I started up a new 4e D&D game with my group.  The PCs are 1st level.  One of the PCs is a human War Wizard build with Staff of Defense.  He picked Melee Training feat as one of his feats to use with his staff.

He was using his full INT modifier for damage with his staff melee basic attack.  After the session, I mentioned to him that the feat has been revised since published in the PHB2 and it no longer provides the full ability modifier as a bonus on damage anymore.  

Now, my friend is a troglodyte and isn't plugged into the whole online WotC/D&D paradigm.  So I know that he was just unaware of the nerf to the feat, and I was just pointing it out to him.  He was upset and said that he might have to swap out the feat now.  I have no issue with that.  

Another player said that he would have to probably re-spec the whole character now since he was based on being good at melee (as well as a good wizard), and now that the feat was nerfed his build was screwed.

My response was something like this... "If you want to be uber in melee, don't be a wizard. Done."

The response and nerd rage made all the little baby Drohem sperm in by scrotum cry in unison, which was...

"Gandalf was a wizard, the quintessential wizard in fact, and he dual-wielded a staff and a bastard sword."

My mind on the issue set, but I am curious how other people feel about this feat and its revision.

I guess I should give some detail about the feat and the change.  Originally, the feat allowed the character to substitute another ability score for STR when making a melee basic attack.  Frex, a wizard can apply his INT modifier to his attack and damage rolls with a melee basic attack.  So a wizard with a +4 INT modifier would add +4 to both his attack and damage roll when making a melee basic attack.

The revision changed it so that only half the swapped ability modifier applies to damage rolls with a melee basic attack while the full modifier is still applied as an attack bonus with a melee basic attack.  Frex, a wizard with a +4 INT modifier would add +4 to the attack roll and +2 to the damage roll for a melee basic attack.

Where do you fall on this issue: was the change a nerf or fix?

Quote from: Drohem;450073I guess I should give some detail about the feat and the change.  Originally, the feat allowed the character to substitute another ability score for STR when making a melee basic attack.  Frex, a wizard can apply his INT modifier to his attack and damage rolls with a melee basic attack.  So a wizard with a +4 INT modifier would add +4 to both his attack and damage roll when making a melee basic attack.

The revision changed it so that only half the swapped ability modifier applies to damage rolls with a melee basic attack while the full modifier is still applied as an attack bonus with a melee basic attack.  Frex, a wizard with a +4 INT modifier would add +4 to the attack roll and +2 to the damage roll for a melee basic attack.

Where do you fall on this issue: was the change a nerf or fix?

This is a difference of 2 points per attack?  With a staff?  And he is upset about it ruining his character concept???

Quote from: misterguignol;450095This is a difference of 2 points per attack?  With a staff?  And he is upset about it ruining his character concept???

Well, that was just an example I made up off the top of my head.   But, yeah, that pretty much sums up my take on it too.

This is why he needs to start playing Pathfinder RPG... If he wants a war wizard, meet Magus.

A single feat gives him +4 / +2 and he's bitching?

Fuck him.

Of course, WTF does he care about a basic melee attack? His At-Wills should be much more interesting and effective.

Allow the character to swap it out with Eladrin Sword Wizardry (even if he's not Eladrin).

The specific reason for the change was the Slayer build of the Fighter -- they get Dex mod as a bonus to damage as a class feature, and if you could take Melee Fighting (Dex) in the old form, the Slayer would be getting double-effective damage bonuses out of one stat. That said I don't think it was a necessary change; if you go half-orc for Str/Dex racial bonuses, you're still getting the same effect.

So in a home game I'd let someone use the old form, but I also don't think it's any big deal to change it.

I do think the old feat was overpowered, to the extent that such things are meaningful.  I can respect Avengers and Bards using weapons effectively in the context of their Divine or Arcane Powers, but when everyone in the party is just as good as the warrior at swinging a sword, something has gone awry.

Gandalf is not the quintessential wizard, Gandalf is a fucking minor deity.

Quote from: Esgaldil;450262I can respect Avengers and Bards using weapons effectively in the context of their Divine or Arcane Powers, but when everyone in the party is just as good as the warrior at swinging a sword, something has gone awry.

Gandalf is not the quintessential wizard, Gandalf is a fucking minor deity.

Thank you.

This is the crux of my consternation over it.  I guess I shouldn't have been coy with my OP.  In the first place, there are plenty of other classes that Wizard in 4e D&D that allow you to be a caster/melee hybrid.  However, that's not the real point.  The point is that there is the perception that:

A).  Gandalf is the quintessential wizard.
B).  Gandalf was a badass fighter/wizard.
C).  Therefore, all wizards should be just as adept at melee as spell casting.
D).  Being adept at melee and spell casting should happen out of the gate (i.e., at 1st level).

When the comment was made about Gandalf duel-wielding the staff and bastard sword, I knew instantly that the reference was the scene in the attack on Gondor in LotR movie.  It's been a while since I've read Tolkien, but I don't remember Gandalf kicking ass like that in melee.  I know he carried a sword and used it, but I don't remember him being a cinematic melee fighter from any of the encounters in the books.  However, since I don't remember it is wholly possible that I'm completely wrong.  

Does anyone remember Gandalf kicking ass with a sword in the books like they portrayed him in the LotR movies?

What that player might prefer is the hexblade from the Essentials book.  It's wizard-y, but all about using a magic sword in melee.

Also Gandalf is an Invoker.

Quote from: Nightfall;450100This is why he needs to start playing Pathfinder RPG... If he wants a war wizard, meet Magus.

There are plenty of classes in 4e that are more war-wizard-like than the 4e wizard.  In fact, arguably more-so than a Magus in Pathfinder.  This player simply chose to use Wizard as his class for the concept, and now he's struggling with what appears to be a very minor glitch in his concept (2-3 points of damage, which should be nearly meaningless given his other abilities).

What's the distinction between a nerf and a fix? If something is overpowered, then nerfing it is fixing it.

I think the feat was a bit strong before, and is just fine in its new form.

Split the difference and let him have +3?

Does he want to actually do the Movie Gandalf thing and dual wield a staff and a bastard sword? Maybe he could be a hybrid and pick up some tempest build fighter powers.