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.
None of those spells were on her. I was the party cleric and as I recall, the only caster. We were playing 3.5, if it matters. Even if the fighter was getting boosts from the casters, which she wasn't, what does that matter. The fact remained that if I HAD boosted others or myself that fighter would still have been the powerhouse.
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.
I wasn't the DM and it has been several years so I don't have the stats on the creature or encounter. The construct was the problem because of its size, immunity to a boatload of things and was effectively a mini-BBEG of the campaign. We were around ECL 26 or so if I recall correctly. I must reiterate, it is very possible I may have killed it in the long run. However, the fighter killed it in a single-round unassisted without any buffs from me.
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.
I was a healer, a damned good one but as this was the opening round of this, supposedly, epic battle I had yet to use my healing on anyone.
You may have even tried to note that I have said I was responsible for doing cleanup, taking care of swaths of bad guys.. that could have been an actual argument as opposed to the "my magic was the fighter's real power" but even then the argument would have failed as they were effectively minions (by 4e's terms).
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.
Oh, I always though magic-guy WAS a role, because merlin was one. My bad. I guess knight-guy isn't a role either.. silly arthur and your knights.[/sarcasm]
I didn't say that roles weren't meant to be a catchall. I merely said that in 3e the "roles" were along the lines of the concept of the character, like "magic-guy", as opposed to by build concept, like "I want to do X power because it is cool", things like that.
Healer-guy is a completely different topic, which I have contributed to as well. I'll let the whole "it is a trap" comment slide as it has nothing to do with fighters and defenders.
Why is skill-guy a trap? I am currently running a PF game where the players ADORE using their skills. They use them for everything they can. They roll a d20 while performing any action, expecting I tell them which skill they just used. The fighter and wizard in that game are often disappointed that the rogue gets so many.
Now, as far as the fighter = defender thing, that is the default position in 4e. It is what people expect the fighter to be. One has to work to change this disposition when making anything else. It seems odd in 4e if a fighter wants to use a bow but in 3e it was common place, that is my issue. I couldn't care less if the class role is called defender, tank or anything, though I would prefer no titular role at all.
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.
My point here was that everything associated with non-combat had the axe put to it in 4e. In 3e there were rules for EVERYTHING. Some people call this bloat, and it certainly was, but it was reassuring that I could find the rule somewhere if I wanted to go looking. The fact that things like social skills were all but removed from 4e struck a resounding blow that it would focus on combat. It may have touched on other areas but the book made it very clear that it was dealing with the combat "pillar" as opposed to "exploration" and "interaction".
Fighters don't impress me at low levels (I like out of combat options) but they are viable. And although IMO the fighter's a fading force when third level spells turn up, the extra iterative attack keeps the fighter in play. It's a Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard scaling issue as usual.
