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: 5908320" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>I assume any character with a strength score equal to the "fighter" could carry the loot as well. I don't see how this has anything to do with anything.</p><p></p><p>Um.... You should actually read my post. I was the caster. An epic-cleric in fact. And in that game when the fighter took out the construct I was unable to act before her. She did it and I sat there with my jaw-dropped and mopped up the left over (FAR WEAKER) supporting cast to the colossal plus sided construct. The construct was the real challenge and the fighter killed it in the first round, by herself. It took me far longer to kill all the little mobs that were walking around below.</p><p></p><p>I told you last time, you can keep saying it but it isn't true and isn't convincing anyone. Good luck with this tagline, maybe if you got it inked you'll be able to have it displayed to everyone from now until you die. That might convince at least some people who have never played the edition of what you are saying, though I would wager that most people still wouldn't care or agree.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> I gave an example of the fighter outpacing me the cleric at epic levels to show that "they suck only at house cat level" idea is flawed. If the fighter was able to easily outdo me then I don't see how this example can ever be true.</p><p></p><p>On a side note, practically every character can die to a house cat at low levels. What is your point exactly?</p><p></p><p>Two things, first, this wasn't about the various "limitations" you were talking about. This post was about how all 3e fighters were pack-carriers for wizards. So the point about the comparison is irrelevant as I'm not comparing anything, just pointing out that they WEREN'T.</p><p></p><p>Second, the characters in question - the ones in that epic game. The fighter was built using material available at 3.5 release. The cleric was using material from complete divine and I STILL was weaker.</p><p> </p><p> Yes but were the hybrids in PHB1, or even 2? Or were they actually put into a book in PHB3? If they only existed in PHB3 then my point still stands regardless if they had been talking about it before.</p><p></p><p>The proper comparison here would be the 5e designers talking about making 5e... versus actually releasing it! Which are we supposed to use?</p><p></p><p> You say it right here, 4e is broken (or at least rigid) as it cannot allow something as simple as a bow to be used. Previous editions didn't have this problem. My point is made by you.</p><p></p><p>As far as I understand it isn't even like a bow would have been a sub-par choice, it <em><strong>appears </strong></em>as though it was not a choice at all. Having to houserule something is not a defense of any edition.</p><p></p><p>Okay, you missed my point so I'll phrase it another way.</p><p>Prior to 4e the books suggested you play one of each of the following; fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. It often went on to say that if you didn't the game would be more difficult. It may have explained how other classes could fit these roles or substitute for these roles or layer across to cover them.</p><p>They said most of these same things in 4e, however the key difference is they never said that you need to have a wizard because he controls and you can use X to replace or cover that angle to act as controller. It added a new layer of "what is this" to the game. It codified fighters as defenders, then gave other characters who could be defenders if you didn't have a fighter. It said a fighter could be a backup striker - because you need someone who does lots of damage.</p><p>Gone were the roles of magic-guy, healer-guy, skills-guy, and fighter-guy. Now were the roles of boost-allies, limit-enemies, strike-for-extra-damage-guy, and "defender".</p><p>The roles are now too narrowly defined, and combat-centric, and some people find this off-putting. What is so difficult to agree about here?</p><p></p><p>Also, I'll ignore for the present that people have an entirely different issue calling fighters defenders, instead of some other vaguely titled role.</p><p></p><p>Actually, given that 4e is based on 3e, and 3 on 2 and 2 on 1...</p><p>That is backwards. 4e has social skills for example, but places no where near as much emphasis on any aspect of them. Instead we have 95% of all pages, rules, supplements and aspects of the game focusing on COMBAT. Combat IS paramount in 4e. It is the way that 4e achieves its famed balanced. Other areas of the game took a backseat, something that 5e is seeking to remedy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 5908320, member: 95493"] I assume any character with a strength score equal to the "fighter" could carry the loot as well. I don't see how this has anything to do with anything. Um.... You should actually read my post. I was the caster. An epic-cleric in fact. And in that game when the fighter took out the construct I was unable to act before her. She did it and I sat there with my jaw-dropped and mopped up the left over (FAR WEAKER) supporting cast to the colossal plus sided construct. The construct was the real challenge and the fighter killed it in the first round, by herself. It took me far longer to kill all the little mobs that were walking around below. I told you last time, you can keep saying it but it isn't true and isn't convincing anyone. Good luck with this tagline, maybe if you got it inked you'll be able to have it displayed to everyone from now until you die. That might convince at least some people who have never played the edition of what you are saying, though I would wager that most people still wouldn't care or agree. I gave an example of the fighter outpacing me the cleric at epic levels to show that "they suck only at house cat level" idea is flawed. If the fighter was able to easily outdo me then I don't see how this example can ever be true. On a side note, practically every character can die to a house cat at low levels. What is your point exactly? Two things, first, this wasn't about the various "limitations" you were talking about. This post was about how all 3e fighters were pack-carriers for wizards. So the point about the comparison is irrelevant as I'm not comparing anything, just pointing out that they WEREN'T. Second, the characters in question - the ones in that epic game. The fighter was built using material available at 3.5 release. The cleric was using material from complete divine and I STILL was weaker. Yes but were the hybrids in PHB1, or even 2? Or were they actually put into a book in PHB3? If they only existed in PHB3 then my point still stands regardless if they had been talking about it before. The proper comparison here would be the 5e designers talking about making 5e... versus actually releasing it! Which are we supposed to use? You say it right here, 4e is broken (or at least rigid) as it cannot allow something as simple as a bow to be used. Previous editions didn't have this problem. My point is made by you. As far as I understand it isn't even like a bow would have been a sub-par choice, it [I][B]appears [/B][/I]as though it was not a choice at all. Having to houserule something is not a defense of any edition. Okay, you missed my point so I'll phrase it another way. Prior to 4e the books suggested you play one of each of the following; fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. It often went on to say that if you didn't the game would be more difficult. It may have explained how other classes could fit these roles or substitute for these roles or layer across to cover them. They said most of these same things in 4e, however the key difference is they never said that you need to have a wizard because he controls and you can use X to replace or cover that angle to act as controller. It added a new layer of "what is this" to the game. It codified fighters as defenders, then gave other characters who could be defenders if you didn't have a fighter. It said a fighter could be a backup striker - because you need someone who does lots of damage. Gone were the roles of magic-guy, healer-guy, skills-guy, and fighter-guy. Now were the roles of boost-allies, limit-enemies, strike-for-extra-damage-guy, and "defender". The roles are now too narrowly defined, and combat-centric, and some people find this off-putting. What is so difficult to agree about here? Also, I'll ignore for the present that people have an entirely different issue calling fighters defenders, instead of some other vaguely titled role. Actually, given that 4e is based on 3e, and 3 on 2 and 2 on 1... That is backwards. 4e has social skills for example, but places no where near as much emphasis on any aspect of them. Instead we have 95% of all pages, rules, supplements and aspects of the game focusing on COMBAT. Combat IS paramount in 4e. It is the way that 4e achieves its famed balanced. Other areas of the game took a backseat, something that 5e is seeking to remedy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
When did the Fighter become "defender"?
Top