Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BobTheNob" data-source="post: 5358882" data-attributes="member: 82425">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.</blockquote>

Verification