style in the first place is already very non-optimal is just insult added to injury.

*Strength isnt what it is cracked up to be.*
I found it hilariously stupid that D&D pretended Strength was the only thing to affect hitting something with a sword (this was 30 years ago or so when I first seen it).

The basic element of martial arts and fencing (from big swords and armor to no weapon and fists) is moving your body in a balanced and agile fashion . Discipline contributes massively to trained ability with specific moves. You could supplant dexterity almost entirely for discipline.

speed(strength) +  dex (agility) + wisdom (perception)  +intelligence (timing + reflexes) + charisma (creativity and deception and spirit) 

In fact if you try to force openings using more strength? than you have agility or wisdom... it can very much be used against you. And not just using some fancy eastern technique... you leave yourself open.

Five pounds pressure with a blunt weapon will kill you in half a dozen locations and 10 pounds in a dozen more.. strength is incredibly over rated .. exceptional strength .. exceptionally so.  Perception can be a greater determiner of damage than force.

Different arts emphasize different styles.. and in a magical universe something like martial training for characters of some of these classes =really just means using the same techniques learned to aid and flavor there fighting to a quick and instinctive degree.

Fighting is not ugh me bash with big muscles .. that wisdom use by the phb fighter makes extraordinary sense it could go further.

To me as a human your best weapon is on your shoulders even in a fist fight.. the rewind to moron fighters pretends to make sense it doesnt unless you know very little about fighting.

Here is some fun I was thinking about
 relates to using the attributes to reflect styles of martial art.

*Generic Karate* - based on Strength, generally this is speed and force.
*Generic Judo* - based on Dexterity, agility and flexibility 
*Kung Fu* - based on Wisdom its all about perception and discipline and analysing other beings. 
*Bruce Lees Martial Art* - based on Charisma its primarily fluid creativity, deception and raw spirited bursts.
*Jackie Chans Martial Art** - based on Constitution, he wears out his enemies with extremely persistent rapid moves without a lot of force behind them actually, and even his attacks are mostly him defending in ways that bring out the futility of his enemies attacks, the environment sometimes does finishing shots for him or multiple enemies will hit each other. 
*Sherlock Holmes Martial Art** - based on Intelligence its all about quick thinking and predicting the enemies moves and understanding the patterns of interplay.

*fantastical I know.  

*Wisdom* as in perception ought to always be atleast a potential basis/boost for opportunity attacks.
*Charisma* as in spirited bursts ought to always be a potential basis/boost for charge attacks.

Technically any style exploits multiple attributes or even all attributes.  And even the effectiveness of the big bad strength ... can be limited by its users other attributes.


----------



## Nichwee (Aug 18, 2010)

Gathanos I completely agree with you that martial combat can be done based on almost any stat in general. This is also why every class uses a primary stat to attack with their powers.

However the MBA is not that kind of attack. It is used for 3 things, mainly: OAs, charges, granted atacks.

The thing all three have in common is they are not "calculated, chosen moments of precision and finesse" they are unexpectted/enforced attempts to smack through the opponents defences.

I am a fencer (epee-specialty, which is basically a rapier for fencing) and I am quite good due to my fast reflexes (Dex) but I note how I have trouble with the equivalent of OAs/charges due to being Dex based.

Charging:
I know that fencers don't charge using dexterity. The fencing charge is all about rushing forward suddenly (a burst of speed = STR) and pushing through the opponent's parry (STR again). The lunge is all about reflexive speed and timing but it is not a charge as it is a close quarters maneuver.

OAs:
This is the idea of clipping someone who gives you an opening you didn't expect, normally by movement. Well I fence, as I said, but I also LARP. And so I get to take real-life OAs at times. And I am a lot worse at them then stright up fencing style moves. Because the sudden chance at an attack normally means I can only throw my body in the correct direction and swing, not do my normal picked-shots and delicate blade control. This is even true if my main opponent suddenly turns tail and runs as I will normally be set to recieve his/her attack and parry-riposte so a sudden disengage has me jolting forward and taking a swipe. This is not a high finesse maneuver, it is a brutish one.

Granted Attack:
Basically I see these as OAs triggered by someone shouting "His left arm is sagging, hit him." Thus all my opinions on OAs still stand for this.


I understand the idea of martial combat via different stats, I understand why the Melee Training change can be ammoying but tbh I don't see it as unreasonable given both the game balance and real-world examples. The new MT feat doesn't stop you hitting well either  it just clips the damage a bit. If this is such a big deal buy the MBA only damage boost bracers (quite cheap) and the attack is back to on par with any other single target attack (that's to help out Gandalf).


Oh and one last thing. You keep mentioning Holmes as Int-based martial fighting. I assume you mean as from the recent movie?
There is no way his Int-based combat was MBAs. He sat and planned them before a single part of the combo occured and they were a string of moves - this is more like the monks movement-disciplines than MBAs. Whenever he was in a throwdown fight without time to pre-plan - he was in MBA territory - he was a lot worse and basically got splatted until he could find a chance to use a good technique - until he could stop reacting with MBAs and pick a precise shot (until his turn when he picks an INt-based power and uses it).


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 18, 2010)

Nichwee said:


> Gathanos I completely agree with you that martial combat can be done based on almost any stat in general. This is also why every class uses a primary stat to attack with their powers.
> 
> However the MBA is not that kind of attack. It is used for 3 things, mainly: OAs, charges, granted atacks.



Not any more basically the essentials guys changed all that



Nichwee said:


> The thing all three have in common is they are not "calculated, chosen moments of precision and finesse" they are unexpectted/enforced attempts to smack through the opponents defences.



What about quick thinking (int) perception (wis) or divine inspiration(cha/wis)...  for instance makes you think they couldnt or shouldnt exactly be appropriate for opportunity attacks...  

In Kendo the spirit and sudden surprise (how you choose the timing) is exactly the most significant thing engaged in a charge (and what they criticize certain western arts for not engaging enough)... that said Kenjutsu I would normally consider a Strength based form... (so this may just be an enhancement of what is already a strong technique for it).

Note I think that any of us fencers are going to find opportunity attacks inferior... we are effectively not melee trained. Duels like Holmes was engaging indeed does not melee make either. The show is one of the few instances where int based fighting was nicely presented.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 18, 2010)

Nichwee said:


> The thing all three have in common is they are not "calculated, chosen moments of precision and finesse" they are unexpectted/enforced attempts to smack through the opponents defences.
> 
> I am a fencer (epee-specialty, which is basically a rapier for fencing) and I am quite good due to my fast reflexes (Dex) but I note how I have trouble with the equivalent of OAs/charges due to being Dex based.




So when my wizard tries to move away from a slow ogre brute with a club, verses an agile quickling with a dagger, I'm less likely to dodge the slow reflex ogre than the lightning reflex quickling because the ogre is stronger? Doesn't seem like something that would happen in the D&D world. But my real world experience is nil.

Whatever the fluff is, rules have to be designed in a balanced way. If a strength based melee class gains an uncalculated advantage over a non-strength based melee class, that's a problem. If class design somehow takes this into account, then I'd have less of an issue, but on paper, that does not seem to be the case.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 18, 2010)

> I found it hilariously stupid that D&D pretended Strength was the only thing to affect hitting something with a sword (this was 30 years ago or so when I first seen it).




Hit points must cause you cackling fit for asylum!

Strength makes enough sense for your basic "hit them in the face" approach. 

Other ability scores can certainly be used with specific powers.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 18, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Characters that are strong should probably be better at swinging around giant hunks of metal than characters who are not strong.
> 
> Characters who are strong are represented with Strength.



 And yet that totally flies in the face of a lot of classes and concepts.  While you have a reasonable point (after all, lots of previous editions followed your point), it doesn't mesh well at all in 4E.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I suppose it was too much for me to hope that I wouldn't get called out on specifics in a thread with folks for whom a few points of attack bonus is Serious Business.



 Well, to be honest, if people (like me) feel kind of strongly about the mechanics side, those same people will scrutinize the efforts of others who try to be dismissive of the bad mechanics with fluff.  If you think it's so easy to just ignore the bad rules, go ahead, but don't chime in about it without expecting to have your points challenged every step of the way. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Let me be clear: I don't mind the discrepancy of a few points of attack bonus between high Strength characters and everyone else in terms of MBA's.



  It's a huge discrepancy.  It equates to being blind and worse at higher levels.  The avenger in our group has a 10 strength because he doesn't need it (on his turn).  Melee training is a fix to a bad rule (that melee characters suck at a fundamental aspect of melee).  It's essentially a feat tax and _now_ you want to nerf that tax.  It's a kick in the balls after a slap in the face.

This whole issue has nothing whatsover to do with history checks or hit points.  You're making a bad analogy by comparing CON/hit points and STR/melee fighting.  Your analogy would only hold true if classes had the ability to change out CON for another stat to determine hit points and healing surges (without a feat, just a standard class design).  Classes DO do that for melee fighting (and ranged for that matter).  "Okay, my new class X uses ability score XYZ for melee fighting..._except_ for the basic, fundamental method of making melee attacks.  WTF?"


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 18, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> First let me start by saying it's been a long time since I played 3e, but to the best of my memory (other than the Rogue) there were no melee classes that were NOT Strength primary.  Yes I know that Weapon Finesse only granted you DEX to hit, but that is strictly a 3e mechanic.  In 4e this assumption is no longer true since all your classes' attacks are based on your primary stat (whatever that might be).
> 
> I think most that have a problem with this are of the mind that being good with a sword is binary.  You're good or you're not.  The idea that under some circumstances you use your "primary stat" and some other times you use STR (no matter if it is your primary, secondary, tertiary or even none of the above) instead just seems laughable.  Mind you I'm not advocating that melee training needs to be "un-nerfed", but what I am suggesting is that a class that uses weapons as their primary attack form should have a class feature that allows them to use their "prime stat" in place of Strength for MBA's (and yes I'd include a class like the Monk as a "weapon using class" even though their attacks are implement based...the flavor is weapons).  The only problem I can see with this is Hybrids.
> 
> I don't mind that casters aren't quite as good as melee combatants and if they did this I wouldn't mind if melee training went away completely (downside of being a caster - but some classes have ways around this - Sorcerous Blade Channeling I'm looking at you).



Most interestingly, the only (two) V-shaped class(es) that is (are) considered working well enough is (are) the cleric (and to a slightly lesser extend the ranger)

Why? because one stat is used solely for melee (strength) and one solely for ranged (wis or dex)
If they are going into melee, they have the perfect stat from a mechanical point of view. If they are ranged they don´t have to care.

Using a different stat could have been made working perfectly without changing he rules, by designing all melee classes around the idea, that strength is at least the secondary. (You can´t deny that strength helps swinging a heavy blade for a while Garthanos). With this in mind, base attacks are not more than 1 or 2 points behind except when you are making 20/x builds (your own fault)

A dex/str melee ranger or a wis/str melee cleric would have worked wel enough in PHB 1.
A different solution would have been a base attack like class feature for all melee classes that does a base attack with a neat class specific modification.
(A battlemind could have an attack, that does only [w] damage, but slows the enemy on a hit, a rogue could have a dex based attack, that only does [w] damage but grants combat advantage for the attack. Bards could have an attack that does only [w] damage but marks (annoys and taunts) the foe until the end of its turn...)


----------



## Budalic (Aug 18, 2010)

Yeah, Melee training is good because fighter is most powerful class of 4E, but it isn't enough. Let Battlemind suck a bit more.
/sarcasm

(I wasn't serious about Battlemind, errataed Blurred Step is pretty cool.)

The question of Melee Training isn't a question of verisimilitude or realism. If you have problem with character not using strength for melee, you should complain about class powers. No, it is a question of game balance.

All defenders need to have good OAs. Hence, they need melee training or something similar. And when this errata gets published, Battlemind will be let hanging. I believe, however, that they'll probably get a new option, hopefully a class feature (and Swordmages could use a class feature like that, too).

So, to OP, it was because of Knight/Slayer/Thief. 

P. S. Most non-Str non-defenders at char-op don't use melee training. It's a good feat for Monk or Rogue only if they have Warlord in the party; Avengers use Overwhelming strike + Power of Skill. Even Chaladin, a defender, has Virtuous strike at-will, though it's currently an auto-inclusion.


----------



## twilsemail (Aug 18, 2010)

Budalic said:


> So, to OP, it was because of Knight/Slayer/Thief.




This doesn't really answer the OP.



twilsemail said:


> What is it that feels wrong about viable MBAs fro non-Strength classes? Especially when those classes are Melee or Weapon based?




You're answering what has become perceived to be the OP over the course of seven pages.

I have trouble believing that this long standing dislike for Melee Training was due to class builds that we'd only known about for days or weeks when this thread opened.

Melee classes should have competent melee attacks.  Period.  Screw the wizard.  That's not who I was asking about as should be pretty obvious in the first post.  Screw the feat.  It was a crummy patch.

[cut snarky/unhelpful comments]


----------



## Thrael (Aug 18, 2010)

twilsemail said:


> I have trouble believing that this long standing dislike for Melee Training was due to class builds that we'd only known about for days or weeks when this thread opened.




You're right. This isn't due to Knights or Slayers. This is due to people trying to build off of one less attribute. They want to be as good as melee classes with STR primary. Those want to be better because they pay with an otherwise less useful primary attribute.

There's those who, in order to better optimize (and nothing else is whining over 2 or 3 damage while completely missing the benefit of skimping on one otherwise less useful attribute), go to lengths to rationalize how STR is not needed for melee attacks. They invent fluff to derive mechanical benefits from it.

STR has one skill, carrying capacity and MBAs going for it. CON has one skill, hps, healing surges, lots of feats, lots of riders (and is competing STR for Fortitude). WIS has five skills (most importantly, Perception and Insight). All the other attributes have 3+ skills, AC and/or initiative and see plenty of use as a secondary attribute.

How about you accept that STR makes attacks which were mostly unplanned  (OAs, granted, free action attacks etc.) better? Just like I accept that there's no single feat to use WIS for everything CON grants. Even though, you know, it's my wisdom and forethought that makes my life quite a healthy one, not my body (the healthiest, longest living humans are neither bulging muscles nor stocky like dwarves - marathon runners, Asians etc. and they are all pretty reasonable... see determinants for health: Health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

So there's my fluff to replace CON with WIS. Come to think of it, perhaps Dwarves are so healthy for their WIS too and not their CON. Soon I'll build my character off a single very useful attribute...



twilsemail said:


> Melee classes should have competent melee attacks.  Period.




2-3 damage don't make you incompetent. However, not everyone is equal, and neither should they. There's other benefits your class has by using an attribute different than STR for melee. But if it bothers you so much then account for it! Put some into STR. Decisions should have consequences. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 18, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> If they are ranged they don´t have to care.



 And yet Wis Clerics have a [W]+Wis melee basic attack at-will.

I am still hoping for tomorrows Power Play Divine to present an avenger at-will usable as MBA


----------



## keterys (Aug 18, 2010)

Make a Githzerai monk with the right background and you can get hp and surge #s off your Wisdom 

Get a Charisma character with the right background and ring, you Charisma can do that for you.

I'm all for making more basic attack powers. If I were helming 4e, I'd have actually given every class a 3rd at-will that was required to be a basic (but I wasn't)... but there should be _some_ incentive to be Strength-invested.


----------



## keterys (Aug 18, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> ]I am still hoping for tomorrows Power Play Divine to present an avenger at-will usable as MBA



Power of Skill can help with that, fwiw.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 18, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> And yet Wis Clerics have a [W]+Wis melee basic attack at-will.
> 
> I am still hoping for tomorrows Power Play Divine to present an avenger at-will usable as MBA



When did they get it? It was not in PHB 1... (after essentials it doesn´t realy matter... but they should not have it at the first place)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 18, 2010)

keterys said:


> Make a Githzerai monk with the right background and you can get hp and surge #s off your Wisdom
> 
> Get a Charisma character with the right background and ring, you Charisma can do that for you.
> 
> I'm all for making more basic attack powers. If I were helming 4e, I'd have actually given every class a 3rd at-will that was required to be a basic (but I wasn't)... but there should be _some_ incentive to be Strength-invested.



weapon feats... but this is not too obvious...


----------



## keterys (Aug 18, 2010)

Most people really aren't going to be that worried about getting, say, "Heavy Blade Mastery" or "Axe Mastery" in epic. It only applies to melee attacks, there are other solutions, that's only at epic, and it often requires an inconvenient stat even if you've got one of them.


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 18, 2010)

keterys said:


> Power of Skill can help with that, fwiw.



For a small minority. If you do not select your deity based on offered domains, you're out of luck. I once did the count, IIRC less than 20% of deity choices offer Power of Skill


UngeheuerLich said:


> When did they get it? It was not in PHB 1... (after essentials it doesn´t realy matter... but they should not have it at the first place)



 Dragon Magazine Class Acts article, issue 385.

Sonnlinor's Hammer, Wis vs. AC, [W]+Wis damage and penalty to struck enemy's next attack, usable as MBA 

Everyone and his dogs get's an at-will usable as MBA these days, it's just a matter of when it finally arrives for your class.


----------



## Victim (Aug 18, 2010)

Thrael said:


> You're right. This isn't due to Knights or Slayers. This is due to people trying to build off of one less attribute. They want to be as good as melee classes with STR primary. Those want to be better because they pay with an otherwise less useful primary attribute.
> 
> STR has one skill, carrying capacity and MBAs going for it. CON has one skill, hps, healing surges, lots of feats, lots of riders (and is competing STR for Fortitude). WIS has five skills (most importantly, Perception and Insight). All the other attributes have 3+ skills, AC and/or initiative and see plenty of use as a secondary attribute.




Strength also has tons of feats.  Every weapon critical feat except bow mastery requires Strength, along with a great many weapon related feats in general.

And, looking at STR based classes, I don't think there's really a case that they're weaker than other classes if you take away OA related benefits.  Fighters and melee rangers aren't going to be outclassed by Battleminds and Avengers even if the non-STR classes are getting melee training free.

And did you say that marathon runners don't have high Con?


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 18, 2010)

What if they give strength something like feats that make it more versatile too like one so that it can apply to intimidate and maybe diplomacy (she likes his muscles)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 18, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> For a small minority. If you do not select your deity based on offered domains, you're out of luck. I once did the count, IIRC less than 20% of deity choices offer Power of Skill
> Dragon Magazine Class Acts article, issue 385.
> 
> Sonnlinor's Hammer, Wis vs. AC, [W]+Wis damage and penalty to struck enemy's next attack, usable as MBA
> ...



And i just won´t allow Dungeon magazine content if it is that contrary to design principles... (Clerics melee are based on strength)
But after essentials this power can be seen as forward compatible...


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 18, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> And i just won´t allow Dungeon magazine content if it is that contrary to design principles... (Clerics melee are based on strength)



 And you're the judge of what makes design principles as opposed to the staff reviewing and editing Dragon content? The power could have just as likely appeared in Divine Power 2. After all Martial Power 2 gave Dex-Rangers a melee attack (although it's not an MBA).



UngeheuerLich said:


> But after essentials this power can be seen as forward compatible...



 What does essentials change at the PHB1 classes that makes it suddenly OK?


Back to topic, which non-str class yet lacks and at-will usable as MBA? Quite a lot received one already


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 18, 2010)

The melee cleric is based on wisdom... so it´s just ok.

MP2 also threw over some design principles... as you say: dex based hybrid melee ranger... i don´t like it that much, as a strength/dex ranger with low wisdom actually worked...

The marauder build is actually much more interesting, as it uses heavy thrown weapons that key off strength.

Ok, back to the point: ranger and clerics were v-shaped classes, that functioned well enough. Essentially the strenght cleric functioned great, as wisdom, the primary of one build, functioned as the secondary of the second.
So a Strength/Wisdom cleric was very viable, and Wisdom/strength with a little bit charisma mixed in too. So there is either no need for a wisdom based MBA with an aditional kicker, because you are focussed on range, or there is no real need, as all other melee powers are strength based.
Having a wis/cha based MBA heavily steps on the strength/Wis clerics toes. So now there is the new warpriest build that uses wisdom/con. Now I can accept, that this build could use a MBA with a very minor kicker. Sounds like a good tradeoff beteen other at-wills power (because of matching the secondary stat) and a slightly enhanced MBA.

Edit: and yes, unless something has been in a printed book and survived one or two rounds of errata I as the DM may disallow feats. There are actually some very bad things out there (Hide armor expertise for barbarian, avenger multiclass feat that allowed a battlerage vigour fighter to deal damage that was unreal, which i have seen in actual play... because i allowed it for one session because i was 100% sure it won´t survive errata and told it my brother before he took it...)

Saying no i a skill you have to learn as a DM. And saying no to most of the articles other hobby designers write, is no bad thing. Githzerai blademaster is also a feat i won´t allow... even though it followed a PHB 1 design principle that will hopefully get a bit overhauled in essentials.


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 18, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> The melee cleric is based on wisdom... so it´s just ok.



 And even if he were still based on Str it would be a fundamental error to give the Wis-Variant a good MBA? Are you also banning all heavy thrown weapon since those who dump Dex don't deserve an MBA (incidentally they extra made a heavy thrown hammers usable as a holy symbols to cater to Str-clerics)

With all the usable as MBA at-will's we're seeing it looks as if they checked off the "no str no good MBA" as one of the sins of their youth and are moving forward to provide one to each class.

Actually IIRC someone got the answer "be patient" upon complaining that adding a Wis-based MBA to cleric was also adding insult to injury against avengers. So even if it's not part of tomorrows Power Play, I have no doubt that this power will see the light of day sooner or later.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 18, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> What if they give strength something like feats that make it more versatile too like one so that it can apply to intimidate and maybe diplomacy (she likes his muscles)



Well, maybe intimidate.  It wouldn't hurt, in a balance sense, to give away the advantages of other stats the way one of the advantages of STR has been.  

It would hurt in the sense of differentiating characteristics - and thus classes and, ultimately, characters.

If everyone has the same MBA because they all took Melee Training or some MBA-useable at will, and all have the same Intimidate because they took some feat that let whatever stat fill in for that, and all have the same bonus to hps and surges through various backgrounds, and the same perception and insight, and defenses across the board, etc, etc....


----------



## tuxgeo (Aug 19, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> Back to topic, which non-str class yet lacks an at-will usable as MBA? Quite a lot received one already



I haven't seen one for the Bard yet. 

On the other hand, non-human Bards might still not be willing to take such an At-Will attack power even if one were available, preferring to take Misdirected Mark to target the Reflex defense and either Cutting Words or Vicious Mockery to target the Will defense, and rely on Melee Training to get a worthy to-hit chance against AC -- since non-humans get only two At-Wills.
Other non-STR classes could appreciate the same solution: one At-Will to target REF, one to target WIL, and use MBA to hit AC.

Also, there is one more reason to have a good MBA that has not yet been stated explicitly in this thread (as far as I can tell): ranged casters with adjacent enemies might want a good MBA to hit without provoking OAs. Specifically, that Bard I suggested above might have high enough AC to just stand there and fight, but might not want to have to face additional attacks while doing so; and a good MBA would help with that.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 19, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Well, maybe intimidate.  It wouldn't hurt, in a balance sense, to give away the advantages of other stats the way one of the advantages of STR has been.
> 
> It would hurt in the sense of differentiating characteristics - and thus classes and, ultimately, characters.
> 
> If everyone has the same MBA because they all took Melee Training or some MBA-useable at will, and all have the same Intimidate because they took some feat that let whatever stat fill in for that, and all have the same bonus to hps and surges through various backgrounds, and the same perception and insight, and defenses across the board, etc, etc....





The point of any of it is that if it  is does that versatility have a *cost* and *flavor* with it... in that sense melee training has a cost... but not so much flavor, and given the extraordinary impact it can potentially have on essentials characters the cost wasnt high enough.

These at-will mbas... are better flavored and more powerful than melee training even un-nerfed... And not as versatile as the Essentials characters basic attacks.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 19, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> And even if he were still based on Str it would be a fundamental error to give the Wis-Variant a good MBA? Are you also banning all heavy thrown weapon since those who dump Dex don't deserve an MBA (incidentally they extra made a heavy thrown hammers usable as a holy symbols to cater to Str-clerics)
> 
> With all the usable as MBA at-will's we're seeing it looks as if they checked off the "no str no good MBA" as one of the sins of their youth and are moving forward to provide one to each class.
> 
> Actually IIRC someone got the answer "be patient" upon complaining that adding a Wis-based MBA to cleric was also adding insult to injury against avengers. So even if it's not part of tomorrows Power Play, I have no doubt that this power will see the light of day sooner or later.



Yes, and you answered your question yourself.

As long as dedicated melee classes that are based on non-strength attributes don´t have such a power, the wisdom cleric does not deserve one, as he had good alternative, flavourful way to get one. Be a Str/Wis cleric.

When the dedicated melee warpriest is melee based, giving him an easy way to get a decent MBA is the right decision.
This is why adding a charisma at-will that can be used as a MBA was the right decision, as a paladin of PHB already used charisma for melee atacks.

Oh, and that heavy thrown thing, interesting way to think about that... you mean there should be something light a light melee weapon that uses dexterity by default... hmmh intersting...
Maybe hammers using con by default... hmmh... which weapon in melee could use wisdom?


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 19, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Hit points must cause you cackling fit for asylum!




Gygax put a lot of effort in to making sure people realized most everything but the very last few hit points were heroic luck and defensive skill depleting of stamina and similar abstractions and not really wounds... it wasn't until 3e I do believe that this got lost in the shuffle. Some things didnt make sense because of the slow recovery time.. if its really fatigue incurred over just the few minutes of fighting why would it take so long to recover.

Both issues ;p, really were/are fixed by the latest D&D were attribute use for combat even in weapon attacks is far more open and styles implied by attributes... and hit points acknowledged for there abstraction.


----------



## Enaloindir (Aug 19, 2010)

tuxgeo said:


> I haven't seen one for the Bard yet.



The monk is also out of luck...


----------



## angelababy (Aug 19, 2010)

These are heroes, they can have 10 strength on a piece of paper, but really they are well trained, proficient and strong enough to wield their weapons. That might stir up an "Expertise hornet's nest", but they're a special case, but that's the nature of the beast. If this is going to be par for the course...


----------

