When did the Fighter become "defender"?

Steely_Dan, I should have clarified that 700 points of damage is from the entire encounter, usually 25 to 30 points at a time. The character will go toe to toe with whatever BBG is in his way, and survives because he is focused on resistances and invigorating strikes. Temp hit points are his freind! It also doesn't help me that we have 3.5 leaders in the group which tend to be able to stay out of the way of whatever threat the fighter is pinning to the ground.

Back to the OP, I think 4e's use of roles for classes is an excellent, altho oft misunderstood, improvement. For new players the roles stood for categories of character types. You play striker to be a high damage guy, you play leader to support others, etc... That in no way 'forces' roles as [MENTION=6687937]paladinm[/MENTION] suggests.
Even poorly supported classes can be altered away from their primary role. I have a Seeker character that is more striker/lurker than he is controller.

The teamwork part is also something I really like about 4e. In other editions you could build characters that were totally self-focused and not at all interested in 'helping' another party member. I have seen games that looked alot like the first half of the new avengers movie, disintegrating over PC1 using thier best ability that conflicted with PC2s best ability. Nothing like casting Silence near a Bard!
Adding teamwork as a viable and easily usable option for characters make it easier to have a group of heroes instead of a group of super-powered egos.


YMMV, of course.

I think 5e should retain the concept of 'Roles' as shorthand for what sort of character you want to play. Ideally you should be able to describe the basic concept of a character using just the names of the themes, race, class and role.

For example, my Seeker character could be described as a Stealthy Elvish Archer {Striker} with a wilderness warrior background.

I bet that is pretty easy to understand what that character can do in the game world and a bit about how he would play out at the table. Actually you can probably guess his main tactics and estimate how lethal his combat abilities are.

*that* is what 'roles' are for. Not a straight jacket provided by the man to keep your character concept in check... just shorthand for how your character ticks.

Calling the fighter a defender makes me wonder why we have the fighter class instead of the defender class.

The fighter should be a fighter. Let the players choices dictate not some quasi-class system that is purely metagame nonsense.

Wiseblood said:

The fighter should be a fighter. Let the players choices dictate not some quasi-class system that is purely metagame nonsense.

Click to expand...

Sigh...the term defender is merely descriptive and has no game effects by itself. You know this, yes? The only thing the various defenders have in common is some type of marking mechanic, but each class' mark is very different. You know this, yes? Roles are meant only as indications of what the classes tend to do best. Surely you know this?

Fifth Element said:

Sigh...the term defender is merely descriptive and has no game effects by itself. You know this, yes? The only thing the various defenders have in common is some type of marking mechanic, but each class' mark is very different. You know this, yes? Roles are meant only as indications of what the classes tend to do best. Surely you know this?

Click to expand...

I know this. The mechanics were put there to enforce a certain type of play while not a straightjacket they were pervasive. Pervasive enough that breaking out of the primary role for your class took careful planning. That is, if it was not altogether impossible.

Hey, I've got 2008 on the phone, and he says he's missing a thread. Have any of y'all seen a thread that belongs to 2008?

Wiseblood said:

I know this. The mechanics were put there to enforce a certain type of play while not a straightjacket they were pervasive. Pervasive enough that breaking out of the primary role for your class took careful planning. That is, if it was not altogether impossible.

Click to expand...

So, classes were given mechanics to do the things they were supposed to be best at? Yeah, that's some bad design right there.

Decide what you want to be able to do, then pick the best class for that. If you don't want to be a defender, then don't pick a defender class. Seriously, it is like a time warp in here.

Skills hurt Fighters. In 1E pre NWP, a "smart " Fighter was not an anomaly.You made wise decisions, and we're often the assumed to be the leader of a group.
The Fighter was the man of action, a heralded stereotype.


When skills are the central means to interact with the world, the Fighter was the man of limited actions.


Honestly the offensive lineman marking of 4E just rubbed some, ( often times long time players of Fighters) the wrong way.


I found it interesting that many people that preferred spell casters or more "tactical" classes in prior editions, often liked the 4E Fighter, ( or Warden), myself included.


Roles should be encouraged by class aspects, ( you have a lot of HP and can wear heavy Armour and use any weapon), but not mandated.


An Evocation specialist played differently than a charm based wizard, though because of HD, saving throws etc, there was a great deal of similarity between variants.


4E with hard fast role definition, deviated the most from this. Slayer vs PHB, or even Infernal- lok vs Fey-Lok.

Fifth Element said:

So, classes were given mechanics to do the things they were supposed to be best at? Yeah, that's some bad design right there.

Decide what you want to be able to do, then pick the best class for that. If you don't want to be a defender, then don't pick a defender class. Seriously, it is like a time warp in here.

Click to expand...

It's clear to me that the roles were described and designed and then the classes were hammered into them.

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Fifth Element said:

So, classes were given mechanics to do the things they were supposed to be best at? Yeah, that's some bad design right there.

Decide what you want to be able to do, then pick the best class for that. If you don't want to be a defender, then don't pick a defender class. Seriously, it is like a time warp in here.

Click to expand...

I think lots of us actually take issue with the roles in 4E. I have never really been a big fan of the fighter as defender role (i want my fighter to fight not move people around or simply be about protecting other characters). Thief as striker also didn't work for me (i want the thief to be a a thief or a skill monkey---backstab is a little extra something to give them something for combat but it it wasn't thefocus of the class before). Wizards as controllers also never quite worked for me. I see them as either blasters or toolboxcharacters (or a mix of both).

I think 4E's big issue is it designed the class roles around combat. For m many of the classes (such as wizard and rogue) were often more defined by their out of combat role.

In a way roles seem like a redundancy. If each class has its own niche, then there isn't really a need for roles.

Wiseblood said:

It's clear to me that the roles were described and designed and then the classes were hammered into them.

Click to expand...

Just because it's clear to you... doesn't mean you're actually correct.