When did the Fighter become "defender"?

I haven't read the whole thread but Fighters going from strikers (3E and pre) to defenders (4E) was a big put off for me. I liked it when the essentials slayer fighter came out, to me that was a proper fighter.
I think that in DnDN the way damage is dealt can be a point differentiation for several classes:
Fighter: Defends self well (armour) and does lots of damage
Barbarian: Doesn't defend self well (light armour) but has heaps of HP to take it and does a lot of damage
Paladin: defends self and other (holy defender) well, does average damage and has spells that defend. Best at striking his religions enemies - whether it is undead or animals or humans, depends on the religion (brings damage up to par with fighter)
Cleric: defends self and others OK (not as good as Pal) and buffs/heals entire party. Damage is average and then via spell more than mace.

Just my 2CP

Carry on with your current, ahem, discussion about Ftrs as defenders (tho' it looks a lot like edition warring! tut tut)

paladinm said:

Everyone remarks about the problems with "forced roles" in 4e. While I agree with this, I think the problem is "forced teamwork". When I first picked up 4e, I was amazed at how many "powers" were, "your weapon does this, and your ally gains that as a bonus".

Teamwork should be a matter of roleplaying, Not an integral, required part of the game design. If I want to be a one-man army, I should have that option. I'm sure Conan was really worried about buffing all his hangers-on in the heat of battle.

Click to expand...

Then why play with other people at all? Just play a video game or something. When I get together with friends we actually want EVERYONE to have a good time.

Bedrockgames said:

I appreciate the desire yo have others share your preferences, but I think if you stepped back and looked at what people are saying it is generally the whole of 4E doesn't appeal to them and this is usually based on playing the game and reading the books (they may have reached different concusions a out certain things but not unreasonable ones ImO). The idea that people would like it if they didn't just make wild assumptins about it due to the role names also seems a bit unfounded here.

I read the books, a played several times. I just don't like it. How many times do I need to keep playing it for people on the other side to accept it isn't for me ( i mean I certainly gave it more tries than other games I disliked). You may not mind the use of roles in 4E, but others feel it is one of the reasons behind their dislike (and I think like any other aspect of the game both sides can make valid points about how much freedom or limitation they place on play). Personally I am not a fan of the way roles are so focused around combat and I don't really agree with the role selection (i never really saw rogues as strikers for example). But that is hardly the only thing about 4e that bugs me.

On this subject of words. I dont know what to say except it isn't our fault if the 4e designers failed to communicate clearly. On the one hand we are told you have to look past the words in 4e and use your imagination, on the other we are told that words are the most important aspect of the game and convey all kinds of flavor information. All I know is I never had these issues in earlier editions of the game.

Trust me, this isn't hate on my part. 4e does what it does, and lots of people like it. I dont hold it against them for trying to make a more focused version of D&D. It just doesn't appeal to me. If the next edition appeals to me I will buy it, if it doesn't I won't. There seems to be this implication behind the 4e hater label that if you don't accept each new edition of D&D and play it, you are somehow closed minded or attempting to be mean. Sorry to rant a bit here, but I just think that is incorrect. I pretty much only play games that interest me. If that happens to be the current edition of D&D, great. If not, that is fine too. If you love 4E, by all means you should play it and want 5e to reflect your preferences. But some peope jus are not satisfied with it....and I don't think you can talk somene into liking it, anymore than you can talk someone into liking a food that they dislike the taste of.

Click to expand...

Could not have said it any better. It won't allow me to give you any XP but if it did then I would be handing it over.

I have played 4th edition since it came out and I just do not like it. I have played normal characters, gimped characters and optimized characters and the results are all the same for me. To be honest, the game bores me. It feels like a chore to me and I don't like feeling that way.

If a game can't make me feel like I am having fun then it failed.

Bedrockgames said:

Trust me, this isn't hate on my part. 4e does what it does, and lots of people like it. I dont hold it against them for trying to make a more focused version of D&D. It just doesn't appeal to me. If the next edition appeals to me I will buy it, if it doesn't I won't. There seems to be this implication behind the 4e hater label that if you don't accept each new edition of D&D and play it, you are somehow closed minded or attempting to be mean. Sorry to rant a bit here, but I just think that is incorrect. I pretty much only play games that interest me. If that happens to be the current edition of D&D, great. If not, that is fine too. If you love 4E, by all means you should play it and want 5e to reflect your preferences. But some peope jus are not satisfied with it....and I don't think you can talk somene into liking it, anymore than you can talk someone into liking a food that they dislike the taste of.

Click to expand...

I have plenty of complaints about 4E. On this particular issue, I don't object to roles as a concept, but 4E was far too dogmatic about them, especially in the early books where every striker got a 1/round damage bonus, and every defender got marking, and every leader got a 2/encounter "healing word" minor action. Combat role should be a starting point for class design, not a cookie-cutter.

Nevertheless, I can see how people find it hard to believe somebody who claims that Combat Challenge and mark mechanics push the fighter to hang back with the wizard. They do nothing of the kind. 4E fighters do best when they charge into the thick of things.

Bedrockgames said:

I appreciate the desire yo have others share your preferences, but I think if you stepped back and looked at what people are saying it is generally the whole of 4E doesn't appeal to them and this is usually based on playing the game and reading the books (they may have reached different concusions a out certain things but not unreasonable ones ImO). The idea that people would like it if they didn't just make wild assumptins about it due to the role names also seems a bit unfounded here.

I read the books, a played several times. I just don't like it. How many times do I need to keep playing it for people on the other side to accept it isn't for me ( i mean I certainly gave it more tries than other games I disliked). You may not mind the use of roles in 4E, but others feel it is one of the reasons behind their dislike (and I think like any other aspect of the game both sides can make valid points about how much freedom or limitation they place on play). Personally I am not a fan of the way roles are so focused around combat and I don't really agree with the role selection (i never really saw rogues as strikers for example). But that is hardly the only thing about 4e that bugs me.

On this subject of words. I dont know what to say except it isn't our fault if the 4e designers failed to communicate clearly. On the one hand we are told you have to look past the words in 4e and use your imagination, on the other we are told that words are the most important aspect of the game and convey all kinds of flavor information. All I know is I never had these issues in earlier editions of the game.

Trust me, this isn't hate on my part. 4e does what it does, and lots of people like it. I dont hold it against them for trying to make a more focused version of D&D. It just doesn't appeal to me. If the next edition appeals to me I will buy it, if it doesn't I won't. There seems to be this implication behind the 4e hater label that if you don't accept each new edition of D&D and play it, you are somehow closed minded or attempting to be mean. Sorry to rant a bit here, but I just think that is incorrect. I pretty much only play games that interest me. If that happens to be the current edition of D&D, great. If not, that is fine too. If you love 4E, by all means you should play it and want 5e to reflect your preferences. But some peope jus are not satisfied with it....and I don't think you can talk somene into liking it, anymore than you can talk someone into liking a food that they dislike the taste of.

Click to expand...

I remember back when 4e came out talking on WotC boards about how the titles of leader, controller, defender and striker were so absolutely generic that they could be applied via alternate definitions for different classes.

Leader, I argued, could be the LEADER of the group... the face man. Hell the leader could be (and often was in our games) the fighter.
The defender then may be the cleric, who boosts all his friends and heals them.
The wizard is a striker, as he does more damage to multiple enemies.
The rogue could be a controller as he is able to maneuver around the battlefield and hit for extra damage in sensitive spots.

When I said this I was immediately rebuffed by the already entrenched 4e supporters who said the class roles could only look one way and operate one way and that my definitions made no sense, wouldn't work and that I should go away now please.

I guess the reason I brought this up is simple, why bother using extra terms to describe how the party is supposed to work. Why not be satisfied when it simply does work? If a group is adventuring and realizes they need some extra firepower, or healing, or whatever, can they not adjust? Do they specifically need to be told you must have one of the following: Leader, Striker, Controller, Defender?

Next, why is the game built that way? Why should you have to have those four groups? A cleric should be helpful but never absolutely necessary. A wizard should be magical and knowledgeable about magic. A fighter should be the tough-man or expert at arms who can take down the enemy. The rogue should be good at helping out the fighter in certain situations while being invaluable in others - namely stealth or trickery. Why create an artificial construct to reinforce their IN BATTLE context only?

Herschel said:

Then why play with other people at all? Just play a video game or something. When I get together with friends we actually want EVERYONE to have a good time.

Click to expand...

If anything, using teamwork is MORE important in videogames, usually. I can't think of a single RPG where you control more than one character where it isn't vital to keep all characters you control in fit fighting shape.

As far as your actual comment however - DnD is about friendship and teamwork certainly but it shouldn't be mandated by the game. What if you aren't friends with the group? What if ROLE-playing develops and not everyone gets along. What if the party decides to fight one another for whatever reason? What if an encounter ends up being handled by only one person. Why does the game assume you are doing everything in a group. Why does the game assume you have all 4 class types covered in a battle? It is a balancing act that the game expects certain things and if you start leaving the beaten path then the system stops being balanced. And since balance is the chief thing that 4e praises and talks about, when it isn't there it is sorely missed.

Tovec said:

I guess the reason I brought this up is simple, why bother using extra terms to describe how the party is supposed to work. Why not be satisfied when it simply does work? If a group is adventuring and realizes they need some extra firepower, or healing, or whatever, can they not adjust? Do they specifically need to be told you must have one of the following: Leader, Striker, Controller, Defender?

Click to expand...

The original purpose of the roles was simply to ensure that every class was strong in its own sphere; to avoid the situation where CoDzilla dominates the fighter in melee, or the Batman wizard makes the rogue redundant, or the monk just fails to accomplish anything useful. As such, they were guidelines for the designers. There was no need to put them into the Player's Handbook at all.

Unfortunately, 4E went seriously overboard with the idea.

Wiseblood said:

Who goes adventuring and needs a babysitter? Defend yourself. People get miffed that the cleric was relegated to healbot or ambulatory band-aid. Will they chafe at having to defend as the fighter? I certainly do. The fighter should fight not "protect whistle britches" from the unwashed hordes. People that get defended in fiction are frequently the "defenseless". While not useless they are typified by a complete lack of combat ability and or adventuring background. (Think Natalia in Goldeneye.)

I am the first to admit that teamwork is important. I think the "tank" meme is a legitimate approach. Heavy armor is to protect the wearer from harm. The wearer of said armor often will interpose himself between danger and his charge, if he has a charge. I think "defender" needs to be a theme or background not the foundation of a class.


The expectation of "defending" as the role of fighters is as insulting as the fighter being the "pack mule".

If I defend, it is by the fighting of foes. What do I defend? My positoin. I seek to become invincible. Great fighters in our history often defended things villages, virtues, and well I can't think of another "V' word. They did it by kicking butt. The Spartans defended they sold their lives for a dear price. Huge piles of dead enemies.

Tactics, strategy, strengths and weaknesses all come into play. The fighter can be so much more than a defender that it makes me ill to think they might get shafted with that crap again. Imagine if wizards could only be "artillery"".


I do not mind the fighter being "the front line" but if some dope is dumb enough to slip by into the midst of my comrades they should definitely be able to handle it. I trust them to watch my back after all.

Click to expand...

I Agree. The above is perhaps a little over dramatized and snarky, but overall I think Wiseblood is right.

4E had defined roles, and made Fighters "Defenders", while Rogues became "Strikers". But originally, from the beginning of D&D, the Fighter has been the "Tank"...and that's not the same thing as a "Defender".

Yes, as a Tank there was certain bit of "Defending" taking place as a result of what a Fighter did, but it was only one aspect...an aspect that was a side effect of what a "Tank" was really supposed to do: stand toe-to-toe with the bad-guys, take whatever they dish out, and inflict massive amounts of damage on them. However in 4E, the massive amount of damage part became a facet of the "Striker". That is not how it's always been. The original Fighters mantra was "an overwhelming Offense makes for the best Defense". The only "Defending" they did was killing all the bad guys before they killed him and his party.

The fighter should fight not "protect whistle britches" from the unwashed hordes.

Click to expand...

Firing Range Instructor: [hands Lisa a whistle] If there's a war, just blow on it, and I'll come help you.

How about we nuke class roles entirely?

Bedrockgames said:

On this subject of words. I dont know what to say except it isn't our fault if the 4e designers failed to communicate clearly. On the one hand we are told you have to look past the words in 4e and use your imagination, on the other we are told that words are the most important aspect of the game and convey all kinds of flavor information. All I know is I never had these issues in earlier editions of the game.

Click to expand...

Go back a couple years on this board and look up the "class as group of abilities" versus "class as character" debate over the barbarian.
One side contended that you can not take a level of barbarian after 1st level because barbarian means being raised in an uncivilized tribe.....

Regarding the edition war.. got two sides here. One is saying that the one first level class ability forces a player of a fighter to play bodyguard.
The other side is saying that the one first level ability allows the Pc to be better at the stereotypical role of the class, but other choices allow you to build up other abilities.

The first view goes counter to my experience, as related back on page 4 or so, where the fighter in my group ties up and beats down on the bad guys so much that the rest of the group is protected from damage.

Those proponents of the first view are relentless at restating their position without acknowledgement of the other sides view and experience. So for me, thanks for playing... but I have nothing more to add that hasn't been ignored already.

Peace out!

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

As another video game reference, I compare the defender role more to a tank in League of Legends than World of Warcraft. The "tank" in that game is typically the most aggressive player, who jumps into the middle of the fray at the first opportunity, causes as much chaos as possible and draws the attention of the other players because it's foolhardy to ignore him. You "defend" the rest of the team by kicking enough butt that the other team can't afford to focus fire your squishier members. Very few tanks in that game have "taunt" abilities, and if the other team of players is willing and capable of ignoring you then you're not doing your job as a tank. You can build the heaviest-armored, highest HP character you can imagine (there's a character that does that exactly, Dr. Mundo. Standard practice in a teamfight is to completely ignore him), but if you're not causing chaos and making yourself a threat, nobody will even look at you.

So are you defending your allies? Yes, you're forcing your opponent make the decision to attack you or your allies, and if you're disruptive enough they'll attack you. Are you sitting back and playing "bodyguard" to the other players? Absolutely not, you lead from the front and get up in your opponent's craw. You use your defensive capabilities in an offensive manner.

That's the terminology here. The word "defender" in 4th edition doesn't mean standing back and holding the line, the job basically requires you to leap into danger and make yourself a gigantic threat by killing every enemy you see. It's the not the fighter's job because he's a babysitter or a bodyguard but because if anyone smaller or less hardy did it they'd be waxed in the blink of an eye.