Why is/was melee training so bad?

[Garthanos]

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?

Take that slayer and make sure some of his boosts come from strength... or better invalidating what he gets now .... for instance change the phrase describing how he gets his dex boost to only affect strength based attacks.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Mêlée ---

FIFY. Feel better?

 

[scylis]

Take that slayer and make sure some of his boosts come from strength... or better invalidating what he gets now .... for instance change the phrase describing how he gets his dex boost to only affect strength based attacks.

The flavor of the Slayer makes me think some of the higher level class abilities might, in fact, be things keyed off of STR, but unless it's more damage, I doubt people will be bothered by getting a +2 or +3 bonus to whatever they may or may not be and leaving it at that.

As for the second part, while that would reinforce the "STR primary" motif, it would totally kill the idea of using the Slayer to make the ranged Fighter character. Unless they're going to make another separate build for that, that's not a pleasing idea to me (being able to point people at the Slayer when another "I wanna make a ranged Fighter, because Ranger is to treehugger-hippy-like to me" thread pops up pleases me). Other than that, there's something about the phrasing that... I don't know... makes me inclined not to like it. Can't place my finger on it, right now.

Otherwise decent conversation! Yay!

*makes the Elder Sign with hand in case the internets implode*

 

[Garthanos]

Other than that, there's something about the phrasing that... I don't know... makes me inclined not to like it. Can't place my finger on it, right now.

Otherwise decent conversation! Yay!

*makes the Elder Sign with hand in case the internets implode*

Change it to ranged or strength based and you get your archer, shrug.

*Great

 

[Garthanos]

FIFY. Feel better?

My keyboard doesn't like them characters. Hides em deep enough not worth hunting for. My French teacher would be annoyed with me, I can picture her face.

 

[Stalker0]

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

The warlord is actually one of the reasons I support better basic attacks. So many warlord powers grants basic attacks...but very few classes can make use of them without some kind of augment (like melee training).

I don't care that a rogue doesn't have a good OA, I do care that a warlord's powers are greatly weakened that the player chose a rogue instead of a fighter.

 

[Mengu]

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.

I'm not saying they don't have reliance on other stats. Just saying attack stat is one stat. That's it. Wisdom for Avengers, Charisma for Bards and Ardents, Con for Battleminds, Int for Artificers and Wizards. There is no reason for them not to have a basic attack (whether it be melee or range), based on this primary stat. It is their attack stat.

It's not a matter of nerd raging over a change. The issue I take is more fundamental than that. I don't even think the system design warrants that melee basic attacks always be based on Strength. It doesn't work well with the class design that keys of non-Strength based classes, and gives Strength based classes too much of an edge. Why does a Warlord rock with a fighter and ranger out of the box, but suck with a battlemind and avenger?

Either they should have designed all melee classes with Strength as a primary stat, or they need to give the non-Strength melee classes the necessary competency. Melee training was a feat fix. Now they half broke the fix. I simply hope there is some other fix in the pipeline.

Edit: And for what it's worth, I believe a similar problem exists with certain feat requirements such as the weapon mastery feats. Strength based classes win those feats. And any new class that doesn't have a use for those stats, loses out. Try getting heavy blade mastery or Spear Mastery with an Battlemind or a Bard. The system needs maintenance as new material expands into the design space, and I'm hoping Essentials will provide a lot of that maintenance.

 

[SteveC]

In my opinion it wasn't broken at all: it was one of the best design options that came out of 4E.

Now that the Essentials books have characters that don't use the power system in the same way, something had to change. I wish it would have been the Essential classes that were written in such a way as to make it unnecessary to make any changes to the existing rules. Alas, 'twas not to be...

 

[Ahrimon]

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...)

If they make the new melee paladin anything but strength it'll completely ruin the paladin for me. They've always been the holy warrior schtick to me. Not the the guy who wails on you with a sword using his mighty wisdom or personality.

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!

I've always had trouble conceptualizing any stats other than strength or dexterity for a weapon attack. A magic attack of some kind, sure. I just can't see a weapon attack.

 

[Noumenon]

When I saw this thread I was gonna complain because Melee Training was so good for my multi-classed Wizard/Rogue that I brought over from 3.5. But really, it's only two less damage and I still get the full bonus so I can hit and do sneak attack once in a while -- that's what sucked about being a wizard/rogue in 3.5.