Why is/was melee training so bad?

[Mengu]

I don't honestly see a problem with either of those things. Fighters are melee masters. Their basic attacks SHOULD be better than anyone else's. And if the warlord has a party of magical, ranged, or agile characters, yes, he SHOULDN'T be granting MBA's then.

Why is a Fighter or Barbarian more of a "melee master" than a Battlemind or an Avenger? These are all melee characters. And the monk who is supposedly the best trained class in unarmed combat, needs a feat to take a good opportunity attack? Or when the warlord says "you attack that guy!" the ranger knows exactly what to do, but the monk has to stop and say "sorry boss, I don't know how to do that outside my own turn"?

I just don't see a fluff explanation as to why all classes shouldn't have a competent melee or ranged basic attack feature, depending on their specialty, nor do I see a game mechanical or balance reason why this shouldn't be the case.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I just don't see a fluff explanation as to why all classes shouldn't have a competent melee or ranged basic attack feature, depending on their specialty, nor do I see a game mechanical or balance reason why this shouldn't be the case.

Well, it depends on your horse-cart order. If you have a problem with this, then no fluff will explain it away. If you don't have a real problem with this, then the fluff justifies it nicely (avengers and monks and battleminds rely more on insight and agility and forethought in their attacks, and so can't make spontaneously awesome attacks as well as a fighter or a barbarian, yes).

I just don't really see why it's so big of a deal, so the fluff can justify it well enough for me.

 

[CovertOps]

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).

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, it depends on your horse-cart order. If you have a problem with this, then no fluff will explain it away. If you don't have a real problem with this, then the fluff justifies it nicely (avengers and monks and battleminds rely more on insight and agility and forethought in their attacks, and so can't make spontaneously awesome attacks as well as a fighter or a barbarian, yes).

You can come up with fluff to explain any bad rule. But, that doesn't make it a good rule or one you should ignore.

Also, in this specific case, a lot of the fluff descriptions I've read in this thread were about melee. Read your text that Mengu quoted. Was it out of context? I don't think so. You said that fighters are melee masters. That's an incorrect fluff explanation as he pointed out.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You can come up with fluff to explain any bad rule. But, that doesn't make it a good rule or one you should ignore.

I do agree, but not every rule that has a fluff explanation is a bad rule. Dwarves being tough is story material, so they get a con bonus to reflect that.

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.

If melee-training as is makes characters with a high Strength better at swinging around giant hunks of metal, that's actually a positive, since it reflects the expected fluff.

Also, in this specific case, a lot of the fluff descriptions I've read in this thread were about melee. Read your text that Mengu quoted. Was it out of context? I don't think so. You said that fighters are melee masters. That's an incorrect fluff explanation as he pointed out.

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.

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.

In fact, I delight in it, because it creates interesting and evocative variation. Now, not everyone is an equal choice when it comes to the Warlord giving them an extra attack, or in a charge. Now, some characters are better than others in certain narrow situations. That's awesome.

I grok that some folks are outraged that this variation now exists, but that outrage still confuses me. It's like being outraged that characters with a high Constitution have more HP, or that characters with a high Intelligence are better at History checks.

 

[Garthanos]

I will repeat nerfing Gandalf when choosing his fighting style in the first place is already very non-optimal is just insult added to injury.

Strength isnt what it is cracked up to be.
I found it hilariously stupid that D&D pretended Strength was the only thing to affect hitting something with a sword (this was 30 years ago or so when I first seen it).

The basic element of martial arts and fencing (from big swords and armor to no weapon and fists) is moving your body in a balanced and agile fashion . Discipline contributes massively to trained ability with specific moves. You could supplant dexterity almost entirely for discipline.

speed(strength) + dex (agility) + wisdom (perception) +intelligence (timing + reflexes) + charisma (creativity and deception and spirit)

In fact if you try to force openings using more strength? than you have agility or wisdom... it can very much be used against you. And not just using some fancy eastern technique... you leave yourself open.

Five pounds pressure with a blunt weapon will kill you in half a dozen locations and 10 pounds in a dozen more.. strength is incredibly over rated .. exceptional strength .. exceptionally so. Perception can be a greater determiner of damage than force.

Different arts emphasize different styles.. and in a magical universe something like martial training for characters of some of these classes =really just means using the same techniques learned to aid and flavor there fighting to a quick and instinctive degree.

Fighting is not ugh me bash with big muscles .. that wisdom use by the phb fighter makes extraordinary sense it could go further.

To me as a human your best weapon is on your shoulders even in a fist fight.. the rewind to moron fighters pretends to make sense it doesnt unless you know very little about fighting.

Here is some fun I was thinking about
relates to using the attributes to reflect styles of martial art.

Generic Karate - based on Strength, generally this is speed and force.
Generic Judo - based on Dexterity, agility and flexibility
Kung Fu - based on Wisdom its all about perception and discipline and analysing other beings.
Bruce Lees Martial Art - based on Charisma its primarily fluid creativity, deception and raw spirited bursts.
Jackie Chans Martial Art* - based on Constitution, he wears out his enemies with extremely persistent rapid moves without a lot of force behind them actually, and even his attacks are mostly him defending in ways that bring out the futility of his enemies attacks, the environment sometimes does finishing shots for him or multiple enemies will hit each other.
Sherlock Holmes Martial Art* - based on Intelligence its all about quick thinking and predicting the enemies moves and understanding the patterns of interplay.

*fantastical I know.

Wisdom as in perception ought to always be atleast a potential basis/boost for opportunity attacks.
Charisma as in spirited bursts ought to always be a potential basis/boost for charge attacks.

Technically any style exploits multiple attributes or even all attributes. And even the effectiveness of the big bad strength ... can be limited by its users other attributes.

 

[Nichwee]

Gathanos I completely agree with you that martial combat can be done based on almost any stat in general. This is also why every class uses a primary stat to attack with their powers.

However the MBA is not that kind of attack. It is used for 3 things, mainly: OAs, charges, granted atacks.

The thing all three have in common is they are not "calculated, chosen moments of precision and finesse" they are unexpectted/enforced attempts to smack through the opponents defences.

I am a fencer (epee-specialty, which is basically a rapier for fencing) and I am quite good due to my fast reflexes (Dex) but I note how I have trouble with the equivalent of OAs/charges due to being Dex based.

Charging:
I know that fencers don't charge using dexterity. The fencing charge is all about rushing forward suddenly (a burst of speed = STR) and pushing through the opponent's parry (STR again). The lunge is all about reflexive speed and timing but it is not a charge as it is a close quarters maneuver.

OAs:
This is the idea of clipping someone who gives you an opening you didn't expect, normally by movement. Well I fence, as I said, but I also LARP. And so I get to take real-life OAs at times. And I am a lot worse at them then stright up fencing style moves. Because the sudden chance at an attack normally means I can only throw my body in the correct direction and swing, not do my normal picked-shots and delicate blade control. This is even true if my main opponent suddenly turns tail and runs as I will normally be set to recieve his/her attack and parry-riposte so a sudden disengage has me jolting forward and taking a swipe. This is not a high finesse maneuver, it is a brutish one.

Granted Attack:
Basically I see these as OAs triggered by someone shouting "His left arm is sagging, hit him." Thus all my opinions on OAs still stand for this.


I understand the idea of martial combat via different stats, I understand why the Melee Training change can be ammoying but tbh I don't see it as unreasonable given both the game balance and real-world examples. The new MT feat doesn't stop you hitting well either it just clips the damage a bit. If this is such a big deal buy the MBA only damage boost bracers (quite cheap) and the attack is back to on par with any other single target attack (that's to help out Gandalf).


Oh and one last thing. You keep mentioning Holmes as Int-based martial fighting. I assume you mean as from the recent movie?
There is no way his Int-based combat was MBAs. He sat and planned them before a single part of the combo occured and they were a string of moves - this is more like the monks movement-disciplines than MBAs. Whenever he was in a throwdown fight without time to pre-plan - he was in MBA territory - he was a lot worse and basically got splatted until he could find a chance to use a good technique - until he could stop reacting with MBAs and pick a precise shot (until his turn when he picks an INt-based power and uses it).

 

[Garthanos]

Gathanos I completely agree with you that martial combat can be done based on almost any stat in general. This is also why every class uses a primary stat to attack with their powers.

However the MBA is not that kind of attack. It is used for 3 things, mainly: OAs, charges, granted atacks.

Not any more basically the essentials guys changed all that

The thing all three have in common is they are not "calculated, chosen moments of precision and finesse" they are unexpectted/enforced attempts to smack through the opponents defences.

What about quick thinking (int) perception (wis) or divine inspiration(cha/wis)... for instance makes you think they couldnt or shouldnt exactly be appropriate for opportunity attacks...

In Kendo the spirit and sudden surprise (how you choose the timing) is exactly the most significant thing engaged in a charge (and what they criticize certain western arts for not engaging enough)... that said Kenjutsu I would normally consider a Strength based form... (so this may just be an enhancement of what is already a strong technique for it).

Note I think that any of us fencers are going to find opportunity attacks inferior... we are effectively not melee trained. Duels like Holmes was engaging indeed does not melee make either. The show is one of the few instances where int based fighting was nicely presented.

 

[Mengu]

The thing all three have in common is they are not "calculated, chosen moments of precision and finesse" they are unexpectted/enforced attempts to smack through the opponents defences.

I am a fencer (epee-specialty, which is basically a rapier for fencing) and I am quite good due to my fast reflexes (Dex) but I note how I have trouble with the equivalent of OAs/charges due to being Dex based.

So when my wizard tries to move away from a slow ogre brute with a club, verses an agile quickling with a dagger, I'm less likely to dodge the slow reflex ogre than the lightning reflex quickling because the ogre is stronger? Doesn't seem like something that would happen in the D&D world. But my real world experience is nil.

Whatever the fluff is, rules have to be designed in a balanced way. If a strength based melee class gains an uncalculated advantage over a non-strength based melee class, that's a problem. If class design somehow takes this into account, then I'd have less of an issue, but on paper, that does not seem to be the case.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I found it hilariously stupid that D&D pretended Strength was the only thing to affect hitting something with a sword (this was 30 years ago or so when I first seen it).

Hit points must cause you cackling fit for asylum!

Strength makes enough sense for your basic "hit them in the face" approach.

Other ability scores can certainly be used with specific powers.