When did the Fighter become "defender"?

Neonchameleon · May 12, 2012

El Mahdi said:
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.

If the rogue's sneak attack was only occasional then of course the fighter was outdamaging the rogue. And a rogue really exploiting sneak attack was a glass cannon. Of course, 3.x being 3.x there were ways to ensure sneak attack was allowed.

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.

The fighter has a slightly higher BAB - it depends on the foe how relevant this is. As for more attacks per round, how is the rogue fighting? For that matter how is the fighter fighing? The fighter gets a total of one more attack off a full attack.

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.

Give me your numbers. And your proposed opponents. Most DPR comparisons are single target at will - there the rogue does have the edge. The fighter wins when it comes to wading into a whole pile of enemies and tearing them apart. (He also wins Charge Builds but I digress).

And no the fighter (minus Rain of Blows - which is a scary, scary power with a gouge) can't win single target damage. Which is normally what's counted.

El Mahdi · May 12, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
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

The principal attribute of a fighter is strength. To become a fighter, a character must have a minimum strength of 9 and a constitution of 7 or greater. A good dexterity rating is also highly desirable. If a fighter has strength above 15, he or she adds 10% to experience points awarded by the DM. Also, high strength gives the fighter a better chance to hit an opponent and causes an increased amount of damage.

Fighters have a ten-sided die (d10) for determination of their hit points per level. No other class of character (save the paladin and ranger (qq.v.) subclasses of fighters) is so strong in this regard. Fighters ore the strongest of characters in regards to sheer physical strength, and they are the best at hand-to-hand combat. Any sort of armor or weapon is usable by fighters. Fighters may be of any alignment — good or evil, lawful or chaotic, or neutral.

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.

I'm not retconning anything. And Yes, Fighter's toughness is mentioned first. However, it also goes on to say they are the strongest of the classes and the best at hand to hand combat.

That means they are equally good in both aspects, and they are the best characters at this in the game.

In 4E however, that is not the case. The Fighter is predominantly "the toughest", and only secondarily good at hand to hand combat, with other classes outshining them in this aspect.

That is a divergence from prior edtions.

Therefore, as per the OP (in which he states [paraphrased] that "defending" was only a result of beating up all the bad guys), the concept of a Fighter as predominantly a Defender started with 4E.

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.

You seem to be continuing an attempt to "prove me wrong". That's a tack which usually does not end in anything good here at ENWorld.

Your proof is far from complete and comprehensive. It's not a real analysis, and I found it far from convincing. The only thing that would prove me wrong, would be a side by side comparison of an equally armed 3E Rogue and Fighter with equal damage bonuses, showing average damage per round per level.

If you're willing to take the time to do that to prove me wrong, then you may succeed, though I would find that quite sad for anyone to go to those lengths.

I think it best that we agree to disagree on this.

El Mahdi · May 12, 2012

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

Again, I didn't say 4E Fighter's couldn't dish out damage heavily. On that point, all I've said is that other melee classes dish out more. And in 4E, Fighters are dedicated Defenders. It says so right on page 15 of the PHB:

CHARACTER ROLE

Each character class specializes in one of four basic functions in combat: control and area offense, defense, healing and support, and focused offense. The roles embodied by these functions are controller, defender, leader, and striker. The classic adventuring party includes one character of each role: wizard, fighter, cleric, and rogue.

shidaku said:
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.

A 3E Barbarian, Yes. Before that I'm not entirely sure, but I'd doubt it. 3E Rogues and before, No.

shidaku said:
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.

How does this have anything to do with this thread? We're talking about hand to hand combat (like it says in the PHB's), and that means melee...not magic. This thread isn't about "wanting to play the class with the highest damage", or even "wanting to play the melee class with the highest damage", nor have I expressed a desire to do either of those. It's about when the Fighter became a dedicated Defender...period. And that was in 4E.

SkidAce · May 12, 2012

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

Not true.

See we can't make definitive statements like that. I am sure in your experience and your logic that is was true. And I respect that.

But no matter how often people (not specifically you) say it on these boards, it was not true for me and my group.

And a detailed logical explanation of why it's true the fighter is a sidekick won't help, because it didn't happen for us.

SkidAce · May 12, 2012

Actually, after reading from where I quoted to here, I still feel this is a neverending debate, and it bothers me.

...popping smoke...I'm out...

Neonchameleon · May 12, 2012

El Mahdi said:
I'm not retconning anything. And Yes, Fighter's toughness is mentioned first. However, it also goes on to say they are the strongest of the classes and the best at hand to hand combat.

Strongest only means a thing to fighters of strength 18 or more. As for best in hand to hand combat, unless a fighter has a strength of 18, they don't actually hit any harder than anyone else.

That means they are equally good in both aspects,

You're extrapolating. Defence and toughness is mentioned first. And mentioned first for a very good reason.

Mechanics matter more than fluff.

In 4E however, that is not the case. The Fighter is predominantly "the toughest",

No he isn't. Wardens are tougher. So, I think, are paladins. He's primarily tough and secondarily hits like a truck. Like the 1e fighter.

That is a divergence from prior edtions.

A return to prior editions. Where the job of the fighter included keeping the bad guys off the wizard and what made him really stand out was toughness. It was only when we reached Unearthed Arcana and Gygax realised that the fighter needed a boost that the fighter significantly stood out at dealing damage.

[quote[Therefore, as per the OP (in which he states [paraphrased] that "defending" was only a result of beating up all the bad guys), the concept of a Fighter as predominantly a Defender started with 4E.[/quote]

The OP was wrong. Defending dropped off when the game left the dungeon, and the lack of ready made choke points made defending a much harder job. It stayed down in 3e. And the 4e fighter is a return to form.

You seem to be continuing an attempt to "prove me wrong". That's a tack which usually does not end in anything good here at ENWorld.

That says bad things about ENWorld.

Your proof is far from complete and comprehensive. It's not a real analysis, and I found it far from convincing.

You, on the other hand have offered precisely nothing save hearsay.

The only thing that would prove me wrong, would be a side by side comparison of an equally armed 3E Rogue and Fighter with equal damage bonuses, showing average damage per round per level.

... seriously? You want equally armed rogues and fighters? Once again you demonstrate why you come up with misapprehensions. The rogue in 3.X gains a vast static bonus to attacks by means of Sneak Attack. Which means lots of attacks and the two weapon fighting tree work much better for the rogue than other classes. On the other hand two weapon fighting eliminates Power Attack as a viable option. And a lot of other good fighter plays.

I think it best that we agree to disagree on this.

Given the conditions you just suggested, I can't see matters getting anywhere.

And you'd do better about the fighter if you were to complain about the ranger instead. No one beats a well built ranger at damage output.

Herschel · May 12, 2012

Tovec said:
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.

It's been demonstrably shown Clerics can trivialize fighters. If you don't use the tools you have, that's not the system's fault.

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.

Again, if everyone knows how to build characters then they were. That's a problem. The whole "system mastery" bits added to the spellcaster bits gave you a far-flung dochotomy if people know how to build. That was baked in to teh game.

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.

And 3.x was a terrible system because I couldn't build a Hexblade in the PHB 1. Are you really missing such a glaring point?

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

LoL, come back to reality, would ya? 5E won't have everything released from day 1 either. No edition ever has.

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.

So, did 3.x suck because Hexblades weren't in PHB 1? I couldn't even play an Arcane Swordsman at level 1 and would never have the stats to play one properly either needing STR, CON, DEX, INT just to be functional. That's a character concept I wanted to play when 3.0 was released and couldn't make decently. [sarcasm]Gee, no choice, what a terrible system. Why would you ever play it. [/sarcasm] That's how ridiculous your argument is.

Expecting everything to be released in the PHB 1 is ridiculous. Until mnore stuff is released you have what you have. Seriously, are you 23 years old and came in to 3.5 late in the cycle? I'm trying to figure out why your perspective is so narrow as to disregard 1E and 2E while claiming things that only existed in 3.x (any many times LATE in 3.5) are the way they always were.

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.[/quote]

Page 10 of the DMG, the second section talking about the players after personality types, talks directly about party building without the standard roles covered. Page freakin' 10! It's right there! There's other stuff that covers it too, but from the very beginning of the DMG it gives you hints on runningn games without the four roles covered.

Gone were the roles of magic-guy, healer-guy, skills-guy, and fighter-guy.

WRONG! Jesus, those guys are still there, just with more transparent names. Magic Guy is an arcane or divine caster. Healer guy is a leader. Skills guys are still the same classes (Bard and Rogue) and Fighter guy is still fighting the good fight.

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

Again, same as they've always been , just with better-defined tools now in some cases (ie: the 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?

Because THEY'RE NO MORE COMBAT-CENTRIC THAN THEY EVER WERE! For crying out loud, how is a FIGHTER not a 'narrowly-defined combat-centric' character? Not only that, but why must every character's combat role be matching non-combat role? That's ridiculously limiting. I can make the meathead who brutes his way through life, the charismatic party face, the nimble athlete, the courtesan, the noble, etc. And I can make that character any class/role I want., including Fighter.

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.

LoL, the reason 4E has limited skill lists is because the 3E system was bloated and moronic. You don't need all that ridiculous minutia to role play. Again, NO other edition had that utter crutch of shoehorning RP. Even mediocre role players and DMs don't need it. For those that want it, fine, port it over or in 5E get a module at some point, but you don't need all that crap to role play, just some basic adjudication methods.

Sunseeker · May 12, 2012

El Mahdi said:
A 3E Barbarian, Yes. Before that I'm not entirely sure, but I'd doubt it. 3E Rogues and before, No.

I just finished a 3.5 game. We ended at 17th level. Aside from the usual rogue stuff, this player did two things really well:
1: stealth
2: sneak attack.

Now, provided we weren't fighting a creature that was immune to sneak attack, this guy was doing about 8d6 per attack at range.

A fighter at 17th level will have 5 iterative attacks, 17/12/7/2, assuming they have a +5 weapon of speed, they've got 6 attacks @ 22/22/17/12/7. If they are dual-wielding light weapons(assuming a 20 dex, 20 str build with weapon finesse ala Drizzt) they're looking at 25/25/20/15/10 with each hand.

Now, beyond this point we're getting into serious class optimization builds.

At level 17 we were fighting things that had around a 35 AC, at this point the fighter has about a 50/50 chance to hit, at least with his first 2 attacks with each hand(total 4), 25% chance for the next set, and a 5%*natural 20 only) on everything else.

With dual-wield what say, scimitars, we're doing 1d8+5+dex, so, max 18 damage, average 14. With a 50% chance to hit with his best attacks that's an average of 28 damage. On his next attacks, which he only has 2 of we have an average of 14, and on his last attack, which he needs a natural 20 on, we can probably just ignore.(max damage would be 18, but averaged in on a 5% chance would only be something like .9 damage)

This is a fairly basic build, none of the nifty tricks Pathfinder gives a fighter, so we'd be looking at an average of 43 damage per turn.

The rogue on the other hand, assuming they've got good stealth and can get their sneak attack bonus, is looking at somewhere along the lines of 40 damage per sneak attack. I vaguely recall him being able to sneak attack about 4 times per turn(dual-wield iterative attacks, yay!). So even on average, the rogue is doing an average of 120 damage per turn.

The sorcerer then blasts for 80-150, the cleric casts destruction for 150, half if saved. My ranger dropped out some 60-120 damage per round and out paladin was pulling a good 60-80.

So I really don't know about you, but the Fighter has NEVER been a high-damager unless you go to stupid levels of optimization. Every other class? You just run 'em as is and they nuke, yeah, even the rogue(assuming they can sneak attack).

SO yeah, no. Fighter's are pretty much out-damaged by nearly every class in the game.

Bedrockgames · May 12, 2012

shidaku said:
I just finished a 3.5 game. We ended at 17th level. Aside from the usual rogue stuff, this player did two things really well:
1: stealth
2: sneak attack.

Now, provided we weren't fighting a creature that was immune to sneak attack, this guy was doing about 8d6 per attack at range.

A fighter at 17th level will have 5 iterative attacks, 17/12/7/2, assuming they have a +5 weapon of speed, they've got 6 attacks @ 22/22/17/12/7. If they are dual-wielding light weapons(assuming a 20 dex, 20 str build with weapon finesse ala Drizzt) they're looking at 25/25/20/15/10 with each hand.

Now, beyond this point we're getting into serious class optimization builds.

At level 17 we were fighting things that had around a 35 AC, at this point the fighter has about a 50/50 chance to hit, at least with his first 2 attacks with each hand(total 4), 25% chance for the next set, and a 5%*natural 20 only) on everything else.

With dual-wield what say, scimitars, we're doing 1d8+5+dex, so, max 18 damage, average 14. With a 50% chance to hit with his best attacks that's an average of 28 damage. On his next attacks, which he only has 2 of we have an average of 14, and on his last attack, which he needs a natural 20 on, we can probably just ignore.(max damage would be 18, but averaged in on a 5% chance would only be something like .9 damage)

This is a fairly basic build, none of the nifty tricks Pathfinder gives a fighter, so we'd be looking at an average of 43 damage per turn.

The rogue on the other hand, assuming they've got good stealth and can get their sneak attack bonus, is looking at somewhere along the lines of 40 damage per sneak attack. I vaguely recall him being able to sneak attack about 4 times per turn(dual-wield iterative attacks, yay!). So even on average, the rogue is doing an average of 120 damage per turn.

The sorcerer then blasts for 80-150, the cleric casts destruction for 150, half if saved. My ranger dropped out some 60-120 damage per round and out paladin was pulling a good 60-80.

So I really don't know about you, but the Fighter has NEVER been a high-damager unless you go to stupid levels of optimization. Every other class? You just run 'em as is and they nuke, yeah, even the rogue(assuming they can sneak attack).

SO yeah, no. Fighter's are pretty much out-damaged by nearly every class in the game.

I would have to crunch the numbers to see how it impacts things, but a fighter at that level has something like nine bonus feats, so you would probably utilizing abilities like greater weapon specialization (+4 damage) and greater weapon focus (+2 attack), improved critical, greater two weapon fighting, etc. Not to mention stuff like great cleave or spirited charge (double damage on on mounted charge). That is just off the top of my head from the standard PHB. What is more the fighter is usually the ideal target for a lot of buffs. True these come form another class but you put those buffs on a fighter stacked with feats and heavy on HP, you have a real killing machine. I definitely think fighters could have been done better n 3e (and I really hate the rogue as striker concept) but a lot of this stuff is going to depend on the specifics of what you are facing. Against lower ac targets (and even at high levels those do show up) power attack on top of a fighter's other feats can be pretty devestating.