When did the Fighter become "defender"?

Herschel · May 10, 2012

Imaro said:
Roleplaying out inter-party conflict, and even PvP events in the game does not auto-equate to "being a d-bag"... if that's who you are then you're going to find a way to be a d-bag no matter what the game rules do. ....

Here we go again... Inter-party conflict and PvP is not, in and of itself, an anti-social behavior.

In D&D, it is. The party tension isn't, but PvP outside of short bursts is because the system has NEVER been designed for it. There are systems that do account for it and handle it well, D&D has never been one of them though.

Fifth Element · May 10, 2012

Herschel said:
The point is that you're forgetting the game has ALWAYS been geared toward a certain party composition from teh time the very first PHB came out.

No kidding - the irony in these comments is that in many ways 4E is the edition best suited to a non-traditional party composition, because you don't necessarily need a healer. You have self-healing, and you recover hit points much more quickly through rest. A party without a Leader may not be "optimal" but it's certainly better off than an earlier-edition equivalent.

This criticism of 4E appears to be a criticism of D&D in general.

Bedrockgames · May 10, 2012

Fifth Element said:
Suggesting that it's a matter of perspective is very much saying the truth is somewhere in the middle, because if it's purely a matter of perspective then neither side can really be correct.

No it is more subtle than that. It is just like the arguments over whether the 3e fighter is sidelined by the wizard. It is going to depend on where the indidivuals thresholds are. Some people are going to see it that way, others are going to see it another. What mechanics achieve in terms of overall effect is a very subjective thing. So someone had a different experience of 4e than you...that doesn't mean your experience and perception of it is going to be universal and it certainly doesn't mean they didn't play (as you suggest in the second part of your post). Two people can play 4e fighters and come away with very different impressions what they can achieve. It is going to boil down to what the think of the powr options available to the fighter and what they think about other roles like strikers stepping on their toes or not stepping on their toes. Everyone's sense of what makes the fghter relegated to being a body guard or not will be different. It is subjective just like it would be subjective to say the fighter is cool, boring or deadly.

Now if someone makes a specific claim like the fighter is a bodyguard because he does less damage over an encounter than a striker can, and yiu can show that the striker cant do more damage over an encounter, then yes you have a claim to truth there. But the golden mean fallacy doesn't really apply to subjective judgment calls about how cool a class is or how well it fits a particular role.

Dausuul · May 10, 2012

Fifth Element said:
I have difficulty with the argument that classes having precisely one thing in common with others of their role - and the controllers are lacking even that, a well-defined one anyway - make them cookie-cutters. That's a massive overstatement.

True, the "role mechanics" alone were not cookie-cutters. When you put together role mechanics plus the rigid AEDU power structure plus every attack power dealing damage, though, it started to feel that way. Things improved once they started to experiment and branch out a bit.

In any case, role should not be something that is stamped onto a class with a standardized mechanic. It should be a design focus that shapes the class from the start, and each class should have its own take on that focus. Just because fighters mark does not mean paladins have to do the same.

pemerton · May 10, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
Now if someone makes a specific claim like the fighter is a bodyguard because he does less damage over an encounter than a striker can, and yiu can show that the striker cant do more damage over an encounter, then yes you have a claim to truth there

The claim being made is that the fighter is a bodyguard rather than an "into the fray" combatant.

And the retort is that, while any given player may choose to play their fighter like that, there is no mechanical support for playing a 4e fighter in that way (eg the fighter doesn't get many immediate actions which would support such an approach, unlike the paladin) and there is a huge mechanical incentive for the player of a fighter to get into the fray: namely, it's the only way (i) to mark, and (ii) to enforce your mark.

Bedrockgames said:
It is just like the arguments over whether the 3e fighter is sidelined by the wizard. It is going to depend on where the indidivuals thresholds are. Some people are going to see it that way, others are going to see it another. What mechanics achieve in terms of overall effect is a very subjective thing.

The only similarity I note between these two arguments is that one side - the 3E wizard is overpowered side, and the 4e fighter is not a bodyguard side - refers to the mechanics to support their claims, while the other side refers to mechanics-indepenent choices (like "we didn't make wands" or "we didn't scribe scrolls" or "my 4e fighter chose not to mark, because I thought the rulebook told me to play him as a bodyguard".)

There is a genuine difference of perspective here, but in my view it has very little to do with thresholds. It's to do with those who regard the mechanics as constitutive of the game, and those whose outlook is in some fundamental way that of freeforming, with social contract carrying a huge burden of both PC build and action resolution (but they still use the mechanics sometimes, for some things, although I'm not entirely clear what).

But in my view there can be no legitimate perspective on 4e's fighter mechanics that suggest that the 4e fighter is not mechanically well suited to being in the thick of melee. Between AC, hp, marking rules, and the almost complete absence of non-melee/close burst attacks, being in melee is the only way a fighter can bring any of his/her mechanical features and attributes to bear.

Saying that 4e's fighter mechanics encourage bodyguarding is as absurd as saying that AD&D's wizard mechanics encourage being a frontline melee combatant.

pemerton · May 10, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
I think the people are forgetting that the DM is the one who decides which monsters he is going to throw at his players. If a party is made up of all rogues, for example, then he may need to throw different types of monsters than he would for a party made up of fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric.

I don't the game to be geared towards a certain party composition.

I quoted p15 of the 4e PHB above. Here it is again:

The classic adventuring party includes one character of each role: wizard, fighter, cleric, and rogue.

Character roles identify which classes can stand in for each other. For example, if you don’t have a cleric in your party, a warlord serves just as well in the leader role.

Roles also serve as handy tools for building adventuring parties. It’s a good idea to cover each role with at least one character. . . If you don’t have all the roles covered, that’s okay too—it just means that the characters need to compensate for the missing function.

4e is not geared towards a certain party composition. In fact, I would say it is very robust across a wide range of party compositions. Part of the logic of its flexible PC buid rules, retraining rules, magic item wishlists, etc is to put a good deal of the onus on the players to build PCs that they find mechanically satisfying.

That said, the DMG does give good advice on the mechanical side of party building, including how different sorts of terrain affect different PC roles. This is one respect in which the 4e DMG is not at all deficient.

Fifth Element · May 10, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
No it is more subtle than that. It is just like the arguments over whether the 3e fighter is sidelined by the wizard. It is going to depend on where the indidivuals thresholds are.

Absolutely. I don't even know where I sit on that discussion. Sometimes I see it one way and sometimes the other.

Bedrockgames said:
Some people are going to see it that way, others are going to see it another. What mechanics achieve in terms of overall effect is a very subjective thing. So someone had a different experience of 4e than you...

Again this can be true, but in this particular case those making the claim did not say anything about how fighters played in their games. The only evidence they presented was a few lines from the (poorly-written) class description.

Bedrockgames said:
Everyone's sense of what makes the fghter relegated to being a body guard or not will be different.

And that's why we can only address the actual comments made, which essentially boil down to "the fighter is a bodyguard because its role is named defender." Nothing other than that was really presented, and the strong, direct contradictory evidence that fighters "defend" by attacking the enemies has not been addressed.

Bedrockgames said:
Now if someone makes a specific claim like the fighter is a bodyguard because he does less damage over an encounter than a striker can, and yiu can show that the striker cant do more damage over an encounter, then yes you have a claim to truth there. But the golden mean fallacy doesn't really apply to subjective judgment calls about how cool a class is or how well it fits a particular role.

I'll say it again, someone did make a specific claim: the fighter is a bodyguard because in order to do what his role says, he is restricted from attacking. This is silly because the fighter's defender mechanic requires him to attack. It doesn't work unless he attacks.

This is not a subjective judgment. This is being wrong about how the fighter works mechanically.

MacMathan · May 10, 2012

Wiseblood said:
I did not see them. I figured a year was good enough. It's a hobby not marriage.

Shhhh... don't tell my wife, I have been with this hobby about three times as long as I have been married

More to the point not every combination is covered with the release of the early books, this was true in all of the editions i have played. It will be true of 5e also some races and class concepts will not make the cut for the initial year otherwise the first books would be 800 pages.

Imaro · May 10, 2012

Herschel said:
In D&D, it is. The party tension isn't, but PvP outside of short bursts is because the system has NEVER been designed for it. There are systems that do account for it and handle it well, D&D has never been one of them though.

Ok, first please clarify what you mean by "short bursts"... because I have run and played in D&D games where inter-party rivalry and conflict changed depending upon the actions of the PC's.

Second what exactly about the earlier D&D systems hinders PvP conflict?

Imaro · May 10, 2012

You know, I'm curious... is there another defender class that can stop movement with their defender mechanics like the fighter can? I think this might be part of the reason for the "bodyguard" feel some people experience with the fighter.

If a player wants to use that ability in an optimally tactical way he doesn't get to just run off into the fray and fight whoever he wants while leaving the squishier party members open to enemies that can now get around him. He probably positions himself as a sort of "bodyguard" in a way that allows him to block enemies from getting to the other party members. Do the mechanics force this... no. Do they encourage it... in many combat situations I would say yes.