When did the Fighter become "defender"?

Eric Tolle said:

*shrug* I knew people who considered commoners to be completely valid character choices. And to be sure, they could carry the mage's loot as well as a fighter.

Click to expand...

I assume any character with a strength score equal to the "fighter" could carry the loot as well. I don't see how this has anything to do with anything.

It was awfully nice of the caster to allow you to take out the construct all by yourself. I bet he even patted you on the head and said you did an amazing job.

Click to expand...

Um.... You should actually read my post. I was the caster. An epic-cleric in fact. And in that game when the fighter took out the construct I was unable to act before her. She did it and I sat there with my jaw-dropped and mopped up the left over (FAR WEAKER) supporting cast to the colossal plus sided construct. The construct was the real challenge and the fighter killed it in the first round, by herself. It took me far longer to kill all the little mobs that were walking around below.

Like it or not, the real role for a fighter in 3rd. edition is "sidekick".

Click to expand...

I told you last time, you can keep saying it but it isn't true and isn't convincing anyone. Good luck with this tagline, maybe if you got it inked you'll be able to have it displayed to everyone from now until you die. That might convince at least some people who have never played the edition of what you are saying, though I would wager that most people still wouldn't care or agree.

Herschel said:

It's quite true as the game progresses. At house cat levels, the Wizard is very vulnerable while at higher levels he "owns" the game. A lot of games start around third level to avoid the house cat levels. The Wizard tends to trivialize the other classes at high levels, especially with system mastery.

Click to expand...

I gave an example of the fighter outpacing me the cleric at epic levels to show that "they suck only at house cat level" idea is flawed. If the fighter was able to easily outdo me then I don't see how this example can ever be true.

On a side note, practically every character can die to a house cat at low levels. What is your point exactly?

The "limitation" was that you're comparing options when only the PHB1 was release vs. options after years of splatbooks were out. That's not making a reasonable comparison.

Click to expand...

Two things, first, this wasn't about the various "limitations" you were talking about. This post was about how all 3e fighters were pack-carriers for wizards. So the point about the comparison is irrelevant as I'm not comparing anything, just pointing out that they WEREN'T.

Second, the characters in question - the ones in that epic game. The fighter was built using material available at 3.5 release. The cleric was using material from complete divine and I STILL was weaker.

This is NOT true. Hybrid rules were announjced and always in the works. There were preliminary and "play test" versions out for some classes LONG before PHB 3 was released. Multiclassing was the way you dabble in a second class while Hybriding is how you function as two classes "equally". Not everything came out in the PHB 1, just like every other edition. That would have been overwhelming, not time-realistic and really bad for the rule book treadmill business model.

Click to expand...

Yes but were the hybrids in PHB1, or even 2? Or were they actually put into a book in PHB3? If they only existed in PHB3 then my point still stands regardless if they had been talking about it before.

The proper comparison here would be the 5e designers talking about making 5e... versus actually releasing it! Which are we supposed to use?

Obviously simply reflavoring a crossbow or the like wasn't thought of so simply allowing a bow to be used for ranged powers when all you have is the PHB 1 is an easy, minor swith of a prerequisite. House rules are pretty common in every edition, in most cases to fix the broken stuff in this case it's allowing powers to work with a similar weapon which is a miniscule change. If one can't be creative enough to say 'okay, you have a bow, it's not specifically built with a recurve or reinforced for a deeper pull to maximize damage but it's beautifully-made, extremely light and has the stats of a hand crossbow' then that's your other option until more books come out.

Click to expand...

You say it right here, 4e is broken (or at least rigid) as it cannot allow something as simple as a bow to be used. Previous editions didn't have this problem. My point is made by you.

As far as I understand it isn't even like a bow would have been a sub-par choice, it appears as though it was not a choice at all. Having to houserule something is not a defense of any edition.

This again is looking at it backwards. All 4E did was make the game transparent and give you chassis to build character concepts around. If you didn't like the melee/battle cleric or ranged claric options in the PHB one for your holy man concept and you want to play a Defending Holy Man then you play a Paladin (either strong, charismatic or both). If you want to play a Striker Holy Man, Avenger or Blackguard. More control, Invoker.



Again, 4E just made it transparent. There's a reason those classes were suggested was to fill all the inherent roles. Which leads us too....


The roles were clarified in order to give characters better tools to do their desired job. The Fighter is usually played as a Defender because he has some great, little tricks that make him better able to draw attacks. You can't just shift away from him and charge a squishy, there are now "better" consequences for the Fighter character if you ignore him.

Controllers got more ways to mess up a monster's day in a big way. It was just about playing a blaster any more and seeing how many damage dice you could role, it was actually being able to shape a battlefield.

Click to expand...

Okay, you missed my point so I'll phrase it another way.
Prior to 4e the books suggested you play one of each of the following; fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. It often went on to say that if you didn't the game would be more difficult. It may have explained how other classes could fit these roles or substitute for these roles or layer across to cover them.
They said most of these same things in 4e, however the key difference is they never said that you need to have a wizard because he controls and you can use X to replace or cover that angle to act as controller. It added a new layer of "what is this" to the game. It codified fighters as defenders, then gave other characters who could be defenders if you didn't have a fighter. It said a fighter could be a backup striker - because you need someone who does lots of damage.
Gone were the roles of magic-guy, healer-guy, skills-guy, and fighter-guy. Now were the roles of boost-allies, limit-enemies, strike-for-extra-damage-guy, and "defender".
The roles are now too narrowly defined, and combat-centric, and some people find this off-putting. What is so difficult to agree about here?

Also, I'll ignore for the present that people have an entirely different issue calling fighters defenders, instead of some other vaguely titled role.

I see this statement made and it is completely ignorant of reality. It's not that "all that matters is combat" it's just that combat is the only place such extensive rules are needed. By that measure, 1E and 2e were "all about combat" too then. The social and exploration protions of the game don't need a tight framework and oodles and scads of rules to work, it helps to have some basic skills for adjudication in solving more difficult questions.

Click to expand...

Actually, given that 4e is based on 3e, and 3 on 2 and 2 on 1...
That is backwards. 4e has social skills for example, but places no where near as much emphasis on any aspect of them. Instead we have 95% of all pages, rules, supplements and aspects of the game focusing on COMBAT. Combat IS paramount in 4e. It is the way that 4e achieves its famed balanced. Other areas of the game took a backseat, something that 5e is seeking to remedy.

Hussar said:

Then, perhaps, you aren't included in the many I pointed to?

I mean, heck, you can see the comments in this very thread of people who are misunderstanding the system. "The defender fighter is a bodyguard" comment which started a long section of this discussion in a perfect example of someone completely misunderstanding 4e mechanics.

Look, when you make a comment about a system, and several fans of that system stand up and point to the game and can quote chapter and verse of the books where you are wrong, you are wrong about that system. Doesn't matter what that system is. There's a reason I will very rarely discuss AD&D mechanics in specific, because I know that I'm wrong more often than I'm right.

The comment earlier was that you couldn't have a fighter that was a defender and a striker is flat out wrong. It's provably wrong. You can point to powers at level after level which allow a fighter to fulfill either role without even resorting to splatbooks.

But, time after time after time, people will continue to bang the same drum that 4e characters are too restricted by role and suchlike. Despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary which immedietely gets ignored because it doesn't fit with the poster's preconception of the system.

Why do they have these preconceptions? Because of how the mechanics are presented is my belief. Now, you don't like 4e because of AEDU. Fair enough. That's perfectly legitimate. No worries. You're not making claims about anything other than your specific taste. Therefore, I'm obviously not referring to you when I talk about how the 4e PHB presents the mechanics.

But, there are a number of posters in this thread and others who have some pretty faulty grasps on the 4e mechanics and it's obvious to anyone who's actually taken the time to read the books.

Click to expand...

I normally don't do this, but I felt you deserved your own response.

My post wasn't about whether or not I was included in the masses you were talking to. It wasn't even about disagreeing with your post. I DO happen to think that the way many ideas were presented was immediately an issue for people when first approaching the game. I also think that there are countless other reasons for not trying it beyond the first look.

Silly arguments about what defenders mean, or if the fighter is a bodyguard are really not as important as the core ideas of how the power system works, or the overly balanced classes, the AEDU format, healing surges, second winds, the recategorization of classes by roles, and so on.

I don't know if you point was this too but the way the stat blocks looked was a turn off for me, and others I know. As I said before, many of the ideas were foreign to me and struck me as odd or not how the game should be played. I can't be alone in this view at all.

Pointing out examples and quotes from the books really have nothing to do with perception, which I think is your point. I will certainly agree that for some it doesn't matter how much or how hard you argue the correct thing they will never be convinced. But I also think it doesn't matter how long healing surges are explained and re-explained to people, or how clearly, if they dislike the idea they aren't going to change their mind. Similarly if they change the term to heroic surges and put them back into 5e I won't be happy. I never had a problem with calling the default fighter a defender. I had a problem with all fighters being limited to this role. I never had a problem with in-combat healing, I had a problem with the WAY it was done. I know I didn't give 4e as much of a chance as it perhaps deserved, but that had to do with many of my issues with WotC not listening to my perceived demographic and discontinuing support. It had very little to do with how the ideas were presented. IF it had been as simple as not liking the concepts on first blush then I am certain that I probably would have come around by now, PF or not. But I know, and have said, that the more I read about 4e the more I dislike it. At this point it has nothing to do with perceived slights or issues, it has to do with legitimate ones.

El Mahdi said:

No, it's not a mix of misunderstanding and retcon, as it's neither.

The point is that in 4E, Fighter's were not primarily Strikers, Rogues were. Rogues do more damage than Fighters...and that just is not right.

Click to expand...

1: Says you. Backstab has always done more damage than a fighter. Rogues in 3.X with sneak attack do more damage than fighters. It is a blatant retcon, ignoring many prior editions, to say that fighters have always outdamaged rogues.

2: Says you. A rogue's best weapon is effectively a +4/1d4 weapon. A fighter's most damaging weapon is effectively a +4/1d12 weapon. If the rogue doesn't get sneak attack, the fighter wins comfortably. The rogue is a decent striker if and only if the rogue is sneak attacking - with Sneak Attack the rogue does d6 (normally d8) damage more than a two handed fighter and without the rogue does d6 (d8 allowing for backstabber and exotic weapons) less as a baseline.

3: Says you. The rogue's damage isn't affected much by powers. If the rogue is using a dagger a [3W] power will do a total of 2d4 damage more than a [1W] power - for a fighter this number is somewhere between 2d8 and 2d12 - which means that the fighter catches up on damage if the equivalent powers does [2W] as a lot of encounter powers do. And a multi-target or multiple attacks per round power won't be scaled well for the rogue because they don't get sneak attack. So the rogue gains much less in effectiveness from the high damage powers.

4: Says you.

When we look at the powers and power combos, the combination of Come And Get It followed by Sweeping Blow with a fullblade does a level of carnage the rogue could only dream of - draws in most enemies in a Close Burst 3 with a highly accurate [1W] attack and follows it up by a [1W] + Str attack with a bonus to hit. Which doubles all static sources of damage. Or we look at Rain of Blows - three separate attacks from an encounter power - which triples static damage bonusses and pushes things way out of the league of any rogue. Or we look at dailies. A fighter built for damage can take 3W dailies quite happily - rogues can't touch that and couldn't with a [3W] daily of their own.

On the other hand rogue powers are normally geared towards control. Rogues get an encounter [1w] daze at level 1. They get an encounter blind at level 7.

Although the rogue has the striker damage mechanic, fighter powers are actually more strikery than rogue ones.

So a fighter that goes in for two handed fighting will actually do more damage than a rogue whatever the class roles say.

And what I said is correct. "Tank" does not necessarily mean "Defender". But the 4E role pigeon-holed the Fighter into one aspect of being a Tank.

Click to expand...

No. Your lack of understanding of 4e means that you think 4e pigeon holed fighters when a fighter built for damage using only PHB options can outdamage a rogue.

Admin here. Folks, this last line is a good example of how not to post. Please don't tell other people what they supposedly think. Concentrate on being polite and supporting your own points. -- Piratecat

shidaku said:

No, that's your opinion.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Not my opinion, it's fact. Until 4E, Fighters could deal out more damage than Rogues. Yes, Rogues might have an occasional attack that did a large amount of damage, but round after round, it was the Fighter and not the Rogue who was the big damage dealer. That definitively changed only in 4E.

shidaku said:

I believe that D&D is big enough to include multiple preferences.

Click to expand...

I agree, it doesn't have to remain as it was. But that is not what this thread is about. Fighter's only became dedicated Defenders with 4E...period...FACT.

shidaku said:

"Tank" means "defender" if you understand game terminology.

Click to expand...

I understand game terminology just fine, thank you very much. And "Tank" has not always meant "Defender". Tank was a term used before video games and 4E, just because it meant something else in those venues, does not make their definition the definition of Tank. There is no such thing as a Standardized Gaming Dictionary...and with good reason. Tank has been used since the beginning of D&D to mean the big, bad, damage absorbing AND damage dealing Warrior. Just because video games and 4E wanted to focus on the damage absorbing aspect, does not make it the only definition.

But even leaving out the argument over the definition: In D&D prior to 4E, the Fighter as Tank meant a character that, primarily, could equally deal out and absorb massive amounts of damage. In 4E it became primarily a damage absorber, and only secondarily a damage dealer, and that is a divergence from prior editions. Plain and simple...there is no getting around that fact.

GM Dave said:

A couple of things;


1> Why is it wrong that a rogue can do more damage than a fighter? This has traditionally been the case of the rogue given the right opportunity. One of the most feared things in 1e and 2e DnD was a Thief using improved invisibility to get multiple backstabs. A flanking Rogue in 3e was scary for the backstab which added to the damage. I had a 3e rogue with throw anything ability and used to rely on the +d6 for damage to turn simple things like salt shakers and coppers into fearsome weapons that could hurt dragons.

In one of my current PF games, one of the player's is most fearsome playing an Orc Rogue with 18 str and wielding a two handed axe. He gets further aid from the witch of the group that puts things to sleep allowing him to do a Coup de Grace for d12 x3 + sneak attack + str bonus.

Click to expand...

Why is it wrong? Because in my opinion, it goes against the standard conception of their roles (and I'm not talking about 4E's artificial roles). It's not wrong as in "you can't play the game that way", but it is a divergence from both fiction and past iterations of D&D. In gaming and fiction, the Warrior is typically the big damage dealer, and the Rogue is not. Like I said above in response to Shidaku, a Rogue might have an occasional attack that exceeds what a Warrior can do, but round for round the Warrior is the main damage dealer. A Rogue that can deal more damage round for round than a Warrior (Fighter) can, is not a Rogue...it's a Warrior. A rules system that allows Rogues to Sneak Attack as commonly and easily as a Warrior making standard attacks, and thereby dealing more damage round to round, is a system that is completely ignoring the archetype and is based on a purely gamist focus. That's not a necessarily bad or wrong thing. If it's a style that one finds fun, then go for it. But it was not a standard aspect of D&D until 4E. Which is the point of this thread. The Fighter did not become a "Defender" until 4E.

As to the two examples you provided: 1) A Rogue able to throw salt shakers and hurt dragons with them......that's strictly a fringe-D&D thing only. Most people don't play that way, and I believe most DM's would balk at something like that. I can guarantee I would.

One, It's not from the core rules (as throw anything comes from the splat Sword and Fist. Two, the Feat specifically says you can throw any weapon, even if it's not meant to be thrown (that rules out salt shakers). Third, even if I allowed salt shakers to be applicable "weapons" with the Feat, I'd list their damage as 1 (at the most). Fourth, I've always found that the ability to add on extra damage from things like Strength, etc. (but not Sneak Attack) that significantly exceeds the base damage of the item, to be a very broken aspect of D&D. One that I fixed by houserule by limiting extra damage to only the maximum allowed by the base weapon (i.e.: 1d3 damage can do no more than +3 of extra damage, 1d6 can have no more that +6 damage, etc.). Such a character would not ever exist in a game I run, and by RAW, is likely only doing about 7 points of damage from a 1st level Rogue anyways.

2) The Half-Orc Rogue with the two-handed axe: the two-handed axe is not a Rogue weapon. In 3E it's not even a standard Half-Orc weapon...though I can see the logic behind that change in Pathfinder. However, as a GM of a game with such a character, I would rule that you can't make sneak attacks with a two-handed axe as 1) it's not a "Rogue" weapon, and 2) common sense would tell you an attack by one can be easily heard, and can't be mitigated no matter how high ones Move Silently score is (thus, the target is aware of the Rogue before resolution of the attack, therefore no Sneak Attack). Can a Rogue attack with one? Sure. Would I allow Sneak Attack damage with one? Absolutely Not.

If you've been allowed to do such things in games as a player, and allowed such things yourself as a GM, then you have played with very liberal GM's, and it sounds as if you are very liberal GM. One who does not play entirely by the rules as written. That's perfectly fine though...at your table...but in a discussion about such roles and archetypes, they are hardly legitimate examples.

GM Dave said:

2> Class does not mean the same thing in 4e as it did in earlier editions. In 4e, I could take a Cleric 'class' and call myself a Holy Wizard. I could take a Ranger class with beast option and call myself a Bestiary Gladiator. If you really like the 'striker' mechanic of extra damage when someone at a disadvantage then there were several ways for a player to achieve this from 4e multi-class, hybrids, re-skins (Choose ranger or rogue and tell people that you are a fighter), re-skins where you take feats to give you heavier armour or different weapons to use, picking up powers from other classes.

Click to expand...

On this I agree...100%...and is exactly the point of what I've been saying. 4E changed things in a way that was significantly divergent from past editions. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But those that argue that the 4E concept of Fighter as Defender has always been the defacto role of the Fighter throughout the editions, are just flat wrong.

Tovec said:

Um.... You should actually read my post. I was the caster. An epic-cleric in fact. And in that game when the fighter took out the construct I was unable to act before her. She did it and I sat there with my jaw-dropped and mopped up the left over (FAR WEAKER) supporting cast to the colossal plus sided construct.

Click to expand...

I've asked you already to tell me what bufs there were on the fighter. Because I've seen claims like this before. Last time I saw it, the buffs included Enlarge Person, Polymorph Any Object, Haste, Heroism, and several others. It therefore turned out that 75% of the damage being done by the fighter was actually thanks to the casters.

The construct was the real challenge and the fighter killed it in the first round, by herself. It took me far longer to kill all the little mobs that were walking around below.

Click to expand...

Why was the construct the real challenge? You're giving me anecdote and I want data. Every time I've investigated anecdotes like this the data turns out to show other things.

Give me math. Give me builds. Give me numbers.

Because if the cleric was behaving as a healbot then you were right. That's a weak way to play the cleric. If the fighter was buffed to the nines, then you were allocating the effect of a whole pile of spells to the fighter.

Herschel said:

You say it right here, 4e is broken (or at least rigid) as it cannot allow something as simple as a bow to be used.

Click to expand...

4e does allow clerics to use bows. What it doesn't do is reward clerics for using bows. Your understanding that the bow is not a choice at all is simply wrong. (That you'd have been stuck with ranged basic attacks unless you used multiclass feats to poach ranger powers is another matter).

Gone were the roles of magic-guy, healer-guy, skills-guy, and fighter-guy. Now were the roles of boost-allies, limit-enemies, strike-for-extra-damage-guy, and "defender".

Click to expand...

Ding, dong, the witch is dead. "Magic-guy" isn't a role. It's a catchall that describes absolutely nothing. Healer-guy was a trap. Skills-guy was another trap. And 'Defender' is exactly why you needed a fighter.

For that matter this was close top the 2e situation.

Actually, given that 4e is based on 3e, and 3 on 2 and 2 on 1...
That is backwards. 4e has social skills for example, but places no where near as much emphasis on any aspect of them.

Click to expand...

You mean you can't use a high enough level of diplomacy for near-automatic mind control? Cry me a river. Also 4e doesn't make skills irrelevant with the right spell. It's just a rules-light system.

Neonchameleon said:

1: Says you. Backstab has always done more damage than a fighter. Rogues in 3.X with sneak attack do more damage than fighters. It is a blatant retcon, ignoring many prior editions, to say that fighters have always outdamaged rogues.

Click to expand...

No, It's not just me that says that. It is a fact. A Rogue may be able to make an occasional attack (a Sneak Attack) that does more damage than a Fighter's maximum attack. But round for round, the 3E Fighter still dealt out more damage than the Rogue. The Fighter had a higher BAB, and more attacks per round. The math is undeniable.

Neonchameleon said:

2: Says you. A rogue's best weapon is effectively a +4/1d4 weapon. A fighter's most damaging weapon is effectively a +4/1d12 weapon. If the rogue doesn't get sneak attack, the fighter wins comfortably. The rogue is a decent striker if and only if the rogue is sneak attacking - with Sneak Attack the rogue does d6 (normally d8) damage more than a two handed fighter and without the rogue does d6 (d8 allowing for backstabber and exotic weapons) less as a baseline.

3: Says you. The rogue's damage isn't affected much by powers. If the rogue is using a dagger a [3W] power will do a total of 2d4 damage more than a [1W] power - for a fighter this number is somewhere between 2d8 and 2d12 - which means that the fighter catches up on damage if the equivalent powers does [2W] as a lot of encounter powers do. And a multi-target or multiple attacks per round power won't be scaled well for the rogue because they don't get sneak attack. So the rogue gains much less in effectiveness from the high damage powers.

4: Says you. When we look at the powers and power combos, the combination of Come And Get It followed by Sweeping Blow with a fullblade does a level of carnage the rogue could only dream of - draws in most enemies in a Close Burst 3 with a highly accurate [1W] attack and follows it up by a [1W] + Str attack with a bonus to hit. Which doubles all static sources of damage. Or we look at Rain of Blows - three separate attacks from an encounter power - which triples static damage bonusses and pushes things way out of the league of any rogue. Or we look at dailies. A fighter built for damage can take 3W dailies quite happily - rogues can't touch that and couldn't with a [3W] daily of their own.

On the other hand rogue powers are normally geared towards control. Rogues get an encounter [1w] daze at level 1. They get an encounter blind at level 7.

Although the rogue has the striker damage mechanic, fighter powers are actually more strikery than rogue ones.

So a fighter that goes in for two handed fighting will actually do more damage than a rogue whatever the class roles say.

No. Your lack of understanding of 4e means that you think 4e pigeon holed fighters when a fighter built for damage using only PHB options can outdamage a rogue.

Click to expand...

Again, No, it's not just me that says this. I've read thread after thread, and analysis after analysis by people here at ENWorld saying exactly the same thing...and I've read through and experimented with my own copies of the 4E core rules. Rogues out-deliver the Fighter on Damage. If you disagree with that, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

Also, I understand 4E just fine. I'm also quite sure you have no qualifications that make you able to know what I understand or don't understand. In the future, I'd suggest you reply about the post, and not about the poster. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, I'd suggest referencing ENWorlds Rules under the FAQ, or asking a moderator for clarification.

El Mahdi said:

I agree, it doesn't have to remain as it was. But that is not what this thread is about. Fighter's only became dedicated Defenders with 4E...period...FACT.

Click to expand...

OK. I'll have one more attempt. I've already demonstrated that you are wrong about 4e. Now for older editions:

From the 1e PHB - the first two paragraphs about the fighter
So a fighter's toughness is mentioned before anything to do with damage. FACT. They only did fractionally more melee damage than clerics or even thieves unless you'd lucked out with a natural 18 on strength. FACT.

You are retconning 1e out of existance. Unearthed Arcana was when fighters stopped being meatshields and gained Weapon Specialisation. FACT. Now it was different in 2e. That I will grant.

Now for your 3.X misconception about rogues:

Wrong. Not my opinion, it's fact. Until 4E, Fighters could deal out more damage than Rogues. Yes, Rogues might have an occasional attack that did a large amount of damage, but round after round, it was the Fighter and not the Rogue who was the big damage dealer. That definitively changed only in 4E.

Click to expand...

From the 3.5 SRD:
A high damage rogue in 3.5 actually could and did outdamage a fighter. The trick was quite simple. Flank them and then get as many sneak attacks as possible - the fighter's damage didn't scale at anything near the rate to overcome two-weapon ginsu except at low levels. And yes, daggers are rogue weapons, as are shortswords.

Of course there were issues in relying on full attacks... But the core trick for a 3.5 rogue was to make sneak attack reliable. In 3.5 the rogue was a striker - with damage that scaled far faster than in 4e.

Think people might want to take a step back and breath. We are debating the characteristics of fighters in editions of D&D, not a huge thing in the overall scheme....certainly not worth attracting mods over. Reasonable people can disagree. A little less zeal, little more good faith will go a long way to making this a productive discussio.

Neonchameleon said:

Now for your 3.X misconception about rogues:


From the 3.5 SRD:

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.
​

A high damage rogue in 3.5 actually could and did outdamage a fighter. The trick was quite simple. Flank them and then get as many sneak attacks as possible - the fighter's damage didn't scale at anything near the rate to overcome two-weapon ginsu except at low levels. And yes, daggers are rogue weapons, as are shortswords.

Of course there were issues in relying on full attacks... But the core trick for a 3.5 rogue was to make sneak attack reliable. In 3.5 the rogue was a striker - with damage that scaled far faster than in 4e.

Click to expand...

This is why I prefer the 2e fighter and rogue.

El Mahdi said:

-snip-

Click to expand...

Again, in 4e Fighters are not dedicated defenders. They can dish it out pretty heavy.

Have you played one? I mean really have you actually sat down and played one?

No, they're not the #1 striker, but they never were. And I'm not even talking about rogues here. A raging Barbarian easy out damaged a fighter. Yeah, they were squishier, but in D&D fighters have always been tough with moderate damage.

If you want a damage class, play a wizard or a druid. No version of the Fighter has ever been on par with that level of damage.