To Mike Mearls: Melee training and the Battlemind

[ppaladin123]

We are speaking about 2 points of damage in heroic tier. 2 points for some attacks. definitively not broken if it wasn´t broken before. Still better than the battlemind whi wasted its opportunity attack to follow his enemy.

Did i say we speak about just 2 points of damage? (Ok, 3 if your battlemind had constitution 20, but then he deserves this loss)

Yes I do violate marks. Battleminds should, like knights stay near those who he like to defend. Not defend from far away.

Fair enough, though if you have warlocks (who are always on the move) and other ranged fragile types, (e.g. archers who need to get close to their prey to get prime shot bonuses, and who are not usually focusing their wrath on your mark) it is hard to stick close to them. Also if they crowd around you, you put them at risk of getting pelted with blasts and bursts that you can't punish.

You are right that you can make the battlemind work and that it isn't going to become unplayable because of this change but that really wasn't my point. My point was that the battlemind is the one class that is affected by this and, of all the defenders, it is the one that has the fewest justifications for this weakness. Charisma Paladins get a good melee basic attack option without spending any feats and they don't even need to be sticky because they have a ranged autohit mark and good options for engaging at range if necessary. Swordmages have an even better ranged "set and forget" mark "punishment," and they still get their own feat that is not subject to this new penalty. It's just inconsistent and annoying (why should battleminds have to eat a damage penalty when no other defender does?) and easy to remedy.

 

[scylis]

I don't know if I like new melee training.

Having full attack roll bonus but only half damage bonus is .... too weak. MT was never be "must have" in my games but a useful one. I guess this update will change this feat into a useful one into a worthless one.

If they think giving good melee basic attack with one feat is too much, they should also update Power of Skill feat. That one is more powerful.

In one game I am attending, there is an avenger of Erathis who took Melee Training. In another game I am DMing, another avenger just took Power of Skill feat because she worship Ioun, who has skill domain.

I am afraid that this change encourages to choose deity just for having good domain feat, not for player's taste. This problem is not new, but not something should be made more significant.

You lose out on 2 or 3 points at first level which grows to a whopping 4 or 5 points max at the end of Epic.

Using LDB's Trailblazer as an example (because I got bored and made a level by level series of saved characters in the CB using his build guide for it and it's the only level 30 save file I have ATM), currently a MBA from him does 2d10+25. If the character required Melee Training for whatever reason, he'd now (or soon will) do 2d10+20.

So yes, it's less damage, but with everything you can throw onto your attacks that provides extra damage, it's nowhere near a make or break thing for the feat by any stretch of the imagination.

EDIT: I would like to note that I'm all for the Battlemind getting their own version of Intelligent Blademaster, though. There was no need before, since Melee Training took care of it pretty much equally well when they released PHB3

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can't pretend to be delighted by much of the stuff in the article. I'll accept that beefing up wizard encounters won't exactly break the game. It always seemed that wizards had good at-wills (though later controllers had even better) and particularly good dailies, but not so stunning encounters. And, really, any boost to a PH class at this point probably isn't out of line. It's like a COLA to compensate for power inflation.

Melee Training struck me as a bad idea from a game design and class balance standpoint. I'd have prefered to see it nixed or nerfed harder, but 1/2 damage is an adequate compromise. I suppose the decision was made that /everyone/ needed the option of being able to make meaningful MBAs, and this retains this, while reducing the potential for abuse by the Martial classes going forward. Probably only one of many adjustments that the change in aproach to the martial power source will require.

 

[Argyle King]

I like the new changes to melee training. As I said elsewhere, it gives some meaning back to having STR.

I understand the desire to have flexibility and be able to use different stats for different things, but I was starting to worry that 4E was quickly becoming akin to some of the later 3E products where it was possible to build a character who used one stat for virtually everything. Likewise, too many feats are starting to become 'must haves.' I'm glad we're moving away from 'must have' feats. Feats should be options; not needs or must haves. The new version of Melee Training is still a good investment without being so good that one of your feat slots becomes dedicated to automatically being filled with Melee Training.

I like class balance, but not every race and class need be equally good at everything. If you want to branch out a little from your own class's limitations, take a multiclass feat; that's why they are there. People complain about how much multiclassing sucks; no wonder it seems to when so many options seem to be available to either blur the lines between classes or give some sort of feat-based rules loophole to get around virtually every limitation.

In small doses, these things are ok, and I don't mind them, but -as I've said already- I don't want 4E to go down the same road 3E did. I'm sure people will disagree, but I feel that (generally speaking) having a stat or a skill or a class feature should be better than having a way to mimic having one of those things. The new version of Melee Training fits my mentality behind this, so I like it. It allows you to somewhat mimic having a better STR score (by letting you base your attacks on something else,) but without taking anything away from the value of actually having a better STR score (due to only getting to add half to damage.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

I would say that the best solution would be to give Battleminds an equivalent to Intelligent Blademaster. But given they are a defender with Con as their primary stat, they really don't need it. I actually like this change (despite seldom playing Str-primary characters and it's going to nerf my Monk).

 

[Kurtomatic]

I was also about to mention Intelligent Blademaster. To me, a class-specific feat is a better implementation of the exception-driven design pattern.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I was also about to mention Intelligent Blademaster. To me, a class-specific feat is a better implementation of the exception-driven design pattern.

Fine, but then does each individual class get it's own version of Intelligent Blademaster? If so, are they all slightly different? That could be interesting, though I can't really imagine how they would do it.

 

[Stalker0]

Fine, but then does each individual class get it's own version of Intelligent Blademaster? If so, are they all slightly different? That could be interesting, though I can't really imagine how they would do it.

With WOTC's new feat category system, you could create a category called Melee Training. In there, every class that is supposed to receive a melee training feat could be mentioned. From a CB standpoint, it would be very easy.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

We already have a category melee training!

 

[Kurtomatic]

Fine, but then does each individual class get it's own version of Intelligent Blademaster? If so, are they all slightly different? That could be interesting, though I can't really imagine how they would do it.

Good questions, which go right to the heart of these feats. Melee Training is clearly a shortcut to providing attack stat-shifting to all characters, so you don't have to write a slew of redundant, identical feats. However, as a result, this feat is lousy on flavor and subverts the flavor (and difficult choices) from other classes and feats.

There is a good argument that some classes should have access to stat-shifting, and defenders who rely on basic attacks for mark punishment clearly have a stake here. Hence the existence of Intelligent Blademaster for swordmages. However, giving every class a similar feat would lead you right back to Melee Training.

So I think the Melee Training nerf works pretty good. Assuming that Intelligent Blademaster remains unchanged (I cannot imagine this getting nerfed), you have a case where the specific class feat trumps the general access feat. Anyone can shift their basic melee stat, but with less benefit than a native STR character has, or a class-specific feat would provide.

From there you just need a small handful of Intelligent Blademaster analogs (perhaps 1 or 2?) for non-STR defenders. The OP is making the case that battleminds should be able to gain full-native MBA stat-shifting for the cost of a feat. The slightly gimped Melee Training becomes the general rule, and a small number of IB-clones become the exceptional rules.

If they could also make each of these few exceptional class feats somehow slightly unique, so much the better!