Why is/was melee training so bad?

[TarionzCousin]

My keyboard doesn't like them characters. Hides em deep enough not worth hunting for. My French teacher would be annoyed with me, I can picture her face.

I was [-]picking on[/-] poking fun at the Charwoman for using one of the French marks but not the other.

Now, could someone please succinctly sum up how Melee Training was ruining their lives before and what has changed to ruin things worse now? Extra bonus points for keeping it simple.

 

[Squire James]

There's no big problem with Melee Training... and nerfing it slightly isn't a big problem either. Some people fear change, and others fear the people who fear change. Both are slightly irrational, and as long as none of it boils down into anger both groups will eventually settle down and life will go on.

 

[keterys]

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

*Raises his hand* Yeah, pretty much.

I've never noticed Toughness being a problem, myself, but the other two? Absolutely, I'd love to see them go.

Boring. Straight statistical improvement. Pidgeon holes your treasure and concept. More powerful than most other feats?

Yeah, seems against the design goals of 4e (see the Noble fighter with Diplomacy skill training and Linguist vs. one with SWP + Focus, they're supposed to be on some level of parity...). If SWPs added interesting options, but weren't just 'The same, but +1 attack or +1 damage' maybe, but, meh. Scrap 'em, I'd say.

The worst part about feats like that is you don't see enough variety in feats taken for the first 4-6 levels.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don´t know... diplomacy seems a lot more useful than 1 little point of damage in a non dungeon delve...

charop board seems like a place you should avoid at all costs...

I guess the superior weapon proficiency has more a psychological effect: rolling bigger dice! And high crit weapons especially will make your players happy.

In the end, both fighters are nearly equally effective.

 

[keterys]

Sadly, +1 attack and +1 damage per tier generally outweighs being the second or third fiddle to the bard, warlock, or warlord in the group, and even if not... the way the game is setup, you're generally using Diplomacy in situations in which you're happy with either result (for example, Success: You talk your way past the bandits, have some xp! Failure: You fight your way past the bandits, have some xp!), but considerably more is generally on the line with actual combat benefits.

Speaking as someone with a fighter who has, y'know, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Insight.
And Weapon Focus.
And Superior Weapon Proficiency

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok, the per tier is actually an issue here. If it was just a flat +1 bonus, i would really consider it a conditional feat...

The rest is just a DM problem: i.e.: Having a diplomacy check fail where there are no consequences for failure: bad.

If you have to fight your way in, AND fight a second combat after that, before you may even get your short rest, could be a bit harder. (The sound of battle may attract the other guards and encounters could be combined)

This could well save some dailies and healing surges for the last fight of the campaign.

Also you should reward a peaceful solution wth an action point, where i would not let a combat that was a result of a failed check contribute to a milestone...

 

[keterys]

Doesn't save it from being second fiddle (or worse) to the folks who get Charisma natively and the skill training natively.

And, yeah, someone from CharOp land would probably laugh at you for considering taking one over the other.

Even at just +1 in heroic tier, if you're swinging for 1d8+4, that's >10% increase in effectiveness. That's pretty darn solid, compared to something like Linguist that might _truly_ help you once per campaign.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don´t like linguist myself... learning 3 languages doesn´t sit well with me... why can´t languages be a general benefit for having high int, as it always has been...?

But back to the "beeing second fiddle to": now i get what you mean. Yes, you are only second fiddle to the bard. But maybe you can still pull your own weight in a diplomatic situation.

10% more effective in combat is just "meh". If your combats are designed for the goup (as 4e suggests), you will not even notice the difference:

were there 10 or 11 Kobolds? Oh, i guess i throw one more kobolds into the equation, since all players took weapon fokus.

Of course, feats can offset lack of proficiency in any departments, be it combat or social skills. Feats can also empower your already good stats. Depending on your group composition and your actual role(play), both feats can be very useful.

And I didn´t want to exclude the possibilities of enhancing your combat abilities. It is just, that charop completely neglect 2 sides of an actual roleplaying game:

1. the DM
2. roleplaying possibilities

there is no way, charop board can give you advise how to make a character effective in a social game, since rulings there depend a lot on the DM and how he handles the situation.

10% more damage is nice to have... but in an actual combat it can be much more useless than it seems, as a single combat will not allow you to roll enoug dice to make this bonus reliable. (Note, that a +2 bonus to hit damage will make this damage increase not only higher, but much more reliable, as the average number of rounds to make a difference drops from 20 rolls to 10 rolls, standard deviation not included)

edit: I went to to hit bonuses on purpose, as here statistics are more easier... you can do an equal analysis for your 1d8+4/1d8+5 example...

edit2: I believe, we had this discussion already... so:

I beliebe, weapon focus as a feat is good, as it allows your players to focus a little bit on a single weapon. I however think it should not scale and superior weapon proficiency should have prerequisites in the basis martial weapons. I also believe, ther should be no transfer item ritual and that not all magic items should be available by default. All these changes will bring those feats back to where they should be. In the hands of a character that has found a single very cool weapon he wants to make use of.

 

[Psikus]

*Raises his hand* Yeah, pretty much.

I've never noticed Toughness being a problem, myself, but the other two? Absolutely, I'd love to see them go.

Boring. Straight statistical improvement. Pidgeon holes your treasure and concept. More powerful than most other feats?

Yeah, seems against the design goals of 4e (see the Noble fighter with Diplomacy skill training and Linguist vs. one with SWP + Focus, they're supposed to be on some level of parity...). If SWPs added interesting options, but weren't just 'The same, but +1 attack or +1 damage' maybe, but, meh. Scrap 'em, I'd say.
.

I think Superior Weapon Proficiency is a failure due to the lack of actual options for superior weapons. If there were something like two options for each slot (two superior one-handed swords, two superior bows, and so on),
and both of them were of a similar power level but still somehow different, it would be a pretty cool feat.

As an example, I'd say the designers nailed it with Superior Implement Proficiency. It is no less mandatory than SWT, but it offers a wide enough array of options as to be interesting. Admittedly, going for an Accurate item will always be a straightforward and excellent choice, but it's far from the only valid one.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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

Well, ignoring potential future alterations to sneak attack, and ignoring difference in weapons you're most likely looking at an attack that's 5 points worse to-hit (+0 str instead of +5 dex) and the same in terms of damage. That's worse than being blinded.

In other words, the warlord is almost certainly better off just not taking those attack-granting powers at all if he's only got a non-str character to grant them to.

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.

The main thing that you WILL notice in actual play is when you've got a rogue a fighter and a warlord in a party, and the warlord never grants attacks to the rogue, because the fighter is always going to be a much better choice.