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="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 5908669" data-attributes="member: 52073"><p>[MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION] and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]:</p><p></p><p>You two seem to have missed the point of my original post on roles. I said nothing about how roles work in 4e relative to pre-4e editions. I said nothing about how valid the criticisms of them were. I was disagreeing with Hussar when he said that the original "Roles are MMO!"-type complaints came about because they weren't explained well enough by the writers, and was instead explaining that, in my view, the problem is that roles were presented front-and-center as a classification for different classes while thematic aspects like fighting styles were within classes, rather than the reverse or some other system. It is the formatting and presentation of roles throughout the class chapters that causes that problem, not an insufficient explanation of the roles themselves.</p><p></p><p>Once again it all comes down to <em>perceptions</em>. The reason I keep using PHB1 material as an example is that <em>that's the relevant time period for those complaints</em>. Everyone who complains about fighters being bodyguards, about roles being constricting, etc. has likely never played 4e and/or has only read the first round of books, which is why the presentation and capabilities available in PHB1 is important to that perception. The people complaining about how you're stuck with one role per class have likely never seen the Slayer or Tempest fighter. The people who want an archer Leader didn't have the option of making a bard. The people who want an even split between two classes' powers, like the player of mine who wanted an archer cleric, never got to hybrids or PHB3 because they dropped 4e before then. So thanks for the build suggestions, Herschel, but I know about all those options and mentioned several of them myself.</p><p></p><p>The takeaway from that post should have been that we shouldn't blame writing or a lack of explanation or the like for driving people to complain about roles, because quite often people read those sections just fine; instead, the problem is that people saw archery powers or TWF powers or whatever segregated by role and didn't like that. The responses of "OMG Eldritch, you don't know anything about 4e!" are uncalled for, because I'm talking about why people I've talked to have dropped for 4e based on roles, not making any claims as to those perceptions being correct at all.</p><p></p><p>To directly address/clarify a few points:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"Classified" would have been a better word here than "defined"--what I was getting at was that the first basic trait mentioned in the classes chapter is roles, and differences between classes are described in terms of roles in that section (how fighters are more striker-y defenders and paladins are more leader-y). The fact that each class gets a single-sentence summary while roles get a paragraph, and that role is the first thing mentioned in each class writeup, can make role seem a lot more important to class playstyle than schtick.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I know my AD&D just fine, thank you. When I say "do fancy stuff with different weapons," I mean exactly that, that one fighter uses bows and another uses S&B and another uses two-handers and so on. Y'know, the same kind of weapon style stuff I've been talking about.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First of all, saying I can't reference UA and the Complete Barbarian's Handbook after complaining that I wasn't referencing 4e splats is a bit unfair, don't you think? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> Secondly, I claimed nothing of the sort. UA barbarians had special AC bonuses from Dex, d12 HD, and have good save bonuses particularly against magic (hence the "really hard to kill") and they can damage monsters who needed magic weapons to damage without actually using said weapons, jump very high and very far, and ambush things well (hence the "flip out and kill things"). Barbarians have always been tough and offensively-oriented, rage was only one manifestation of that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Neonchameleon is right in one respect, though: you <em>should</em> be able to do your job without any buffs whatsoever. Buffs should make someone do their job even better, as you say, but there needs to be a baseline competence there first. A completely naked 20th-level cleric can still contribute just fine, even if their DCs are suffering, they have fewer spells, etc., whereas a completely naked 20th-level fighter or monk can't compete with relevant threats without items or buffs.</p><p></p><p>That's what most of the "fighters suck without caster support" arguments involve. A warlock can survive and contribute with 8s in every ability score, clerics need zero magic items to do their primary job, wizards can get by with only the 2 free spells they get every level even though having more is always appreciated...but martial types can't fly under their own power, can't gain relevant immunities and resistances under their own power, can't hit some enemies under their own power, and so forth.</p><p></p><p>Now, in an actual campaign, does that really matter? Not so much, because everyone <em>has</em> items (or at least they should) and teamwork is common. It's just that many people come on forums and claim that fighter types can do anything they have to without caster support and that they're the best at their job...which is just wrong, since fighter + items + buffs is inferior to cleric + items + buffs if the cleric really tries, and since there are many things martial classes just can't do without items or buffs. That has unfortunately meant that many forum-goers who are used to correcting those people tend to extrapolate from "fighter types need items to compete, and clerics can outfight fighters if they try" (which is true) to "fighter types can't compete, and individual fighters can't be better at combat than individual clerics" (which is not).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Eldritch_Lord, post: 5908669, member: 52073"] [MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION] and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]: You two seem to have missed the point of my original post on roles. I said nothing about how roles work in 4e relative to pre-4e editions. I said nothing about how valid the criticisms of them were. I was disagreeing with Hussar when he said that the original "Roles are MMO!"-type complaints came about because they weren't explained well enough by the writers, and was instead explaining that, in my view, the problem is that roles were presented front-and-center as a classification for different classes while thematic aspects like fighting styles were within classes, rather than the reverse or some other system. It is the formatting and presentation of roles throughout the class chapters that causes that problem, not an insufficient explanation of the roles themselves. Once again it all comes down to [I]perceptions[/I]. The reason I keep using PHB1 material as an example is that [I]that's the relevant time period for those complaints[/I]. Everyone who complains about fighters being bodyguards, about roles being constricting, etc. has likely never played 4e and/or has only read the first round of books, which is why the presentation and capabilities available in PHB1 is important to that perception. The people complaining about how you're stuck with one role per class have likely never seen the Slayer or Tempest fighter. The people who want an archer Leader didn't have the option of making a bard. The people who want an even split between two classes' powers, like the player of mine who wanted an archer cleric, never got to hybrids or PHB3 because they dropped 4e before then. So thanks for the build suggestions, Herschel, but I know about all those options and mentioned several of them myself. The takeaway from that post should have been that we shouldn't blame writing or a lack of explanation or the like for driving people to complain about roles, because quite often people read those sections just fine; instead, the problem is that people saw archery powers or TWF powers or whatever segregated by role and didn't like that. The responses of "OMG Eldritch, you don't know anything about 4e!" are uncalled for, because I'm talking about why people I've talked to have dropped for 4e based on roles, not making any claims as to those perceptions being correct at all. To directly address/clarify a few points: "Classified" would have been a better word here than "defined"--what I was getting at was that the first basic trait mentioned in the classes chapter is roles, and differences between classes are described in terms of roles in that section (how fighters are more striker-y defenders and paladins are more leader-y). The fact that each class gets a single-sentence summary while roles get a paragraph, and that role is the first thing mentioned in each class writeup, can make role seem a lot more important to class playstyle than schtick. No, I know my AD&D just fine, thank you. When I say "do fancy stuff with different weapons," I mean exactly that, that one fighter uses bows and another uses S&B and another uses two-handers and so on. Y'know, the same kind of weapon style stuff I've been talking about. First of all, saying I can't reference UA and the Complete Barbarian's Handbook after complaining that I wasn't referencing 4e splats is a bit unfair, don't you think? ;) Secondly, I claimed nothing of the sort. UA barbarians had special AC bonuses from Dex, d12 HD, and have good save bonuses particularly against magic (hence the "really hard to kill") and they can damage monsters who needed magic weapons to damage without actually using said weapons, jump very high and very far, and ambush things well (hence the "flip out and kill things"). Barbarians have always been tough and offensively-oriented, rage was only one manifestation of that. Neonchameleon is right in one respect, though: you [I]should[/I] be able to do your job without any buffs whatsoever. Buffs should make someone do their job even better, as you say, but there needs to be a baseline competence there first. A completely naked 20th-level cleric can still contribute just fine, even if their DCs are suffering, they have fewer spells, etc., whereas a completely naked 20th-level fighter or monk can't compete with relevant threats without items or buffs. That's what most of the "fighters suck without caster support" arguments involve. A warlock can survive and contribute with 8s in every ability score, clerics need zero magic items to do their primary job, wizards can get by with only the 2 free spells they get every level even though having more is always appreciated...but martial types can't fly under their own power, can't gain relevant immunities and resistances under their own power, can't hit some enemies under their own power, and so forth. Now, in an actual campaign, does that really matter? Not so much, because everyone [I]has[/I] items (or at least they should) and teamwork is common. It's just that many people come on forums and claim that fighter types can do anything they have to without caster support and that they're the best at their job...which is just wrong, since fighter + items + buffs is inferior to cleric + items + buffs if the cleric really tries, and since there are many things martial classes just can't do without items or buffs. That has unfortunately meant that many forum-goers who are used to correcting those people tend to extrapolate from "fighter types need items to compete, and clerics can outfight fighters if they try" (which is true) to "fighter types can't compete, and individual fighters can't be better at combat than individual clerics" (which is not). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
When did the Fighter become "defender"?
Top