# To Mike Mearls: Melee training and the Battlemind



## ppaladin123 (Aug 9, 2010)

[MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Powers, Implements, Feats ...)

I understand why you are making the change to melee training and I support it overall, however I don't want you to overlook the poor battlemind.

Defenders really need a decent melee basic attack to offer real threat on opportunity attacks. A defender who can't seriously punish enemies for walking away from him or casting ranged/area attacks next to him, has lost a good chunk of his bite. 

Many of us (on the boards and in gaming groups I participate in)view the lack of any feature allowing a battlemind to use constitution with opportunity attacks/melee basic attacks as an oversight. We've had to take melee training(constitution) as our first feat....look at the character ops boards and you'll see that that is invariably the first feat taken. Now we'll be stuck with a weak opportunity attack, forced into taking all the daily powers that offer constitution-based dailies for an encounter, or play half-elves with eldritch strike.

Please consider errata granting the battlemind this simple ability. If for some reason WotC thinks this would be overpowered, please at least offer an option like the swordmage's intelligent blade master.

Thanks for listening.

p.s. While you are at it, have mercy on the poor constitution-secondary shaman as well....the armor situation is pretty dire.


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Aug 9, 2010)

My sons Battlemind has worked just fine and has not taken the Melee Training feat and has no desire to do so.

We also avoid the Charop boards.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 9, 2010)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> My sons Battlemind has worked just fine and has not taken the Melee Training feat and has no desire to do so.
> 
> We also avoid the Charop boards.




That is also a wise idea. Playable is a great pleasant road to a beautiful destination, while superbly optimized is a road scattered with mines that circles back on itself. .


----------



## nnms (Aug 9, 2010)

I actually think it's a really elegant solution-- half damage bonus but full attack bonus.

It's also the simplest house rule in the world for non-essentials classes.

Also, is there an at-will in Psionic Power that battleminds can use as a melee basic?


----------



## ppaladin123 (Aug 9, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> That is also a wise idea. Playable is a great pleasant road to a beautiful destination, while superbly optimized is a road scattered with mines that circles back on itself. .




I enjoy optimization. Different strokes for different folks.

I'm just pointing out that the battlemind is in an odd spot because of this ruling. The other defenders all have options to give themselves a very good opportunity attack out of the box (fighter, paladin, warden) or with a special feat (swordmage) if they so choose (you are free not to optimize if you don't care to).

Since the battlemind's mark punishment (mind spike) doesn't work at range like the paladin and swordmage, and he can't easily stop movement (fighter) or create difficult terrain (warden), opportunity attack damage +any added effects one can add to it becomes an important part of the battlemind's tool kit.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Aug 9, 2010)

nnms said:


> I actually think it's a really elegant solution-- half damage bonus but full attack bonus.
> 
> It's also the simplest house rule in the world for non-essentials classes.
> 
> Also, is there an at-will in Psionic Power that battleminds can use as a melee basic?




No there isn't. Like I said, I like the ruling too. It just creates a problem for one class (and only one class): the battlemind.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 9, 2010)

There are a lot of battlemind powers that offer

Augment 1: usable as opportunity attack.

Also you have a different punishing option.
The new melee training is nice. I wan´t t see if half damage is realy half damage, or half damage strength + half damage attribute x.

edit: and it is still far more superior than weapon finesse of 3.x which gave you nothing at all to damage. I had errated it this way. Melee training was too good.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Aug 9, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> There are a lot of battlemind powers that offer
> 
> Augment 1: usable as opportunity attack.
> 
> ...





These do help but at heroic tier you really don't have enough points to use this consistently (and at particularly low levels it means you have to sacrifice your "encounter" power(s) to make an opportunity attack).

I suppose this whole issue is very DM dependent..how often do they attempt to violate your mark. In my groups, certain enemies will (depending on attitude toward risk, intelligence, etc.) ignore marks and try to bypass the defender. If they get away with it often, they will keep going for the fragile types in the back. If your DM respects your marks regardless of their actual bite, then this change won't really matter much. Still, I'd like to see the option there for those of us have different play styles.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 9, 2010)

ppaladin123 said:


> These do help but at heroic tier you really don't have enough points to use this consistently (and at particularly low levels it means you have to sacrifice your "encounter" power(s) to make an opportunity attack).
> 
> I suppose this whole issue is very DM dependent..how often do they attempt to violate your mark. In my groups, certain enemies will (depending on attitude toward risk, intelligence, etc.) ignore marks and try to bypass the defender. If they get away with it often, they will keep going for the fragile types in the back. If your DM respects your marks regardless of their actual bite, then this change won't really matter much. Still, I'd like to see the option there for those of us have different play styles.



We are speaking about 2 points of damage in heroic tier. 2 points for some attacks. definitively not broken if it wasn´t broken before. Still better than the battlemind whi wasted its opportunity attack to follow his enemy.

Did i say we speak about just 2 points of damage? (Ok, 3 if your battlemind had constitution 20, but then he deserves this loss)

Yes I do violate marks. Battleminds should, like knights stay near those who he like to defend. Not defend from far away.


----------



## Shin Okada (Aug 9, 2010)

I don't know if I like new melee training.

Having full attack roll bonus but only half damage bonus is .... too weak. MT was never be "must have" in my games but a useful one. I guess this update will change this feat into a useful one into a worthless one. 

If they think giving good melee basic attack with one feat is too much, they should also update Power of Skill feat. That one is more powerful.

In one game I am attending, there is an avenger of Erathis who took Melee Training. In another game I am DMing, another avenger just took Power of Skill feat because she worship Ioun, who has skill domain.

I am afraid that this change encourages to choose deity just for having good domain feat, not for player's taste. This problem is not new, but not something should be made more significant.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Aug 9, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> We are speaking about 2 points of damage in heroic tier. 2 points for some attacks. definitively not broken if it wasn´t broken before. Still better than the battlemind whi wasted its opportunity attack to follow his enemy.
> 
> Did i say we speak about just 2 points of damage? (Ok, 3 if your battlemind had constitution 20, but then he deserves this loss)
> 
> Yes I do violate marks. Battleminds should, like knights stay near those who he like to defend. Not defend from far away.




Fair enough, though if you have warlocks (who are always on the move) and other ranged fragile types, (e.g. archers who need to get close to their prey to get prime shot bonuses, and who are not usually focusing their wrath on your mark) it is hard to stick close to them. Also if they crowd around you, you put them at risk of getting pelted with blasts and bursts that you can't punish.

You are right that you can make the battlemind work and that it isn't going to become unplayable because of this change but that really wasn't my point. My point was that the battlemind is the one class that is affected by this and, of all the defenders, it is the one that has the fewest justifications for this weakness. Charisma Paladins get a good melee basic attack option without spending any feats and they don't even need to be sticky because they have a ranged autohit mark and good options for engaging at range if necessary. Swordmages have an even better ranged "set and forget" mark "punishment," and they still get their own feat that is not subject to this new penalty. It's just inconsistent and annoying (why should battleminds have to eat a damage penalty when no other defender does?) and easy to remedy.


----------



## scylis (Aug 9, 2010)

Shin Okada said:


> I don't know if I like new melee training.
> 
> Having full attack roll bonus but only half damage bonus is .... too weak. MT was never be "must have" in my games but a useful one. I guess this update will change this feat into a useful one into a worthless one.
> 
> ...



You lose out on 2 or 3 points at first level which grows to a whopping 4 or 5 points max at the end of Epic.

Using LDB's Trailblazer as an example (because I got bored and made a level by level series of saved characters in the CB using his build guide for it and it's the only level 30 save file I have ATM), currently a MBA from him does 2d10+25. If the character required Melee Training for whatever reason, he'd now (or soon will) do 2d10+20. 

So yes, it's less damage, but with everything you can throw onto your attacks that provides extra damage, it's nowhere near a make or break thing for the feat by any stretch of the imagination.

EDIT: I would like to note that I'm all for the Battlemind getting their own version of Intelligent Blademaster, though. There was no need before, since Melee Training took care of it pretty much equally well when they released PHB3


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 9, 2010)

I can't pretend to be delighted by much of the stuff in the article.  I'll accept that beefing up wizard encounters won't exactly break the game.  It always seemed that wizards had good at-wills (though later controllers had even better) and particularly good dailies, but not so stunning encounters.  And, really, any boost to a PH class at this point probably isn't out of line.  It's like a COLA to compensate for power inflation.

Melee Training struck me as a bad idea from a game design and class balance standpoint.  I'd have prefered to see it nixed or nerfed harder, but 1/2 damage is an adequate compromise.  I suppose the decision was made that /everyone/ needed the option of being able to make meaningful MBAs, and this retains this, while reducing the potential for abuse by the Martial classes going forward.  Probably only one of many adjustments that the change in aproach to the martial power source will require.


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 9, 2010)

I like the new changes to melee training.  As I said elsewhere, it gives some meaning back to having STR.  

I understand the desire to have flexibility and be able to use different stats for different things, but I was starting to worry that 4E was quickly becoming akin to some of the later 3E products where it was possible to build a character who used one stat for virtually everything.  Likewise, too many feats are starting to become 'must haves.'  I'm glad we're moving away from 'must have' feats.  Feats should be options; not needs or must haves.  The new version of Melee Training is still a good investment without being so good that one of your feat slots becomes dedicated to automatically being filled with Melee Training.

I like class balance, but not every race and class need be equally good at everything.  If you want to branch out a little from your own class's limitations, take a multiclass feat; that's why they are there.  People complain about how much multiclassing sucks; no wonder it seems to when so many options seem to be available to either blur the lines between classes or give some sort of feat-based rules loophole to get around virtually every limitation.  

In small doses, these things are ok, and I don't mind them, but -as I've said already- I don't want 4E to go down the same road 3E did.  I'm sure people will disagree, but I feel that (generally speaking) having a stat or a skill or a class feature should be better than having a way to mimic having one of those things.  The new version of Melee Training fits my mentality behind this, so I like it.  It allows you to somewhat mimic having a better STR score (by letting you base your attacks on something else,) but without taking anything away from the value of actually having a better STR score (due to only getting to add half to damage.)


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 9, 2010)

I would say that the best solution would be to give Battleminds an equivalent to Intelligent Blademaster.  But given they are a defender with Con as their primary stat, they really don't need it.  I actually like this change (despite seldom playing Str-primary characters and it's going to nerf my Monk).


----------



## Kurtomatic (Aug 9, 2010)

I was also about to mention Intelligent Blademaster. To me, a class-specific feat  is a better implementation of the exception-driven design pattern.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Aug 9, 2010)

Kurtomatic said:


> I was also about to mention Intelligent Blademaster. To me, a class-specific feat  is a better implementation of the exception-driven design pattern.




Fine, but then does each individual class get it's own version of Intelligent Blademaster?  If so, are they all slightly different?  That could be interesting, though I can't really imagine how they would do it.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 9, 2010)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Fine, but then does each individual class get it's own version of Intelligent Blademaster?  If so, are they all slightly different?  That could be interesting, though I can't really imagine how they would do it.




With WOTC's new feat category system, you could create a category called Melee Training. In there, every class that is supposed to receive a melee training feat could be mentioned. From a CB standpoint, it would be very easy.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 9, 2010)

We already have a category melee training!


----------



## Kurtomatic (Aug 9, 2010)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Fine, but then does each individual class get it's own version of Intelligent Blademaster?  If so, are they all slightly different?  That could be interesting, though I can't really imagine how they would do it.



Good questions, which go right to the heart of these feats. Melee Training is clearly a shortcut to providing attack stat-shifting to all characters, so you don't have to write a slew of redundant, identical feats. However, as a result, this feat is lousy on flavor and subverts the flavor (and difficult choices) from other classes and feats.

There is a good argument that some classes should have access to stat-shifting, and defenders who rely on basic attacks for mark punishment clearly have a stake here. Hence the existence of Intelligent Blademaster for swordmages. However, giving every class a similar feat would lead you right back to Melee Training.

So I think the Melee Training nerf works pretty good. Assuming that Intelligent Blademaster remains unchanged (I cannot imagine this getting nerfed), you have a case where the specific class feat trumps the general access feat. Anyone can shift their basic melee stat, but with less benefit than a native STR character has, or a class-specific feat would provide.

From there you just need a small handful of Intelligent Blademaster analogs (perhaps 1 or 2?) for non-STR defenders. The OP is making the case that battleminds should be able to gain full-native MBA stat-shifting for the cost of a feat. The slightly gimped Melee Training becomes the general rule, and a _small _number of IB-clones become the exceptional rules.

If they could *also *make each of these few exceptional class feats somehow slightly unique, so much the better!


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 9, 2010)

Just give each class an at-will that counts as an MBA and be done with it.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 9, 2010)

yup that could really work.. it would allow anybody to operate with there friendly warlord if they want to put the resource it could be an at-will it could be a feat.

I mentioned a unique idea for the Avenger but we will have to see we are used to having a lot of the picture instead of having the picture changed on us.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 9, 2010)

What exactly is the point of giving everyone such a melee attack after reducing melee training' efficiency slightly?


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Aug 9, 2010)

I always felt that Melee Training should have been just the add to hit and never and add to damage from the get go.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 9, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> What exactly is the point of giving everyone such a melee attack after reducing melee training' efficiency slightly?




The melee basic of the essentials fighter would be strength based. And that would remove abuse.

So each class could get a feature that lets them use their primary stat for melee basic attacks, and melee training could be scrapped (or maybe left for hybrids).

<begin rant> I also have a slight difficulty with the fact that a character trained with a weapon can currently be completely incompetent with their attacks at the end of a charge, opportunity attacks, granted attacks, etc. If I know where the pointy end goes on this spear thingie, I should be able to make a competent basic attack with it. <end rant>


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 9, 2010)

Yeah, but what is the point then? It would just be renaming of everything... As a feature, i would buy it... but not as just a MBA in disguise... (i like the new MM)

Making a fighter able to use dexterity as attack stat, but not damage could be done in 3.5 with weapon finesse... melee training was just too much IMHO... I accept that you should be able to hit, but maybe not as hard as with strength.

You may disagree here, that´s ok.

edit: to be clear: base attack level+3, strength to damage would be perfectly ok for me as base attack, no matter where the level +3 come from


----------



## ppaladin123 (Aug 9, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yeah, but what is the point then? It would just be renaming of everything... As a feature, i would buy it... but not as just a MBA in disguise... (i like the new MM)
> 
> Making a fighter able to use dexterity as attack stat, but not damage could be done in 3.5 with weapon finesse... melee training was just too much IMHO... I accept that you should be able to hit, but maybe not as hard as with strength.
> 
> ...





I don't know if every class should have access to an at-will that counts as a melee basic attack, but you wouldn't need to get rid of melee training as a feat if this happened. There are many at-wills to choose from and you only get 2-3. If you take the melee basic attack at-will you are paying an opportunity cost; you might be forgoing a more powerful at-will for that flexibility. If you don't take one, you can still take the feat but then you are paying a feat cost and losing out on some damage. I think that sort of choice makes for interesting mechanics.

Of course, in terms of flavor and internal consistency I agree with Mengu: if you can use your wisdom to hit things, I am sure you can use your wisdom to charge or make opportunity attacks too!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 10, 2010)

Actually i disagree on the fundamental level: wisdom as melee stat! irregular attack stats disencourage multiclassing between classes that should be able to do so 

-> rogue/fighter,
-> paladin/fighter
-> avenger/paladin

remedy: unified attack bonus only tied to level or a single stat. Note, that only the attack bonus is important, as 2 or 3 points of damage are neglectible in the long run, but it is just depressing if you don´t hit at all and do no damage...


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 10, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Actually i disagree on the fundamental level: wisdom as melee stat! .




Wisdom is perception and discipline... if you had a real world measurement of discipline you could use it to measure how much trained effort they apply to maintaining there tried and true maneuvers... further perception is directly sighted as being how one finds openings and predicts your enemies behaviors ... maybe even how one times the attacks... a martial practice which focused on these might be like kung fu or include a bit of Samurai stare downs... if you remember the class most likely to make use of this is the avenger so for them wisdom is also part of there pipeline to understanding the divine ... all there normal melee is this way.

Melee training is in almost all cases visualizable as instinctualizing or accelerating what they do normally.. ie nothing really that new.

hmmm ok i see you were arguing purely for mc purposes?


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 10, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Actually i disagree on the fundamental level: wisdom as melee stat! irregular attack stats disencourage multiclassing between classes that should be able to do so
> 
> -> rogue/fighter,
> -> paladin/fighter
> ...




These classes don't need a fix... Fighters use strength primary, so your melee basic is already attuned to one class... and Paladins have Virtuous Strike if they're Charisma-based... Ardent and Avenging are already strength based so... again... melee basic attack is pre-attuned.

In all three cases, your problem is fixable simply by intellegent character design:

Brawny Scoundrel Rogue/Fighter
Ardent Paladin/Fighter (Strength and Wisdom is primary/secondary for both anyways!)
Any paladin/Unity avenger.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 10, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> I would say that the best solution would be to give Battleminds an equivalent to Intelligent Blademaster.  But given they are a defender with Con as their primary stat, they really don't need it.  I actually like this change (despite seldom playing Str-primary characters and it's going to nerf my Monk).



I dunno.  CON is such a common stat for Defenders - as opposed to INT - that it could open up some multiclass abuse.

-O


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 10, 2010)

What I'd really, really like to see is a fix for 

<cha based character>/warlord

Because as-is, only brawny characters can be inspiring leaders without using magic.

Unfortunately I don't think we're going to see melee training expanded to work with all melee powers, which is pretty much what it would take I think.


----------



## Terramotus (Aug 10, 2010)

The first unneeded nerf to a core 4E game feature to support the changes made to Essentials.  More to come, I'm sure.  Essentials should have been walled off, with no relation to core 4E.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 10, 2010)

Terramotus said:


> The first unneeded nerf to a core 4E game feature to support the changes made to Essentials.  More to come, I'm sure.  Essentials should have been walled off, with no relation to core 4E.




The feat has had complaints since it's introduction, and has been used to prop up entire classes, getting labelled as required for them.

That doesn't scream "this is an unneeded nerf" to me.


----------



## mearls (Aug 10, 2010)

ppaladin123 said:


> Please consider errata granting the battlemind this simple ability. If for some reason WotC thinks this would be overpowered, please at least offer an option like the swordmage's intelligent blade master.
> 
> Thanks for listening.
> 
> p.s. While you are at it, have mercy on the poor constitution-secondary shaman as well....the armor situation is pretty dire.




When we talked about the change to Melee Training, we also talked about feats, powers, and other options for classes that like basic attacks but don't use Strengths. It's something that is on our to do list.

I'll make sure we look at the shaman AC issue while I'm at it and approach it from a similar angle.


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 10, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> What exactly is the point of giving everyone such a melee attack after reducing melee training' efficiency slightly?



 So that everyone has a fully valid MBA but the essentials classes can't abuse it because they don't have at-will attacks and thus can't take it.

The only reason for the nerf are the essentials, but this goal can be reached without the old classes having to suffer.


Saeviomagy said:


> The feat has had complaints since it's introduction,



 Really? I actually can't really remember any complaints. There certainly were some, but so few that they were hard to notice.


Saeviomagy said:


> and has been used to prop up entire classes, getting labelled as required for them.



 Which shows that people, for whatever reason, enjoy having a valid MBA, even if it's only used once every third encounter. So since people like this feat to increase their fun that needs to be nerfed?

Also almost every weapon based class takes weapon focus at some point. It should better be nerfed. And toughness is also taken way too often, better half it too.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Aug 10, 2010)

mearls said:


> When we talked about the change to Melee Training, we also talked about feats, powers, and other options for classes that like basic attacks but don't use Strengths. It's something that is on our to do list.
> 
> I'll make sure we look at the shaman AC issue while I'm at it and approach it from a similar angle.





Thank you for your answer! That is great news.


----------



## Vagebond (Aug 10, 2010)

mearls said:


> When we talked about the change to Melee Training, we also talked about feats, powers, and other options for classes that like basic attacks but don't use Strengths. It's something that is on our to do list.



Yes, this avid avenger player can stop nerdraging and start having daydreams about an at-will usable as a MBA again!!! Just in time too, because such anger goes against my good natured character and I really dislike not using capitals, punctuation or spelling correction.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 10, 2010)

Mengu said:


> <begin rant> I also have a slight difficulty with the fact that a character trained with a weapon can currently be completely incompetent with their attacks at the end of a charge, opportunity attacks, granted attacks, etc. If I know where the pointy end goes on this spear thingie, I should be able to make a competent basic attack with it. <end rant>




Well, if you had not dumped your str.....

I know that is not the whole answer, but the desire to dump as many stats as possible and pump one stats to godlike levels is at the heart of this whole "problem"

I just do not see the problem about things like these that can be fixed with a simple feat. "Feat Tax" or whatnot.


----------



## igniz13 (Aug 10, 2010)

Kurtomatic said:


> I was also about to mention Intelligent Blademaster. To me, a class-specific feat is a better implementation of the exception-driven design pattern.




I do wonder if we'll see these kinds of feats for other classes or if IB will nerfed itself. I do think Melee training was too centric to many power builds that this change makes sense irrespective of the release of Essentials.

AFAIK, IB is a very different case to Melee Training though.

Assault Swordmages depend on their ability to make basic attacks as part of their punishment mechanics. No class absolutely demands you invest fully into two primary attack stats, though some builds do need this to work.

Assault Swordmage does.

This is different to every other Defender. All of them rely on a primary stat for punishment.

You don't need OA's to function as a Defender although they often important. Assualt Swordmages needed IB to function on par with other Defenders.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 10, 2010)

mearls said:


> When we talked about the change to Melee Training, we also talked about feats, powers, and other options for classes that like basic attacks but don't use Strengths. It's something that is on our to do list.
> 
> I'll make sure we look at the shaman AC issue while I'm at it and approach it from a similar angle.




So Gandalf gets his charges nerfed because he isnt a member of a melee  class I see... sorry Melee Training in pre-essentials space worked fine  to open up the design and modelling space it basically back to 1e only  fighters get to be even basically competant with swords bit... and it  sucks.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 10, 2010)

Gandalf was a fighter in his youth, no?

Plus, he was who-knows-how high level and adventuring with inexperienced hobbits.  He could kick goblin tail better than them with his 1/2 level bonus, alone.  


Though, I get what you're saying.  It's just, if a concept calls for being good at melee, a little investment in STR isn't inapropariate or impossible.  You just have to be willing to put the resources towards it.  Even in the absence of Melee Training, you could have a wizard competent to make a basic attack.  He'd just be a light on his Implement Mastery's secondary stat from investing in STR.


----------



## Squizzle (Aug 10, 2010)

The "NP-complete" version of the intuitive (to me) fix is "anything you rely upon for role fulfillment should work off of your primary stat". I'm not sure that there is a simple "P" version of that; I think you just need to brute force go on a class-by-class (or build-by-build) basis. Battleminds need usable OAs, so their OAs (not general MBAs) should work off of Constitution. I'd propose a new class feature that granted an at-will power that was just a Con-based basic attack, usable as an opportunity action. Assault swordmages rely on a specific type of basic attack for their enforcement; that attack should be Int-based. Avengers are supposed to be able to isolate a single enemy, and so should get a good Wisdom-based OA to help alter the tactical cost of moving away from the avenger. Etc., etc.


----------



## igniz13 (Aug 10, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> So Gandalf gets his charges nerfed because he isnt a member of a melee  class I see... sorry Melee Training in pre-essentials space worked fine  to open up the design and modelling space it basically back to 1e only  fighters get to be even basically competant with swords bit... and it  sucks.




Mike didn't say anything like that at all, he said they're looking at other options for people who like MBA's but don't use Str.

Gandalf is loosing a few points of damage on a charge, he can still charge if he needs to. Not that charging is a prime concern for wizards in the first place.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 10, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Gandalf was a fighter in his youth, no?
> 
> Plus, he was who-knows-how high level and adventuring with inexperienced hobbits.  He could kick goblin tail better than them with his 1/2 level bonus, alone.
> 
> ...




Except in order to make your MBA worth anything you'd need a 16 STR. Good luck getting a 16 in an otherwise useless non-secondary ability score. AND you have to keep pumping it up. This is simply not a viable option. It isn't even "not quite optimum" it is actually making your character terribly unoptimized. The need for stat bumps in order to stay relevant at higher levels insures that the costs of doing things like this are large and grow larger at higher levels. 

Personally I think stat bumps were a bad idea to start with. They create a really large number of extra constraints on characters for no really measurable overall benefit to the system. That's really getting pretty far OT though.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 10, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> So Gandalf gets his charges nerfed because he isnt a member of a melee  class I see... sorry Melee Training in pre-essentials space worked fine  to open up the design and modelling space it basically back to 1e only  fighters get to be even basically competant with swords bit... and it  sucks.



I think yes, the wizards charge should be weaker than the warriors charge... Not everyone should be equal...

Also the wizards paragon path ability, which allow an int attack vs AC (now fixed i guess) is meaningful again, as a solid hit with a melee training staff is not wqually good anymore...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 10, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Except in order to make your MBA worth anything you'd need a 16 STR. Good luck getting a 16 in an otherwise useless non-secondary ability score. AND you have to keep pumping it up. This is simply not a viable option. It isn't even "not quite optimum" it is actually making your character terribly unoptimized. The need for stat bumps in order to stay relevant at higher levels insures that the costs of doing things like this are large and grow larger at higher levels.
> 
> Personally I think stat bumps were a bad idea to start with. They create a really large number of extra constraints on characters for no really measurable overall benefit to the system. That's really getting pretty far OT though.



With a 14 in your stat, your melee opportunity attacks are ok... the main problem is falling behind when you don´t raise it, as you state it.

And I agree, stat bumps are a design problem in 4e. And  I think it is not too OT. We had no discussion about melee training, if your 14 in strength would be as good at level 30 as it is on level 1. (where it is good enough)


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 10, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think yes, the wizards charge should be weaker than the warriors charge... Not everyone should be equal...




If the wizard didnt spend resources to change that then fine... the fighter can spend that feat making his charges even nicer if he wants. The wizard has to commit to quite a chain of feats... he has to get weapon proficiency and get the equipment to support it etc.... he has to really find some / pull some fancy tricks so he doesnt stay in melee etc.

Basically Gandalf becomes stupid because he doesnt use a lightning bolt instead... its already a flavor choice nerfing it further is just insult to injury.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 10, 2010)

It is still an ok choice to take melee training... I just don´t get why it is so terrible...

Maybe the solution is easy:

Tensers Transformation
Wizard Utility
daily
Transmutation

until the end of the encounter, you use your int modifier for basic melee attacks. On a hit, you deal an extra 1d6 damage and push the target con modifier squares and deal con damage to an enemy adjacent to the target. 

you cannot only use at-will powers until you end this power as a minor action.

something like that...


I have te feeling that melee training is either too good, or not good enough. If you are a wizard, wven if you trained melee training, it is still not good enough as a regular attack. As an opportunity attack or charge attack or granted attack by a power, it is so strong, that not to take melee training is a mistake.

So nerfing this feat is the right decision, but maybe we need a reconstruction of MBAs

Actually I would have been fine if MBA and RBA was:

attack: highes attribute vs AC
damage 1[w] + str (melee) / dex (ranged)

So you can take melee training if your strength is too low. But with mediocre strength you can live without the feat. Maybe different classes could get a feat that allows other effects on MBAs other than added damage (like a mage getting a push effect on a hit)


----------



## ak1287 (Aug 11, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> If the wizard didnt spend resources to change that then fine... the fighter can spend that feat making his charges even nicer if he wants. The wizard has to commit to quite a chain of feats... he has to get weapon proficiency and get the equipment to support it etc.... he has to really find some / pull some fancy tricks so he doesnt stay in melee etc.
> 
> Basically Gandalf becomes stupid because he doesnt use a lightning bolt instead... its already a flavor choice nerfing it further is just insult to injury.




Isn't that what a wizard is, generally? I'm not saying there can't be a tough wizard, but come on. Robert Heinlein quote notwithstanding, not all classes are as well suited to all tasks.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 11, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> Which shows that people, for whatever reason, enjoy having a valid MBA, even if it's only used once every third encounter. So since people like this feat to increase their fun that needs to be nerfed?



How does "used to prop up classes" translate to "is used to have fun"? I'm talking about people saying "oh, doom and gloom, the battlemind is dead!".

Now, I personally don't think that the fix has that effect in the slightest, however the underlying issue is that (supposedly) the feat is required for any battlemind who wishes to be an effective defender. In other words, a single feat is propping up a class that sounds like it has some serious issues.

I'm not arguing that this is the correct nerf to make, or will solve the issues at hand, merely saying that this feat is not the flawless paragon of balance some people are trying to make it out to be.


> Also almost every weapon based class takes weapon focus at some point. It should better be nerfed. And toughness is also taken way too often, better half it too.



Now you're just being silly.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 11, 2010)

Actually, the battlemind seems to be designed in a way, that he augments his attacks ot uses dailies to get a good opportunity attack. With old melee training it is a too cheap way around this drawback.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 11, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Gandalf was a fighter in his youth, no?



You might be thinking of Elminster. Gandalf was originally a maia (the Middle-Earth equivalent of an angel or something along those lines).


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 11, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> The wizard has to commit to quite a chain of feats...




First off, two feats does not a chain make, especially when the first feat may not even be necessary depending on other factors.

Secondly, losing a couple points of damage on a melee attack is not a huge deal for a class whose focus is specifically NOT melee attacks.

Third, if he wants to be a better melee combatant, maybe he should have picked a better suited class.



> So Gandalf gets his charges nerfed because he isnt a member of a melee class I see... sorry Melee Training in pre-essentials space worked fine to open up the design and modelling space it basically back to 1e only fighters get to be even basically competant with swords bit... and it sucks.




...really? A wizard doing a few less points of damage (which is all the change does) with a melee basic attack (far from his area of expertise) than a fighter means that ONLY the fighter is even "basically competent" with swords?


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

The Little Raven said:


> Secondly, losing a couple points of damage on a melee attack is not a huge deal for a class whose focus is specifically NOT melee attacks. :



Its a bigger deal the less capable they are... 
Adds insult to injury he isnt great to start with so you nerf him further cool beans dude... his toughness sucks if he actually wants to do this ... its not just two feats... that was all I happened to mention.

That fighter can do nice stuff in melee left and right a basic attack isnt even a comparison not even un-nerfed.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

Note I do think a Wizard right now without nerfing is still behaving ummm less than brilliant if he fights like Gandalf.... so changing it so roleplaying the archetypal wizard like himself.. should be made worse than it already is? why?


----------



## scylis (Aug 11, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Note I do think a Wizard right now without nerfing is still behaving ummm less than brilliant if he fights like Gandalf.... so changing it so roleplaying the archetypal wizard like himself.. should be made worse than it already is? why?



The "archetypical wizard" there also didn't really use many spells beyond maybe a cantrip here or there.

I say Wizards should cast way, _way_ fewer spells and get mostly [w] powers.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 11, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Its a bigger deal the less capable they are...
> Adds insult to injury he isnt great to start with so you nerf him further cool beans dude... his toughness sucks if he actually wants to do this ... its not just two feats... that was all I happened to mention.
> 
> That fighter can do nice stuff in melee left and right a basic attack isnt even a comparison not even un-nerfed.




This single feat can swing your attack *and* damage by 6 points (-1 with Str 8, +5 with another ability score at 20) at first level. Weapon Focus, Weapon Expertise, and Weapon Proficiency can't even do that at level 25.

No single feat should outperform epic-tier scaled version of two other feats and a third feat combined. Period.



> Note I do think a Wizard right now without nerfing is still behaving ummm less than brilliant if he fights like Gandalf.... so changing it so roleplaying the archetypal wizard like himself.. should be made worse than it already is? why?




No iteration of the wizard (or mage or magic-user) has resembled Gandalf in magic use, so I fail to see why they should resemble Gandalf in all other aspects.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

scylis said:


> The "archetypical wizard" there also didn't really use many spells beyond maybe a cantrip here or there.
> 
> I say Wizards should cast way, _way_ fewer spells and get mostly [w] powers.



I am actually supporting somebody elses Gandalf build and it corresponds closest to the stereortype... ie those being appeased by 4EE are most inclined to see that fellow as the wizard. 

I built him as an Invoker/Avenger hybrid... works fairly well but guess what he lacked ummmmm damn cantrips.


----------



## scylis (Aug 11, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> I am actually supporting somebody elses Gandalf build and it corresponds closest to the stereortype... ie those being appeased by 4EE are most inclined to see that fellow as the wizard.
> 
> I built him as an Invoker/Avenger hybrid... works fairly well but guess what he lacked ummmmm damn cantrips.



*NO LIGHT FOR YOU!* #cantripnazi

Put in that light, I'm fairly certain Avengers will be getting some help in the way of a feat or some more MBA at-wills which are able to be chosen by a broader-range of Avengers. I wouldn't be surprised to see both.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

scylis said:


> *NO LIGHT FOR YOU!* #cantripnazi
> 
> Put in that light, I'm fairly certain Avengers will be getting some help in the way of a feat or some more MBA at-wills which are able to be chosen by a broader-range of Avengers. I wouldn't be surprised to see both.




Can I buy them cantrips for a feat Id be good to them I would hug them squeeze them and call them george.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

The Little Raven said:


> This single feat can swing your attack *and* damage by 6 points (-1 with Str 8, +5 with another ability score at 20) at first level. Weapon Focus, Weapon Expertise, and Weapon Proficiency can't even do that at level 25.




Boosting something you will never ever use to something you might use and still requires many feats to make practical (because your class lacks most of the parameters to really use it already) omg how broken.

The most likely context for MT being actually used by a wizard is if the party has a Warlord who specializes ie a choice for the sake of team play. I am pretty sure most of the rest of the time their are better feat choices even un nerfed just as the charging wizard is pretty darned sub opp and feat heavy to be anything but well an i want to play Gandalf roleplaying thing.


----------



## scylis (Aug 11, 2010)

There's an upper Heroic tier pair of gloves (iirc) that gets you at-will Mage Hand and Prestidigitation, so I don't see why there couldn't be items that cover the others.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 11, 2010)

I'm personally in the camp that favors a general weakening of melee training but the creation of Intelligent Blademaster-esque feats for the classes that need them.

That said, for those who say "Its only 2-3 points of damage".

Remember, the difference between a rogue's and ranger's bonus damage is only 3.5 damage. In 3e, weapon spec only gave a +2 to damage and was practically considered a fighter's class ability. People care about damage, so this argument is a valid point and shouldn't be dismissed off hand.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 11, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Boosting something you will never ever use to something you might use and still requires many feats to make practical (because your class lacks most of the parameters to really use it already) omg how broken.




And it is still boosted. After the change, the effective swing is +6 hit/+3 damage. So now it equals two epic level feats and another feat combined, instead of exceeding them. It is still perfectly practical.


----------



## scylis (Aug 11, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> I'm personally in the camp that favors a general weakening of melee training but the creation of Intelligent Blademaster-esque feats for the classes that need them.
> 
> That said, for those who say "Its only 2-3 points of damage".
> 
> Remember, the difference between a rogue's and ranger's bonus damage is only 3.5 damage. In 3e, weapon spec only gave a +2 to damage and was practically considered a fighter's class ability. People care about damage, so this argument is a valid point and shouldn't be dismissed off hand.



In 3rd ed, multiattacking was the rule of the day, so it wasn't just a +2, it was a +2 x the number of hits made in a round.

How many MBAs are people making in a round in 4E that aren't defenders begging mobs to do provoke them?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 11, 2010)

Most MBA are one of three things:

Charging:  there are plenty of ways to boost damage on a charge, so missing out on a little isn't a big deal.

MBA granted by a leader:  If a leader is blowing his standard action to give you an MBA, chances are there are some situational considerations.  Like you're a rogue with CA, or you're under a buff the leader just gave you or someting like that.  Again, slightly lower base damage may not be that important.

OAs and Mark punishment:  Here, the point of the MBA is to scare the monster enough that it hesitates to endure it.  It needs to hurt.  You want all the damage you can get.  


So, OK, yes, /some/ defenders - those who don't have strong enough non-MBA mark punishment - may need a strong MBA.  And, some of them may not be STR primary.  We're talking /maybe/ the battlemind (though they have non-MBA mark punishment) and a swordmage build or two.  The swordmage is covered.  The Chaladin's mark punishment is nothing to sneeze at, and the Warden's isn't MBA dependent.   So, yeah, OK, it might suck to be a battlemind for a minute or two between the reading the errata that nerfs Melee Training, and the one that gives it some other alternative - because they'll both likely be in the October update.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> MBA granted by a leader:  If a leader is blowing his standard action to give you an MBA, chances are there are some situational considerations.  Like you're a rogue with CA, or you're under a buff the leader just gave you or someting like that.  Again, slightly lower base damage may not be that important.




My experience in spite of any fondness the char op boards have for it.. most folk who arent hanging out there already need a pretty convincing reason to get it... and that Warlord who specializes in granting attacks is very dependent on his allies having effective attacks. Not just a little.

@Raven
I think it bears repeating .. I will take it from the backwards perspective. How much of a penalty if you took a normal Wizard ... the kind who never uses mba and gave it a -10 on to hit and a -20 on damage...the answer is ZERO, it isnt a penalty. That is exactly why Raven your numbers are off from a real users perspective. Part of your boost is just the part that "enables" it to become a consideration at all.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 11, 2010)

Really, the Warlord deserves good MBA friends.

This is why I believe, weapon using classes should have an equivalent ability. Melee training as a cconcept however doesn´t do it.

It is either required for MBA classes that don´t use strength, or not.
A Wizard training melee with his int modifier is still good enough with the new melee training.
If he really like his MBA, he can multiclass into swordmage and take intelligent blademaster. Which actually fits the design. So no real harm done. Actually, I believe it is good to encourage multiclassing to get a decent MBA.
*
What about a fighter multiclass feat, requirement 13 Strength, benefit: old melee training.*

This way:
 a) you have to invest a bit of strength
b) you are actually trained as fighter
c) you give up the opportunity cost of multiclassing into a different class
d) it opens up the possibility to invest more into melee
e) a slayer can´t take it


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> If he really like his MBA, he can multiclass into swordmage and take intelligent blademaster. Which actually fits the design. So no real harm done.




Suppose I want it to be my wizards staff guided by his arcane mind wrapped with tendrils of energy.... not a sword, that may have been gandalfs schtick (I seen a build of him going that route)... but a war wizard isn't necessarily a Corellion disciple... shrug. 

I mentioned it elsewhere... but
Has anyone seen the Latest Sherlock Holmes Flick..that was very much melee training in action. It needs watched and more than a little absorbed by those bearing nerf bats.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 11, 2010)

Yes, that sherlock holmes film was very cool. But i don´t think he did any MBA, but he was planning to hit all the time.

I guess it was rather something like a rogue´s trick. He did no spontaneous opportunity action or such... and he was not that weakly built...

And really, I can understand, that you want your staff fighting wizard, but imho melee training was the wrong direction.

why not a utility power for the wizard, why not a ritual to enwrap your staf in magic? why does it have to be melee training?


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> why not a utility power for the wizard, why not a ritual to enwrap your staff in magic? why does it have to be melee training?




Versatile and elegant easily represents taking things you are normally doing and learning to do it faster and instinctually in combat. (could be guiding your fist with magic even like the cantrips given steroids).  I want to use Melee training to represent my Bard  = "listening closer to the song of battle" like its humming through his mind through out the battle so he can react faster and instinctually to its rythms. The underlying methods involved can be completely styled to suit the class - one simple elegant mechanic can take on the right flavor which we provide.


If your character design doesn't match the retro flavor of essentials (where among other things fighting men are morons) you get the bat. Somebody claimed this was a nuance change only but they add up... and its closer to a nuisance change, fixing what isnt broken - remember this is still early stage roll out for essentials.  

The best quote I have seen is 


Aug 11 said:


> 'Backwards compatible' does not mean changing what came before to mesh with the new, it means designing the new to work with what came before.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 11, 2010)

Agreed, Holmes wasn't using MBAs there.  He was stopping, thinking, and unleashing int-based melee powers; but hardly basic ones.

In my experience MBAs normally come into place in two circumstances; charging and opportunity attacks.

I normally take the feat for opportunity attacks which are, after all, free.  If you're expecting to make many OAs then the feat is still worth it even with slightly reduced damage.  (My monk's more than happy keeping it even if he's annoyed at the nerf).  

The other major reason to take it is for some sort of melee ability or odd stat spread (I've seen a Dex 18/Wis 16 Avenger).  Edge cases here.

(Besides, for the Wizard example I've got an answer: Swordmage Multiclass/Intelligent Blademaster if it's that big a part of the concept.  If they nerf Intelligent Blademaster I shall be ... annoyed.)


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes, that sherlock holmes film was very cool. But i don´t think he did any MBA



Remember MBA's are redefined now....check out all the new classes that is the definition of MBA in the game going forward... its not just unplanned stuff. 

== In fact I dislike that change in itself - it implies all the martial classes arent thinking or planning or it implies a fundamental change in the meaning of basic attacks

All that predicting what would happen next? a way to accelerate your response. its intelligence based combat (maybe wisdom) based at its finest. and people under-estimate 11 strength. (appropriate for RDJ). Perhaps wary fighter feat in there. 

It even felt like a brawling fighter (not a monk) with Intelligence supplanting strength.... for everything.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Agreed, Holmes wasn't using MBAs there.  He was stopping, thinking, and unleashing int-based melee powers; but hardly basic ones.
> 
> In my experience MBAs normally come into place in two circumstances; charging and opportunity attacks.




Your experience is from yester year not the future of D&D guided by what we see in essentials they change the definition of mba.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> (Besides, for the Wizard example I've got an answer: Swordmage Multiclass/Intelligent Blademaster if it's that big a part of the concept.  If they nerf Intelligent Blademaster I shall be ... annoyed.)




Only works on the sword route already mentioned a staff based war wizard? It doesnt address the general issue.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Aug 11, 2010)

ppaladin123 said:


> I enjoy optimization. Different strokes for different folks.
> 
> I'm just pointing out that the battlemind is in an odd spot because of this ruling. The other defenders all have options to give themselves a very good opportunity attack out of the box (fighter, paladin, warden) or with a special feat (swordmage) if they so choose (you are free not to optimize if you don't care to).
> 
> Since the battlemind's mark punishment (mind spike) doesn't work at range like the paladin and swordmage, and he can't easily stop movement (fighter) or create difficult terrain (warden), opportunity attack damage +any added effects one can add to it becomes an important part of the battlemind's tool kit.



I keep seeing arguments made like this about 4E classes, arguments that ignore all the powers that the particular class has.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 11, 2010)

As much as i can understand what you prefer, imagine melee training had not been introduced in PHB2, but we would now get the new melee training feat... would you argue the same way?

Wepon finesse in 3.5 was much less poten (only attack bonus)
The bard feat which allows charisma for multclass powers is also less potent (only attack bonus)

I believe, some of those feats, introduced in PHB 2 were bad fixes for problems they have seen in initial PHB design, which have set the benchmark for feats quite high. Maybe there were to conservative back and tried to fix everything with feats. The wrong direction IMHO.

If the default MBA were highes ability score vs AC, strength to damage, I could see melee training giving full damage. (Slayer would still be a problem, but ok...)

Right now, melee training does too much. Listening to the song, ok... i like my bard who is a competent melee combatant... (human)

But my bard who also wants to be a powerful melee combatant (goliath) is a bit shafted if he doesn´t go 18 Cha and also take melee training. the 16/16/16/13 option is just inferior. (i still built it this way, but only with a grain of salt). Melee training is now an option, not a must take. 

So, if the wizard wants a good meee attack, i would like him multiclass into a weapon using class. Thiss should automatically give him a competent melee basic attack. A bard who is a weapon using class should also have a viable melee base attack. (cha to attack, con or int damage would be sufficient)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 11, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Remember MBA's are redefined now....check out all the new classes that is the definition of MBA in the game going forward... its not just unplanned stuff.
> 
> == In fact I dislike that change in itself - it implies all the martial classes arent thinking or planning or it implies a fundamental change in the meaning of basic attacks
> 
> ...



Rogue trick: improve your next basic attack. It is just what sherlock did.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Rogue trick: improve your next basic attack. It is just what sherlock did.




Exactly what attribute is that based on..? Holmes is very much a massive Intellect character and it was the point of the tricks he pulled. Prediction... not deception.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 11, 2010)

Hey, most surely prediction...

i meant... sherlocks tricks...

sherlock holms:
martial striker

abilities: 
-predicting strikes: you may use int instead of strength for base attacks
-hunters quarry
-sherlocks tricks

planned strikes:
move action:
shift 2 squares, until the end of your turn, and deal wisdom modifier extra damage on a hit.

simple class design. Lets call it essential.

Why is it better than:

at-will power: predicting strike: int vs AC, [w] + int + wis damage?

if you feel like building a fighter/sherlock, you could go strength and wisdom and still use those abilities. Also a very viable character. Still perceptive, but uses raw strength. You are much more flexible in character design.
And the Warlord likes you and you can also charge!


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Hey, most surely prediction...
> 
> i meant... sherlocks tricks...




well yeah they are sherlocks tricks if he can apply the melee training attribute so they become predictive....without being nerfed to death.




UngeheuerLich said:


> sherlock holms:
> martial striker
> 
> abilities:
> ...



nice design.



> Why is it better than:
> 
> at-will power: predicting strike: int vs AC, [w] + int + wis damage?



Not sure the latter may be concise....but it will have its own flavor predefined .... and the feat method kind of overwhelms and calls for a reflavoring of the core class - atleast in the essentials mode (this can be cool it doesnt have to be scarey)

Instead of one versatile feat applied that is interpretable by the end users (OK I am going to admit a lot of people don't seem to be doing this as well as they could/should - did the books give any examples to lead them to it? or I would assert is melee training under explained.)  

- So we have to have a different element brought forward for every use case. And yes I do kind of like the idea of pre-flavored alternatives like my bard listening to the war song.

Hmmm it occurs to me that one could interpret this as catering to those who dont get refluffing too. (melee training lacks fluff in comparison to the more specific abilities.)

Yes by having differing element one has it "more under control"... the only reason it seems to need to be under control or nerfed in a generic sense is these new classes (if it isnt really a nerf it isnt enough to stop the DEX slayer being the default option so that is a bad argument which seems to fight itself).

I think I am convinced ;p... hurry hit me with some cold water I must not have had enough sleep.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 11, 2010)

I just want to say, while he gets a lot of credit, it's not just the Warlord who grants attacks. Shamans, Ardents, Bards, Runepriests, Clerics, and even Barbarians and Rogues can grant basic atacks, not to mention a plethora of racial powers, items, feats, and paragon paths that grant basic attacks.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 11, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Only works on the sword route already mentioned a staff based war wizard? It doesnt address the general issue.



Um... Intelligent Blademaster replaces Str with Int for _all_ Basic Attacks, I think.  That's why swordmages carry javelins.  So yes, it will work with a staff.

Melee Training even post-nerf makes everyone competent in fast rolling melees.  If you want to be _outstanding_ then pick a close combat class.

(And if there was _ever_ a case for a Martial Controller, I'm pretty sure Holmes would be it.)


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 11, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> == In fact I dislike that change in itself - it implies all the martial classes arent thinking or planning or it implies a fundamental change in the meaning of basic attacks.




Once you use the word "implies" you are thinking too hard about a game about pretending to be an elf.

(It's a basic attack... All the way... What does it mean?)


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Melee Training even post-nerf makes everyone competent in fast rolling melees.  If you want to be _outstanding_ then pick a close combat class.




No there are now 4 categories...

*Really lame*.
*lame*
*competant*
*and good*

They have inserted a category... it used to be possible by way of a feat to go from really lame to competent... so we have a bunch of avengers etc who now are competent being lamed by the nerf... now they cant until they get special treatment to fix the lameness. Good is why the barbarian and essentials classes are what the warlord hits his enemies with by preference...


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Once you use the word "implies" you are thinking too hard about a game about pretending to be an elf.
> 
> (It's a basic attack... All the way... What does it mean?)




The person I was talking too thought that sherlocks moves werent basic attacks because they felt fancy or pre-planned.... see? opportunity attacks and simplicity..  were a defining element of what made it basic for that person. That cant be assumed as its now too easy for anything to be a basic attack the definition really has changed.. before very few things would/could be interpretted as basic attacks most were at-wills, encounters dailies etc.

Telling me I think too much will indeed just annoy me.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 11, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Um... Intelligent Blademaster replaces Str with Int for _all_ Basic Attacks, I think.  That's why swordmages carry javelins.  So yes, it will work with a staff.




Will work with staff - the javelin sounds abusive.


----------



## Ahrimon (Aug 12, 2010)

While we're at it, we should ask for a feat so that primary melee characters can attack from 10 squares away.  Since the non-melee want to be just as good as the melee in a BASIC fight, then the melee guys should be able attack at just as good as the non-melee guys with only a single feat right?

I mean, everyone should be equal regardless of what stats you use after only taking a single feat.  Right?

Or people can just accept that some characters are better at one role than another.

Note: I'll remain open for fixes to the battlemind, since I don't have phb3 and don't actually know how they work.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 12, 2010)

Ahrimon said:


> While we're at it, we should ask for a feat so that primary melee characters can attack from 10 squares away.  Since the non-melee want to be just as good as the melee in a BASIC fight, then the melee guys should be able attack at just as good as the non-melee guys with only a single feat right?
> 
> I mean, everyone should be equal regardless of what stats you use after only taking a single feat.  Right?
> 
> ...



Yes, ranged training would be only fair...

(but strength characters can already use a Javelin)


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 12, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Except in order to make your MBA worth anything you'd need a 16 STR. Good luck getting a 16 in an otherwise useless non-secondary ability score. AND you have to keep pumping it up. This is simply not a viable option. It isn't even "not quite optimum" it is actually making your character terribly unoptimized. The need for stat bumps in order to stay relevant at higher levels insures that the costs of doing things like this are large and grow larger at higher levels.
> 
> Personally I think stat bumps were a bad idea to start with. They create a really large number of extra constraints on characters for no really measurable overall benefit to the system. That's really getting pretty far OT though.




Hmm...  on one hand I agree, but, on the other, I'm not sure.  Unless it has been hit with errata (I'm not up to date on all of it,) Expertise with a staff would help both with casting through it and attacking with it.  That helps a little bit.  I think there are a few other tricks to get a few bumps, but I'm not sure because I'm not nearly as fluent in 4E as I used to be.  It's something I'll have to consider more.

I do agree that the structure of 4E seems like it could have worked without stat increases or at least with less stat increases.  The chance to hit remains the same and fairly consistant over 30 levels.  Instead of stat increases, maybe higher levels could have kept the numbers consistant across levels and simply given higher level characters/monsters more options and more ways to refresh their powers.  I would have been ok with this, but I think it might have the side effect of grounding 4E a little bit more when it comes to reality and being a little bit harsher on PCs when it comes to using skills to pull off crazy stunts than what many others would like.



mearls said:


> When we talked about the change to Melee Training, we also talked about feats, powers, and other options for classes that like basic attacks but don't use Strengths. It's something that is on our to do list.
> 
> I'll make sure we look at the shaman AC issue while I'm at it and approach it from a similar angle.




sounds like it could be fertile ground for a few PP ideas


----------



## Thrael (Aug 12, 2010)

I want a single feat to use STR for determining hp (and thus healing surge values), number of extra healing surges as well as replace any CON modifier specific riders and feat benefits.

Don't like it? Yes that's how powerful the Battlemind is, using a better stat than STR as a primary. Just like in 3E the balance between DEX > INT is also skewed as is between WIS > CHA but the many skills (knowledge/social) remedy that somewhat. Not so with CON > STR.

Leave the stronger MBAs to STR... by a mere 3 (heroic) or 5 (epic) damage, with declining significance as one accumulates static bonuses to [W].


----------



## Zaran (Aug 12, 2010)

The only reason melée training is being changed is so someone can't make a 8 str fighter and make him so he is just as good as a normal strength based fighter. This was not possible until essentials. 

So they are changing an established rule to balance a product I have no intention of using. This I do not like. So now I have to weigh if ddi is worth the money to keep active over having my character changed in a way I do not want. I think if they are going to change their rules they should give us the option to filter out the changes if we want like we have the option to not use certain books. Maybe make it so we get the old melee training and old magic missile if we uncheck Heroes of the Forgotten Editions in preferences


----------



## ripster0 (Aug 12, 2010)

Any change in Essentials is no different than a change in a new powers or players book. Bigger changes have been made due to issues that existed long before Essentials.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Aug 13, 2010)

OP, you're killing me. Mind Spike is GOD. It lives in heaven and is attended by seraphim, who have six wings apiece. Why do I need an opportunity attack when I can shift as an opportunity action and then cram 25-odd force & psychic damage into someone's cerebellum?


----------



## karolusb (Aug 15, 2010)

Thrael said:


> I want a single feat to use STR for determining hp (and thus healing surge values), number of extra healing surges as well as replace any CON modifier specific riders and feat benefits.
> 
> Don't like it? Yes that's how powerful the Battlemind is, using a better stat than STR as a primary. Just like in 3E the balance between DEX > INT is also skewed as is between WIS > CHA but the many skills (knowledge/social) remedy that somewhat. Not so with CON > STR.
> 
> Leave the stronger MBAs to STR... by a mere 3 (heroic) or 5 (epic) damage, with declining significance as one accumulates static bonuses to [W].





Everyone boo-hoo's for the poor forgotten strength stat.  Makes no sense to me.  Having played a 10 str paladin, I couldn't carry an adventurers kit, 8 str I couldn't have worn armor.  So perhaps we should take a step back from the most unrealistic arguments here.  

It takes a 17 str to get light blade mastery.  Higher for every other melee weapon.  Poelarm gamble, scimitar dance, hammer rhythm, Heavy blade oppurtunity.  All armor feats above leather. . .

Oh well those feats all suck anyway, never see a Charop character based entirely around any one of them, yeah str is far and away the least valuable Stat.  Since there is no way to raise initiative, healing surges or hit points by large amounts with feats, all optimized melee characters should have low str and high dex/con, clearly it's the only way to play the game (unless you nerf melee training of course).


----------



## Katsue (Aug 16, 2010)

Old Gumphrey said:


> OP, you're killing me. Mind Spike is GOD. It lives in heaven and is attended by seraphim, who have six wings apiece. Why do I need an opportunity attack when I can shift as an opportunity action and then cram 25-odd force & psychic damage into someone's cerebellum?



Because they can just charge your teammates if you don't have a good opportunity attack, and Mind Spike won't help a damn because they're no longer adjacent to you. This is why Blurred Step was errataed to be a free action.


----------



## Katsue (Aug 16, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Melee Training even post-nerf makes everyone competent in fast rolling melees.  If you want to be _outstanding_ then pick a close combat class.



A close combat class like the Paladin, the Rogue, the Avenger, the Bard, the Artificer, the Assassin, the Ardent, the Battlemind and the Monk?


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 16, 2010)

So...

....at heroic you lose 2 points of damage.  At best. 

At epic you lose 4 points of damage.  5 if you're absolutely minmaxxed.  Which you aren't if you're a build that requires melee basic attacks and Melee training to make work anyways.

So...

'Really lame' or 'heavy nerf' is 2-4 points of damage these days?

No.  A heavy nerf would be 4-8.

I mean... a battlemind....

Well his main punishment is mind spike, which has nothing to do with melee attacks.  So... melee training doesn't help that much.  And they have opportunity attacks that penalize their attack rolls or remove their chance at combat advantage.

Who takes Melee Training for a battlemind?  That's like saying that Two-Weapon Fighting is needed to make a ranger work, while eschewing Twin Strike.  

If you're concerned as a battlemind with taking opportunity attacks (a question that is individual to your group, its tactics, and the DM's general predelictions, and outside the scope of 'min-maxing' discussions) then you take the powers that make you good at it.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 16, 2010)

Katsue said:


> A close combat class like the Paladin, the Rogue, the Avenger, the Bard, the Artificer, the Assassin, the Ardent, the Battlemind and the Monk?




Paladins have a melee basic attack available as an at-will power, if you're not Strength inclined.

Rogues that care about opportunity attacks are Strength based... the other types tend to avoid remaining in melee for long enough for it to matter.

Avengers you have a point with, but they've other means to guarantee stickiness... and if they don't they're built to -encourage- escape so they can persue.

Bards, Ardents, and Artificers don't care about melee basic attacks.  They are the -source- of them for others.

Monks, unlike many strikers, can't benefit from striker damage outside their turn.  Flurry of Blows can't be used except during their turn, so they're not as likely to benefit.

If an Assassin missed with his attack, he's either already expended his shroud, or he's building it up.  Neither allow him to really utilize his striker damage off turn.

That leaves the Battlemind, which as pointed out above, has the ability to make opportunity attacks that don't involve MBA.

2 points of damage aren't exactly killing -any- of these classes.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 16, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Paladins have a melee basic attack available as an at-will power, if you're not Strength inclined.
> 
> Rogues that care about opportunity attacks are Strength based... the other types tend to avoid remaining in melee for long enough for it to matter.



No... rogues who care about opportunity attacks are strength based or take melee training. Outside of that, there's no particular reason why a strength-based rogue will get more OAs than the other types. In fact if anything, the strength version of the rogue is the more effective ranged combatant because he lacks the mobility of the other builds and gains a damage bonus that applies to his ranged attacks.


> Avengers you have a point with, but they've other means to guarantee stickiness... and if they don't they're built to -encourage- escape so they can persue.



And one of the big mobile attacks is the charge, which is an MBA. Without it you're relying on encounter powers to stop your foes from simply double-moving away.


> Bards, Ardents, and Artificers don't care about melee basic attacks.  They are the -source- of them for others.



Anyone in melee is going to make use of MBAs.


> Monks, unlike many strikers, can't benefit from striker damage outside their turn.  Flurry of Blows can't be used except during their turn, so they're not as likely to benefit.
> 
> If an Assassin missed with his attack, he's either already expended his shroud, or he's building it up.  Neither allow him to really utilize his striker damage off turn.



That's not really relevant: just because their striker mechanic doesn't function doesn't mean that they're not suffering by losing OAs, charges and granted attacks. It's not like they deal zero damage with a normal hit.


> That leaves the Battlemind, which as pointed out above, has the ability to make opportunity attacks that don't involve MBA.
> 
> 2 points of damage aren't exactly killing -any- of these classes.




It's not killing them, but I think the point is that they shouldn't even need to take the feat.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 16, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> It's not killing them, but I think the point is that they shouldn't even need to take the feat.




I just quoted your important part of the post.

All other (non melee characters) should not have a that easy way to make strength worthless, except for weapon feats...

melee combatants don´t have an equally easy way to get an at-will ranged attack.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 16, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> melee combatants don´t have an equally easy way to get an at-will ranged attack.




Yes ranged training ... wonder how common of house rule adding that is? Akin to Warlords heavy bow work and Sehanine perception and discipline based archery.


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Aug 16, 2010)

I feat should NEVER replace the need to spend your stat build points wisely.

Taking 1 feat to take a -1 or 0 bonus to hit and damage to a +4 or +5 is way to powerful.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 16, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Yes ranged training ... wonder how common of house rule adding that is? Akin to Warlords heavy bow work and Sehanine perception and discipline based archery.



I know we respectfully disagree here.

I believe multiclass feats should be used to get basic attacks that are based on different stats. I am just not sure if we need 10 multiclass feats, one for each stat, or maybe a more simplified approach.

-> Magical ranged attack, aka eldritch missile, prereq int 13, con, int or cha vs ref, you count as wizard or sorcerer or warlock
-> Mundane ranged training, aka ranged training, req dex 13, any physical or wisdom vs AC, you count as ranger or monk or rogue

something like that.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 16, 2010)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> I feat should NEVER replace the need to spend your stat build points wisely.
> 
> Taking 1 feat to take a -1 or 0 bonus to hit and damage to a +4 or +5 is way to powerful.




It's about as powerful as being a Strength based character such as a barbarian, and they're not forced to spend extra points on intelligence to have a good basic attack. An Avenger who wants primarily wisdom and intelligence or dexterity, and a little bit of Con since he will be in melee a lot, has no use (or points left over) for strength. Why is it too powerful for him to have a basic attack as good as a barbarian? They both play similar roles, barbarian just happens to have a strength stat as primary.

Basic attack is about the worst attack a character has anyway. That's why it's basic. Your encounter powers, daily powers, and at-will powers will all be better than this. It just gives you a competent attack in certain situations. Why is this too powerful?

As an avenger player with melee training, I'm unhappy with the change. I lose 3 points of damage, and that might not seem like a lot, but it's 20% of my damage on a hit, considering how often I end up having to charge to get to a target, and how often I get granted basic attacks, it's a pretty hefty penalty, and makes strength based strikers such as barbarian or ranger simply more desirable.

It was a tool that allowed non-strength based characters to jump over a hurdle they shouldn't have had to overcome to begin with. Now it's a half-baked tool that leaves me dissatisfied.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 16, 2010)

Because strength gives you about nothing else in heroic...


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 17, 2010)

Mengu said:


> It's about as powerful as being a Strength based character such as a barbarian, and they're not forced to spend extra points on intelligence to have a good basic attack. An Avenger who wants primarily wisdom and intelligence or dexterity, and a little bit of Con since he will be in melee a lot, has no use (or points left over) for strength. Why is it too powerful for him to have a basic attack as good as a barbarian? They both play similar roles, barbarian just happens to have a strength stat as primary.
> 
> Basic attack is about the worst attack a character has anyway. That's why it's basic. Your encounter powers, daily powers, and at-will powers will all be better than this. It just gives you a competent attack in certain situations. Why is this too powerful?
> 
> ...




Avengers charge their targets in a game that has Bond of Censure as an available at-will?

I'm having a lot of trouble believing that an Avenger is constantly in positions where enemies are universially 8 squares apart necessitating the Avenger to charge every target they want... and that said avenger hasn't retrained into powers that are better for his situation.

If avengers are having trouble with the closing and doing damage part of their class, Melee Training is NOT the problem... avengers are one class that should -never- have troubles with the 'closing' parts of combat.

Or is this one of those 'I took all the items that benefit charging and am taking Avenger only for Oath of Emnity' builds, in which case, no, 3 damage isn't nerfing you as much as you claim, and no, you really should have gone with a class that benefits charging more, like Acrobatic rogue, a barbarian, or marauding ranger.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 17, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> No... rogues who care about opportunity attacks are strength based or take melee training. Outside of that, there's no particular reason why a strength-based rogue will get more OAs than the other types. In fact if anything, the strength version of the rogue is the more effective ranged combatant because he lacks the mobility of the other builds and gains a damage bonus that applies to his ranged attacks.




Cause the other builds can get combat advantage at range, the strength based ones can't.  Thusly, the strength based ones have to resort to flanking more often, putting them in melee, compared to other builds that have more mobility and ability to capitalize on it.



> And one of the big mobile attacks is the charge, which is an MBA. Without it you're relying on encounter powers to stop your foes from simply double-moving away.




OAs don't stop anyone from moving away.  They penalize a move that is already happening.  If an OA has stopped movement, you never took the OA, which means the power is still available.  And in the case of the battlemind, you're actually -defending- when you use that OA on them, because they're now less likely to be able to accomplish whatever it is they did.

Compare:  Melee Basic Attack, or Attack that makes them unable to hit your friend.

And, the battlemind can use that twice per encounter until level 3... the enemy isn't likely to make the same mistake twice.

And 'double move' isn't compelling enough of a reason to take a feat.  Even as a defender.  Position better, brah.



> Anyone in melee is going to make use of MBAs.




But do they make enough use of them that Melee Training's nerf is going to -signifigantly- affect them?



> That's not really relevant: just because their striker mechanic doesn't function doesn't mean that they're not suffering by losing OAs, charges and granted attacks. It's not like they deal zero damage with a normal hit.




It's very relevant.  It means that, as it stands, they're the -least- likely to -recieve- granted attacks, because it doesn't do as much damage.  Melee training doesn't change that scenario over much.

Honestly, you give your granted attacks to a monk and not, say, a fighter?  Really?  REALLY?  So, the effect of Melee Training in the monk and/or assassin's case is... to benefit charges... is +1 to hit really better than what they have in their powers?  Really?  



> It's not killing them, but I think the point is that they shouldn't even need to take the feat.




Meh. So far it seems the only two compelling reasons there are for Melee Training is 'OAs' and 'Bad Decisions.'

I'll agree with the first for defenders.  The second... that's a problem beyond the scope of this or any game.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 17, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Because strength gives you about nothing else in heroic...




Athletics seems like a rather useful skill to me ;p


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 17, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Cause the other builds can get combat advantage at range, the strength based ones can't.  Thusly, the strength based ones have to resort to flanking more often, putting them in melee, compared to other builds that have more mobility and ability to capitalize on it.



The strength based builds have no issues getting CA at range. I don't understand why you think they do. Their toolbox for gaining CA is pretty much identical with the exception of the int-based build's super-stealth.


> OAs don't stop anyone from moving away.  They penalize a move that is already happening.  If an OA has stopped movement, you never took the OA, which means the power is still available.  And in the case of the battlemind, you're actually -defending- when you use that OA on them, because they're now less likely to be able to accomplish whatever it is they did.



I really don't know where you're going here.

Avenger stands next to foe. Foe double moves away. Avenger gains OA (which sucks because his MBA sucks), moves, then charges (which also sucks, because his MBA sucks).


> And 'double move' isn't compelling enough of a reason to take a feat.  Even as a defender.  Position better, brah.



l2adhominem!


> But do they make enough use of them that Melee Training's nerf is going to -signifigantly- affect them?



The nerf? Well, some parties are going to lose a not-insignificant amount of damage, but it's not the nerf that's an issue in my mind: it's that the nerf is being developed to counter a feat developed to counter an issue with roughly half the melee classes.


> It's very relevant.  It means that, as it stands, they're the -least- likely to -recieve- granted attacks, because it doesn't do as much damage.  Melee training doesn't change that scenario over much.
> 
> Honestly, you give your granted attacks to a monk and not, say, a fighter?  Really?  REALLY?  So, the effect of Melee Training in the monk and/or assassin's case is... to benefit charges... is +1 to hit really better than what they have in their powers?  Really?



Doesn't do as much damage as what? As of right now, most strikers aren't able to get their damage boosts on granted basic attacks. If it weren't for the fact that any melee class with strength is automatically better with granted attacks than any melee class without it, then it would be a roughly even field. Right now: give it to the guy with strength, regardless of his role or weapon.

The effect of melee training for a monk or assassin is:
1. OAs. They do matter. If your foes know your OA is unlikely to hit, and will do rubbish damage even if it does, then they are much more likely to move away from you.
2. Charges. An at-will that basically says "move your speed and attack with +1 to hit" is pretty good when you get it for free. Missing out on it will make a difference (for starters, reference what I said about foes being able to simply double move away from you with little risk)
3. Granted attacks. The striker role is supposed to be about dealing damage. So why is the fighter the prime choice for granted attacks over every other class in the game?


> Meh. So far it seems the only two compelling reasons there are for Melee Training is 'OAs' and 'Bad Decisions.'
> 
> I'll agree with the first for defenders.  The second... that's a problem beyond the scope of this or any game.



If you think that OAs, maneuverability and the ability to have your powers work when you choose a warlord are minor issues, then please, feel free to leave this discussion. It's obvious that you believe that the impact of melee training is slight, and that if anything it's a terrible feat for anyone to choose. In which case, why do you feel the need to argue that it needs to be worse/removed from the game?


----------



## Mengu (Aug 17, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Avengers charge their targets in a game that has Bond of Censure as an available at-will?
> 
> I'm having a lot of trouble believing that an Avenger is constantly in positions where enemies are universially 8 squares apart necessitating the Avenger to charge every target they want... and that said avenger hasn't retrained into powers that are better for his situation.
> 
> ...




Bond of Censure's damage is not exactly all that great, and I prefer the range of Radiant Vengeance for a ranged attack. And yes there are tons of situations where I end up having to charge, killed one target, and the next one is 6+ squares away? Have to charge. Also the extra movement can get me into a flank easier. You can get slowed, pushed, pulled, grabbed, stuck in terrain, etc. As a stubby legged unity avenger dwarf, yeah, I have to charge a lot. And no I don't have a charger build. And I'm usually more accurate against my oath target than others in the party, so granted attacks often come my way.

A good way for Avengers to get competitive damage is through tricks such as battle awareness, strike backs, rending weapon, and other melee basic attacks granted by feats, powers, and items. A Wilden avenger needs a good basic attack for his best racial power. A Minotaur Avenger needs a good basic attack to make decent use of Bloodied Ferocity. Avengers even have powers that let them make a basic attack, like Zealous Onslaught, Accept No Defeat, Warding Blade, Threatening Strike, which will all be pointless without a good basic attack. It is almost assumed the Avenger will pick up Melee Training.

Charging is by far not the only reason for melee training. And while I'm harping on the Avenger since that's one such class I play, number of other classes and builds suffer needlessly from poor basic attacks, or are pigeonholed into using limited at-will powers.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 17, 2010)

Ok, a class that relies on basic attacks with its powers should have a meaningful basic attack... and snce avengers have no secondary str, i can see the problem here...


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 17, 2010)

Mengu said:


> Bond of Censure's damage is not exactly all that great, and I prefer the range of Radiant Vengeance for a ranged attack. And yes there are tons of situations where I end up having to charge, killed one target, and the next one is 6+ squares away? Have to charge. Also the extra movement can get me into a flank easier. You can get slowed, pushed, pulled, grabbed, stuck in terrain, etc. As a stubby legged unity avenger dwarf, yeah, I have to charge a lot. And no I don't have a charger build. And I'm usually more accurate against my oath target than others in the party, so granted attacks often come my way.




Interesting.

Cause the Avenger class I know has things like Sequestering Winds, Inexorable Persuit, Blade Step, Enmity's Reach, Angelic Alacrity....

The only argument I can see for obsolutely needing to charge is if you're based around Inexorable Persuit, and so, yes, I could see that avenger charging often.  But, for the most part, if your Avenger has a problem with mobility and attacking, the problem is solvable without resorting to Melee Training.

Oath + free attacks tho... that's a reason to do so.



> A good way for Avengers to get competitive damage is through tricks such as battle awareness, strike backs, rending weapon, and other melee basic attacks granted by feats, powers, and items. A Wilden avenger needs a good basic attack for his best racial power. A Minotaur Avenger needs a good basic attack to make decent use of Bloodied Ferocity. Avengers even have powers that let them make a basic attack, like Zealous Onslaught, Accept No Defeat, Warding Blade, Threatening Strike, which will all be pointless without a good basic attack. It is almost assumed the Avenger will pick up Melee Training.
> 
> Charging is by far not the only reason for melee training. And while I'm harping on the Avenger since that's one such class I play, number of other classes and builds suffer needlessly from poor basic attacks, or are pigeonholed into using limited at-will powers.




This I can't argue with.  If you're making a character based around basic attacks, then yes, Melee training should come in handy, even at the -3 damage that it's dealing now.  But... for the most part, if you're not taking an MBA based build 'But I need mobility from charge' is a sad arguement for avengers, given a lot of their power list consists of 'Enemy comes here and I kill it' or 'I go to enemy and I kill it.'  They're -damn- mobile as it is.




Saeviomagy said:


> l2adhominem!




If you think a double-move is the counter to 'An avenger is attacking me' then you're not terribly familiar with the class.  Bond of Persuit?  That's your first and most basic answer.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 19, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I know we respectfully disagree here.
> 
> I believe multiclass feats should be used to get basic attacks that are based on different stats. I am just not sure if we need 10 multiclass feats, one for each stat, or maybe a more simplified approach.
> 
> ...




The attribute pre-req to minimize somebody playing the over focused traits route I like.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 19, 2010)

ppaladin123 said:


> These do help but at heroic tier you really don't have enough points to use this consistently (and at particularly low levels it means you have to sacrifice your "encounter" power(s) to make an opportunity attack).




The point is you don't need to do it constantly. If things are working as they should the Defender doesn't get to use his opportunity attack very often, the mere threat of it forces the enemy to attack him.

So if the Battlemind is working right, then he won't need to spend those points as the threat that he could, keeps his opponents attention on him.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 23, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Cause the Avenger class I know has things like Sequestering Winds, Inexorable Persuit, Blade Step, Enmity's Reach, Angelic Alacrity....



Amusingly enough, those first 3 (assuming sequestering winds is sequestering word) are encounter powers that do less damage than an OA and charge attack from someone with a good strength.


> If you think a double-move is the counter to 'An avenger is attacking me' then you're not terribly familiar with the class.  Bond of Persuit?  That's your first and most basic answer.



Yup, so either he sticks with a basic damage at-will, or he uses something else and you run off.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 23, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> Amusingly enough, those first 3 (assuming sequestering winds is sequestering word) are encounter powers that do less damage than an OA and charge attack from someone with a good strength.




Sequestering Word Guy: 13th level, Implement, Wisdom 22 = 2d8 + 6 = 8-24 range.
MBA Guy: 13th level, Mordenkrad, Strength 22 = 2d6 + 6 = 10-22 range.

Inexorable Pursuit Guy: 7th level, Mordenkrad, Wisdom 20 = 4d6 + 5 = 13-29 range.
MBA Guy: 7th level, Mordenkrad, Strength 20 = 2d6 + 5 = 9-17 range.

Blade Step Guy: 7th level, Mordenkrad, Wisdom 20 = 4d6 + 5 = 13-29 range.
MBA Guy: 7th level, Mordenkrad, Strength 20 = 2d6 + 5 = 9-17 range.

Of course, feats and conditional modifiers can have a big impact on these numbers, but raw numbers with the same weapons indicate that MBAs that deal 1[W] do not deal more damage than powers that deal 2[W].


----------



## pemerton (Aug 24, 2010)

The Little Raven, I think Saeviomagy was envisaging _two_ efective MBAs - one from the OA, one from the charge. So double your MBA numbers. Whereas the Avenger's OA won't be very effective, and so (according to Saeviomagy - I haven't actually done the maths) won't make up the difference.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Aug 24, 2010)

More than double it, since you can stack up things like Horned Helm to your every day damage, and you get the static number twice if you hit. And with some feats you can use at-wills on an OA...yeesh.


----------

