Why is/was melee training so bad?

[Infiniti2000]

Characters that are strong should probably be better at swinging around giant hunks of metal than characters who are not strong.

Characters who are strong are represented with Strength.

And yet that totally flies in the face of a lot of classes and concepts. While you have a reasonable point (after all, lots of previous editions followed your point), it doesn't mesh well at all in 4E.

I suppose it was too much for me to hope that I wouldn't get called out on specifics in a thread with folks for whom a few points of attack bonus is Serious Business.

Well, to be honest, if people (like me) feel kind of strongly about the mechanics side, those same people will scrutinize the efforts of others who try to be dismissive of the bad mechanics with fluff. If you think it's so easy to just ignore the bad rules, go ahead, but don't chime in about it without expecting to have your points challenged every step of the way.

Let me be clear: I don't mind the discrepancy of a few points of attack bonus between high Strength characters and everyone else in terms of MBA's.

It's a huge discrepancy. It equates to being blind and worse at higher levels. The avenger in our group has a 10 strength because he doesn't need it (on his turn). Melee training is a fix to a bad rule (that melee characters suck at a fundamental aspect of melee). It's essentially a feat tax and now you want to nerf that tax. It's a kick in the balls after a slap in the face.

This whole issue has nothing whatsover to do with history checks or hit points. You're making a bad analogy by comparing CON/hit points and STR/melee fighting. Your analogy would only hold true if classes had the ability to change out CON for another stat to determine hit points and healing surges (without a feat, just a standard class design). Classes DO do that for melee fighting (and ranged for that matter). "Okay, my new class X uses ability score XYZ for melee fighting...except for the basic, fundamental method of making melee attacks. WTF?"

 

[UngeheuerLich]

First let me start by saying it's been a long time since I played 3e, but to the best of my memory (other than the Rogue) there were no melee classes that were NOT Strength primary. Yes I know that Weapon Finesse only granted you DEX to hit, but that is strictly a 3e mechanic. In 4e this assumption is no longer true since all your classes' attacks are based on your primary stat (whatever that might be).

I think most that have a problem with this are of the mind that being good with a sword is binary. You're good or you're not. The idea that under some circumstances you use your "primary stat" and some other times you use STR (no matter if it is your primary, secondary, tertiary or even none of the above) instead just seems laughable. Mind you I'm not advocating that melee training needs to be "un-nerfed", but what I am suggesting is that a class that uses weapons as their primary attack form should have a class feature that allows them to use their "prime stat" in place of Strength for MBA's (and yes I'd include a class like the Monk as a "weapon using class" even though their attacks are implement based...the flavor is weapons). The only problem I can see with this is Hybrids.

I don't mind that casters aren't quite as good as melee combatants and if they did this I wouldn't mind if melee training went away completely (downside of being a caster - but some classes have ways around this - Sorcerous Blade Channeling I'm looking at you).

Most interestingly, the only (two) V-shaped class(es) that is (are) considered working well enough is (are) the cleric (and to a slightly lesser extend the ranger)

Why? because one stat is used solely for melee (strength) and one solely for ranged (wis or dex)
If they are going into melee, they have the perfect stat from a mechanical point of view. If they are ranged they don´t have to care.

Using a different stat could have been made working perfectly without changing he rules, by designing all melee classes around the idea, that strength is at least the secondary. (You can´t deny that strength helps swinging a heavy blade for a while Garthanos). With this in mind, base attacks are not more than 1 or 2 points behind except when you are making 20/x builds (your own fault)

A dex/str melee ranger or a wis/str melee cleric would have worked wel enough in PHB 1.
A different solution would have been a base attack like class feature for all melee classes that does a base attack with a neat class specific modification.
(A battlemind could have an attack, that does only [w] damage, but slows the enemy on a hit, a rogue could have a dex based attack, that only does [w] damage but grants combat advantage for the attack. Bards could have an attack that does only [w] damage but marks (annoys and taunts) the foe until the end of its turn...)

 

[Budalic]

Yeah, Melee training is good because fighter is most powerful class of 4E, but it isn't enough. Let Battlemind suck a bit more.
/sarcasm

(I wasn't serious about Battlemind, errataed Blurred Step is pretty cool.)

The question of Melee Training isn't a question of verisimilitude or realism. If you have problem with character not using strength for melee, you should complain about class powers. No, it is a question of game balance.

All defenders need to have good OAs. Hence, they need melee training or something similar. And when this errata gets published, Battlemind will be let hanging. I believe, however, that they'll probably get a new option, hopefully a class feature (and Swordmages could use a class feature like that, too).

So, to OP, it was because of Knight/Slayer/Thief.

P. S. Most non-Str non-defenders at char-op don't use melee training. It's a good feat for Monk or Rogue only if they have Warlord in the party; Avengers use Overwhelming strike + Power of Skill. Even Chaladin, a defender, has Virtuous strike at-will, though it's currently an auto-inclusion.

 

[twilsemail]

So, to OP, it was because of Knight/Slayer/Thief.

This doesn't really answer the OP.

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

You're answering what has become perceived to be the OP over the course of seven pages.

I have trouble believing that this long standing dislike for Melee Training was due to class builds that we'd only known about for days or weeks when this thread opened.

Melee classes should have competent melee attacks. Period. Screw the wizard. That's not who I was asking about as should be pretty obvious in the first post. Screw the feat. It was a crummy patch.

[cut snarky/unhelpful comments]

 

[Thrael]

I have trouble believing that this long standing dislike for Melee Training was due to class builds that we'd only known about for days or weeks when this thread opened.

You're right. This isn't due to Knights or Slayers. This is due to people trying to build off of one less attribute. They want to be as good as melee classes with STR primary. Those want to be better because they pay with an otherwise less useful primary attribute.

There's those who, in order to better optimize (and nothing else is whining over 2 or 3 damage while completely missing the benefit of skimping on one otherwise less useful attribute), go to lengths to rationalize how STR is not needed for melee attacks. They invent fluff to derive mechanical benefits from it.

STR has one skill, carrying capacity and MBAs going for it. CON has one skill, hps, healing surges, lots of feats, lots of riders (and is competing STR for Fortitude). WIS has five skills (most importantly, Perception and Insight). All the other attributes have 3+ skills, AC and/or initiative and see plenty of use as a secondary attribute.

How about you accept that STR makes attacks which were mostly unplanned (OAs, granted, free action attacks etc.) better? Just like I accept that there's no single feat to use WIS for everything CON grants. Even though, you know, it's my wisdom and forethought that makes my life quite a healthy one, not my body (the healthiest, longest living humans are neither bulging muscles nor stocky like dwarves - marathon runners, Asians etc. and they are all pretty reasonable... see determinants for health: Health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

So there's my fluff to replace CON with WIS. Come to think of it, perhaps Dwarves are so healthy for their WIS too and not their CON. Soon I'll build my character off a single very useful attribute...

Melee classes should have competent melee attacks. Period.

2-3 damage don't make you incompetent. However, not everyone is equal, and neither should they. There's other benefits your class has by using an attribute different than STR for melee. But if it bothers you so much then account for it! Put some into STR. Decisions should have consequences. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Mirtek]

If they are ranged they don´t have to care.

And yet Wis Clerics have a [W]+Wis melee basic attack at-will.

I am still hoping for tomorrows Power Play Divine to present an avenger at-will usable as MBA

 

[keterys]

Make a Githzerai monk with the right background and you can get hp and surge #s off your Wisdom

Get a Charisma character with the right background and ring, you Charisma can do that for you.

I'm all for making more basic attack powers. If I were helming 4e, I'd have actually given every class a 3rd at-will that was required to be a basic (but I wasn't)... but there should be _some_ incentive to be Strength-invested.

 

[keterys]

]I am still hoping for tomorrows Power Play Divine to present an avenger at-will usable as MBA

Power of Skill can help with that, fwiw.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And yet Wis Clerics have a [W]+Wis melee basic attack at-will.

I am still hoping for tomorrows Power Play Divine to present an avenger at-will usable as MBA

When did they get it? It was not in PHB 1... (after essentials it doesn´t realy matter... but they should not have it at the first place)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Make a Githzerai monk with the right background and you can get hp and surge #s off your Wisdom

Get a Charisma character with the right background and ring, you Charisma can do that for you.

I'm all for making more basic attack powers. If I were helming 4e, I'd have actually given every class a 3rd at-will that was required to be a basic (but I wasn't)... but there should be _some_ incentive to be Strength-invested.

weapon feats... but this is not too obvious...