When did the Fighter become "defender"?

ForeverSlayer · May 12, 2012

Estlor said:
You're in luck! The devs gave the Fighter Brash Strike, Rain of Blows, Rain of Steel, Thicket of Blades, Cometfall Charge...

But I'm still stuck with Marking and Combat Challenge.

Tovec · May 12, 2012

Hussar said:
As an aside, I truly do believe that the overwhelming majority of issues that people have with 4e are due to the presentation of elements in 4e. If the writers had either backed off a bit in how they present the classes, or had included a few pages with each class on how easy it is to blur the lines between roles, it would have gone MILES towards defusing these misunderstandings.

Have enough quotes of this yet Hussar? What I just wanted to add is that this may have been a early and quick reason for people to dislike the system it likely isn't the main or even a root reason many of us do.

Many have tried the system and found it lacking. Others were turned off by aspects of the game they read or reviewed or experienced right out of the gate. Some may have disliked the direction the game went. Some found it too similar to MMOs like WoW - be it a correct comparison or not. I know I dislike that they changed many of the key areas that interested about DnD in the first place.

Did the book look different? Yes. Did people dislike the way the new book presented its ideas? Yes. Is that the only reason or final reason people disliked the system? Probably not. Certainly not for all or even most. I know it wouldn't have made any difference if they did explain the fighter in a slightly different ways or if they presented their ideas differently. If it had AEDU (for example) then I would have still disliked it, a new flavour wouldn't have changed that taste in my mouth.

Bedrockgames · May 12, 2012

Tovec said:
Have enough quotes of this yet Hussar? What I just wanted to add is that this may have been a early and quick reason for people to dislike the system it likely isn't the main or even a root reason many of us do.

Many have tried the system and found it lacking. Others were turned off by aspects of the game they read or reviewed or experienced right out of the gate. Some may have disliked the direction the game went. Some found it too similar to MMOs like WoW - be it a correct comparison or not. I know I dislike that they changed many of the key areas that interested about DnD in the first place.

Did the book look different? Yes. Did people dislike the way the new book presented its ideas? Yes. Is that the only reason or final reason people disliked the system? Probably not. Certainly not for all or even most. I know it wouldn't have made any difference if they did explain the fighter in a slightly different ways or if they presented their ideas differently. If it had AEDU (for example) then I would have still disliked it, a new flavour wouldn't have changed that taste in my mouth.

In my own case several forays into 4e campaigns were made before I decided I really didn't like it...and it was during play that my dislike dawned on me. Now I may speak of surges being an issue or not liking martial powers, but when I firs opened the book I wasn't sure how I felt about these things and just waned to give it a shot. I was wary of the new edition, just as I was wary when i first tried 3e, but figured I would get accustomed to any major changes. It was in hindsight i realized the changes were too big, and tha he specific things like surges and powers weren't my cup of tea. The edition has had a long time to be accepted and lots of people have had trouble with it. I wouldn't read too much into the presentation....for most people who don't like it I think the game just doesn't appeal to them.

FireLance · May 12, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
But I'm still stuck with Marking and Combat Challenge.

So don't use them. Characters don't have to be balanced, right?

FireLance · May 12, 2012

To elaborate just a little more on the short post I made above, if you wanted to play a swashbuckler or some other lightly-armored fighter-type character in previous editions, and you were restricted to the options in the first PH (or, depending on edition, the PH), you'd take the fighter class and simply have your character not wear heavy armor even though he was technically able to.

The same principle applies here. Marking and combat challenge don't force a fighter to be a bodyguard any more than the ability to wear plate mail forces him to be a knight.

Eldritch_Lord · May 12, 2012

Herschel said:
Which is really, absolutely NO different unless you're edition warring. It's also NOT the way many (most?) people design characters.

[...]

I can still do these concepts with the Fighter class, but they work better for me using a different class. The pont is though that I can do the schticks you talked about easily enough because 4E gave me the tools to do them, just like earlier editions.

But the point is that the perception of how you do them is different.

If you want to make a TWF character in 3e, you pick feats relating to TWF. If you want to make an archer character, you pick feats relating to archery. Someone who wants to make a TWF or archer character decides on that, then decides "Hey, ranger gives me these feats for free, and we're going to be fighting lots of dragons so Favored Enemy would help with that, I think I'll be a ranger" or "Hmm, I really want to focus on this, there are a lot of feats I'd like, only a fighter will give me that many feat slots I think I'll be a fighter" or similar. All of the weapon-related feats are in one big pool, and you pick those first. You can focus on number of attacks or damage or debuffing or range or several of the above, mixing and matching to your heart's content.

If you want to make a 4e character focusing on TWF or archery, it doesn't work that way. You decide you want to make an archer, then you need to go through the different classes and figure out which classes let you do what you want to do. If you want to make lots of attacks, you go with ranger. If you want to debuff people with your attacks, you go with rogue. And if you'd rather make lots of attacks with a bow and be sneaky, well, you're out of luck, because rangers are the longbow class and rogues are the sneaky/social utility class. Past that, being an archer, at least in PHB1, prevents you from being a defender, leader, or controller if you want powers relating to your schtick. To use your warlord example, you can build a leader or controller or defender who happens to use a bow, but you can't build an archer who happens to be a leader or defender or controller.

Again, flat out WRONG. You can have both of those things very easily, it's just that op-cheese thinking tells you the double attacks are "better" for a Ranger. You can create a perfectly viable weapon/board Ranger, he's just not spamming Twin Strike and Twin Strike + powers.

Again, it comes down to perceptions. The ranger writeup is full of powers that say "make an attack with two weapons" while the fighter writeup is full of powers that say "if you're wielding an axe or hammer, you get X benefit." Can you make an axe-and-shield ranger or a dual-swords fighter? Yes, easily, as I already said, and adding more books only makes it easier. But someone who wants to make a guy who uses an axe is obviously going to want to use powers that give benefits for using an axe and someone who wants to make a guy who uses two swords is obviously going to want to use powers that let you make two attacks.

There are plenty of people out there who want to build their TWF character as a ranger, not because making two attacks makes the ranger more powerful but because they want to make two attacks per round because that's what they thing TWF should do and the ranger gives them powers that let them do that. If the dual-attack or weapon-specific powers were divorced from class, or if the fighter got all the weapon-specific powers but could play as any role, those people would be happy, but tying role to fighting style gets in their way.

Again, you start with the defender chassis because you want to play a defender. Regardless of system, the best way to play the character you want is to decide your schtick and build from there. "Being a Fighter" is NOT a schtick, it's just one character element of whichever schtick you want.

And many people don't see "being a defender" as a primary schtick. "I want to be an amazing archer like Legolas or Robin Hood" is a schtick. "I want to protect my friends and prevent enemies from escaping" is a schtick. If you want to be a defender, you can pick a defender class and then pick a bunch of powers from that class and be pretty much guaranteed to be a good defender, then you can choose what weapons to use after that. If you want to be an archer, you can't just pick an "archer" class with a big list of archery powers and pretty much be guaranteed to be a good archer, and then choose among striker-y multiattacks or controller-y debuffs or the like after that. It is the elevation of roles above fighting style as a schtick that people object to, not the roles themselves.

And lest you think this is purely theoretical, it's not; I keep using the archery example because that case came up with a player in one of my 4e games. He wanted to be an archer because the 2e character he was converting over was an archer, so he looked at the available classes to decide on which one would work better. He liked the sneakiness and mobility of the rogue's utility powers (his previous character was a cleric/thief who used a longbow for the range), but all of the rogue's ranged powers require a crossbow, light thrown weapon, or a sling and he wanted to keep using a bow. Next he looked at the ranger, and definitely liked the archery powers there, but 4e rangers don't have divine casting, so he wouldn't be able to focus on both archery and healing as he had before; he considered the Initiate of the Faith feat, but a 1/day Healing Word wasn't enough healing.

Eventually, we built his character as a cleric/rogue and just dropped the archery aspect, but he was kind of ticked off that he wasn't able to use archery-related powers because the choice was "archery, sneakiness, healing, pick two" instead of "take sneaky healer, add archery" so he couldn't both support the party and focus on the bow and have both of those relatively equally-supported as he had before.

Then those people are illogically impatient at best, otherwise just plain unrealistic. NO previous edition had everything up-front. 3.x had numerous years of splatbooks and additions. 4E was no different. Nor will 5E/DDN be. TBH, the people that complain about not having everything "up-front" aren't worth marketing to because they will NEVER be happy.

Why is that so unrealistic? What's so hard about divorcing fighting style from role? They weren't intertwined in prior editions with the implicit roles, and there's no reason that WotC had to make e.g. weapon-specific riders a feature of fighter powers instead of making them feats like Light Blade Precision and Polearm Gamble so rogues, warlords, and rangers could access them as well. Whether that would be a better or worse implementation for the game, the point stands that fighting style and role don't have to be so closely linked (as we can see with the Tempest fighter and Prescient bard) and that's what people have objected to.

Eric Tolle · May 12, 2012

I don't think the role of fighters is just a 4th edition problem. I think it's a given that in 3rd edition fighters weren't defenders, because they couldn't really defend anything. The question is, what role would they be? I don't think tank or striker applies to them either, since those roles were pretty easily sidelined by higher level foes. So what to call their role? Clean up after the mages guys? Player Henchmen? The Loads? Traps for clueless players? The Tank role pretty much disappeared after 2nd. edition. What role did fighters fit in in 3rd edition, other than "wasted character slot"?

The real question here is what role should fighters play in D&D Next?Hopefully something better than "Watches the mage win the battle".

Herschel · May 12, 2012

Eldritch_Lord said:
But the point is that the perception of how you do them is different.

If you want to make a TWF character in 3e, you pick feats relating to TWF. If you want to make an archer character, you pick feats relating to archery. Someone who wants to make a TWF or archer character decides on that, then decides "Hey, ranger gives me these feats for free, and we're going to be fighting lots of dragons so Favored Enemy would help with that, I think I'll be a ranger" or "Hmm, I really want to focus on this, there are a lot of feats I'd like, only a fighter will give me that many feat slots I think I'll be a fighter" or similar. All of the weapon-related feats are in one big pool, and you pick those first. You can focus on number of attacks or damage or debuffing or range or several of the above, mixing and matching to your heart's content.

If you want to make a 4e character focusing on TWF or archery, it doesn't work that way. You decide you want to make an archer, then you need to go through the different classes and figure out which classes let you do what you want to do. If you want to make lots of attacks, you go with ranger. If you want to debuff people with your attacks, you go with rogue. And if you'd rather make lots of attacks with a bow and be sneaky, well, you're out of luck, because rangers are the longbow class and rogues are the sneaky/social utility class.

Which is EXACTLY what you did in every other edition: figure out what type of character you want to play and mix & match game elements to fit that.

Past that, being an archer, at least in PHB1, prevents you from being a defender, leader, or controller if you want powers relating to your schtick. To use your warlord example, you can build a leader or controller or defender who happens to use a bow, but you can't build an archer who happens to be a leader or defender or controller.

LoL, you contradict yourself right there. I want a Bowman who leads battle from the back line, I actually have two choices: Warlord or Bard. ***edit- there's also a cleric build option***Controller: Seeker or Hunter, etc. As the the PHB1-only bit, that's really a pointless comment. I couldn't make my Arcane Swordsman or any other of a number of concepts with the PHB1 in 3.x either. You need to compare apples to apples if you want credibility because, quite frankly, right now you're comparing systems with years of splat boks to another one's very first offering only. That's not a logical comparison.

Again, it comes down to perceptions. The ranger writeup is full of powers that say "make an attack with two weapons" while the fighter writeup is full of powers that say "if you're wielding an axe or hammer, you get X benefit." Can you make an axe-and-shield ranger or a dual-swords fighter? Yes, easily, as I already said, and adding more books only makes it easier.

Just like EVERY other edition.

There are plenty of people out there who want to build their TWF character as a ranger, not because making two attacks makes the ranger more powerful but because they want to make two attacks per round because that's what they thing TWF should do and the ranger gives them powers that let them do that. If the dual-attack or weapon-specific powers were divorced from class, or if the fighter got all the weapon-specific powers but could play as any role, those people would be happy, but tying role to fighting style gets in their way.

That's, just, wow, that makes no logical sense. Roles aren't tied to fighting style. I can be a dual-wielding defender using the Tempest Fighter as my base, or a Striker using the Ranger. Multi-attacking single targets makes you a striker by default because two attacks are naturally better than one. Your fighting style determines your role, not the other way around. That's why playing a defender-style dual-wielder you tend to attack different foes to control their attention

And many people don't see "being a defender" as a primary schtick. "I want to be an amazing archer like Legolas or Robin Hood" is a schtick. "I want to protect my friends and prevent enemies from escaping" is a schtick. If you want to be a defender, you can pick a defender class and then pick a bunch of powers from that class and be pretty much guaranteed to be a good defender, then you can choose what weapons to use after that. If you want to be an archer, you can't just pick an "archer" class with a big list of archery powers and pretty much be guaranteed to be a good archer, and then choose among striker-y multiattacks or controller-y debuffs or the like after that. It is the elevation of roles above fighting style as a schtick that people object to, not the roles themselves.

Again, this is flat-out falsehood. Roles aren't "elevated above" fighting style in any way, shape or form. Roles are there as elements to help you do the fighting style you want, plain and simple, like feats, weapon choices, etc.

And lest you think this is purely theoretical, it's not; I keep using the archery example because that case came up with a player in one of my 4e games. He wanted to be an archer because the 2e character he was converting over was an archer, so he looked at the available classes to decide on which one would work better. He liked the sneakiness and mobility of the rogue's utility powers (his previous character was a cleric/thief who used a longbow for the range), but all of the rogue's ranged powers require a crossbow, light thrown weapon, or a sling and he wanted to keep using a bow. Next he looked at the ranger, and definitely liked the archery powers there, but 4e rangers don't have divine casting, so he wouldn't be able to focus on both archery and healing as he had before; he considered the Initiate of the Faith feat, but a 1/day Healing Word wasn't enough healing.

A Cleric|Ranger hybrid would fit the character concept perfectly or just house rule a bow to work. It really would have been that simple. The tools were right there, you just didn't use them. That's not the fault of the system, that's on you.

Eventually, we built his character as a cleric/rogue and just dropped the archery aspect, but he was kind of ticked off that he wasn't able to use archery-related powers because the choice was "archery, sneakiness, healing, pick two" instead of "take sneaky healer, add archery" so he couldn't both support the party and focus on the bow and have both of those relatively equally-supported as he had before.

Again, the tools came out for it, you just didn't recognize them or just house rule a bow. That's not the system's fault.

Why is that so unrealistic? What's so hard about divorcing fighting style from role? They weren't intertwined in prior editions with the implicit roles, and there's no reason that WotC had to make e.g. weapon-specific riders a feature of fighter powers instead of making them feats like Light Blade Precision and Polearm Gamble so rogues, warlords, and rangers could access them as well. Whether that would be a better or worse implementation for the game, the point stands that fighting style and role don't have to be so closely linked (as we can see with the Tempest fighter and Prescient bard) and that's what people have objected to.

Again, fighting style and role aren't intertwined any more than in any previous edition. They are just elements of character design, just like always. Rogues, Warlords and Rangers also have access to those feats very easily, all it takes is a 13 Strength.

Herschel · May 12, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
Who are these many, most people you speak of? I just love it when people that post on here post with the assumed knowledge that they game or talk to the majority of gamers.

You're denying that many players come up with a character concept and match game elements to match it? We see on these very boards that statement is true yet you're trying to deny it because it invalidates your viewpoint? (most?) is a question, meaning it's a hypothesis based on the anecdotal evidence we have but not a proven number. It's a logical assumption, but not a hard number, nor does it claim to be.

Tovec · May 12, 2012

Eric Tolle said:
I don't think the role of fighters is just a 4th edition problem. I think it's a given that in 3rd edition fighters weren't defenders, because they couldn't really defend anything. The question is, what role would they be? I don't think tank or striker applies to them either, since those roles were pretty easily sidelined by higher level foes. So what to call their role? Clean up after the mages guys? Player Henchmen? The Loads? Traps for clueless players? The Tank role pretty much disappeared after 2nd. edition. What role did fighters fit in in 3rd edition, other than "wasted character slot"?

The real question here is what role should fighters play in D&D Next?Hopefully something better than "Watches the mage win the battle".

It is funny how often this argument comes up. It is equally funny how often this argument is hyperbolic.

Fighters weren't just "wasted character slot". I can understand that perhaps you had a problem with them but there are countless others, myself included, who considered fighters along with every other melee (and non-caster) class to be perfectly valid choices. I clearly remember playing in an epic level game in 3.5 where the melee character single rounded a colossal+ construct, while I -the caster- was responsible to taking out the "BBEG's" supporting cast. I don't see how that melee character was my henchmen in any way. If anything I was her lackey. I couldn't compare to the power that character had, as a tier 1 caster in that game.

Similarly, I have often played low level fighters and never had a problem keeping up and (usually) surpassing the casters when we deal with any number of situations involving the enemy.

Is it true the casters get more options than the fighter? Sure. Is it true the fighter can do nothing but play backup? FALSE! Please just stop with this argument, it will never work or sway anyone.

Herschel said:
Which is EXACTLY what you did in every other edition: figure out what type of character you want to play and mix & match game elements to fit that.

For all my replies here I am only guessing what the person you are quoting meant and said, but as I understand it....

The post you quoted was saying that in previous editions you started with a concept and worked toward making a character. They are then saying that in 4e you were limited by the concepts available and then creating the character. You may think these to be the same thing but many of us don't believe the same as you do.

LoL, you contradict yourself right there. I want a Bowman who leads battle from the back line, I actually have two choices: Warlord or Bard. Controller: Seeker or Hunter, etc. As the the PHB1-only bit, that's really a pointless comment. I couldn't make my Arcane Swordsman or any other of a number of concepts with the PHB1 in 3.x either. You need to compare apples to apples if you want credibility because, quite frankly, right now you're comparing systems with years of splat boks to another one's very first offering only. That's not a logical comparison.

They may be wrong, but they don't contradict themselves. This is actually a retelling of what I just said, but they are saying that you can take any number of concepts as they exist and come up with an end result. You cannot start with the result you want and create the concept.

You can get X, Y or Z to give you A, you cannot get start with A and get to X, Y and Z. That is more or less the point. While they are similar they are not the same and therefore not contradictory.

Just like EVERY other edition.

Once again this one talks about the rigidity of the system. Previously to 4e, you could decide you wanted to use a bow and get powers that relate to it with almost any class or concept. Now you have to decide which class or concept you want because only certain ones allow you to use a bow.

That's, just, wow, that makes no logical sense. Roles aren't tied to fighting style. I can be a dual-wielding defender using the Tempest Fighter as my base, or a Striker using the Ranger. Multi-attacking single targets makes you a striker by default because two attacks are naturally better than one. Your fighting style determines your role, not the other way around. That's why playing a defender-style dual-wielder you tend to attack different foes to control their attention

I don't know how you got from what the poster was saying to something about the roles, so I'm going to ignore this one.

Again, this is flat-out falsehood. Roles aren't "elevated above" fighting style in any way, shape or form. Roles are there as elements to help you do the fighting style you want, plain and simple, like feats, weapon choices, etc.

Actually here I partially agree with you, assuming you are saying that roles (can/should/DO?) change depending on the choices you make.

A Cleric|Ranger hybrid would fit the character concept perfectly or just house rule a bow to work. It really would have been that simple. The tools were right there, you just didn't use them. That's not the fault of the system, that's on you.

Forgive me, I haven't really followed 4e too much and I am prone to making mistakes when I say these sorts of things, but didn't hybrid classes come out in PHB3? Also, as I understand it, hybrid classes were created in response to people disliking the current form of multiclassing available in 4e. If what I have said is true, I can understand the poster's objections very clearly then. By PHB1 alone, creating the class they want is very difficult in 4e but no where near as difficult pre-4e. In one form, you can select 2 of the 3 things you want, in the other you can easily get all 3 (if not at first level then soon after). Of course, if you do have to wait until PHB3 then I suppose that it makes it equal again, assuming I revise my statement to be you select 2 of the 3 options you want and wait 2 years to get the third option.

Again, the tools came out for it, you just didn't recognize them or just house rule a bow. That's not the system's fault.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were able to use houserules as ACTUAL rules for these arguments. My bad. That clears up SO MANY 4e conversations I have.

Again, fighting style and role aren't intertwined any more than in any previous edition. They are just elements of character design, just like always. Rogues, Warlords and Rangers also have access to those feats very easily, all it takes is a 13 Strength.

Fighting style and role already are more connected (intertwined if you like) in 4e than they were in previous editions by the sheer fact that we KNOW that a wizard is a controller, a fighter a defender, a rogue a striker and a cleric a leader. Prior to 4e we likely had other terms if we had terms at all. I know there are numerous sources that state you should have one of each of those classes but they certainly don't attach the role titles to them and don't suggest other classes that fit that role to serve as backup. I know the roles (and classes with those roles) were implemented in 4e for sake of balance. But that comes back to the comments I've made earlier; why must 4e be so balanced. It loses something when you try to balance everything and when you assume that all that matters is combat.

These are two things that the 5e team has seemed to recognize going forward and I'm glad for it. I think we are going to hit a similar problems when/if they try to balance out everything over three pillars but that is a different issue for a future time. Better to try and balance against 3 pillars than only on 1, I suppose. But I clearly am not the only one who doesn't necessarily want balance to be paramount at all.