Why is/was melee training so bad?

[Mengu]

If they make the new melee paladin anything but strength it'll completely ruin the paladin for me. They've always been the holy warrior schtick to me. Not the the guy who wails on you with a sword using his mighty wisdom or personality.



I've always had trouble conceptualizing any stats other than strength or dexterity for a weapon attack. A magic attack of some kind, sure. I just can't see a weapon attack.

In that case Avengers, Swordmages, Battleminds, Ardents, Bards, Druids, and Artificers should all switch to Strength because they all have melee powers.

4e is full of abstractions in the name of variety and balance. It keeps things interesting. And a bit of imagination goes a long way in explaining away training. An artificer's sword may be driven by his cunning, his experience, and his analytical assessment of an opponent, while a dwarf avenger may be observing his opponent, using his insight to predict their movements, and strike just at the right time with precision. These are heroes, they can have 10 strength on a piece of paper, but really they are well trained, proficient and strong enough to wield their weapons. There is more to using a weapon than brute strength or agility. As many duels have been decided by sheer luck as those determined by the strength or experience of the duelists.

I look at it this way, a level 30 fighter can beat up a level 1 fighter with his bare fists, wearing no armor. So an Avenger is using his Wisdom like the high level fighter is using his levels, to give him an edge. It's an abstract system. What's most important is relative equality among same level PC's. If there are some melee classes that use strength as a primary stat, and others that don't, equality becomes hard to establish when basic attacks are based only on strength.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The warlord is actually one of the reasons I support better basic attacks. So many warlord powers grants basic attacks...but very few classes can make use of them without some kind of augment (like melee training).

I don't care that a rogue doesn't have a good OA, I do care that a warlord's powers are greatly weakened that the player chose a rogue instead of a fighter.

When the PH hit, there were 8 classes, with a total of 18 builds. Eight of those builds (the warlocks, wizards, devoted cleric and archer-ranger), were dedicated ranged builds, so shouldn't be candidates for Commander's Striker or anything along those lines (though, all but one could have solid RBAs for the few powers that granted those). Of the remaining 10 melee-capable builds, 8, the two warlord builds, two fighter builds, TWF ranger, STR Paladin, STR Cleric, and Brutal Rogue had solid MBAs. So, out of 18 PH builds, there were /two/ melee-apropriate builds, the CHA Paladin and Artful Dodger Rogue, that weren't good choices for Commander's Strike, and one dedicated ranged build that couldn't benefit from a granted RBA. ( Actually, with his +3 prof weapon, weapon talent, and probable combat advantage, even an early heroic level artful dodger wasn't a terrible choice, and, both Rogues /did/ have solid RBAs - which worked particularly well with the Warlord's "Surprise Attack" encounter, which granted CA.) Really, there was only one build that just plain didn't work with a Warlord granted attack, ever, and that was the Devoted Cleric.

So, no, the attack-granting Warlord was not particularly borked by lack of Melee Training in the PH. Melee Training was something of a boon to the Warlord in the sense that you were more likely to be able to walk into a party with an attack-granting warlord and have someone you could work with, without coordinating it ahead of time.

 

[Mirtek]

Any feat that is a main stay on the Charop boards and is a must take for the majority of the builds there needed to be nerfed for that reason alone.

So you're for nerfing Weapon Focus, Toughness, Superior Weapon Proficiency too?

Really, there was only one build that just plain didn't work with a Warlord granted attack, ever, and that was the Devoted Cleric.

Which now has an melee At-will usable as an MBA.

 

[scylis]

I'm not gonna comment on Toughness, but if even non-weapon users were taking Weapon Focus, I'd be inclined to say yes. Superior Weapon Proficiency is a bad example because the thing what may or may not be broken is what it grants access to, not the feat itself.

Personally, though, I think a better way to put it would be "feats which are rated gold consistently across the board should be looked at with an eye for getting the nerf bat". That might stir up an "Expertise hornet's nest", but they're a special case, so I'd probably add an addendum about leaving them out of the discussion for sanity's sake (the discussions that would spawn would be... well, I think we all know what they'd be like).

 

[twilsemail]

I'm not gonna comment on Toughness, but if even non-weapon users were taking Weapon Focus, I'd be inclined to say yes. Superior Weapon Proficiency is a bad example because the thing what may or may not be broken is what it grants access to, not the feat itself.

Well then. I don't see every Wizard build taking Melee training... or archer Rangers... or Psions...

Sometimes a feat is taken across the board because it's necessary to fill a concept or role, as opposed to "it's broke-tasetic." If you want to be a dude swinging a sword and your class is based on Wisdom... you should probably take Melee Training so that you're not taking a -10 to hit at the end of your career.

Combat is not everyone taking turns. It's unreasonable to think that everyone stands around except for that half second when it's their turn during those 6 seconds. Why does someome lose competence for the times that isn't represented by their dice rolls?

I hadn't intended for this to be a mechanics discussion. I'd inteded to discuss why it seems wrong that a character is basically a farmer with a warhammer for 85% of his career and a God among men on the battlefield the other 15%.



I'm ineloquent at the best of times on the internet. This conversation has veered far from what I'd intended, but that's the nature of the beast. If this is going to be par for the course...

Oh noes, I'm at -2 to hit when I charge or the Warlord gives me a free attack. FML.

I'll just let the thread ferment.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well then. I don't see every Wizard build taking Melee training... or archer Rangers... or Psions...

Sometimes a feat is taken across the board because it's necessary to fill a concept or role, as opposed to "it's broke-tasetic." If you want to be a dude swinging a sword and your class is based on Wisdom... you should probably take Melee Training so that you're not taking a -10 to hit at the end of your career.

Combat is not everyone taking turns. It's unreasonable to think that everyone stands around except for that half second when it's their turn during those 6 seconds. Why does someome lose competence for the times that isn't represented by their dice rolls?

I hadn't intended for this to be a mechanics discussion. I'd inteded to discuss why it seems wrong that a character is basically a farmer with a warhammer for 85% of his career and a God among men on the battlefield the other 15%.



I'm ineloquent at the best of times on the internet. This conversation has veered far from what I'd intended, but that's the nature of the beast. If this is going to be par for the course...



I'll just let the thread ferment.

Because introducing a feat to remedy a fundamental problem is a bad idea...

this is the simple answer. The god among the batlefield should not have to spend a feat to be no farmer 85% of the time.

Why should he train in melee if he already is good at melee?

For other characters, that usually are not in melee the new melee training is good enough. For dedicated melee characters, not so.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't care that a rogue doesn't have a good OA, I do care that a warlord's powers are greatly weakened that the player chose a rogue instead of a fighter.

Greatly weakened? Still seems like a whole extra attack that you otherwise wouldn't get.

The game isn't so precariously balanced that this slight variation ruins everyone's fun, is it? I don't even think I'd notice the difference in actual play.

 

[scylis]

Greatly weakened? Still seems like a whole extra attack that you otherwise wouldn't get.

The game isn't so precariously balanced that this slight variation ruins everyone's fun, is it? I don't even think I'd notice the difference in actual play.

Also, if they're true to their word, that Rogue is going to be able to get an additional Sneak Attack in with that hit. Average Sneak Attack damage more than makes up for damage lost to the Melee Training errata AND that attack will most likely target REF from a little into Paragon on.

...bazinga!

 

[Aegeri]

I am still puzzled as why 1/2 main stat suddenly cripples characters MBAs. The point with poor MBAs was that you wouldn't hit the broad side of a barn with them if you didn't have strength primary. That is what made them ineffective and the damage was irrelevant in this.

Not being able to hit the enemy in the first place is what prompted them to ignore you.

Edit: This doesn't change the validity of the argument that any melee class should have an at-will or similar power that lets them make an MBA anyway. The actual change is insignificant in the long run, because a couple of points of damage is ultimately irrelevant so long as it still enables you to hit the enemy in the first place.

 

[karolusb]

No, they're not. I don't know of a single class that doesn't get terrible defenses by dumping everything but their prime attack stat. Every class loses hitpoints by having a low CON. Every class loses initiative modifier by having a low DEX.

Every class gets bad charge, opportunity and granted melee attacks by dumping STR.

Now, individual classes have things to compensate for this - classes with basic-attack at-wills, classes with feats to specifically overcome this as an issue.

You start with every class has this, and then go into how most classes in fact don't. It makes for a shaky point in my mind.

In truth I would prefer "free" fixes to these problems, but that isn't what we have, what we have is feat fixes. And we have a working feat fix. Poor design of the slayer aside. If you accept the move away from variable primary stat classes (which you must if you don't reject the game past PHB1). Then accepting OA based on a stat you have a reason to have is a natural progression. I would prefer a unified rational fix to 50 ad-hoc ones. I dislike that most characters have to give up one of thier 2 power slots to do what they should do by default, and dislike even worse that a handful of classes aren't given that option.

Wizards already don't know how to use any weapon worth using, have poor HP, low defenses, bad surges, etc. There are more than enough reasons to never declare a charge as a wizard (I have never seen a wizard charge), that this doesn't need to be on the list.

As to it being a +6 to three seperate actions, consider it this way, would you trade expertise for training? If you would I have to think your grasp of the mechanics is not solid enough for me to be concerned with your opinion. Excepting a few bizarre builds (that almost certainly aren't using non-power MBA's anyway) charges come up maybe once an encounter, if you win initiative, and start far away, and really want to be in melee. OA's come up exactly as often as your GM wants (most of my GM's have leaned towards 0 as the optimal number). And the fact that most people suck at granted attacks doesn't encourage the use of that warlord build in my experience.

+6 for three types of attacks which you will almost never make. Really not a very good feat as was (which is why off the Charop boards it is pretty rare on character sheets).