To Mike Mearls: Melee training and the Battlemind

[Saeviomagy]

Cause the other builds can get combat advantage at range, the strength based ones can't. Thusly, the strength based ones have to resort to flanking more often, putting them in melee, compared to other builds that have more mobility and ability to capitalize on it.

The strength based builds have no issues getting CA at range. I don't understand why you think they do. Their toolbox for gaining CA is pretty much identical with the exception of the int-based build's super-stealth.

OAs don't stop anyone from moving away. They penalize a move that is already happening. If an OA has stopped movement, you never took the OA, which means the power is still available. And in the case of the battlemind, you're actually -defending- when you use that OA on them, because they're now less likely to be able to accomplish whatever it is they did.

I really don't know where you're going here.

Avenger stands next to foe. Foe double moves away. Avenger gains OA (which sucks because his MBA sucks), moves, then charges (which also sucks, because his MBA sucks).

And 'double move' isn't compelling enough of a reason to take a feat. Even as a defender. Position better, brah.

l2adhominem!

But do they make enough use of them that Melee Training's nerf is going to -signifigantly- affect them?

The nerf? Well, some parties are going to lose a not-insignificant amount of damage, but it's not the nerf that's an issue in my mind: it's that the nerf is being developed to counter a feat developed to counter an issue with roughly half the melee classes.

It's very relevant. It means that, as it stands, they're the -least- likely to -recieve- granted attacks, because it doesn't do as much damage. Melee training doesn't change that scenario over much.

Honestly, you give your granted attacks to a monk and not, say, a fighter? Really? REALLY? So, the effect of Melee Training in the monk and/or assassin's case is... to benefit charges... is +1 to hit really better than what they have in their powers? Really?

Doesn't do as much damage as what? As of right now, most strikers aren't able to get their damage boosts on granted basic attacks. If it weren't for the fact that any melee class with strength is automatically better with granted attacks than any melee class without it, then it would be a roughly even field. Right now: give it to the guy with strength, regardless of his role or weapon.

The effect of melee training for a monk or assassin is:
1. OAs. They do matter. If your foes know your OA is unlikely to hit, and will do rubbish damage even if it does, then they are much more likely to move away from you.
2. Charges. An at-will that basically says "move your speed and attack with +1 to hit" is pretty good when you get it for free. Missing out on it will make a difference (for starters, reference what I said about foes being able to simply double move away from you with little risk)
3. Granted attacks. The striker role is supposed to be about dealing damage. So why is the fighter the prime choice for granted attacks over every other class in the game?

Meh. So far it seems the only two compelling reasons there are for Melee Training is 'OAs' and 'Bad Decisions.'

I'll agree with the first for defenders. The second... that's a problem beyond the scope of this or any game.

If you think that OAs, maneuverability and the ability to have your powers work when you choose a warlord are minor issues, then please, feel free to leave this discussion. It's obvious that you believe that the impact of melee training is slight, and that if anything it's a terrible feat for anyone to choose. In which case, why do you feel the need to argue that it needs to be worse/removed from the game?

 

[Mengu]

Avengers charge their targets in a game that has Bond of Censure as an available at-will?

I'm having a lot of trouble believing that an Avenger is constantly in positions where enemies are universially 8 squares apart necessitating the Avenger to charge every target they want... and that said avenger hasn't retrained into powers that are better for his situation.

If avengers are having trouble with the closing and doing damage part of their class, Melee Training is NOT the problem... avengers are one class that should -never- have troubles with the 'closing' parts of combat.

Or is this one of those 'I took all the items that benefit charging and am taking Avenger only for Oath of Emnity' builds, in which case, no, 3 damage isn't nerfing you as much as you claim, and no, you really should have gone with a class that benefits charging more, like Acrobatic rogue, a barbarian, or marauding ranger.

Bond of Censure's damage is not exactly all that great, and I prefer the range of Radiant Vengeance for a ranged attack. And yes there are tons of situations where I end up having to charge, killed one target, and the next one is 6+ squares away? Have to charge. Also the extra movement can get me into a flank easier. You can get slowed, pushed, pulled, grabbed, stuck in terrain, etc. As a stubby legged unity avenger dwarf, yeah, I have to charge a lot. And no I don't have a charger build. And I'm usually more accurate against my oath target than others in the party, so granted attacks often come my way.

A good way for Avengers to get competitive damage is through tricks such as battle awareness, strike backs, rending weapon, and other melee basic attacks granted by feats, powers, and items. A Wilden avenger needs a good basic attack for his best racial power. A Minotaur Avenger needs a good basic attack to make decent use of Bloodied Ferocity. Avengers even have powers that let them make a basic attack, like Zealous Onslaught, Accept No Defeat, Warding Blade, Threatening Strike, which will all be pointless without a good basic attack. It is almost assumed the Avenger will pick up Melee Training.

Charging is by far not the only reason for melee training. And while I'm harping on the Avenger since that's one such class I play, number of other classes and builds suffer needlessly from poor basic attacks, or are pigeonholed into using limited at-will powers.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok, a class that relies on basic attacks with its powers should have a meaningful basic attack... and snce avengers have no secondary str, i can see the problem here...

 

[DracoSuave]

Bond of Censure's damage is not exactly all that great, and I prefer the range of Radiant Vengeance for a ranged attack. And yes there are tons of situations where I end up having to charge, killed one target, and the next one is 6+ squares away? Have to charge. Also the extra movement can get me into a flank easier. You can get slowed, pushed, pulled, grabbed, stuck in terrain, etc. As a stubby legged unity avenger dwarf, yeah, I have to charge a lot. And no I don't have a charger build. And I'm usually more accurate against my oath target than others in the party, so granted attacks often come my way.

Interesting.

Cause the Avenger class I know has things like Sequestering Winds, Inexorable Persuit, Blade Step, Enmity's Reach, Angelic Alacrity....

The only argument I can see for obsolutely needing to charge is if you're based around Inexorable Persuit, and so, yes, I could see that avenger charging often. But, for the most part, if your Avenger has a problem with mobility and attacking, the problem is solvable without resorting to Melee Training.

Oath + free attacks tho... that's a reason to do so.

A good way for Avengers to get competitive damage is through tricks such as battle awareness, strike backs, rending weapon, and other melee basic attacks granted by feats, powers, and items. A Wilden avenger needs a good basic attack for his best racial power. A Minotaur Avenger needs a good basic attack to make decent use of Bloodied Ferocity. Avengers even have powers that let them make a basic attack, like Zealous Onslaught, Accept No Defeat, Warding Blade, Threatening Strike, which will all be pointless without a good basic attack. It is almost assumed the Avenger will pick up Melee Training.

Charging is by far not the only reason for melee training. And while I'm harping on the Avenger since that's one such class I play, number of other classes and builds suffer needlessly from poor basic attacks, or are pigeonholed into using limited at-will powers.

This I can't argue with. If you're making a character based around basic attacks, then yes, Melee training should come in handy, even at the -3 damage that it's dealing now. But... for the most part, if you're not taking an MBA based build 'But I need mobility from charge' is a sad arguement for avengers, given a lot of their power list consists of 'Enemy comes here and I kill it' or 'I go to enemy and I kill it.' They're -damn- mobile as it is.

l2adhominem!

If you think a double-move is the counter to 'An avenger is attacking me' then you're not terribly familiar with the class. Bond of Persuit? That's your first and most basic answer.

 

[Garthanos]

I know we respectfully disagree here.

I believe multiclass feats should be used to get basic attacks that are based on different stats. I am just not sure if we need 10 multiclass feats, one for each stat, or maybe a more simplified approach.

-> Magical ranged attack, aka eldritch missile, prereq int 13, con, int or cha vs ref, you count as wizard or sorcerer or warlock
-> Mundane ranged training, aka ranged training, req dex 13, any physical or wisdom vs AC, you count as ranger or monk or rogue

something like that.

The attribute pre-req to minimize somebody playing the over focused traits route I like.

 

[Bagpuss]

These do help but at heroic tier you really don't have enough points to use this consistently (and at particularly low levels it means you have to sacrifice your "encounter" power(s) to make an opportunity attack).

The point is you don't need to do it constantly. If things are working as they should the Defender doesn't get to use his opportunity attack very often, the mere threat of it forces the enemy to attack him.

So if the Battlemind is working right, then he won't need to spend those points as the threat that he could, keeps his opponents attention on him.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Cause the Avenger class I know has things like Sequestering Winds, Inexorable Persuit, Blade Step, Enmity's Reach, Angelic Alacrity....

Amusingly enough, those first 3 (assuming sequestering winds is sequestering word) are encounter powers that do less damage than an OA and charge attack from someone with a good strength.

If you think a double-move is the counter to 'An avenger is attacking me' then you're not terribly familiar with the class. Bond of Persuit? That's your first and most basic answer.

Yup, so either he sticks with a basic damage at-will, or he uses something else and you run off.

 

[The Little Raven]

Amusingly enough, those first 3 (assuming sequestering winds is sequestering word) are encounter powers that do less damage than an OA and charge attack from someone with a good strength.

Sequestering Word Guy: 13th level, Implement, Wisdom 22 = 2d8 + 6 = 8-24 range.
MBA Guy: 13th level, Mordenkrad, Strength 22 = 2d6 + 6 = 10-22 range.

Inexorable Pursuit Guy: 7th level, Mordenkrad, Wisdom 20 = 4d6 + 5 = 13-29 range.
MBA Guy: 7th level, Mordenkrad, Strength 20 = 2d6 + 5 = 9-17 range.

Blade Step Guy: 7th level, Mordenkrad, Wisdom 20 = 4d6 + 5 = 13-29 range.
MBA Guy: 7th level, Mordenkrad, Strength 20 = 2d6 + 5 = 9-17 range.

Of course, feats and conditional modifiers can have a big impact on these numbers, but raw numbers with the same weapons indicate that MBAs that deal 1[W] do not deal more damage than powers that deal 2[W].

 

[pemerton]

The Little Raven, I think Saeviomagy was envisaging two efective MBAs - one from the OA, one from the charge. So double your MBA numbers. Whereas the Avenger's OA won't be very effective, and so (according to Saeviomagy - I haven't actually done the maths) won't make up the difference.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

More than double it, since you can stack up things like Horned Helm to your every day damage, and you get the static number twice if you hit. And with some feats you can use at-wills on an OA...yeesh.