Why is/was melee training so bad?

[Neonchameleon]

I do think that Rogue, Assassin, and Monk all need a MBA At Will. (Paladins have one, and Battleminds almost do - and Swordmages can use Intelligent Blademaster).

 

[keterys]

A lot of characters went from getting, say, +4 attack and +4 damage on their MBAs to +4 attack and +2 damage on their MBAs.

Not exactly a big deal. People are overreacting on both sides of the argument ("nerfed! the world is exploding!" and "it was always a problem!"), in terms of mechanics. Some people don't like melee training due to flavor issues, or felt that it overshadowed the benefit of being a strength primary (instead of almost any other stat primary), and they may or may not be happy, depending.

 

[Garthanos]

This may be true, but if you actually look at the people who are top fencers they're all rather strong. Fencing is also a fairly poor analog for what happens in a melee. I'm sure if you ask any expert in martial arts they will tell you that while strength alone is certainly not the be-all and end-all it very much is an important part of weapon use.

My martial arts relates to karate and kendo both which is very much a hard style..ie speed and strength sure as heck are useful but you know what the best way to find those unexpected openings that is perception... and one strong technique for getting openings that is deception and agility and perception and yet. Strength can sometimes be used to force openings but while somebody is doing that there strength can be literally used against them.

Strength as made the be all and end all by D&D the fact that "they" do not realize how unrealistic that is makes me laugh (I knew it was silly when I was 15). My kendo teacher was not reeling with huge muscles and pardon me I could mostly stomp the guy who did have them in class. (sure I am not weak either)

In some ways the other attributes allow you to demonstrate how differing styles use a differing emphasis.. sure strength is useful but emphasizing it is only one style of martial activity.

 

[Shroomy]

Its hard for me to get angry by this change as within a couple of months, each of the affected classes will likely either get a class specific feat like Intelligent Blademaster or a MBA at-will.

 

[twilsemail]

I'm not upset about the update. I'm confused about the sentiment I see behind about half the posts that have an "It's about time someone did something about melee training" tone to them.

I can understand that swinging a sword in the real world is about muscles. You won't see a generic bookworm swinging a buster sword around with proficiency. When that bookworm uses magic to propel that sword, he probably does it all the time, not just every now and again.

Intelligent Blademaster bothered me from the get-go. A Battlemind needing Melee Training to supplement his skill with a weapon bothers me. If they're updating the feat and changing the mechanics to supplement the melee classes, that's all well and good.

Heck, I'll probably just end up houseruling in another free feat to make room for flavor feats like "Linguistics."

Edit:

Its hard for me to get angry by this change as within a couple of months, each of the affected classes will likely either get a class specific feat like Intelligent Blademaster or a MBA at-will.

Really? What makes you say that?

 

[CovertOps]

On the idea of why a weapon wielder may suddenly "get crappy" when not their turn: Well a Rogue (for example) can do a cunning trick to rip out his/her opponent's spine when he/she tries to, but an OA or a granted MBA isn't something he/she plans, and finds the right moment for. It is a split-second opening that needs to be taken right then or the chance is lost. Thus the Rogue just "swings out" with his/her sword, using STR, instead of waiting for the "sweet shot", using DEX.
Basically if you don't assume Sly Flourish was a "Oh I want to hit you, best swing my knife" reaction but a "Ok I've been swinging and drawing out your parry for a few seconds and I think I can get you to overextend yourself and get under your guiard" effect then the idea of OA and "free action MBAs" being worse doesn't seem so odd. They take no game time (as they are free actions/interrupt other peoples turns) so they are more "swing and hope" than normal attacks. And the arguement that then II/IR's should be "crappy" too is avoided when you note that those are specific responses to specific triggers - i.e. the Rogue trained to have a trick up their sleeve in response to an event they felt certain would arise often - so no "How do I react to this momentary opening just presented. Just swing and hope" as they have practiced how to respond to that specific opening before.

This is a stretch at best. I'm a melee combatant "trained" to use _________ (fill in the blank with your choice of weapon). I suddenly forget all my "training" under certain circumstances and can't hit the side of a barn unless I get really lucky. At first level I might be able to go along with this position, but by level 30 you've lost another 20% to hit (assuming you're not bumping STR). This is a game mechanics flaw pure and simple.

 

[Shroomy]

Really? What makes you say that?

Most obvious needs, unless you're playing a feat-starved changeling that is , are quickly filled by Dragon articles (if not actual sourcebooks). I expect that changing something that affects existing classes and is an easy fix will results in some no brainer feats or MBA powers being quickly added to future Class Acts, Know Your Role, or Power Play articles (heck, they could errata a MBA rider into some already existing powers with the October update).

 

[Ardulac]

As others have mentioned, the nerf to this feat is only cutting the damage bonus from your highest non-strength stat bonus to half of that amount. It still gives the full bonus to hit, so it will cost most characters 2 (with an 18 at first level) to 5 (with a 30 at 28th level) damage. This isn't unreasonable since most of the classes that don't use strength as a primary stat are made to be less damaging or have other mechanics to help out their damage. In addition, rogues may still get their full dex to damage through the Weapon Finesse class feature that hasn't been revealed yet.

I like the fact that it gives melee classes some incentive to keep strength as a secondary if they want better damage (assuming you can choose to use your strength for damage if it is higher than 1/2 of the Melee Training stat) since 18 wis, 16 str with Melee Training would give +4 to hit and +3 damage instead of +4 to hit and +2 damage. This benefit would also scale nicely as a 28+ demigod would probably have 28 wis, 26 str and would be getting +9 to hit, +8 damage instead of +9 to hit, +4 damage.

Edit: Oh, and I think there is some misunderstanding between the posts on this subject. I don't think anyone is saying Melee Training should be eliminated completely. It just needed a slight nerf, and the one it received seems appropriate

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I hope it is stated as: use dex for your attack bonus and the higher of strength or half stat bonus to damage...otherwise a stonefist monk or a brutal scoundrel rogue could get into trouble...

otherwise: good fix! (even though other stats are useful and realistic, strength is stil the most important stat, if you just try to crush an opponents head with a club or something...)

 

[Infiniti2000]

Ardulac, why did it need a slight nerf? Because you think some incentive for MAD is necessary?

UngeheuerLich, why is it a good fix?

You guys are not answering twilsemail at all. Look at CovertOps' post if you are not understanding twilsemail's point.