Why is/was melee training so bad?

[Garthanos]

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

 

[Solvarn]

I'm glad my defender has Eldritch Strike.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

UngeheuerLich, why is it a good fix?

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

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

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

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

 

[Mengu]

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

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

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

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

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

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

 

[twilsemail]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

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

Can you support an argument against the other classes that use a different stat to swing a sword at someone's face?

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

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

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

 

[shamsael]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

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

 

[DracoSuave]

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

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

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

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

I don't see how this breaks versimilitude.