When did the Fighter become "defender"?
Fifth Element
Legend
I disagree in this particular case - the argument that the 4E mechanics require a fighter to be a spellcaster's bodyguard in order to be effective, rather than attacking, is clearly not based on a good understanding of 4E.
If you dislike roles, there are all kinds of reasonable things you can say about that. But in this thread there has been some very clear misunderstanding of 4E mechanics being presented as a reason to dislike roles.
Fifth Element
Legend
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.
If they did not have anything in common with other classes of their role, then the role designation would indeed be meaningless, mechanically. But we're talking about a game in which a first-level character has several at-will powers, an encounter power and a daily power, possibly a racial power, typically several class features, and a feat. To say that since one of these many things is quite similar to a thing another class has, that makes them essentially identical (cookie-cutter)? Pretty far-fetched.
Bedrockgames
Legend
I am not really making the argument that fighters have to do that in 4e (my primary objection to roles is on other grounds), so I would rather let the folks making that argument defend their position. But i do think it is possible for people to lookk at the same class (like a 4e or 3e fighter) examining the same mechanics and walk away with very different takes on what it does well and does not do well.
Wiseblood
Adventurer
Whew I have now read the pages and I've caught up.
The defeder role has shaped the class abilities of fighters to the point that it is difficult to shape the fighter that you want. This is what I mean by the roles being defined and the classes hammered into them. The fighter's class abilities and it's powers funnel it into a style of playing that feels very rigid to me.
I played and DM'ed 4e for a year the players that played fighters performed well. They had a good time and were useful party members. They embraced the class and the defender role.
I could not, because to me, a fighter is much more flexible than the one presented. Some examples would be two weapon fighters or archers.
You can say the Ranger would be the class you want. I would say no. I want heavy armor and lots of healing surges. Perhaps I want a duelist lightly armored and wielding a light weapon. I might be able to pull it off but I will clearly not be living up to my potential using the fighter class.
I am not willing to sacrifice that much in either direction. That is where the defender role has brought me.
I think 5e will have classes shaped by backgroundsand themes in a way that is more my style.
I hope everyone is enjoying this thread. I have been enlightened and entertained.
The defeder role has shaped the class abilities of fighters to the point that it is difficult to shape the fighter that you want. This is what I mean by the roles being defined and the classes hammered into them. The fighter's class abilities and it's powers funnel it into a style of playing that feels very rigid to me.
I played and DM'ed 4e for a year the players that played fighters performed well. They had a good time and were useful party members. They embraced the class and the defender role.
I could not, because to me, a fighter is much more flexible than the one presented. Some examples would be two weapon fighters or archers.
You can say the Ranger would be the class you want. I would say no. I want heavy armor and lots of healing surges. Perhaps I want a duelist lightly armored and wielding a light weapon. I might be able to pull it off but I will clearly not be living up to my potential using the fighter class.
I am not willing to sacrifice that much in either direction. That is where the defender role has brought me.
I think 5e will have classes shaped by backgroundsand themes in a way that is more my style.
I hope everyone is enjoying this thread. I have been enlightened and entertained.
Fifth Element
Legend
Possible, yes. But in this particular case, where the 4E fighter marks by attacking, any claim that his "defending ability" forces him to sit back and be a bodyguard is simply wrong. If he sits back, he cannot use his defending ability.
When two opposing viewpoints are presented, the truth is not always somewhere in the middle. Sometimes one viewpoint is simply wrong.
(I also note you mention examining mechanics, rather than playing them. That might be key here.)
Bedrockgames
Legend
Again i will let others making that specific claim defend it. But again experiences may vary and perceptions may vary. You may find the fighter is given adequate damage potential and options to be labeled as more than z bodyguard (perhaps a good deal more) others may not. I wasn't suggesting the truth falls in the middle. I was saying this is very much a matter of perspective...like a lot of otger edition war issues.
Lets cut it with this stuff. This is a tired old line we all the time. By examinkng, i mean playing. I have played 4e. Sounds like the others here have too. They simply disagree. Even when folks make observations that are incorrect that doesn't mean they didn't play 4e (i had lots of guys who misunderstood mechanics in 2e and 3e but played with us for years.
MacMathan
Explorer
So I take it you never saw the Slayer, Tempest, other types of fighters, etc. The only one not done easily is the archer. There is even a fighter who does well bare handed. It is the apparent lack of knowledge of the current status of 4e that makes threads like these so frustrating to me.
FireLance
Legend
I'm quite prepared to get behind a call not to hardwire classes into roles in 5e.
However, I don't think that you can get rid of roles because like it or not, they are going to emerge in actual play.
Still, I suppose, "Get rid of roles" is a snappier catchphrase than, "Don't hardwire classes into roles".
EDIT: I can just imagine the game that would result if the developers actually took the "get rid of roles" demand seriously and literally:
"The game doesn't have any abilities that allow you to inflict extra damage because that could give characters the Striker role. We also took out healing and buffing because we didn't want to enable a Leader role, either. Abilities that inflicted conditions and penalties, moved enemies around and created area attacks were also removed because we didn't want characters to become Controllers. And to ensure that there will be no Defenders, we gave everyone exactly the same hit points and AC."
Last edited:
Blackwarder
Adventurer
First of all I would just like to point out that I was never comfortable with healing and buffing being labaled as Leader, just throwing this out here.
That being said, roles should be added as themes, what to be the party leader with some minor buffs and leading abilities? (note no healing for this big guy) we got a theme for that! What's to play a ranger that protect folks in the wilderness? (a defenderish taste) we got a theme for that! Wants to deal tons of damage? Guess what, we got a theme for that also! Shocking I know
Warder
That being said, roles should be added as themes, what to be the party leader with some minor buffs and leading abilities? (note no healing for this big guy) we got a theme for that! What's to play a ranger that protect folks in the wilderness? (a defenderish taste) we got a theme for that! Wants to deal tons of damage? Guess what, we got a theme for that also! Shocking I know
Warder
Similar Threads
