Melee Training - Good or Bad?

[Fundin Strongarm]

I'm thinking Melee Training is almost as bad as the Weapon/Implement Expertise feat that many are finding either overpowered or such a no-brainer that it actually diminishes the real number of choices people have.

Prior to this, you had to balance (if you wanted) your Con and Str to keep your Fort defense high, your hit points/surges high and your basic melee attack high. Now, Str can be totally dumped for Con while your melee basic attack is instead based on your main attack stat.

Does this feat now become another no-brainer for non-Str builds on par with XX Expertise? Thoughts? (Sorry if some already brought this up somewhere.)

 

[DracoSuave]

I wouldn't say that it is.

It depends on your group make up. Without a character doling out MBAs, feats that make MBAs matter are pretty slim pickings, and there's only a handful of melee attackers that rely on non-strength:

Swordmages
Avengers
Rogues
Bards
Druids
Paladins (Cha-based)

1) Swordmages haven't had a problem with Intellegent Blademaster, it was never a -must have- feat for them. It was a good feat, tho, for Assault Swamis. Melee Training is -the same thing.-

2) Rogues get their best damage from Sneak Attack. Generally when someone is handing out the free attacks, they've already gotten their SA damage in, and thusly aren't the best candidate for the free attack. MBA is, without SA, suboptimal for them compared to most. Melee Training won't change that.

3) Bards are more likely handing out free attacks than taking attacks. However, Valor bards might find it -useful- for OAs. However, they might find their feat-use better spent on things that make them better leaders, or on their multiclassing if they're that sort of bard.

4) Druids have at-wills that count as MBAs. They will never need Melee Training. Never. And if they aren't in beast form, they're not on the front lines.

5) Paladins and Avengers. Now, here's where the usefulness comes in more. Charismadins will find this feat delicious, as it helps their role as defender, bolstering their OAs.

Avengers, on the other hand, are a great candidate for the free MBAs from Bards/Warlords/Etc. They have a tendancy to use two-handed weapons (they have a better AC without a shield than with) and if they are in Oath position, then Melee Training +Oath=the best of all candidates for free MBAs. And OAs come easily to them.

So: This feat's usefulness is directly proportional to the number of MBAs you get for free from OAs and other characters. Avengers will want it, Charismadins as well, and Swordmages who would have taken IB might likely take this, and other melee characters may or may not. It's hardly -must have- tho. Depends a lot on your group makeup.

That said, a warlord with commander's strike makes this feat -very- delicious if taking it makes you the heaviest hitting MBA.

 

[Goumindong]

It only makes sense if you think you're going to be making a lot of MBA's. I've a fighter whose taken it(Dwarf, 18 wis, 16 strength... why not? well, because it doesn't scale and the other options might be better) but i think that is the exception rather than the norm.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Its not a must have feat.
But it does take away one of the few things strength does (melee basic attacks, athletics, carrying capacity).
It also favors characters who purchase an 18 at level 1 over those who purchase only a 16.

 

[tiornys]

Its not a must have feat.
But it does take away one of the few things strength does (melee basic attacks, athletics, carrying capacity).
It also favors characters who purchase an 18 at level 1 over those who purchase only a 16.

You forgot some of the most important things that Strength does, namely qualify you for armor and shield based proficiency and specializations.

t~

edit: also, most Weapon Mastery feats.

 

[Runestar]

If it applied to all attacks, it would definitely be broken. Or maybe it should, to help reduce MAD.

As it is, you have an interesting scenario where your basic attacks use whatever stat you want, while your other encounter/dailies still use their key stat. In this case, which stat would you pump?

 

[jgsugden]

This is a very well balanced feat in my book. When you really look at it, it turns the basic attacks of creatures that have insignificant basic attacks into a balanced basic attack that has some utility.

I have a dwarven invoker of 4th level. He has this feat, as well as dwarven weapon training and a +1 craghammer. He spent two of his three feats to have a basic attack that does 1d10+8 damage. He has a strength of 10, and a wisdom of 20.

If he wasn't using the craghammer in melee, his ranged attack does 1d10+6 radiant or 1d10+9 radiant if there is a bloodied ally next to the target. The damage is pretty in line - especially when you consider I gave up 2 feats to be able to do it.

I consider this to pretty much be the situation where one is getting the most bang out of the feat. The odd thing that occurs here is that my invoker with a hammer that used two feats is now attacking enemies slightly better when using a baisc attack than a fighter of his level (as the fighter will focus on strength to suit his encounter/daily powers, and can't get a strength as high as the invoker's wisdom). If it were up to me, I might have made the feat say that you can use strength, consitution or dexterity in the place of strength in at-will attacks (including basic attacks). That would have shifted the utility a bit, making it far more useful for half-elves that want to get defender powers with dilettante.

Regardless: When has this dwarven invoker been using this attack?

#1: When it is more fun for a dwarf to whack something with a hammer than to hit a target with a spell. I enjoy playing this character as a bit rash, and smiting with a hammer is a bit more fun against a traditional racial enemy like an orc than smiting the orc with a beam of light.

#2: When the party's paladin (multiclassed to warlord) grants a melee attack. I give him one more suitable ally to provide a partner for hammer and anvil. Having that extra option makes it easier to use that power, and I think it is good to make powers useful. If a player has an encounter power that they have trouble using almosty every encounter, I think that is kind of boring.

#3: I occasionally use it as part of a charge to help set me up for better positioning to use a close power. This will be a more common tactic for me when I get to retrain my first level power to Astral Terror - I am looking forward to charging into the midst of enemies, dealiing a thwack with my hammer against a leader/elite, and then using an action point to drive those enemies out of position with Astral Terror.

In the end, I think this feat opens up a lot of doors to allow PCs to make additional types of balanced attacks. In my book, that is just a lot of fun.

And if you're still not convinced: In most situations, a character with a high strength, low constitution and the toughness feat is comporable to a character with a high constitution, low strength and this feat when you speak of basic attacks - but the high strength guy gets a bunch of other advantages.

 

[gribble]

As it is, you have an interesting scenario where your basic attacks use whatever stat you want, while your other encounter/dailies still use their key stat. In this case, which stat would you pump?

While I don't have a problem with this feat (DracoSuave did a very good job of outlining why - essentially for most classes Expertise is much better), the above isn't the reason why.

Because if you were going to take the feat, I don't see why you would ever take it for an ability score that isn't your primary...

 

[Doctor Proctor]

While I don't have a problem with this feat (DracoSuave did a very good job of outlining why - essentially for most classes Expertise is much better), the above isn't the reason why.

Because if you were going to take the feat, I don't see why you would ever take it for an ability score that isn't your primary...

Yeah, I thought that was understood by people. The point of this to make your MBA stat = primary attack stat (Except in the weird corner case of the 16 STR / 18 CON Dwarf above...but that's another issue). This way, you can give your Wizard (who pumps INT) the ability to make OA's using his INT mod, rather than STR.

 

[grickherder]

If he wasn't using the craghammer in melee, his ranged attack does 1d10+6 radiant or 1d10+9 radiant if there is a bloodied ally next to the target. The damage is pretty in line - especially when you consider I gave up 2 feats to be able to do it.

I think this pretty much sums it up. I don't think there are any classes that really gain a strong attack relative to their at-will powers by taking this feat. It's more and less useful depending on the class, but it's hardly game breaking. Sure didn't break the sword mage to be able to do it first.

One of the key design features of this edition of the game is "everyone gets to be awesome." And if the party gets too awesome, start increasing the encounter XP budget to match.