I was thinking about the fighter today, and I had some thoughts to share with you all.
When WOTC created 4th edition, one of their design goals was to focus on what they saw as the 4 main "roles" of the game: controller-wizard, striker-rogue, defender-fighter, leader-cleric.
As mentioned above, WOTC considered the fighter the defender class. However, when I think back to my 3.x games, I realized something: the fighter isn't a defender at all!
At the levels I played at, which was usually 3-9th, the fighter was the primary damage dealer (if we ignore classes like the barb, and just focus on the "main 4" classes). With a THW, some power attack, weapon spec, and an attack bonus just better than the other classes, the fighter was the king of combat.
Sure the rogue could generate some big damage on a sneak attack...but only towards the higher levels. Considering his weaker strength, lack of damage bumping feats, and his lower attack bonus than the fighter, the rogue wasn't really the "striker" 4e has made him now. The rogue was a skill monkey who also had some decent combat skill. Now some were happy with that and some were not, but my contention is that the fighter was still the mainstay on the field for raw, consistent damage.
The fighter wore big armor and had a good AC...because he didn't want to die! And enemies attacked him not because of some special defender powers, but because he was one of the biggest threats on the battlefield.
Now of course as you got to higher levels, this began to change. The fighter, and the rogue for the most part could not keep up with the power of spell casters. Damage became secondary to status effects and save or dies, and martial classes became utterly dependent on their spellcasting friends in order to fight flying creatures, invisible ones, and others that had strange defenses. At this point in the game, the fighter did become just a bodyguard for the wizard, a tank of meat to absorb damage while the spellcasters did the work.
But at the level range I'm referring to, which most people have dubbed "the sweet spot", it is my belief that the fighter is not a defender, but if in fact the principal striker class who has given up noncombat skills in order to be the king of combat.
In fact, I would say it wasn't until the creation of the "knight" class that we actually saw a class whose specific job it was to defend and take damage.
The reason I bring this up is that the 3e fighter was for the most part a selfish class. He ran into combat, swung like mad, and did awesome damage while having the best AC. The 4e fighter is principally a selfless class, his job is to keep all of the pressure off the other classes so they can do the big damage and status effects...etc.
This is a major design change in what is one of the principal classes. Whether the change is good or bad will be ultimately up for people to decide, but that fundamental change from selfish to selfless is a big one...something people might not have though about before.
When WOTC created 4th edition, one of their design goals was to focus on what they saw as the 4 main "roles" of the game: controller-wizard, striker-rogue, defender-fighter, leader-cleric.
As mentioned above, WOTC considered the fighter the defender class. However, when I think back to my 3.x games, I realized something: the fighter isn't a defender at all!
At the levels I played at, which was usually 3-9th, the fighter was the primary damage dealer (if we ignore classes like the barb, and just focus on the "main 4" classes). With a THW, some power attack, weapon spec, and an attack bonus just better than the other classes, the fighter was the king of combat.
Sure the rogue could generate some big damage on a sneak attack...but only towards the higher levels. Considering his weaker strength, lack of damage bumping feats, and his lower attack bonus than the fighter, the rogue wasn't really the "striker" 4e has made him now. The rogue was a skill monkey who also had some decent combat skill. Now some were happy with that and some were not, but my contention is that the fighter was still the mainstay on the field for raw, consistent damage.
The fighter wore big armor and had a good AC...because he didn't want to die! And enemies attacked him not because of some special defender powers, but because he was one of the biggest threats on the battlefield.
Now of course as you got to higher levels, this began to change. The fighter, and the rogue for the most part could not keep up with the power of spell casters. Damage became secondary to status effects and save or dies, and martial classes became utterly dependent on their spellcasting friends in order to fight flying creatures, invisible ones, and others that had strange defenses. At this point in the game, the fighter did become just a bodyguard for the wizard, a tank of meat to absorb damage while the spellcasters did the work.
But at the level range I'm referring to, which most people have dubbed "the sweet spot", it is my belief that the fighter is not a defender, but if in fact the principal striker class who has given up noncombat skills in order to be the king of combat.
In fact, I would say it wasn't until the creation of the "knight" class that we actually saw a class whose specific job it was to defend and take damage.
The reason I bring this up is that the 3e fighter was for the most part a selfish class. He ran into combat, swung like mad, and did awesome damage while having the best AC. The 4e fighter is principally a selfless class, his job is to keep all of the pressure off the other classes so they can do the big damage and status effects...etc.
This is a major design change in what is one of the principal classes. Whether the change is good or bad will be ultimately up for people to decide, but that fundamental change from selfish to selfless is a big one...something people might not have though about before.
