When did the Fighter become "defender"?

[Grimmjow]

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.

oh i agree thats just what it sounds like will be happening

 

[paladinm]

Everyone remarks about the problems with "forced roles" in 4e. While I agree with this, I think the problem is "forced teamwork". When I first picked up 4e, I was amazed at how many "powers" were, "your weapon does this, and your ally gains that as a bonus".

Teamwork should be a matter of roleplaying, Not an integral, required part of the game design. If I want to be a one-man army, I should have that option. I'm sure Conan was really worried about buffing all his hangers-on in the heat of battle.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Everyone remarks about the problems with "forced roles" in 4e. While I agree with this, I think the problem is "forced teamwork". When I first picked up 4e, I was amazed at how many "powers" were, "your weapon does this, and your ally gains that as a bonus".

Teamwork should be a matter of roleplaying, Not an integral, required part of the game design. If I want to be a one-man army, I should have that option. I'm sure Conan was really worried about buffing all his hangers-on in the heat of battle.

I think this really touches on something that bothers me, but I culdn't really figure out or put into words.

 

[FireLance]

Everyone remarks about the problems with "forced roles" in 4e. While I agree with this, I think the problem is "forced teamwork". When I first picked up 4e, I was amazed at how many "powers" were, "your weapon does this, and your ally gains that as a bonus".

Teamwork should be a matter of roleplaying, Not an integral, required part of the game design. If I want to be a one-man army, I should have that option. I'm sure Conan was really worried about buffing all his hangers-on in the heat of battle.

In previous editiond of D&D, there were also plenty of spells that did damage. However, almost nobody complained that the wizard was "forced" into a blaster role.

It is a fact that powers that enable you to help your teammates exist. However, with the possible exception of classes who were built around the idea of helping other characters perform better, characters aren't required to select such powers.

I wonder why some posters seem to find it so difficult to distinguish between "you can choose these powers" and "you must choose these powers", and "you must choose these powers" and "you must use these powers". I'm probably going to sound like a crotchety old man, but seriously, in the old days, when my character received a class ability I didn't want, I just didn't use it. I didn't complain that it was messing with my character concept. Bah, kids these days...

 

[Tony Vargas]

When did the Fighter become "defender"?

The fighter became the "Defender" almost immediately, and by default.

The reality of it was simple: Who has the fewest and most fungible skills with which to contribute to the success of the party? The fighter. Who's the hardest to kill? The fighter.

From these two simple facts - the fighter is hard to kill, and you won't really miss him - flows the inevitable conclusion that the fighter should stand in the front and take one (or more) for the team.

 

[Wiseblood]

The fighter became the "Defender" almost immediately, and by default.

The reality of it was simple: Who has the fewest and most fungible skills with which to contribute to the success of the party? The fighter. Who's the hardest to kill? The fighter.

From these two simple facts - the fighter is hard to kill, and you won't really miss him - flows the inevitable conclusion that the fighter should stand in the front and take one (or more) for the team.

You used fungible. That was eating at me so I looked it up. You state what I have stated, unless I am mistaken. A fighter can use his abilities to defend. Or are you saying he is a defender because he uses his abilitie to fight enemies.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You used fungible. That was eating at me so I looked it up. You state what I have stated, unless I am mistaken. A fighter can use his abilities to defend. Or are you saying he is a defender because he uses his abilitie to fight enemies.

What I meant was that anyone could step in and do what a fighter could do, and other resources could, likewise be used to make up for the loss of a fighter. Maybe not as well, but in a pinch. For instance, if you lose your rogue, the Wizard can use Knock and the Cleric Find Traps, but there are still a few rogue skills left un-covered. OTOH, if you lose the fighter, anyone can take up space and do damage in melee - including a charmed ogre, animals the Druid has made Friends with, 0-level mercenary hirelings, Summoned Monsters, the expensive Golem you made, etc, as well as members of any class to varying degrees.

All of those classes and resources - apart from the 0-level hirelings - are also usable to do things the fighter can't. So the fighter has always been 'the defender' because he was the most readily expendable PC. So, not because he /can/ defend, or because he chooses to defend, but because he's not really good for much else.


For that matter, in spite of its vaunted balance, that formula remains true in 4e. The defender's role is simply to take the hits for the less expendable members of his team. It's just a much more engaging and enjoyable role - for the player - than it used to be.
I suspect it's still a bit tough on the fighter, though...

 

[CM]

Everyone remarks about the problems with "forced roles" in 4e. While I agree with this, I think the problem is "forced teamwork". When I first picked up 4e, I was amazed at how many "powers" were, "your weapon does this, and your ally gains that as a bonus".

Teamwork should be a matter of roleplaying, Not an integral, required part of the game design. If I want to be a one-man army, I should have that option. I'm sure Conan was really worried about buffing all his hangers-on in the heat of battle.

You could... not select those powers? It's not like there aren't enough to choose from otherwise. I love that 4e finally had options for nonmagical "buffs" (other than the aid another action.

 

[Sunseeker]

The "tank" role has always been the primary domain of the Fighter. But that doesn't mean that there aren't a dozen other ways to build a fighter as well.

I would certainly argue that most heavily armored classes posses a "tank" role as well as a lot of medium-armor, high-dex classes.

I don't see the fighter as just the defender, and from the looks of most of WOTC's articles on the subject, neither do they.

 

[Wiseblood]

All of those classes and resources - apart from the 0-level hirelings - are also usable to do things the fighter can't. So the fighter has always been 'the defender' because he was the most readily expendable PC. So, not because he /can/ defend, or because he chooses to defend, but because he's not really good for much else.


For that matter, in spite of its vaunted balance, that formula remains true in 4e. The defender's role is simply to take the hits for the less expendable members of his team. It's just a much more engaging and enjoyable role - for the player - than it used to be.
I suspect it's still a bit tough on the fighter, though...

Hmmm and I always thought the rogue was expendable.