When did the Fighter become "defender"?

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...

If you say so, chief. Care to share your inside information?

Bedrockgames said:

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).

Click to expand...

That's extremely easy to do with the 4E figher. To say that the fighter's marking ability makes it only about protecting other characters is incorrect.

Bedrockgames said:

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).

Click to expand...

I'm with you on that one - it stems from the 3E rogue which focused much more on getting sneak attack than previous thieves did on getting backstabs.

Bedrockgames said:

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.

Click to expand...

The combat roles were designed around combat, yes.

Bedrockgames said:

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

Click to expand...

Given that roles are a description of a class' combat niche, they're not redundant - they're the same thing.

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...

It's clear to me that the roles described were based extremely clearly on the roles in the 2e PHB - which were in turn based on the four basic classes in OD&D. And that each class has precisely one mandatory feature that "hammers them" into their role. Extra damage for the strikers, free [] word for the leaders, marking/punishment (or defender aura/punishment) for the defenders.

I can play a Wizard (controller) who can rain firey death to out damage a Vampire (striker) - on the other hand my Archer Ranger (Striker) has more single target control than the pyromancer/evoker Wizard. I can play an Invoker (controller) or Paladin (defender) with more healing than a Warlord (leader). I can play a Warlord (leader) with a higher damage output than a Monk (Striker) - at least as long as he has a Slayer to wield... I can play a Thaneborn Barbarian with a Defender Aura - making him probably a better defender than his cousin the Strength-based Paladin. On the other hand the Strength-based Paladin hits about as hard as the Barbarian. And you won't confuse one for the other.

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

Click to expand...

And I can understand where you are coming from and explain that this is skim-reading the rules.

And it's equally clear to me that describing and designing roles is precisely what any class-based game does.

Wiseblood said:

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.

Click to expand...

I never understood 'the fighter is a defender' idea. And it is one of the top ten stupid ideas that 4E did: "Ok, your a fighter and by fighter we mean your a body guard''.

I must say that in most of my games I have never had a 'defending' fighter. In my game the fighter...well, fights. Shocking, I know. The fighter does not hang back by the spellcaster "Staz next tooz me spellerz, I'll protectez youz" the fighter is rushing into battle to fight and kill the enemy "Arrrgghh! Die monsters!"

I guess some people think the fighter is this: "Blagorn the mighty moves over to stand next to wizard Worn and a watch for enemies trying to attack him. No enemies? I just stand there"

But I think a fighter is: "Blagorn charges at the closest orc and beheads it with a swipe of his battle axe!''

The best defense is a good offense. Once the fighter kills the monsters, then the wizard is defended from the monsters....as the monsters are dead.

bloodtide said:

I never understood 'the fighter is a defender' idea. And it is one of the top ten stupid ideas that 4E did: "Ok, your a fighter and by fighter we mean your a body guard''.

Click to expand...

Please read the comments immediately above yours in this thread. They make it quite clear that this is a misunderstanding of the 4E fighter, based on noticing that the fighter is called a "defender", and then proceeding to make assumptions about what that means, ignoring how the class is actually designed and how it plays.

bloodtide said:

I never understood 'the fighter is a defender' idea. And it is one of the top ten stupid ideas that 4E did: "Ok, your a fighter and by fighter we mean your a body guard''.

I must say that in most of my games I have never had a 'defending' fighter. In my game the fighter...well, fights. Shocking, I know. The fighter does not hang back by the spellcaster "Staz next tooz me spellerz, I'll protectez youz" the fighter is rushing into battle to fight and kill the enemy "Arrrgghh! Die monsters!"

I guess some people think the fighter is this: "Blagorn the mighty moves over to stand next to wizard Worn and a watch for enemies trying to attack him. No enemies? I just stand there"

But I think a fighter is: "Blagorn charges at the closest orc and beheads it with a swipe of his battle axe!''

The best defense is a good offense. Once the fighter kills the monsters, then the wizard is defended from the monsters....as the monsters are dead.

Click to expand...

I've never seen a 4e fighter sit back by the wizard and wait, but don't let anything get in the way of your edition warring. I've DM'd & played in PbP games here for well over 100 players and have never once seen a defender sit around waiting. They engage, they attack, they fight.

The fighter still charges the orc and still can behead it.

renau1g said:

I've never seen a 4e fighter sit back by the wizard and wait, but don't let anything get in the way of your edition warring. I've DM'd & played in PbP games here for well over 100 players and have never once seen a defender sit around waiting. They engage, they attack, they fight.

The fighter still charges the orc and still can behead it.

Click to expand...

Well, I've seen it...but that is not the point.

Ok, if the 4E fighter does fight...then why is the class even called 'a defender'? How does one 'defend' by attacking?

bloodtide said:

Well, I've seen it...but that is not the point.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that was your entire point.

A: "Fighters shouldn't be bodyguards."
B: "They're not."
A: "That's not the point!"

bloodtide said:

Ok, if the 4E fighter does fight...then why is the class even called 'a defender'?

Click to expand...

Clerics do more than lead, wizards do more than control, rogues do more than strike. It's not difficult. The terms leave something to be desired, but can you imagine the hullaballoo if they had called fighters "tanks" instead?

bloodtide said:

How does one 'defend' by attacking?

Click to expand...

A very recent post in this thread said "the best defense is a good offense." Take a look at who wrote it.

Fifth Element said:

Please read the comments immediately above yours in this thread. They make it quite clear that this is a misunderstanding of the 4E fighter, based on noticing that the fighter is called a "defender", and then proceeding to make assumptions about what that means, ignoring how the class is actually designed and how it plays.

Click to expand...

This might be more of others just looking at 4E with rose colored glasses and seeing with they want to see.

The first line under fighters in the 4E players handbook says 'they protect the party'....they are defenders. Fighters are 'dangerous to ignore and can contain foes and keep them away from others.' That all does not sound like fighting to most people. For the record, it would say 'I fighter KILLS opponents' and 'it's dangerous to ignore a fighter as they will KILL you'.

And then look at the fighter spells--"I hitz the orc withz my ask and do W+(2)-H=** damagze! I'm the coolz inz kidz ever with my +w damagze....yea, yea, it's my birthdayz! Woo hoo Kidz D in D is sow in de housez and powned that orc! Woo hoo!"

This may be the worst, least convincing argument I see this week. It's also an extremely unimpressive bit of edition warring. No more, please. - Piratecat

bloodtide said:

I never understood 'the fighter is a defender' idea. And it is one of the top ten stupid ideas that 4E did: "Ok, your a fighter and by fighter we mean your a body guard''.

I must say that in most of my games I have never had a 'defending' fighter. In my game the fighter...well, fights. Shocking, I know. The fighter does not hang back by the spellcaster "Staz next tooz me spellerz, I'll protectez youz" the fighter is rushing into battle to fight and kill the enemy "Arrrgghh! Die monsters!"

I guess some people think the fighter is this: "Blagorn the mighty moves over to stand next to wizard Worn and a watch for enemies trying to attack him. No enemies? I just stand there"

Click to expand...

I've never seen a 4e fighter behave like the bodyguard you indicate. It's a strawman.

Let's look at what the actual mechanics do and how people actually behave - and compare a Striker to a Defender - both the Knight and the Slayer are types of Fighter, with a Knight being a Defender, and a Slayer a Striker.

Staz the Slayer (Striker) charges into the three orcs, and cuts the first in half and turns to face the second. The third orc takes a look at Staz, doesn't like the look of six foot six of muscle and armour, and thinks "@#%$ This!" He then steps to the side (5' step), and charges the person in robes who isn't likely to turn him into a couple of half-orcs.

Dieter the Knight (Defender) also charges into the three orcs and impales the first one on the point of his longsword. The orcs again are less than happy facing 6'6" of solid armoured muscle. And one of them again tries to disengage then charge the squishy guy who might launch a fireball. Safer for him both ways. But because Dieter is a Defender, even if he doesn't hit quite as hard as Staz he controls the space around him. And when the orc's eyes flicker off Dieter that gives Dieter the opening he needs to slip his sword past the second orc's defences.

Staz may (and indeed does) hit harder. But Dieter controls where the orcs are - and if they try to even creep away from him he owns them.

The Defender controls the battlefield. Without magical help, or seriously skilled leadership, you can't take your attention off a fighter who's engaged you (other than a Slayer) enough to even retreat without him seeing the weakness in your defences and having a chance to slip his sword through.

bloodtide said:

This might be more of others just looking at 4E with rose colored glasses and seeing with they want to see.

Click to expand...

Or those of us who actually play 4e know what we are talking about.

For the record, it would say 'I fighter KILLS opponents' and 'it's dangerous to ignore a fighter as they will KILL you'.

Click to expand...

For the record, this is exactly how a 4e fighter works. If the fighter chooses you as his opponent and you ignore him, he will hurt you. And will hurt you far more than any striker will. Combat Challenge gives him a free swing. If you engage the fighter and focus all your attention on him, a striker will do more damage, but strikers are far, far easier to get away from than fighters. If on the other hand you concentrate on the fighter then the fighter is "just" a big and heavily armoured high damage person looking to stick a sword through your gullet. Who you can't take your eyes off for one moment because he will take advantage of any opening you give him, even if the Barbarian actually hits harder.

What you are claiming the fighter should do is exactly what the fighter does.

And then look at the fighter spells

Click to expand...

And now I'm going to ask if you're genuinely this ignorant about 4e or are trolling. The fighter does not get spells. He gets exploits - mechanical representation of his attack patterns.