Academic curiousity Re Melee training and essentials

[Prestidigitalis]

I think the best answer would be to give every class a free at-will based on its primary ability that can be used as a melee basic attack. Then they could be given cool flavor. It would have to be relatively basic, and could not have requirements like weapon size, type or category, shield or no shield, one hand free, etc.

To balance things for the Strength-based classes which don't need it as much, give them one too but make it a little bit better. And yes, this will advantage classes like the Fighter that have more ways to take MBAs outside of their own turn, but after all, that's exactly what they did with the Knight.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A bard uses magic to enhance his sword blows... subtle magic but still. Or grace... which just does not work that good while charging...

 

[Ryujin]

I think that melee classes that need a better MBA would be better served by having one of their existing attacks be usable in place of a MBA. Bards would be a good example.

Others, like the ranged classes, need something like Melee Training. My last character, a Fey/Darklock, was passable in melee because of Melee Training: INT. At 20th level I was doing something like 2D8+2D6+14 when Curse was included, with +26 to hit.

 

[CovertOps]

A bard uses magic to enhance his sword blows... subtle magic but still. Or grace... which just does not work that good while charging...

So they forget how to use the magic when charging. Got it.

I'm with most of the other posters. Every class should have either a good MBA or a good RBA be it a class feature built in like the Thief that allows a different stat for MBA or a power like MM for the Wizard that has the special line saying it can be used as a RBA. I don't expect every class to have both, but if a class is primarily melee it should have an un-nerfed MBA (Avenger, Warpriest, Rogue, Monk, and others I'm looking at you). Casters should have an RBA. To be honest RBA isn't as important as MBA because RBA is only important with attack granting leaders such as Warlord, Ardent, or Bard. Being a genuine threat in melee requires a good OA which means you need a good MBA and melee builds that can't do this are pretty silly.

 

[DracoSuave]

Repeat after me:

Basic attacks are not that important.

The ONLY role that needs a strong opportunity attack is a defender. Some melee attackers (I'M LOOKING AT YOU AVENGER) don't care about OA power, because they're ok with enemies running away with them.

And classes that are meant to be good at charging generally have a lot more going for them than melee training to make charging worth while... they tend to have powers that are way better than MBAs that they stick on the end of charging.

So if you came to me and said that Paladins, Swordmages, or Battleminds need the availability of a decent opportunity attack, I would agree. That's their job. If you come to me claiming rogues, avengers, or monks need them, I'd say you're crazy, they're doing other things that boost their damage output, or in the case of Avengers, actively encourage enemies to try to escape.

 

[BobTheNob]

So if you came to me and said that Paladins, Swordmages, or Battleminds need the availability of a decent opportunity attack, I would agree. That's their job. If you come to me claiming rogues, avengers, or monks need them, I'd say you're crazy, they're doing other things that boost their damage output, or in the case of Avengers, actively encourage enemies to try to escape.

I do agree with the "defenders need it more" bit.

Let me explain the context under which I raised this thread. We have a warlord and rogue in our party. Quite a few times, it has come up that the warlord has granted attacks to the rogue (for sneak attack) and they miss because he has a basic attack. Now, my players in general arent the knowledge-banks of D&D info that there DM is, and they frequently cant grasp why the rogue keeps missing.

When I explain, I get confused looks, and when I further explain they can take Melee training, I get even more confused looks, because to them, the rogue is a melee fighter who, for some God-known reason, seems to forget how to fight occasionally. They dont get why that should be, and to be honest, neither do I.

Then I saw the essentials thief and thought to myself "BINGO", he wont suffer this rather odd situation. He doesnt have a strange circumstance under which he forgets how to fight sometimes.

I agree, this is only due to the warlord/rogue combo out party has, but I just find it (IMHO) to be a flaw in the system.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

When I explain, I get confused looks, and when I further explain they can take Melee training, I get even more confused looks, because to them, the rogue is a melee fighter who, for some God-known reason, seems to forget how to fight occasionally. They dont get why that should be, and to be honest, neither do I.

That sounds a bit strange to me. If they were truly that naive about the rules, I would expect them to be mistakenly using Dex for their MBAs, rather than using Str and wondering why they miss.

 

[Ryujin]

I do agree with the "defenders need it more" bit.

Let me explain the context under which I raised this thread. We have a warlord and rogue in our party. Quite a few times, it has come up that the warlord has granted attacks to the rogue (for sneak attack) and they miss because he has a basic attack. Now, my players in general arent the knowledge-banks of D&D info that there DM is, and they frequently cant grasp why the rogue keeps missing.

When I explain, I get confused looks, and when I further explain they can take Melee training, I get even more confused looks, because to them, the rogue is a melee fighter who, for some God-known reason, seems to forget how to fight occasionally. They dont get why that should be, and to be honest, neither do I.

Then I saw the essentials thief and thought to myself "BINGO", he wont suffer this rather odd situation. He doesnt have a strange circumstance under which he forgets how to fight sometimes.

I agree, this is only due to the warlord/rogue combo out party has, but I just find it (IMHO) to be a flaw in the system.

We have a similar problem, in our party, when my Bard gives our Avenger a basic attack. The only reason why he occasionally hits, is because of the double roll. Our Sorcerer has modestly better chances of hitting with a MBA, but pushing opponents closer to a ranged striker isn't something that I want to do.

 

[Shin Okada]

Not just defenders but strikers need better MBA and/or RBA. A class which meant to inflict enough damage can't do that when charging? A class meant to be a party's main damage source cannot be chosen by a leader (not just warlord, some other leaders have similar power, too) when the party want to make another painful attack?

I am having another problem. Yes, melee training was a kind of feat tax. But the feat was enabling all the melee combatants to have good MBA.

Now WotC has nerfed down Melee Training and some classes or builds do suffer, while others don't.

For example, I have 2 avenger PCs in games I am DMing and I myself playing an Avenger. Those 3 worships Erathis, Ioun, & Moradin. Now the worshiper of Erathis can just take Power of Skill feat to make Overwhelming Strike into MBA. Other 2 can't even have MBA with full damage.

I still think there should have bee several better ways to achieve the simple structures of Essential sub-classes without nerfing down Melee Training.

 

[twilsemail]

That sounds a bit strange to me. If they were truly that naive about the rules, I would expect them to be mistakenly using Dex for their MBAs, rather than using Str and wondering why they miss.

As my group has the same issue, I feel like I can shed some light on your confusion. We aren't confused about the mechanics. We're all well aware of them. There's just no good reason for them to be that way.

There's no good explanation, mechanically or fluffily, for a rogue sucking at attacking for 90% of the combat (pretty much any turn that isn't his). We all know how the rules work, we just don't think that this particular rule was written correctly (well, it was more an omission of a class feature than something written in).

I'm still hoping that all melee classes will get an update giving them competent melee attacks. Not holding my breath, just hoping.

Note: I'm by no means a hardcore simulationist. I like a lack of reality in my fantasy games. I just feel like this is in direct conflict with the actual concept of the rogue.

-Warlord creates a distraction for the Rogue.
-Rogue attempts to stab baddie in the back.
-Warlord realizes the Str Pallie with a fullblade in platemail would have been a better backstabber...
-Warlord's head explodes.