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: 5908410" data-attributes="member: 78357"><p>It's been demonstrably shown Clerics can trivialize fighters. If you don't use the tools you have, that's not the system's fault. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Again, if everyone knows how to build characters then they were. That's a problem. The whole "system mastery" bits added to the spellcaster bits gave you a far-flung dochotomy if people know how to build. That was baked in to teh game.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>And 3.x was a terrible system because I couldn't build a Hexblade in the PHB 1. Are you really missing such a glaring point? </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>LoL, come back to reality, would ya? 5E won't have everything released from day 1 either. No edition ever has. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>So, did 3.x suck because Hexblades weren't in PHB 1? I couldn't even play an Arcane Swordsman at level 1 and would never have the stats to play one properly either needing STR, CON, DEX, INT just to be functional. That's a character concept I wanted to play when 3.0 was released and couldn't make decently. [sarcasm]Gee, no choice, what a terrible system. Why would you ever play it. [/sarcasm] That's how ridiculous your argument is. </p><p> </p><p>Expecting everything to be released in the PHB 1 is ridiculous. Until mnore stuff is released you have what you have. Seriously, are you 23 years old and came in to 3.5 late in the cycle? I'm trying to figure out why your perspective is so narrow as to disregard 1E and 2E while claiming things that only existed in 3.x (any many times LATE in 3.5) are the way they always were. </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></blockquote><p></p><p>Page 10 of the DMG, the second section talking about the players after personality types, talks directly about party building without the standard roles covered. Page freakin' 10! It's right there! There's other stuff that covers it too, but from the very beginning of the DMG it gives you hints on runningn games without the four roles covered. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>WRONG! Jesus, those guys are still there, just with more transparent names. Magic Guy is an arcane or divine caster. Healer guy is a leader. Skills guys are still the same classes (Bard and Rogue) and Fighter guy is still fighting the good fight. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Again, same as they've always been , just with better-defined tools now in some cases (ie: the defender)</p><p> </p><p> Because THEY'RE NO MORE COMBAT-CENTRIC THAN THEY EVER WERE! For crying out loud, how is a FIGHTER not a 'narrowly-defined combat-centric' character? Not only that, but why must every character's combat role be matching non-combat role? That's ridiculously limiting. I can make the meathead who brutes his way through life, the charismatic party face, the nimble athlete, the courtesan, the noble, etc. And I can make that character any class/role I want., including Fighter. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>LoL, the reason 4E has limited skill lists is because the 3E system was bloated and moronic. You don't need all that ridiculous minutia to role play. Again, NO other edition had that utter crutch of shoehorning RP. Even mediocre role players and DMs don't need it. For those that want it, fine, port it over or in 5E get a module at some point, but you don't need all that crap to role play, just some basic adjudication methods.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Herschel, post: 5908410, member: 78357"] It's been demonstrably shown Clerics can trivialize fighters. If you don't use the tools you have, that's not the system's fault. Again, if everyone knows how to build characters then they were. That's a problem. The whole "system mastery" bits added to the spellcaster bits gave you a far-flung dochotomy if people know how to build. That was baked in to teh game. And 3.x was a terrible system because I couldn't build a Hexblade in the PHB 1. Are you really missing such a glaring point? LoL, come back to reality, would ya? 5E won't have everything released from day 1 either. No edition ever has. So, did 3.x suck because Hexblades weren't in PHB 1? I couldn't even play an Arcane Swordsman at level 1 and would never have the stats to play one properly either needing STR, CON, DEX, INT just to be functional. That's a character concept I wanted to play when 3.0 was released and couldn't make decently. [sarcasm]Gee, no choice, what a terrible system. Why would you ever play it. [/sarcasm] That's how ridiculous your argument is. Expecting everything to be released in the PHB 1 is ridiculous. Until mnore stuff is released you have what you have. Seriously, are you 23 years old and came in to 3.5 late in the cycle? I'm trying to figure out why your perspective is so narrow as to disregard 1E and 2E while claiming things that only existed in 3.x (any many times LATE in 3.5) are the way they always were. 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.[/quote] Page 10 of the DMG, the second section talking about the players after personality types, talks directly about party building without the standard roles covered. Page freakin' 10! It's right there! There's other stuff that covers it too, but from the very beginning of the DMG it gives you hints on runningn games without the four roles covered. WRONG! Jesus, those guys are still there, just with more transparent names. Magic Guy is an arcane or divine caster. Healer guy is a leader. Skills guys are still the same classes (Bard and Rogue) and Fighter guy is still fighting the good fight. Again, same as they've always been , just with better-defined tools now in some cases (ie: the defender) Because THEY'RE NO MORE COMBAT-CENTRIC THAN THEY EVER WERE! For crying out loud, how is a FIGHTER not a 'narrowly-defined combat-centric' character? Not only that, but why must every character's combat role be matching non-combat role? That's ridiculously limiting. I can make the meathead who brutes his way through life, the charismatic party face, the nimble athlete, the courtesan, the noble, etc. And I can make that character any class/role I want., including Fighter. LoL, the reason 4E has limited skill lists is because the 3E system was bloated and moronic. You don't need all that ridiculous minutia to role play. Again, NO other edition had that utter crutch of shoehorning RP. Even mediocre role players and DMs don't need it. For those that want it, fine, port it over or in 5E get a module at some point, but you don't need all that crap to role play, just some basic adjudication methods. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
When did the Fighter become "defender"?
Top