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="Tovec" data-source="post: 5908048" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>It is funny how often this argument comes up. It is equally funny how often this argument is hyperbolic.</p><p></p><p>Fighters weren't just "wasted character slot". I can understand that perhaps you had a problem with them but there are countless others, myself included, who considered fighters along with every other melee (and non-caster) class to be perfectly valid choices. I clearly remember playing in an epic level game in 3.5 where the melee character single rounded a colossal+ construct, while I -the caster- was responsible to taking out the "BBEG's" supporting cast. I don't see how that melee character was my henchmen in any way. If anything I was her lackey. I couldn't compare to the power that character had, as a tier 1 caster in that game.</p><p></p><p>Similarly, I have <strong>often </strong>played low level fighters and never had a problem keeping up and (usually) surpassing the casters when we deal with any number of situations involving the enemy.</p><p></p><p>Is it true the casters get more options than the fighter? Sure. Is it true the fighter can do nothing but play backup? FALSE! Please just stop with this argument, it will never work or sway anyone.</p><p></p><p></p><p>For all my replies here I am only guessing what the person you are quoting meant and said, but as I understand it....</p><p></p><p>The post you quoted was saying that in previous editions you started with a concept and worked toward making a character. They are then saying that in 4e you were limited by the concepts available and then creating the character. You may think these to be the same thing but many of us don't believe the same as you do.</p><p> </p><p> They may be wrong, but they don't contradict themselves. This is actually a retelling of what I just said, but they are saying that you can take any number of concepts as they exist and come up with an end result. You cannot start with the result you want and create the concept.</p><p></p><p>You can get X, Y or Z to give you A, you cannot get start with A and get to X, Y and Z. That is more or less the point. While they are similar they are not the same and therefore not contradictory.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Once again this one talks about the rigidity of the system. Previously to 4e, you could decide you wanted to use a bow and get powers that relate to it with almost any class or concept. Now you have to decide which class or concept you want because only certain ones allow you to use a bow.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>I don't know how you got from what the poster was saying to something about the roles, so I'm going to ignore this one.</p><p> </p><p>Actually here I partially agree with you, assuming you are saying that roles (can/should/DO?) change depending on the choices you make.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Forgive me, I haven't really followed 4e too much and I am prone to making mistakes when I say these sorts of things, but didn't hybrid classes come out in PHB3? Also, as I understand it, hybrid classes were created in response to people disliking the current form of multiclassing available in 4e. If what I have said is true, I can understand the poster's objections very clearly then. By PHB1 alone, creating the class they want is very difficult in 4e but no where near as difficult pre-4e. In one form, you can select 2 of the 3 things you want, in the other you can easily get all 3 (if not at first level then soon after). Of course, if you do have to wait until PHB3 then I suppose that it makes it equal again, assuming I revise my statement to be you select 2 of the 3 options you want and wait 2 years to get the third option.</p><p> </p><p> Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were able to use houserules as ACTUAL rules for these arguments. My bad. That clears up SO MANY 4e conversations I have.</p><p> </p><p> Fighting style and role already are more connected (intertwined if you like) in 4e than they were in previous editions by the sheer fact that we KNOW that a wizard is a controller, a fighter a defender, a rogue a striker and a cleric a leader. Prior to 4e we likely had other terms if we had terms at all. I know there are numerous sources that state you should have one of each of those classes but they certainly don't attach the role titles to them and don't suggest other classes that fit that role to serve as backup. I know the roles (and classes with those roles) were implemented in 4e for sake of balance. But that comes back to the comments I've made earlier; why must 4e be so balanced. It loses something when you try to balance everything and when you assume that all that matters is combat.</p><p></p><p>These are two things that the 5e team has seemed to recognize going forward and I'm glad for it. I think we are going to hit a similar problems when/if they try to balance out everything over three pillars but that is a different issue for a future time. Better to try and balance against 3 pillars than only on 1, I suppose. But I clearly am not the only one who doesn't necessarily want balance to be paramount at all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 5908048, member: 95493"] It is funny how often this argument comes up. It is equally funny how often this argument is hyperbolic. Fighters weren't just "wasted character slot". I can understand that perhaps you had a problem with them but there are countless others, myself included, who considered fighters along with every other melee (and non-caster) class to be perfectly valid choices. I clearly remember playing in an epic level game in 3.5 where the melee character single rounded a colossal+ construct, while I -the caster- was responsible to taking out the "BBEG's" supporting cast. I don't see how that melee character was my henchmen in any way. If anything I was her lackey. I couldn't compare to the power that character had, as a tier 1 caster in that game. Similarly, I have [B]often [/B]played low level fighters and never had a problem keeping up and (usually) surpassing the casters when we deal with any number of situations involving the enemy. Is it true the casters get more options than the fighter? Sure. Is it true the fighter can do nothing but play backup? FALSE! Please just stop with this argument, it will never work or sway anyone. For all my replies here I am only guessing what the person you are quoting meant and said, but as I understand it.... The post you quoted was saying that in previous editions you started with a concept and worked toward making a character. They are then saying that in 4e you were limited by the concepts available and then creating the character. You may think these to be the same thing but many of us don't believe the same as you do. They may be wrong, but they don't contradict themselves. This is actually a retelling of what I just said, but they are saying that you can take any number of concepts as they exist and come up with an end result. You cannot start with the result you want and create the concept. You can get X, Y or Z to give you A, you cannot get start with A and get to X, Y and Z. That is more or less the point. While they are similar they are not the same and therefore not contradictory. Once again this one talks about the rigidity of the system. Previously to 4e, you could decide you wanted to use a bow and get powers that relate to it with almost any class or concept. Now you have to decide which class or concept you want because only certain ones allow you to use a bow. I don't know how you got from what the poster was saying to something about the roles, so I'm going to ignore this one. Actually here I partially agree with you, assuming you are saying that roles (can/should/DO?) change depending on the choices you make. Forgive me, I haven't really followed 4e too much and I am prone to making mistakes when I say these sorts of things, but didn't hybrid classes come out in PHB3? Also, as I understand it, hybrid classes were created in response to people disliking the current form of multiclassing available in 4e. If what I have said is true, I can understand the poster's objections very clearly then. By PHB1 alone, creating the class they want is very difficult in 4e but no where near as difficult pre-4e. In one form, you can select 2 of the 3 things you want, in the other you can easily get all 3 (if not at first level then soon after). Of course, if you do have to wait until PHB3 then I suppose that it makes it equal again, assuming I revise my statement to be you select 2 of the 3 options you want and wait 2 years to get the third option. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were able to use houserules as ACTUAL rules for these arguments. My bad. That clears up SO MANY 4e conversations I have. Fighting style and role already are more connected (intertwined if you like) in 4e than they were in previous editions by the sheer fact that we KNOW that a wizard is a controller, a fighter a defender, a rogue a striker and a cleric a leader. Prior to 4e we likely had other terms if we had terms at all. I know there are numerous sources that state you should have one of each of those classes but they certainly don't attach the role titles to them and don't suggest other classes that fit that role to serve as backup. I know the roles (and classes with those roles) were implemented in 4e for sake of balance. But that comes back to the comments I've made earlier; why must 4e be so balanced. It loses something when you try to balance everything and when you assume that all that matters is combat. These are two things that the 5e team has seemed to recognize going forward and I'm glad for it. I think we are going to hit a similar problems when/if they try to balance out everything over three pillars but that is a different issue for a future time. Better to try and balance against 3 pillars than only on 1, I suppose. But I clearly am not the only one who doesn't necessarily want balance to be paramount at all. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
When did the Fighter become "defender"?
Top