Why is/was melee training so bad?

[renau1g]

Well, they haven't announced a potential fix so perhaps when essentials comes out the melee classes that need the feat will have that somehow built into their class features (i.e. Cha-based paladin, battlemind, monk, rogue, etc.) and the feat can be done away with.

 

[Remathilis]

TBH, Melee Training was a too-elegant solution to the problem of stat stacking.

IMHO, There was only one class that "needed" a melee-training power: Rogue. The other Martial Classes (Fighter, Warlord, Ranger) had their primary melee attacks based on Strength, so their MBA was never an issue (except for archer-rangers, but honestly, they could USE a weak-spot). However, rogue was a melee class that used dex primary, creating a guy who one second could use his agility and grace to strike through his enemies armor, and in another swing his sword like a kid wielding a baseball bat. Before MWT, I had a rogue-only feat (similar to Intelligent Blademaster) for rogues that did just that. It was called Weapon Finesse!

Beyond that, every other class that uses weapons primary either has "magic" to describe it (swordmage, paladin) or uses Str anyway (Warden). I liked Intelligent Blademaster, and a similar feat for Paladins wouldn't have broken my heart (if only to fix a glaring problem with defenders), but I'm not sure I needed warlocks beating you down with charisma, clerics whipping you with wisdom, or druids ripping you a new-one with their con. If you want casters with some primary stat basics, do like MM or EB and make a magic-based BA.

Some believability needs to exist. Using any stat you want for MBAs stretched me too thin on that.

 

[renau1g]

TBH, Melee Training was a too-elegant solution to the problem of stat stacking.

IMHO, There was only one class that "needed" a melee-training power: Rogue. .

Don't forget about assassins, we still need some love too...

 

[Remathilis]

Don't forget about assassins, we still need some love too...

Alas, I quit before that came out, so I can't speak to any of the post-Eberron Player Guide classes.

 

[Garthanos]

Note this nerfs some warlords or those who took the feat so that they could work better with those warlords. Lets see make the martial classes work better with warlords make it impossible for others to work even half way decently with them.... is that a intentional pattern

 

[twilsemail]

Beyond that, every other class that uses weapons primary either has "magic" to describe it (swordmage, paladin) or uses Str anyway (Warden).

With the exception of Ardents, Assassins, Battleminds and Monks? Three of those are [W]eapon classes and all three don't use Strength. Heck, the two weapon classes don't even get strength as a secondary.

"Magic" as a descriptor doesn't explain why sometimes the class is awesome at smacking you with a stick and sometimes they're awful.

Does it make sense for a Wizard or a Warlock to have melee training? Probably not (though spending a feat slot to represent training makes sense fluff and mechanics-wise to me). But a Monk should be good at punching people all of the time, not just when it's his turn. An Ardent should know which end of the sword is pointy the other 5 seconds of the turn.

As R1 said, we might see a fix in either the updates or in the new books themselves, though they make no mention of some of the PH3 classes that could sorely use a fix to their MBA.

Some believability needs to exist. Using any stat you want for MBAs stretched me too thin on that.

So, there sholdn't be non-strength based melee classes at all then?

 

[Insight]

A simple fix would be that classes make melee basic attacks using their primary ability, whatever that is. That fixes most classes, except charisma paladin and strength cleric... not sure who else.

 

[Nichwee]

As someone who has a Wizard with Melee Training I personally don't mind the new idea of it only getting half-stat damage. I have the feat for RP reasons and my character makes a point of being in melee more than is sensible because of those RP reasons - and buys items/feats to go with the theme often to his detriment. Lowering the damage of his MBA may even help him not get himself into trouble as he would find it less sensible to melee vs use MagMiss/Scorching Burst.

Tho as a Wizard of the Spiral Tower I would like it if Intelligent Blademaster were extended to be available to WotST too (as they were the original Swordmages in 4th ED).

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.

 

[Garthanos]

So, there sholdn't be non-strength based melee classes at all then?

Well ofcourse not... in real life the first attribute somebody learns about in fencing is balance and after that you learn how practice and discipline and perception improves your timing and your forms then they teach you how invoking your spirit can really empower your attacks. I probably should find that study which showed how a spirited impassioned attack seemed to deliver half again the force of what a bland methodical one does.

And just because it takes a 5 strength equivalent in real world terms to kill somebody in one blow with one of these weapons doesnt mean anything.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well ofcourse not... in real life the first attribute somebody learns about in fencing is balance and after that you learn how practice and discipline and perception improves your timing and your forms then they teach you how invoking your spirit can really empower your attacks. I probably should find that study which showed how a spirited impassioned attack seemed to deliver half again the force of what a bland methodical one does.

And just because it takes a 5 strength equivalent in real world terms to kill somebody in one blow with one of these weapons doesnt mean anything.

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. Greater strength means the ability to more quickly move your weapon around at a basic level, which translates to speed and hitting power. Using a foil or an epee that may be negligible as the weapon is very light to start with, but if you're swinging an 3 pound longsword around it becomes a lot more handy. I'd say even using a dagger there's some significant advantage to being strong. For the most part this is reflected in a lot of martial classes, even many rogues benefit a good bit from strength, perhaps even the majority of melee rogues.