Why is/was melee training so bad?

[Tony Vargas]

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?

Melee Training as a feat effectively delivered a very large attack and damage bonus. If your STR is 8 and your INT is 20, Melee Training gave you a +6 to hit and damage with your MBA. OK, it's only an MBA, but still, +6? No feat gives a +6 to hit. So that might be a reason to suspect something's wrong, but, it wasn't really as scary as it sounded. All it did was bring your MBA up even with your other powers. Effectively, it gave a non-STR builds access to OAs, Charging, and MBA-enhancing items (like bracers of mighty striking).

Now imagine if there were no OA or Charge Mechanic, but there was a feat that would let you charge. Wouldn't that be a pretty good feat? What about one that let you hit anyone that tried to move past you? Both?

For characters who dump STR, Charge and OA almost might as well not have existed and gaining those options, plus an effective attack that doesn't provoke in melee (if your regular ranged/area attacks all do) was probably worth more than one feat.

But that's not really it, either. Those are generally available options, so they're not as valuable as they would be if /on one/ got them without a feat.

The real impact of Melee Training was in the balance between STR builds and non-STR builds. Before Melee Training a low-STR or STR-dumping build could forget about charging or using an OA or getting a free attack from Commander's Strike. That was just part of not having a high STR, and the non-STR builds all had plenty of really good powers. The STR builds, OTOH, often were a little lacking in the Power department. Consider the STR paladin who lacked /any/ STR power at 9th level. Or, the STR Cleric, a build that's largely been consigned to the trash heap not just by optimizers, but by WotC.

I don't think Melee Training, alone, killed those builds - Fighters and Warlords remained viable - but I don't think it was good for them, because it made things available to everyone at the cost of one feat that formerly required the major undertaking of investing significantly in STR.


But, that's not why WotC finally (and gently) nerfed Melee Training. No, it was because Melee Training as it existed broke the Knight and Slayer. To maintain the 'backward' compatability of Essentials with 4e, therefor, 4e had to be changed.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Yes, and I'm sure the Essentials Paladin will have this problem fixed for him, as the rogue has weapon finesse as a class feature (I'll take a wager what that does...)

To be honest, I think the new assassin (in Heroes of Shadow) will be an MBA/Essentials rogue-type class, which only leaves the PHB psionic classes. Maybe a single "psionic-only" feat could fix that (like one that allows Wis for MBAs instead of Str?)

I really just don't want wizards, druids, or warlocks swinging a sword with thier MINDS as accurately as a fighter does with his BODY!

 

[Saeviomagy]

Essentially the issue is this:

A feat was giving the bulk of the benefit of investing points in strength. Feats are relatively inexpensive. Investing points in strength is significantly more expensive.

Now, if battleminds have problems being defenders because of bad OAs, then that's a seperate matter. OTOH, losing 2 to 5(at the absolute maximum for an epic demigod battlemind who started with 20 con) points of damage on OAs is NOT going to stop them doing their job.

 

[Mengu]

Essentially the issue is this:

A feat was giving the bulk of the benefit of investing points in strength. Feats are relatively inexpensive. Investing points in strength is significantly more expensive.

By design, most (I realize not all) classes are based on a single stat. You typically make your at-will, encounter, daily attacks based on that stat. Why does a basic attack need to be any different? I can understand the range vs melee distinction. As a class feature, if every melee character gets a melee basic attack they can use with their primary stat, and if every ranged character gets a ranged basic attack they can use with their primary stat, we are set. If they already have an at-will they can use as a basic attack, this is less necessary. Controllers should have this as a feature rather than choice of at-will, since variety is important to the role, and having to spend an at-will on a basic attack is detrimental.

[sblock=sample basic attack feature powers]
Cleric: Wis vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d6+Wis
Paladin: Cha vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Cha (they can pick Virtuous Strike, so not very necessary, but could be given some consideration, since it does take away an at-will, but of course giving this free weakens the at-will, bit of a tough design spot)
Rogue: Dex vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Dex
Wizard: pick one, Magic Missile or Int vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Int
Avenger: Wis vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Wis
Bard: pick one, Cha vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Cha or Cha vs Will, ranged 10, implement, 1d6+Cha
Druid: (they already get an acceptable version of this feature since they have a third at-will, though a ranged basic attack added to the at-will arsenal could be interesting)
Invoker: Wis vs Fort, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Wis.
Shaman: (they already get an acceptable version of this feature through opportunity attacks)
Sorcerer: (they already have multiple ways, and I don't actually care that it takes one of their at-wills)
Ardent: Cha vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Cha
Battlemind: Con vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Con
Monk: Dex vs Refl, melee touch, implement, 1d8+Dex
Psion: Int vs Will, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Int
Artificer: pick one, Int vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Int, or Int vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d6+Int
Assassin: pick one, Dex vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Dex or Dex vs Refl, ranged 10, implement, 1d8+Dex
Swordmage: Int vs AC, melee weapon, [W]+Int

If these basic attack features were added to the classes in question, the playing platform would be more uniform, and Strength classes wouldn't have the upper hand for simply being a strength primary class.
[/sblock]

 

[JohnSnow]

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.

I endorse your position and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[Saeviomagy]

By design, most (I realize not all) classes are based on a single stat.

No, they're not. I don't know of a single class that doesn't get terrible defenses by dumping everything but their prime attack stat. Every class loses hitpoints by having a low CON. Every class loses initiative modifier by having a low DEX.

Every class gets bad charge, opportunity and granted melee attacks by dumping STR.

Every class gets bad granted ranged attacks by dumping DEX.

Now, individual classes have things to compensate for this - classes with basic-attack at-wills, classes with feats to specifically overcome this as an issue.

The major issue comes from those gaping holes where a class obviously SHOULD have some sort of compensation but doesn't. It shouldn't (for instance) be a bad idea for a warlord to grant an attack to a striker over a defender. It shouldn't be a doddle to walk away from a battlemind.

But that should really come down to some specific fixes: strikers should be given "prime stat to granted attacks". Defenders should get "prime stat to OAs". All for free and on a class-by-class basis of course.

But I don't really think that we need to make (for example) charging melee wizards an easy choice. Perhaps possible with some feats, but not easy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Is there a big problem with basic attacks being slightly sub-optimal for some classes?

Oh noes, I'm at -2 to hit when I charge or the Warlord gives me a free attack. FML.

I mean, not that they can't fix it or whatever, but I don't see the spark that's igniting the nerdrage here.

 

[Garthanos]

But I don't really think that we need to make (for example) charging melee wizards an easy choice. Perhaps possible with some feats, but not easy.

You have a funny idea of easy if you think it is so right now... please explain further.

 

[Garthanos]

Is there a big problem with basic attacks being slightly sub-optimal for some classes?

Oh noes, I'm at -2 to hit when I charge or the Warlord gives me a free attack. FML.

I mean, not that they can't fix it or whatever, but I don't see the spark that's igniting the nerdrage here.

I dont know must be hate for retro crap causing back fixes/nerfing instead of being designed in ways that are actually compatible.

 

[scylis]

I dont know must be hate for retro crap causing back fixes/nerfing instead of being designed in ways that are actually compatible.

So how would you design a couple of builds that focus entirely on enhancing MBAs (or just BAs in general) what wouldn't run into problems with using Melee training for stat swapping?