When did the Fighter become "defender"?

Tallifer · May 7, 2012

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.

Sorry, but if the Fighter in my group does not want to defend the squishy party members, he is not doing his job. Just like a Cleric who does not heal is not doing his job. A Fighter should be able to do many other tasks like killing monsters, doing physical demanding tasks (such as hauling an injured comrade to safety, restraining someone, busting things) and dealing with the local inhabitants. But he should not neglect or scorn defending his fellows.

Steely_Dan · May 7, 2012

As for pigeonholing roles, I'm happy they are going bye-bye in 5th Ed. Not every Fighter in pre-4th Ed was a Defender, not every Wizard was a Controller, though that's a bad example, the contrived, IMO, "controller" role (started out not knowing what they were doing or talking about with that one).

A party of 3 Rogues should be fine.

Wiseblood · May 7, 2012

Tallifer said:
Sorry, but if the Fighter in my group does not want to defend the squishy party members, he is not doing his job. Just like a Cleric who does not heal is not doing his job. A Fighter should be able to do many other tasks like killing monsters, doing physical demanding tasks (such as hauling an injured comrade to safety, restraining someone, busting things) and dealing with the local inhabitants. But he should not neglect or scorn defending his fellows.

And if the fighter is not present, who then is the defender? I certainly do not scorn protecting one another. I scorn the construction of such a generic and basic class to serve one function. If by squishy do you mean the other guy wearing heavy armor that can heal? Is it the guy that has been flanking the enemy in their midst and who seems to scorn formatrion. Perhaps it's the guy that can fly and become invisible and is mostly immune to weapons. Who shall the fighter defend? These guys are capable of defending themselves. Do not try to shoehorn the fighter into being a pesky obstacle that prevents the bad guys from getting to the stars of the show. Also the assumption that there are squishies needs to be erased otherwise we are right back where we started with classes. we will need one of each to cover our bases and someone getting stuck as the band-aid, someone as the Babysitter, the Trap finder and the artillery.

Grimmjow · May 7, 2012

They've been talking a lot about classes and themes and what i go from all that is that you won't need specific classes in order to function as a party in DDN. Instead you can take themes to help fill the void. If you don't have a class with any healing powers you can take the leader theme (and probably a domain theme) and no tank-ish character? guardian theme

fjw70 · May 7, 2012

Doug McCrae said:
Artillery, I'd say. In WW2 it caused more deaths than any other weapon system.

I like the fighter to be the most dangerous man on the battlefield round-to-round. The wizard throws some nukes sometimes, the rogue catches you unaware and makes you pay, and the cleric can pummel you pretty decently as well, but it is the fighter that is the most visible and constant threat on the battlefield. The defender role of the fighter is like most things in 4e. A good idea taken to an extreme.

I am guessing the idea of fighter being primarily a defender must have happened sometime during 2e to 3.5 because when I played 1e back in the 80s the fighter’s primary job was killing things. Then when I started getting back into D&D around the time of 4e’s release I was puzzled when people would say that the defender mechanics of 4e finally allowed the fighter to do his job effectively.

GM Dave · May 7, 2012

I blame the invention of 'Marching Order'.

Steely_Dan · May 7, 2012

Grimmjow said:
They've been talking a lot about classes and themes and what i go from all that is that you won't need specific classes in order to function as a party in DDN. Instead you can take themes to help fill the void. If you don't have a class with any healing powers you can take the leader theme (and probably a domain theme) and no tank-ish character? guardian theme

As long as Themes (and Feats) are strictly optional (and Backgrounds and please), I will be happy.

And I think they have to be careful how they handle healing ("leading") in 5th Ed, especially in combat.

Bedrockgames · May 7, 2012

Griego said:
Yes, I would like the Fighter to be more about crushing skulls than doing the Rope-a-Dope in a tin can.

I agree with you thoroughly in spirit but Lets not tarnish ali's glorious victory by linking rope-a-dope with 4e roles.

Primitive Screwhead · May 7, 2012

As often happens, I think this is a case of the English definition getting in the way of understanding a game term. Imc, our 'defender' is a base fighter built to dish out and take damage. He does not run around 'defending' his fellow heroes, but he does get in the face of the biggest bad guy and force a toe to toe fight. Last session he was not able to join in, and the remaining players realized what his offensives actions meant in terms of 'defending' them. They found out that those 700ish points of damage he tends to soak really hurts.

Is he worried about wasting time saving his squishy buddies from harm? Nope. He just make himself the guy the bad guys want to ... or have to.. attack.

As to in combat healing. I think it adds a layer of complexity to the game and gives the em some wriggle room in designing encounters. If there is no in combat healing and things go south for one Pc..then the entire team is at risk and a tpk is in the cards. Been there, done that. The beleivability of a warlords healing is less of an impact on my fun then starting all over from scratch. Ymmv.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

DogBackward · May 7, 2012

Even in 4th edition, the theme of the Fighter as a defender wasn't "I stand in the way of all the attacks!" Instead, it was "If you ignore me, I'll kick your ass!" That's what the Fighter should be. 4th edition accomplished that theme by giving them marking and bonus attacks, which does accomplish the goal. But, as we've seen, some people have trouble understanding abstract concepts like what a "Mark" means.

So, to accomplish the Fighter as a defender in Next, they simply need to do what most Fighters have done in the past, and what others have been saying here. The Fighter should be the most dangerous thing on the battlefield, and also the hardest to kill. Sure, you can ignore the Fighter to go try to kill the Wizard... but the Wizard has at least a few spells that will save him from one attack. And whether the Wizard lives or dies, you've got an angry Fighter at your back with a really big sword. Good luck with that.

The main method of "defending" for the Fighter has always been to make the enemies want to kill him first, so that he doesn't get a chance to kill them. 4th edition did this by enforcing that fear of the Fighter using mechanics, with Marking and Combat Challenge. Next can easily accomplish the same thing by simply returning the Fighter to being the top non-spike damage dealer in the group. Then give him armor and hit points to that he doesn't die when all the monsters want to kill him at once, and you're set.