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="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5908352" data-attributes="member: 59506"><p>Wrong. Not my opinion, it's fact. Until 4E, Fighters could deal out more damage than Rogues. Yes, Rogues might have an occasional attack that did a large amount of damage, but round after round, it was the Fighter and not the Rogue who was the big damage dealer. That definitively changed only in 4E.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I agree, it doesn't have to remain as it was. But that is not what this thread is about. Fighter's only became dedicated Defenders with 4E...period...FACT.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>I understand game terminology just fine, thank you very much. And "Tank" has not always meant "Defender". Tank was a term used before video games and 4E, just because it meant something else in those venues, does not make their definition <em><strong>the</strong></em> definition of Tank. There is no such thing as a <em>Standardized Gaming Dictionary</em>...and with good reason. Tank has been used since the beginning of D&D to mean the big, bad, damage absorbing AND <em>damage dealing</em> Warrior. Just because video games and 4E wanted to focus on the damage absorbing aspect, does not make it the only definition.</p><p> </p><p>But even leaving out the argument over the definition: In D&D prior to 4E, the Fighter as Tank meant a character that, primarily, could equally deal out and absorb massive amounts of damage. In 4E it became primarily a damage absorber, and only secondarily a damage dealer, and that <em><strong>is</strong></em> a divergence from prior editions. Plain and simple...there is no getting around that fact.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Why is it wrong? Because in my opinion, it goes against the standard conception of their roles (and I'm not talking about 4E's artificial roles). It's not wrong as in <em>"you can't play the game that way"</em>, but it is a divergence from both fiction and past iterations of D&D. In gaming and fiction, the Warrior is typically the big damage dealer, and the Rogue is not. Like I said above in response to Shidaku, a Rogue might have an occasional attack that exceeds what a Warrior can do, but round for round the Warrior is the main damage dealer. A Rogue that can deal more damage round for round than a Warrior (Fighter) can, is not a Rogue...it's a Warrior. A rules system that allows Rogues to Sneak Attack as commonly and easily as a Warrior making standard attacks, and thereby dealing more damage round to round, is a system that is completely ignoring the archetype and is based on a purely gamist focus. That's not a necessarily bad or wrong thing. If it's a style that one finds fun, then go for it. But it was not a standard aspect of D&D until 4E. Which is the point of this thread. The Fighter did not become a "Defender" until 4E.</p><p> </p><p>As to the two examples you provided: 1) A Rogue able to throw salt shakers and hurt dragons with them...<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />...that's strictly a fringe-D&D thing only. Most people don't play that way, and I believe most DM's would balk at something like that. I can guarantee I would.</p><p> </p><p>One, It's not from the core rules (as throw anything comes from the splat <em>Sword and Fist</em>. Two, the Feat specifically says you can throw any <em>weapon</em>, even if it's not meant to be thrown (that rules out salt shakers). Third, even if I allowed salt shakers to be applicable "weapons" with the Feat, I'd list their damage as 1 (at the most). Fourth, I've always found that the ability to add on extra damage from things like Strength, etc. (but not Sneak Attack) that significantly exceeds the base damage of the item, to be a very broken aspect of D&D. One that I fixed by houserule by limiting extra damage to only the maximum allowed by the base weapon (i.e.: 1d3 damage can do no more than +3 of extra damage, 1d6 can have no more that +6 damage, etc.). Such a character would not ever exist in a game I run, and by RAW, is likely only doing about 7 points of damage from a 1st level Rogue anyways.</p><p> </p><p>2) The Half-Orc Rogue with the two-handed axe: the two-handed axe is not a Rogue weapon. In 3E it's not even a standard Half-Orc weapon...though I can see the logic behind that change in Pathfinder. However, as a GM of a game with such a character, I would rule that you can't make sneak attacks with a two-handed axe as 1) it's not a "Rogue" weapon, and 2) common sense would tell you an attack by one can be easily heard, and can't be mitigated no matter how high ones Move Silently score is (thus, the target is aware of the Rogue before resolution of the attack, therefore no Sneak Attack). Can a Rogue attack with one? Sure. Would I allow Sneak Attack damage with one? Absolutely Not.</p><p> </p><p>If you've been allowed to do such things in games as a player, and allowed such things yourself as a GM, then you have played with very liberal GM's, and it sounds as if you are very liberal GM. One who does not play entirely by the rules as written. That's perfectly fine though...at your table...but in a discussion about such roles and archetypes, they are hardly legitimate examples.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>On this I agree...100%...and is exactly the point of what I've been saying. 4E changed things in a way that was significantly divergent from past editions. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But those that argue that the 4E concept of Fighter as Defender has always been the defacto role of the Fighter throughout the editions, are just flat wrong.</p><p> </p><p><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="El Mahdi, post: 5908352, member: 59506"] Wrong. Not my opinion, it's fact. Until 4E, Fighters could deal out more damage than Rogues. Yes, Rogues might have an occasional attack that did a large amount of damage, but round after round, it was the Fighter and not the Rogue who was the big damage dealer. That definitively changed only in 4E. I agree, it doesn't have to remain as it was. But that is not what this thread is about. Fighter's only became dedicated Defenders with 4E...period...FACT. I understand game terminology just fine, thank you very much. And "Tank" has not always meant "Defender". Tank was a term used before video games and 4E, just because it meant something else in those venues, does not make their definition [I][B]the[/B][/I] definition of Tank. There is no such thing as a [I]Standardized Gaming Dictionary[/I]...and with good reason. Tank has been used since the beginning of D&D to mean the big, bad, damage absorbing AND [I]damage dealing[/I] Warrior. Just because video games and 4E wanted to focus on the damage absorbing aspect, does not make it the only definition. But even leaving out the argument over the definition: In D&D prior to 4E, the Fighter as Tank meant a character that, primarily, could equally deal out and absorb massive amounts of damage. In 4E it became primarily a damage absorber, and only secondarily a damage dealer, and that [I][B]is[/B][/I] a divergence from prior editions. Plain and simple...there is no getting around that fact. Why is it wrong? Because in my opinion, it goes against the standard conception of their roles (and I'm not talking about 4E's artificial roles). It's not wrong as in [I]"you can't play the game that way"[/I], but it is a divergence from both fiction and past iterations of D&D. In gaming and fiction, the Warrior is typically the big damage dealer, and the Rogue is not. Like I said above in response to Shidaku, a Rogue might have an occasional attack that exceeds what a Warrior can do, but round for round the Warrior is the main damage dealer. A Rogue that can deal more damage round for round than a Warrior (Fighter) can, is not a Rogue...it's a Warrior. A rules system that allows Rogues to Sneak Attack as commonly and easily as a Warrior making standard attacks, and thereby dealing more damage round to round, is a system that is completely ignoring the archetype and is based on a purely gamist focus. That's not a necessarily bad or wrong thing. If it's a style that one finds fun, then go for it. But it was not a standard aspect of D&D until 4E. Which is the point of this thread. The Fighter did not become a "Defender" until 4E. As to the two examples you provided: 1) A Rogue able to throw salt shakers and hurt dragons with them...:erm:...that's strictly a fringe-D&D thing only. Most people don't play that way, and I believe most DM's would balk at something like that. I can guarantee I would. One, It's not from the core rules (as throw anything comes from the splat [I]Sword and Fist[/I]. Two, the Feat specifically says you can throw any [I]weapon[/I], even if it's not meant to be thrown (that rules out salt shakers). Third, even if I allowed salt shakers to be applicable "weapons" with the Feat, I'd list their damage as 1 (at the most). Fourth, I've always found that the ability to add on extra damage from things like Strength, etc. (but not Sneak Attack) that significantly exceeds the base damage of the item, to be a very broken aspect of D&D. One that I fixed by houserule by limiting extra damage to only the maximum allowed by the base weapon (i.e.: 1d3 damage can do no more than +3 of extra damage, 1d6 can have no more that +6 damage, etc.). Such a character would not ever exist in a game I run, and by RAW, is likely only doing about 7 points of damage from a 1st level Rogue anyways. 2) The Half-Orc Rogue with the two-handed axe: the two-handed axe is not a Rogue weapon. In 3E it's not even a standard Half-Orc weapon...though I can see the logic behind that change in Pathfinder. However, as a GM of a game with such a character, I would rule that you can't make sneak attacks with a two-handed axe as 1) it's not a "Rogue" weapon, and 2) common sense would tell you an attack by one can be easily heard, and can't be mitigated no matter how high ones Move Silently score is (thus, the target is aware of the Rogue before resolution of the attack, therefore no Sneak Attack). Can a Rogue attack with one? Sure. Would I allow Sneak Attack damage with one? Absolutely Not. If you've been allowed to do such things in games as a player, and allowed such things yourself as a GM, then you have played with very liberal GM's, and it sounds as if you are very liberal GM. One who does not play entirely by the rules as written. That's perfectly fine though...at your table...but in a discussion about such roles and archetypes, they are hardly legitimate examples. On this I agree...100%...and is exactly the point of what I've been saying. 4E changed things in a way that was significantly divergent from past editions. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But those that argue that the 4E concept of Fighter as Defender has always been the defacto role of the Fighter throughout the editions, are just flat wrong. B-) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
When did the Fighter become "defender"?
Top