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="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5908135" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>That appears to be a mix of misunderstanding and retcon.</p><p></p><p>First, in 4e the fighter very much does stand toe to toe with the bad guys, take whatever they can dish out, and inflict massive amounts of damage on them. Their secondary role is striker, and is striker for a reason.</p><p></p><p>As for the original fighters, oD&D derived from tabletop wargames. Where one of the fighter's roles was absolutely to defend squishier artillery-mages. If we're talking about the original fighters, they weren't significantly better at dealing damage with weapons than clerics - no specialisation rules until Unearthed Arcana.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>IME if the monsters aren't at least slightly bunched up or attacking at range, they have already lost. Focus fire drops them. </p><p></p><p>And as for forcing the monster to choose between a penalty to attack allies, and attacking the fighter? If the fighter is making it so the monsters <em>can't</em> attack his allies because of positioning then the fighter is still winning. He's forcing them to take a bad choice (attacking the fighter) and this is as effective as offering them the combat challenge.</p><p></p><p>Basically the fighter is doing his job if he locks two enemy monsters down in open terrain. Or takes the Elite.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've demonstrated how in PF the fighter has about the combat potential of a crippled L10 Summoner.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Out of curiosity, how many buffs had the casters given the fighter?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Really? What about either finding the combats or avoiding them? At everything that isn't directly combat related the wizard leaves the fighter in the dust.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now let me introduce you to Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard. A 1st level fighter has about twice the hit points of a wizard (assuming Con 14). And the wizard gets to be more useful than the fighter by casting spells 2-3 three times per day (plus cantrips) while the fighter is swinging a shiny bit of metal.</p><p></p><p>A 5th level fighter still has about twice the hit points of a wizard. But the wizard has 2-3 third level spells, 3-4 second level spells, and 4-5 first level spells. That's up to a dozen spells, most significantly more powerful than the fighter had. While the fighter is still swinging his shiny bit of metal.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's a distinction without a difference. In <em>every</em> edition you are limited by the concepts presented. And in every edition you either start with a concept and work towards a character or take a concept from the list available. And I've done both in every edition I've played.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a strawman.</p><p></p><p>1: Any class can use a bow at the cost of a feat in 4e. Just like in 3.X or AD&D.</p><p></p><p>2: I don't care how many feats your wizard burns on his bow in 3.X or AD&D. He is never going to be that much use with it because his BAB falls behind fast. So your 9th level wizard has spent all his feats on Weapon Proficiency: Composite Bow, Weapon Focus: Composite Bow, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot. He still has a BAB of +4 at 9th level. The fighter who has invested literally additional resources all into the bow is shooting at a BAB of +9/+4. (And Arcane Archer stops your spellcasting progression).</p><p></p><p>The only way a wizard is going to do something other than completely suck with a bow is simple. He needs to take levels in classes other than wizard - dropping a spell level to fighter, barbarian, or ranger - and another one as he enters Eldritch Knight. At that point your wizard is only (only!) three points of BAB down. He can try Rapid Shot, bringing his to hit penalty to -5. Or Manyshot for -7 given that he just qualifies for it.</p><p></p><p>Now let's try the archer-wizard in 4E using just PHB options. Weapon Proficiency feat again. But this time I'm at least not giving up a lot of accuracy on the ranger. What I'm giving up is the equivalent of iterative attacks and the manyshot feat. You know, the ones that take a ridiculous to hit penalty. But wait. I have enough Dex to qualify for the ranger multiclass feat. And then I can spend a second feat to trade encounter powers with the ranger. So I get some archery that is up to ranger standards (probably either Disruptive Shot or something to give me two shots). So at the cost of three feats I can get some good shooting in, and am able to shoot fast. Without having broad-side-of-a-barn-door problems. At level 10 I get to swap dailies. And at level 11 I take the Sharpshooter Paragon Path.</p><p></p><p>The 4e PHB wizard-archer makes the 3e PHB wizard-archer look like a joke who can't hit the broad side of a barn door. (Actually at high level the PHB wizard-archer simply quickened-true-strikes but I digress).</p><p></p><p>So I guess it's not mixing and matching talents (although it takes less skill to understand how to do it in 3E). What it is is the historically weird combination of combining heavy armour, the class called "fighter", and archery. Rather than taking a ranger and buying him the heavy armour feats. Because I for one don't see how the word "fighter" written on the character sheet is part of <em>anyone's</em> in character concept. The class is a metagame choice to best reflect your concept.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Pre-4e is not synonymous with 3.X.</strong> 3.X had advantages and disadvantages. Its advantage was massive flexibility in concepts. Its disadvantage was that an awful lot of ways of taking advantage of that flexibility <em>sucked</em>.</p><p></p><p>You want to mix and match wizard casting and cleric casting? In AD&D it was easy (for a non-human). You effectively took a hybrid character. In 3.X? Your best path is Mystic Theurge. Which at level 7 looks like Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 1. At level 7 you can only cast 2nd level spells while the wizard and cleric are casting 4th level. And you have a BAB of +3 and problems wearing armour and casting spells. You suck. And one thing I guarantee. Sucking is almost never part of someone's character concept. And this is a problem with 3.X - so many things look like a good idea but actually just suck. (Hello there Monks, not that you weren't an improvement on the 1e monk).</p><p></p><p>As for other concepts you want, give me a non-magical leader of men who actively increases their ability on the battlefield in any edition pre-4th.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Don't make me pull my 2e PHB which had its own roles. As for the rogue being DPR, go look at the 3.X class. Look at the hit points and sneak attack. And then come and tell me what part of that doesn't say DPR glass cannon to you?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which isn't true. Classes are <em>defined</em> by thematic niche. They are then sorted and balanced by combat role. (With the occasional exception that fills in the grid like the Fightbrain (a.k.a. the Battlemind).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Let me stop you right there. You are talking about "previous editions" as if they were all 3.X. In AD&D <a href="http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/char/step010.html" target="_blank">fighters only had four weapon proficiency slots, and needed to spend two on one weapon to specialise</a>. (Weapon Specialisation having only come in with Unearthed Arcana). Which means that AD&D 1e pre-Unearthed Arcana fighters were (like all other classes) only proficient in a narrow range of weapons. And 1e post-Unearthed Arcana and 2e fighters were tightly focussed weapon specialists (specialisation being overwhelmingly strong).</p><p></p><p>Of course fighters took less of a penalty for being non-proficient than other classes - but that was more than outweighed by the strength of weapon specialisation. So each individual fighter had the narrowest range of good weapons of any PC.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which edition? The 1e ranger was an Aragorn ripoff right down to being able to use Palantir. The two weapon fighting of the ranger was IIRC specifically to give them a different fighting style to the fighter.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which edition? Because that describes the 3e and the 4e Barbarian. But the <a href="http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/char/clas004.html" target="_blank">1e Barbarian</a> was defined by:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px">[FONT=Arial Narrow,Arial,Helvetica]Barbarians fear and oppose all magic except the simplest of clerical magics (ministrations of the gods). They cannot use magic items of any sort at low levels, and will always gain experience points for destroying any magic item. They will not knowingly work with magic-users at low levels, and at even the highest levels will view such wizards with suspicion even if well known to them. This chart shows the degree to which magic will be tolerated by barbarians: </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Level Actions and Abilities </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <ol style="margin-left: 20px"> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">May associate freely with clerics.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">May use potions.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">May use magic weapons.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">May use magic armor.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">May associate with magic-users (and their sub-classes) if the need is great.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">May use weapon-like miscellaneous magic items.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">May associate with magic-users occasionally.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">May use protection scrolls.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">May use most magic items available to fighters.</li> </ol> <p style="margin-left: 20px"> To compensate for their reluctance to use magic items, the barbarian is presumed to have the ability to hit creatures normally protected by the requirement that magic weapons be used.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[/FONT]</p><p>Nothing about raging in there. The first actual time a barbarian got to rage was <a href="http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/2379/in-what-edition-of-dnd-was-the-barbarianss-rage-introduced" target="_blank">The Complete Barbarian's Handbook</a> with a single kit from 2e having some form of rage (and a dwarf <em>fighter</em> kit). Now I vastly prefer the 3.X and 4e Barbarians to that antisocial pest. But would you <em>please</em> stop trying to claim that all prior editions worked in the way 3.X did. Because they simply didn't.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><em>Thieves</em> prior to 3.X. In 1e the class was called the thief. In 2e the class was the thief and the role was the rogue. Bards were also rogues in 2e (having changed immensely from their 1e incarnation). Although this is minor quibbling.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And they were all strikery defender-wannabes with d10 hit dice and heavy armour proficiency. In 4e a 2 handed fighter with high damage powers is more strikery than the sword and board fighter who had cleave and tide of iron as his at wills - that sword and board fighter was more controllery. Your power <em>selection </em>is part of your customisation. And as for leadery? If you want a leadery martial character in heavy armour in 4e, write "warlord" at the top of your character sheet.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Or you decide on what you want to play and then pick your class and build to that end. This latter is the way I do it most of the time. All that changed was the default presentation.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You needed to wait until Martial Power 1 for the Tempest Fighter. Not everything showed up immediately - that's why we have splatbooks.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You took Hunter's Quarry as a multiclass feat or took a spiked shield.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't know which game you think you have a blank slate once you've chosen your class. But it's no edition of D&D I've ever played.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If the PHB had been eight hundred pages thick and had options that contained the kitchen sink, I doubt I'd have ever tried to lift it. That's the problem. What you are asking for is entire reams of paper - they'd have had to cut about half the classes to get as much as you want - or had to cut a lot of the subtle options, like the spear fighter being pretty effective. Your entire problem here appears to boil down to "The PHB simply wasn't thick enough".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Clerics? Single target damage dealers? A wisdom cleric can make all his dailies and a large proportion of his encounter powers AoEs. And wizards can take single target attacks. Now the buff/debuff part is a point. And one I'm pretty sure has been dealt with by splatbooks.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a point.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You think rangers aren't sneaky? Seriously? High dex, stealth on the class list. Rangers are as sneaky as they've ever been - and a sneaky ranger is every bit as sneaky as an ordinary rogue. (Or you pick Bard or even Warlord, but I digress).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So once again your problem is that the PHB 1 had too few options because it wasn't a thousand pages thick. There are two archer-leader classes (bard and MP2 warlord) and two archer-controller classes (seeker and hunter). You can't have a ranged defender - the two just don't work together.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again it comes down to you wanting the kitchen sink in the PHB. The figher has plenty of two weapon powers. They just appeared in Martial Power. This is another 800 page PHB problem.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No it shouldn't. Two weapon fighting is seriously overrated in D&D . [/grump]</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't see "Able to cast spells" as a primary schtick either. I see the type of spells mattering. Yet we have the 3.X wizard class.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again this is your 800 page PHB issue. And it wasn't "Archery, Sneakiness, Healing. Pick two." It was "There are no healer archers presented in the PHB". The Bard, the Warlord, and the Cleric all have archery options. And the Bard has a decent measure of sneakiness. That said, I definitely agree that the PHB rogue should have had shortbow proficiency.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>4e made the decision to support every class as well as it does the casters.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5908135, member: 87792"] That appears to be a mix of misunderstanding and retcon. First, in 4e the fighter very much does stand toe to toe with the bad guys, take whatever they can dish out, and inflict massive amounts of damage on them. Their secondary role is striker, and is striker for a reason. As for the original fighters, oD&D derived from tabletop wargames. Where one of the fighter's roles was absolutely to defend squishier artillery-mages. If we're talking about the original fighters, they weren't significantly better at dealing damage with weapons than clerics - no specialisation rules until Unearthed Arcana. IME if the monsters aren't at least slightly bunched up or attacking at range, they have already lost. Focus fire drops them. And as for forcing the monster to choose between a penalty to attack allies, and attacking the fighter? If the fighter is making it so the monsters [I]can't[/I] attack his allies because of positioning then the fighter is still winning. He's forcing them to take a bad choice (attacking the fighter) and this is as effective as offering them the combat challenge. Basically the fighter is doing his job if he locks two enemy monsters down in open terrain. Or takes the Elite. I've demonstrated how in PF the fighter has about the combat potential of a crippled L10 Summoner. Out of curiosity, how many buffs had the casters given the fighter? Really? What about either finding the combats or avoiding them? At everything that isn't directly combat related the wizard leaves the fighter in the dust. Now let me introduce you to Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard. A 1st level fighter has about twice the hit points of a wizard (assuming Con 14). And the wizard gets to be more useful than the fighter by casting spells 2-3 three times per day (plus cantrips) while the fighter is swinging a shiny bit of metal. A 5th level fighter still has about twice the hit points of a wizard. But the wizard has 2-3 third level spells, 3-4 second level spells, and 4-5 first level spells. That's up to a dozen spells, most significantly more powerful than the fighter had. While the fighter is still swinging his shiny bit of metal. It's a distinction without a difference. In [I]every[/I] edition you are limited by the concepts presented. And in every edition you either start with a concept and work towards a character or take a concept from the list available. And I've done both in every edition I've played. This is a strawman. 1: Any class can use a bow at the cost of a feat in 4e. Just like in 3.X or AD&D. 2: I don't care how many feats your wizard burns on his bow in 3.X or AD&D. He is never going to be that much use with it because his BAB falls behind fast. So your 9th level wizard has spent all his feats on Weapon Proficiency: Composite Bow, Weapon Focus: Composite Bow, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot. He still has a BAB of +4 at 9th level. The fighter who has invested literally additional resources all into the bow is shooting at a BAB of +9/+4. (And Arcane Archer stops your spellcasting progression). The only way a wizard is going to do something other than completely suck with a bow is simple. He needs to take levels in classes other than wizard - dropping a spell level to fighter, barbarian, or ranger - and another one as he enters Eldritch Knight. At that point your wizard is only (only!) three points of BAB down. He can try Rapid Shot, bringing his to hit penalty to -5. Or Manyshot for -7 given that he just qualifies for it. Now let's try the archer-wizard in 4E using just PHB options. Weapon Proficiency feat again. But this time I'm at least not giving up a lot of accuracy on the ranger. What I'm giving up is the equivalent of iterative attacks and the manyshot feat. You know, the ones that take a ridiculous to hit penalty. But wait. I have enough Dex to qualify for the ranger multiclass feat. And then I can spend a second feat to trade encounter powers with the ranger. So I get some archery that is up to ranger standards (probably either Disruptive Shot or something to give me two shots). So at the cost of three feats I can get some good shooting in, and am able to shoot fast. Without having broad-side-of-a-barn-door problems. At level 10 I get to swap dailies. And at level 11 I take the Sharpshooter Paragon Path. The 4e PHB wizard-archer makes the 3e PHB wizard-archer look like a joke who can't hit the broad side of a barn door. (Actually at high level the PHB wizard-archer simply quickened-true-strikes but I digress). So I guess it's not mixing and matching talents (although it takes less skill to understand how to do it in 3E). What it is is the historically weird combination of combining heavy armour, the class called "fighter", and archery. Rather than taking a ranger and buying him the heavy armour feats. Because I for one don't see how the word "fighter" written on the character sheet is part of [I]anyone's[/I] in character concept. The class is a metagame choice to best reflect your concept. [B]Pre-4e is not synonymous with 3.X.[/B] 3.X had advantages and disadvantages. Its advantage was massive flexibility in concepts. Its disadvantage was that an awful lot of ways of taking advantage of that flexibility [I]sucked[/I]. You want to mix and match wizard casting and cleric casting? In AD&D it was easy (for a non-human). You effectively took a hybrid character. In 3.X? Your best path is Mystic Theurge. Which at level 7 looks like Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 1. At level 7 you can only cast 2nd level spells while the wizard and cleric are casting 4th level. And you have a BAB of +3 and problems wearing armour and casting spells. You suck. And one thing I guarantee. Sucking is almost never part of someone's character concept. And this is a problem with 3.X - so many things look like a good idea but actually just suck. (Hello there Monks, not that you weren't an improvement on the 1e monk). As for other concepts you want, give me a non-magical leader of men who actively increases their ability on the battlefield in any edition pre-4th. Don't make me pull my 2e PHB which had its own roles. As for the rogue being DPR, go look at the 3.X class. Look at the hit points and sneak attack. And then come and tell me what part of that doesn't say DPR glass cannon to you? Which isn't true. Classes are [I]defined[/I] by thematic niche. They are then sorted and balanced by combat role. (With the occasional exception that fills in the grid like the Fightbrain (a.k.a. the Battlemind). Let me stop you right there. You are talking about "previous editions" as if they were all 3.X. In AD&D [URL="http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/char/step010.html"]fighters only had four weapon proficiency slots, and needed to spend two on one weapon to specialise[/URL]. (Weapon Specialisation having only come in with Unearthed Arcana). Which means that AD&D 1e pre-Unearthed Arcana fighters were (like all other classes) only proficient in a narrow range of weapons. And 1e post-Unearthed Arcana and 2e fighters were tightly focussed weapon specialists (specialisation being overwhelmingly strong). Of course fighters took less of a penalty for being non-proficient than other classes - but that was more than outweighed by the strength of weapon specialisation. So each individual fighter had the narrowest range of good weapons of any PC. Which edition? The 1e ranger was an Aragorn ripoff right down to being able to use Palantir. The two weapon fighting of the ranger was IIRC specifically to give them a different fighting style to the fighter. Which edition? Because that describes the 3e and the 4e Barbarian. But the [URL="http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/char/clas004.html"]1e Barbarian[/URL] was defined by: [INDENT][FONT=Arial Narrow,Arial,Helvetica]Barbarians fear and oppose all magic except the simplest of clerical magics (ministrations of the gods). They cannot use magic items of any sort at low levels, and will always gain experience points for destroying any magic item. They will not knowingly work with magic-users at low levels, and at even the highest levels will view such wizards with suspicion even if well known to them. This chart shows the degree to which magic will be tolerated by barbarians: Level Actions and Abilities [LIST=1] [*]May associate freely with clerics. [*]May use potions. [*]May use magic weapons. [*]May use magic armor. [*]May associate with magic-users (and their sub-classes) if the need is great. [*]May use weapon-like miscellaneous magic items. [*]May associate with magic-users occasionally. [*]May use protection scrolls. [*]May use most magic items available to fighters. [/LIST] To compensate for their reluctance to use magic items, the barbarian is presumed to have the ability to hit creatures normally protected by the requirement that magic weapons be used. [/FONT][/INDENT]Nothing about raging in there. The first actual time a barbarian got to rage was [URL="http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/2379/in-what-edition-of-dnd-was-the-barbarianss-rage-introduced"]The Complete Barbarian's Handbook[/URL] with a single kit from 2e having some form of rage (and a dwarf [I]fighter[/I] kit). Now I vastly prefer the 3.X and 4e Barbarians to that antisocial pest. But would you [I]please[/I] stop trying to claim that all prior editions worked in the way 3.X did. Because they simply didn't. [I]Thieves[/I] prior to 3.X. In 1e the class was called the thief. In 2e the class was the thief and the role was the rogue. Bards were also rogues in 2e (having changed immensely from their 1e incarnation). Although this is minor quibbling. And they were all strikery defender-wannabes with d10 hit dice and heavy armour proficiency. In 4e a 2 handed fighter with high damage powers is more strikery than the sword and board fighter who had cleave and tide of iron as his at wills - that sword and board fighter was more controllery. Your power [I]selection [/I]is part of your customisation. And as for leadery? If you want a leadery martial character in heavy armour in 4e, write "warlord" at the top of your character sheet. Or you decide on what you want to play and then pick your class and build to that end. This latter is the way I do it most of the time. All that changed was the default presentation. You needed to wait until Martial Power 1 for the Tempest Fighter. Not everything showed up immediately - that's why we have splatbooks. You took Hunter's Quarry as a multiclass feat or took a spiked shield. I don't know which game you think you have a blank slate once you've chosen your class. But it's no edition of D&D I've ever played. If the PHB had been eight hundred pages thick and had options that contained the kitchen sink, I doubt I'd have ever tried to lift it. That's the problem. What you are asking for is entire reams of paper - they'd have had to cut about half the classes to get as much as you want - or had to cut a lot of the subtle options, like the spear fighter being pretty effective. Your entire problem here appears to boil down to "The PHB simply wasn't thick enough". Clerics? Single target damage dealers? A wisdom cleric can make all his dailies and a large proportion of his encounter powers AoEs. And wizards can take single target attacks. Now the buff/debuff part is a point. And one I'm pretty sure has been dealt with by splatbooks. This is a point. You think rangers aren't sneaky? Seriously? High dex, stealth on the class list. Rangers are as sneaky as they've ever been - and a sneaky ranger is every bit as sneaky as an ordinary rogue. (Or you pick Bard or even Warlord, but I digress). So once again your problem is that the PHB 1 had too few options because it wasn't a thousand pages thick. There are two archer-leader classes (bard and MP2 warlord) and two archer-controller classes (seeker and hunter). You can't have a ranged defender - the two just don't work together. Again it comes down to you wanting the kitchen sink in the PHB. The figher has plenty of two weapon powers. They just appeared in Martial Power. This is another 800 page PHB problem. No it shouldn't. Two weapon fighting is seriously overrated in D&D . [/grump] I don't see "Able to cast spells" as a primary schtick either. I see the type of spells mattering. Yet we have the 3.X wizard class. Again this is your 800 page PHB issue. And it wasn't "Archery, Sneakiness, Healing. Pick two." It was "There are no healer archers presented in the PHB". The Bard, the Warlord, and the Cleric all have archery options. And the Bard has a decent measure of sneakiness. That said, I definitely agree that the PHB rogue should have had shortbow proficiency. 4e made the decision to support every class as well as it does the casters. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
When did the Fighter become "defender"?
Top