Why is/was melee training so bad?

[keterys]

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.

Really? Seems like an extra feat that gets in the way of ones that change your tactics with a raw +1 attack, narrows your choice of treasure - which for implements is even worse since there _are_ actual choices involved, in terms of fiddly bits, and not just how accurate or damaging your attack is.

Honestly, a character choosing between whether to stick with a greataxe or go to an executioner's axe can at least go 'Eh, it's just a couple points of damage', but a +1 attack is far more useful. The wizard goes 'Eh, it's just whether I hit with stun or not'.

End of the day, the game rewards excessive specialization on a particular shape or size of weapon, in raw statistics instead of tactical features (ex: hammers push well, swords have cooler opportunity attacks). In particular, at higher level you really start to see a _lot_ of casters with staves or daggers, accurate with weapon focus cause they're weapliments.

I just don't see it as a feature. If they all just disappeared, I'd be happier. To the extent that the last short campaign I ran, I gave all of the feats for free. As many focus, superior, and expertise feats as they needed.

 

[Mirtek]

*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.

So you want to only offer crap so that at least everyone takes a different crap?

 

[Zaran]

You guys keep saying that having a +6 boost to damage is too much for one feat. That's only if the modifier was to all attacks though. We're talking about Melee Basic Attacks people. The only time a class uses those is when the Warlord gives them a free attack or they truelly have no other useful option at the moment. Melee Training did not break the game. In fact, one can argue that it's a waste of a feat since most classes hardly ever use MBAs. There are no wizard builds based around the MBA that makes them more powerful than fighters in melee. The ONLY reason why the feat was nerfed was because of the Essentials builds (and maybe just the fighter ones) based around the Melee Basic Attack. It's an easy solution to their problem but not a good one. If they had based those classes around an at-will and not try to reinvent 4e this wouldn't have happened.

At the same time, I do not see why the other side is making such a big deal out of it either. If the warlord is crying out "Wizachu I pick you!" for a melee basic attack instead of someone who actually uses melee based attacks then having a few less points of damage isn't going to hurt anything. And if that wizard is just wanting to attack with his staff instead of using an at-will attack then they are not really fulfilling their role.

 

[Victim]

Our CHA paladin in our first 4e game was basically a joke - at least in part because no OA threat makes for weak defending. Defender classes not based on STR really need Melee Training or the equivalent IMO.

OTOH, slightly reducing OA damage isn't likely to be make or break. It's still going to be a good feat for Battleminds and the like.

However, I don't feel that the old Melee Training was a problem either. Melee Training is being changed because Essentials classes are built around basic attacks instead of powers, so things like the Slayer fighter stop working appropriately with Melee Training. Without the whole Essentials = basic attacks design philosophy, Melee Training could stay.

 

[Mengu]

So you want to only offer crap so that at least everyone takes a different crap?

There is a ton of powerful stuff that's not in that short list. There are many great feats that help out with spike damage, improved defense, more healing, mobility, and other tools.

I have a half-orc thaneborn barbarian whose first four feats are Fullblade, Toughness, Versatile Expertise, and Weapon Focus. I'd be much more excited about feats, if my first few feats were Bardic Dilettante, Skill Power Agile Recovery, Thirst for Battle, and Headman's Chop.

Currently, the first few feats feel pretty much like, what should I pick so I can perform my basic functions in the party. I'd prefer if the feats were more about options and tactics, and less about static bonuses you're expected to have to beat monsters and be of comparable effectiveness to your fellow companions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

End of the day, the game rewards excessive specialization on a particular shape or size of weapon, in raw statistics instead of tactical features (ex: hammers push well, swords have cooler opportunity attacks).

Rewarding specialization at all only makes sense if there is some corresponding down side or some advantage to /not/ specializing. The 4e guidelines for treasure and items make the default assumption that a highly specialized character will have no more trouble acquiring a suitable magical Bohemian Ear-Spoon than a non-specialized character will have in finding a magic weapon of any type. In the past, when we didn't have that sort of assumption, there was a real downside to specializing. You might find yourself still using a MW Ransuer at 8th level because you've been finding magical swords and axes, not pole-arms.

In particular, at higher level you really start to see a _lot_ of casters with staves or daggers, accurate with weapon focus cause they're weapliments.

I just don't see it as a feature. If they all just disappeared, I'd be happier. To the extent that the last short campaign I ran, I gave all of the feats for free. As many focus, superior, and expertise feats as they needed.

Nod. I find the 'weapliment' ruling to have been a mistake. As long as their issuing massive errata, they could fix that.

 

[keterys]

So you want to only offer crap so that at least everyone takes a different crap?

Didn't say anything about removing Skill Power, Battle Awareness, Mounted Combat, Deadly Draw, Cruel Cut Style, Persistent Threat, Mobile Challenge, Shield Push, etc... just to name a few quick feats that I have or would have on a couple characters.

There are lots of decent feats that aren't just another +1 attack or damage.

@Tony-Vargas - Well put, on the specialization vs not argument.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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 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.

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.

I still don't see the rigamarole, really.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I still don't see the rigamarole, really.

What about now? Do you see it?

Spoiler

rigamarole

 

[ak1287]

What about now? Do you see it?

Spoiler

rigamarole

Look again, the rigamarole is DIAMONDS.


Sorry, had to.