D&D 4E Melee Training Restored

At least if you use CBLoader/character builder.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<D20Rules game-system="D&D4E"> <RulesElement name="Melee Training" type="Feat" internal-id="ID_FMP_FEAT_1016" source="Player's Handbook 2" revision-date="7/09/2018">
<Flavor> Most warriors rely primarily on raw strength to deliver melee attacks. You have developed or studied a fighting technique that draws strongly on a different ability. </Flavor>
<specific name="Tier"> Heroic </specific>
<specific name="Short Description"> Change ability used for weapon MBAs </specific>
<specific name="Special" />
<specific name="type" />
<specific name="Associated Power Info" />
<specific name="Associated Powers" />
<specific name="Container"> Melee Training </specific>
Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can use the chosen ability instead of Strength for the attack roll and damage modifier.
</RulesElement>
</D20Rules>

Presumes exclusion of certain essentials classes

I didn't think the half damage bonus from the alternate stat was all that bad.

Actually, I didn't much care for melee training. Prior to it (and Intelligent Blademaster), STR builds, like the Fighter, Warlord, STR Cleric, STR Paladin, and TWF Ranger, actually had a meaningful advantage in melee combat, even (especially) at higher levels, because their MBA's were very solid, while everyone else's would be at least a little lacking, and slowly fall behind from there, so charges & OAs would be more effective for the traditional melee types.

Heck, just attack roll, but still use STR mod for damage (like 3.5 finesse), would've been OK, but still a tad annoying.

And, yes, certain e-classes would get silly with the original melee training, DEX-based Slayers would go nuts, for instance.

Tony Vargas said:

I didn't think the half damage bonus from the alternate stat was all that bad.

Click to expand...

Certain very melee designs were gorked by the change... insert Avengers here.

Also you are spending a feat to have a decent melee basic it doesnt need to be half assed if you are spending a resource on it there is something else you are not spending it on.

Garthanos said:

Also you are spending a feat to have a decent melee basic it doesnt need to be half assed if you are spending a resource on it there is something else you are not spending it on.

Click to expand...

Prior to Melee Training, there was this definite gap between STR-primary melee types and everyone else when it came to MBAs (particularly AoOs). Some classes offered alternate-stat at-wills that counted as MBAs, either blanket, or for specific uses, so those powers also had some of their vaule tied up in being better than everyone else's MBAs....

A feat single feat to narrow that gap, maybe, but to eliminate it, a little too cheap, and takes away the interest of STR-primary & useable-as-MBA powers

To me the change was a Mearles had to change it because of essentials crappy design and little more.

And the way I see it pretty much the primary ones who wants wants to be in the situation where making good basic melee attacks are more important than doing other class feature enhancement are those with solid ability to be in melee already. .. ie their class is already pretty geared for it and having a feat to take the next step is fine, or perhaps they spent huge amounts of resources to get there.

Garthanos said:

To me the change was a Mearles had to change it because of essentials crappy design and little more.

Click to expand...

The move to fighters, say, making MBAs all the time looked like a direct response to the problems that old/returning players had grokking powers. You give a new player a 4e sheet, and they'll look at what they can do and pick something. You give an old player a 4e sheet and - well, first of all, they ask for a fighter, expecting it to be simple & fammiliar, so they can ease into the new system - they look for their weapons, expecting there to be damage & other stats with the weapon that they'll add to their STR mods, etc... their eyes slide right over Tide of Iron &c.

So, Essentials sheets put your basic attack with your main weapon right on the front page in big type, and then tried to base everything off your MBA.

OK, yes, it was not a great design.

And the way I see it pretty much the primary ones who wants wants to be in the situation where making good basic melee attacks are more important than doing other class feature enhancement are those with solid ability to be in melee already. .. ie their class is already pretty geared for it and having a feat to take the next step is fine, or perhaps they spent huge amounts of resources to get there.

Click to expand...

My impression from the PH1 was that, yeah, there's some classes, like the rogue & CHA pally that can be perfectly great in melee, /and/ do some other cool stuff by dint of CHA or DEX being more useful in another pillar than STR, for instance, but the STR guys got the better MBAs, thus their OAs &c were solid.

When Melee Training gave that to basically everyone, the Fighter and already-kinda-hosed TWF Ranger, and STR Paladin didn't get a lot in compensation for the universalizing of one of their advantages. The STR Cleric eventually got the Mearls-special Battle Cleric power-up, though. ;|


Of course, there were a number of impressions I got early on that were later undermined. For instance, I noticed the 'math problem,' that PCs would fall behind the curve a bit at paragon & epic, ceteris parabus, but I figured all those dailies, items, and scaling leader powers would probably compensate for that quite nicely...
...then Expertise.

::shrug::

One argument I have seen for leaving the fighter inadequately skilled was that Athletics is very versatile...
so all the strength based characters get the most versatile skill ... till you look at what arcana does with rituals cough cough
so I am not impressed really.

I figure the class who is the "guardsman" ought to have perception on his base skill list and have 4 skills like everyone else did and similar things

Garthanos said:

I figure the class who is the "guardsman" ought to have perception on his base skill list and have 4 skills like everyone else did and similar things

Click to expand...

A perennial flaw of the fighter. Somehow, fighters missed the boat on skills, entirely. The early-D&D fighter was a proto-nobleman, a 'barronette' in some versions, a Lord at 9th level, in any case. Traditionally (actual tradition, not D&D perversity), an heroic noble knight or the like would be expected to be accomplished at many arts & graces, knowlegeable about history & the classics, a leader, a traveler, a politician, even a philosopher & scholar to a modest degree, etc...
...and also, in the 'blood will tell' way, /good at everything he turned his hand to/...
...IRL, few would have lived up to those expectations, of course, but it's not supposed to be RL.

Tony Vargas said:

A perennial flaw of the fighter. Somehow, fighters missed the boat on skills, entirely. The early-D&D fighter was a proto-nobleman, a 'barronette' in some versions, a Lord at 9th level, in any case. Traditionally (actual tradition, not D&D perversity), an heroic noble knight or the like would be expected to be accomplished at many arts & graces, knowlegeable about history & the classics, a leader, a traveler, a politician, even a philosopher & scholar to a modest degree, etc...
...and also, in the 'blood will tell' way, /good at everything he turned his hand to/...
...IRL, few would have lived up to those expectations, of course, but it's not supposed to be RL.

Click to expand...

While at minimum the Warlord made something coherent that never was before in D&D (did you watch that review I pointed out)
arguably in AD&D 2, at least in flavor and concept the 4e Fighter and Warlord were under one banner even if there wasnt much backing it.

Garthanos said:

While at minimum the Warlord made something coherent that never was before in D&D (did you watch that review I pointed out)
arguably in AD&D 2, at least in flavor and concept the 4e Fighter and Warlord were under one banner even if there wasnt much backing it.

Click to expand...

Not much for podcasts, prefer reading. ;P

But, yes the leadership (& tactical &c) part(s) went to the Warlord in 4e, while the fighter was further narrowed to just the more sort of knightly/warrior/champion defender-of-the-weak & related concepts, and the Ranger got the woodsy/spelunking/archery/TWF stuff.

I've said many times that you could roll everything the Fighter & Thief (latter, Rogue) ever got in every edtion together and not have an OP class (by 3.5 or 5e standards, anyway, we're talking still solidly Tier 3). You could add the warlord & non-casting ranger to that without breaking into Tier 2.