Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
When did the Fighter become "defender"?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 5907406" data-attributes="member: 52073"><p>While it's the case for many elements of 4e that a better presentation could clear up lots of problems, I think the problems people have with roles stems from a different issue, namely the fact that classes were defined by combat role rather than thematic niche. (Caveat: all of the following is observational data gathered from talking with players IRL and browsing forum threads and are being presented in that fashion; they do not necessarily represent the opinions of this poster.) To take a look at the martial classes for a moment, fighters in previous editions are the dudes in heavy armor who do fancy stuff with different weapons, paladins are the dudes on horseback who smite evil things, rangers are nature-y TWF/archer dudes with animal companions, barbarians are tough dudes that flip out and kill things and are really hard to kill themselves, and rogues are sneaky dudes who are fragile in stand-up combat but are great in ambush situations. So far, so good.</p><p></p><p>However, in previous editions, you could be a heavily-armored TWFer, a heavily-armored two-hander, a heavily-armored S&B guy, or whatever else, and your combat role would change based on that. In 3e, for instance, a 2HF fighter with Power Attack and Shock Trooper was more striker-y, a S&B fighter with Stand Still and Combat Reflexes was more defender-y, a TWFer with combat style feats and Cleave was more controller-y, and a fighter with Leadership and bunches of teamwork benefits was more leader-y. The common denominator there was the heavy armor, good health, and reliable damage, compared to a barbarian's lower armor and spiky damage or a ranger's lower health and situational damage or the like, allowing you to make your "strikers" more or less mobile, more or less resilient, etc. You could fill different roles better or worse, of course (e.g. the AD&D fighter with his followers could do leader-y a hell of a lot better than the 3e fighter, while losing out on controller-y-ness a bit thanks to HP bloat), but you could do it.</p><p></p><p>In 4e, they took everything martial characters could do and split them by combat role first, then schtick second--instead of deciding to be a weapon master or a sneaky guy or an archer and then choosing what combat niche to fill, you choose a role and then pick your schtick based on that. Essentially, 4e gave people the choice of role first, fighting style second (choose Defender over Striker -> choose between Str-based Great Weapon fighter or Dex-based Guardian fighter or TWF Tempest fighter; choose Striker over Defender -> choose between Str-based Brawny rogue or Dex-based Slayer fighter or TWF Two-Weapon ranger) when what a lot of people wanted to see was the reverse (choose TWF over Str/Dex single weapon -> choose between very Striker-y Two-Weapon ranger or Striker/Defender Tempest fighter; choose Str-based single weapon -> choose between very Striker-y Brawny rogue or very Defender-y Great Weapon fighter). If you wanted to have Combat Challenge <em>and</em> wield two weapons, or Hunter's Quarry <em>and</em> have a shield, you were out of luck; while you can easily make a striker-y Fighter by picking the right powers and such, the fact that you have to start with a Defender chassis and build it towards Striker stuff instead of having a blank slate and building up to the role of your choice rubs some people the wrong way because it sort of feels like you're working against the system rather than with it.</p><p></p><p>Because certain fighting styles were closely associated with certain roles (particularly with just PHB1) instead of being able to mix-and-match fighting styles with roles, people felt constrained by the dictation of roles, even though most of the roles are what they'd be doing anyway and the <em>actual</em> problem was e.g. the lack of a heavily-armored TWFer option and not the fact that only rangers can TWF, <em>per se</em>. If the PHB1 had had Ranger-scale TWF and archery options for Defenders and Fighter-scale two-handed and S&B options for Strikers right out of the gate, rather than trying to make a defender-y Striker because you wanted to be a TWF-based Defender or a striker-y Defender because you wanted to be a S&B Striker, I doubt roles would ever have been a problem, but instead a complaint along the lines of "I'd rather make my TWFers the mobile, sticky ones and the two-handers the straightforward, burst-damage ones" gets boiled down to a vague "Why do fighters have to be bodyguards!?!?" </p><p></p><p>Same thing with clerics being single-target damage dealers and buffers while wizards were multi-target damage dealers and debuffers with no option for the reverse: I doubt anyone disliked being labeled a Leader or Controller and getting the perks associated with those roles, but rather they wanted to choose between single target and AoE and between buffing and debuffing, not between single-target + buffing and AoE + debuffing, and so forth. That combinatorial aspect is why I'm hoping to see roles be defined by themes in 5e while schticks are defined by class, rather than having the two tied closely together.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Eldritch_Lord, post: 5907406, member: 52073"] While it's the case for many elements of 4e that a better presentation could clear up lots of problems, I think the problems people have with roles stems from a different issue, namely the fact that classes were defined by combat role rather than thematic niche. (Caveat: all of the following is observational data gathered from talking with players IRL and browsing forum threads and are being presented in that fashion; they do not necessarily represent the opinions of this poster.) To take a look at the martial classes for a moment, fighters in previous editions are the dudes in heavy armor who do fancy stuff with different weapons, paladins are the dudes on horseback who smite evil things, rangers are nature-y TWF/archer dudes with animal companions, barbarians are tough dudes that flip out and kill things and are really hard to kill themselves, and rogues are sneaky dudes who are fragile in stand-up combat but are great in ambush situations. So far, so good. However, in previous editions, you could be a heavily-armored TWFer, a heavily-armored two-hander, a heavily-armored S&B guy, or whatever else, and your combat role would change based on that. In 3e, for instance, a 2HF fighter with Power Attack and Shock Trooper was more striker-y, a S&B fighter with Stand Still and Combat Reflexes was more defender-y, a TWFer with combat style feats and Cleave was more controller-y, and a fighter with Leadership and bunches of teamwork benefits was more leader-y. The common denominator there was the heavy armor, good health, and reliable damage, compared to a barbarian's lower armor and spiky damage or a ranger's lower health and situational damage or the like, allowing you to make your "strikers" more or less mobile, more or less resilient, etc. You could fill different roles better or worse, of course (e.g. the AD&D fighter with his followers could do leader-y a hell of a lot better than the 3e fighter, while losing out on controller-y-ness a bit thanks to HP bloat), but you could do it. In 4e, they took everything martial characters could do and split them by combat role first, then schtick second--instead of deciding to be a weapon master or a sneaky guy or an archer and then choosing what combat niche to fill, you choose a role and then pick your schtick based on that. Essentially, 4e gave people the choice of role first, fighting style second (choose Defender over Striker -> choose between Str-based Great Weapon fighter or Dex-based Guardian fighter or TWF Tempest fighter; choose Striker over Defender -> choose between Str-based Brawny rogue or Dex-based Slayer fighter or TWF Two-Weapon ranger) when what a lot of people wanted to see was the reverse (choose TWF over Str/Dex single weapon -> choose between very Striker-y Two-Weapon ranger or Striker/Defender Tempest fighter; choose Str-based single weapon -> choose between very Striker-y Brawny rogue or very Defender-y Great Weapon fighter). If you wanted to have Combat Challenge [I]and[/I] wield two weapons, or Hunter's Quarry [I]and[/I] have a shield, you were out of luck; while you can easily make a striker-y Fighter by picking the right powers and such, the fact that you have to start with a Defender chassis and build it towards Striker stuff instead of having a blank slate and building up to the role of your choice rubs some people the wrong way because it sort of feels like you're working against the system rather than with it. Because certain fighting styles were closely associated with certain roles (particularly with just PHB1) instead of being able to mix-and-match fighting styles with roles, people felt constrained by the dictation of roles, even though most of the roles are what they'd be doing anyway and the [I]actual[/I] problem was e.g. the lack of a heavily-armored TWFer option and not the fact that only rangers can TWF, [I]per se[/I]. If the PHB1 had had Ranger-scale TWF and archery options for Defenders and Fighter-scale two-handed and S&B options for Strikers right out of the gate, rather than trying to make a defender-y Striker because you wanted to be a TWF-based Defender or a striker-y Defender because you wanted to be a S&B Striker, I doubt roles would ever have been a problem, but instead a complaint along the lines of "I'd rather make my TWFers the mobile, sticky ones and the two-handers the straightforward, burst-damage ones" gets boiled down to a vague "Why do fighters have to be bodyguards!?!?" Same thing with clerics being single-target damage dealers and buffers while wizards were multi-target damage dealers and debuffers with no option for the reverse: I doubt anyone disliked being labeled a Leader or Controller and getting the perks associated with those roles, but rather they wanted to choose between single target and AoE and between buffing and debuffing, not between single-target + buffing and AoE + debuffing, and so forth. That combinatorial aspect is why I'm hoping to see roles be defined by themes in 5e while schticks are defined by class, rather than having the two tied closely together. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
When did the Fighter become "defender"?
Top