Academic curiousity Re Melee training and essentials

[BobTheNob]

Why do we have melee training? Well, (pre essentials) there were melee classes out there with really naf basic attacks (Rogues, ChrPallies), this filled the hole. It also allowed melee feasibility for other non melee classes.

Now essentials is here, and with its release they nerfed melee training a little (1/2 dam). Slayer was given as example of why.

A recent post had an example of a character where there was a marked difference because the Slayer went all dex (using melee training) with a Con secondary. But put all the "is it broken?" aside and consider class design in essentials.

What melee class has a deficient basic attack? None so far...they are either Str based, of have a feature to allow them to use the relevant stat in strengths place (i.e. they have "old school" melee training built it). Except maybe the druid, but even then you will likely be using animal attack instead of your basic anyway.

So, the essentials classes that need good basic attacks, have good basic attacks. So, lets hypothetically say that you were playing an "All Essentials" campaign...why would you need melee training feats at all?

I do stress, this is purely an academic point, but to me its like Melee training feats were there to fill a hole, but with essentials class design, that hole doesnt exist. So, if a DM stated that he didnt want melee training feats in his "All Essentials" campaign, would they be out of place?

"What about the non melee classes that still want to be able to swing?" you ask. Well, even then, wouldn't we be better served by class specific variants? For instance, "Intelligent Weapon master" for wizards.

 

[Klaus]

Why do we have melee training? Well, (pre essentials) there were melee classes out there with really naf basic attacks (Rogues, ChrPallies), this filled the hole. It also allowed melee feasibility for other non melee classes.

Now essentials is here, and with its release they nerfed melee training a little (1/2 dam). Slayer was given as example of why.

A recent post had an example of a character where there was a marked difference because the Slayer went all dex (using melee training) with a Con secondary. But put all the "is it broken?" aside and consider class design in essentials.

What melee class has a deficient basic attack? None so far...they are either Str based, of have a feature to allow them to use the relevant stat in strengths place (i.e. they have "old school" melee training built it). Except maybe the druid, but even then you will likely be using animal attack instead of your basic anyway.

So, the essentials classes that need good basic attacks, have good basic attacks. So, lets hypothetically say that you were playing an "All Essentials" campaign...why would you need melee training feats at all?

I do stress, this is purely an academic point, but to me its like Melee training feats were there to fill a hole, but with essentials class design, that hole doesnt exist. So, if a DM stated that he didnt want melee training feats in his "All Essentials" campaign, would they be out of place?

"What about the non melee classes that still want to be able to swing?" you ask. Well, even then, wouldn't we be better served by class specific variants? For instance, "Intelligent Weapon master" for wizards.

I'd take Melee Training (Int) and go eladrin slayer. When e-multiclassing gets reintroduced, it'd be a great class to multi with wizard, for that old-school fighter/magic-user feel.

I think Melee Training lets you create effective characters of all these basic-attack classes without being forced into a specific race. You can have an awesome tiefling knight, without needing a massive Strength.

 

[Shin Okada]

If "All Essentials" does mean "Essentials Only", yeah, I don't see much need in Melee Training feats.

If "All Essentials" does mean "All Essentials + All previous materials", then Melee Training is needed, or at least useful for some builds. Say, Avengers who does not worship gods of Skill domain, an Artificer who don't want to take Swordmage multiclass feat + Intelligent Blademaster, pre-Essentials Rogue, Monk and such.

And, regarding Melee Training nerfing, I still think nerfing this feat was not such a good idea. Instead, designers of Essentials line could make 1 each of at-will class feature attack power for Knight, Slayer & Thief.

They may be, say, like this,

Slayer's Attack Slayer Attack 1
At-Will Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier Damage.
Level 21: 2[W] + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier Damage.
Special: This power can be used as a melee basic attack.

And let all the class features and Powers such as Power Strike augment this class specific attack.

This approach has solved single-non-strength-stat-concentration problem better, while keeping essentials fighters and rogues simple enough. And with this approach there was no need for nerfing down

 

[Spatula]

What melee class has a deficient basic attack? None so far...they are either Str based, of have a feature to allow them to use the relevant stat in strengths place (i.e. they have "old school" melee training built it).

Does the essentials cleric use wisdom for its basic attack? I don't have the essentials books, but I thought the build was stuck using strength still.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

MBA and RBA themselves haven't changed, so yeah, if you make one you would use STR for an MBA or DEX for an RBA. If you mean the character's at-will basic attack power(s) then they generally use whatever the prime req is for that class.

 

[Mengu]

Fluff-wise, I still don't understand the concept of an adventurer who is trained to use a weapon, but can't make a basic attack to save his life. Avengers, Paladins, rogues, etc. certainly fight like they are well trained when using at-will attacks. But when the warlord shouts out, hey take another swing at that dude, the unfortunate adventurer fumbles and forgets their training. At epic level that swing might have essentially a -7 or -8 penalty, worse than swinging blindly.

I think all supposed melee classes should have basic attacks without having to invest in a resource. Yes the Avenger can pick up Power of Skill, the paladin has Virtuous Strike, the Rogue can make a strength build, but these all come at a cost.

Same thing actually goes for ranged basic attacks. Why shouldn't every wizard, invoker, sorcerer, psion, or implement bard have a ranged basic attack? It's no different than an archer ranger or crossbow rogue. They are after all trained in "magic".

As far as balance goes, I understand why they did what they did with melee training for the e-classes. But I really would like to see them revisit every class build, and make sure out of the box (with a feature or power), they can make a viable melee or ranged basic attack.

 

[BobTheNob]

Fluff-wise, I still don't understand the concept of an adventurer who is trained to use a weapon, but can't make a basic attack to save his life. Avengers, Paladins, rogues, etc. certainly fight like they are well trained when using at-will attacks. But when the warlord shouts out, hey take another swing at that dude, the unfortunate adventurer fumbles and forgets their training. At epic level that swing might have essentially a -7 or -8 penalty, worse than swinging blindly.

I think all supposed melee classes should have basic attacks without having to invest in a resource. Yes the Avenger can pick up Power of Skill, the paladin has Virtuous Strike, the Rogue can make a strength build, but these all come at a cost.

Same thing actually goes for ranged basic attacks. Why shouldn't every wizard, invoker, sorcerer, psion, or implement bard have a ranged basic attack? It's no different than an archer ranger or crossbow rogue. They are after all trained in "magic".

As far as balance goes, I understand why they did what they did with melee training for the e-classes. But I really would like to see them revisit every class build, and make sure out of the box (with a feature or power), they can make a viable melee or ranged basic attack.

Right there with you. Melee classes that dont already have viable basic attacks baffles me, and making those classes pay a feat to have a viable melee basic is, well, feat tax.

This is why I like what they have done with the essentials design. All classes that should have good basic attacks DO have good basic attacks. In a nutshell, the basic attack is built into each melee class (or sub-build) as a class feature, and there is no further need for (general) melee training feats what-so-ever.

Then, if as suggested you want a "melee" wizard or some such (however you achieve that), non-melee classes have class specific options, so a wizard has a feat for a melee basic on Int e.t.c.

 

[Mirtek]

All classes that should have good basic attacks DO have good basic attacks.

They don't. Even essentials has the warpriest as a melee class without a good basic attack.

 

[BobTheNob]

They don't. Even essentials has the warpriest as a melee class without a good basic attack.

Well, yes, there's the Warpriest. But apart from the warpriest...what have the romans ever done for us!

 

[corwyn77]

Which just goes to show that they still aren't concerned enough with consistency or balance even between different builds of the same class. One cleric gets an at-will as a BMA but one doesn't?

Personally, I give Melee training (the old pre-nerf one) to all weapon using classes (plus monk) that don't use strength primary for free.

in this regard the monk is one of the worst. Inexplicably, they get Unarmed Strike, allowing them a good 'weapon' for MBAs, then give one Monk build (the Dex one) a crappy MBA, not even a power substitute, without a feat which they nerfed.