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="Herschel" data-source="post: 5908114" data-attributes="member: 78357"><p>It's quite true as the game progresses. At house cat levels, the Wizard is very vulnerable while at higher levels he "owns" the game. A lot of games start around third level to avoid the house cat levels. The Wizard tends to trivialize the other classes at high levels, especially with system mastery. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>The "limitation" was that you're comparing options when <strong><em><u>only</u></em></strong> the PHB1 was release vs. options after years of splatbooks were out. That's not making a reasonable comparison. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>You still decide you want to use a bow and then choose game elements to fit that concept. The concept isn't "I want a bow, I'm going to make a fighter now what can I do with it" it's "I want to play a leaderly Bowman" and picking game elements to fit that. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>This is NOT true. Hybrid rules were announjced and always in the works. There were preliminary and "play test" versions out for some classes LONG before PHB 3 was released. Multiclassing was the way you dabble in a second class while Hybriding is how you function as two classes "equally". Not everything came out in the PHB 1, just like every other edition. That would have been overwhelming, not time-realistic and really bad for the rule book treadmill business model.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Obviously simply reflavoring a crossbow or the like wasn't thought of so simply allowing a bow to be used for ranged powers when all you have is the PHB 1 is an easy, minor swith of a prerequisite. House rules are pretty common in every edition, in most cases to fix the broken stuff in this case it's allowing powers to work with a similar weapon which is a miniscule change. If one can't be creative enough to say 'okay, you have a bow, it's not specifically built with a recurve or reinforced for a deeper pull to maximize damage but it's beautifully-made, extremely light and has the stats of a hand crossbow' then that's your other option until more books come out. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>This again is looking at it backwards. All 4E did was make the game transparent and give you chassis to build character concepts around. If you didn't like the melee/battle cleric or ranged claric options in the PHB one for your holy man concept and you want to play a Defending Holy Man then you play a Paladin (either strong, charismatic or both). If you want to play a Striker Holy Man, Avenger or Blackguard. More control, Invoker.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Again, 4E just made it transparent. There's a reason those classes were suggested was to fill all the inherent roles. Which leads us too....</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The roles were clarified in order to give characters better tools to do their desired job. The Fighter is usually played as a Defender because he has some great, little tricks that make him better able to draw attacks. You can't just shift away from him and charge a squishy, there are now "better" consequences for the Fighter character if you ignore him. </p><p> </p><p>Controllers got more ways to mess up a monster's day in a big way. It was just about playing a blaster any more and seeing how many damage dice you could role, it was actually being able to shape a battlefield.</p><p> </p><p>[quote</p><p>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></blockquote><p>I see this statement made and it is completely ignorant of reality. It's not that "all that matters is combat" it's just that combat is the only place such extensive rules are needed. By that measure, 1E and 2e were "all about combat" too then. The social and exploration protions of the game don't need a tight framework and oodles and scads of rules to work, it helps to have some basic skills for adjudication in solving more difficult questions.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Herschel, post: 5908114, member: 78357"] It's quite true as the game progresses. At house cat levels, the Wizard is very vulnerable while at higher levels he "owns" the game. A lot of games start around third level to avoid the house cat levels. The Wizard tends to trivialize the other classes at high levels, especially with system mastery. The "limitation" was that you're comparing options when [B][I][U]only[/U][/I][/B] the PHB1 was release vs. options after years of splatbooks were out. That's not making a reasonable comparison. You still decide you want to use a bow and then choose game elements to fit that concept. The concept isn't "I want a bow, I'm going to make a fighter now what can I do with it" it's "I want to play a leaderly Bowman" and picking game elements to fit that. This is NOT true. Hybrid rules were announjced and always in the works. There were preliminary and "play test" versions out for some classes LONG before PHB 3 was released. Multiclassing was the way you dabble in a second class while Hybriding is how you function as two classes "equally". Not everything came out in the PHB 1, just like every other edition. That would have been overwhelming, not time-realistic and really bad for the rule book treadmill business model. Obviously simply reflavoring a crossbow or the like wasn't thought of so simply allowing a bow to be used for ranged powers when all you have is the PHB 1 is an easy, minor swith of a prerequisite. House rules are pretty common in every edition, in most cases to fix the broken stuff in this case it's allowing powers to work with a similar weapon which is a miniscule change. If one can't be creative enough to say 'okay, you have a bow, it's not specifically built with a recurve or reinforced for a deeper pull to maximize damage but it's beautifully-made, extremely light and has the stats of a hand crossbow' then that's your other option until more books come out. This again is looking at it backwards. All 4E did was make the game transparent and give you chassis to build character concepts around. If you didn't like the melee/battle cleric or ranged claric options in the PHB one for your holy man concept and you want to play a Defending Holy Man then you play a Paladin (either strong, charismatic or both). If you want to play a Striker Holy Man, Avenger or Blackguard. More control, Invoker. Again, 4E just made it transparent. There's a reason those classes were suggested was to fill all the inherent roles. Which leads us too.... The roles were clarified in order to give characters better tools to do their desired job. The Fighter is usually played as a Defender because he has some great, little tricks that make him better able to draw attacks. You can't just shift away from him and charge a squishy, there are now "better" consequences for the Fighter character if you ignore him. Controllers got more ways to mess up a monster's day in a big way. It was just about playing a blaster any more and seeing how many damage dice you could role, it was actually being able to shape a battlefield. [quote 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. [/quote] I see this statement made and it is completely ignorant of reality. It's not that "all that matters is combat" it's just that combat is the only place such extensive rules are needed. By that measure, 1E and 2e were "all about combat" too then. The social and exploration protions of the game don't need a tight framework and oodles and scads of rules to work, it helps to have some basic skills for adjudication in solving more difficult questions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
When did the Fighter become "defender"?
Top