Appeal of the defender?

[hong]

Though, such a party pretty much would rely totally on tactics, surprise, and initative.

Their two secret weapons!

 

[Irda Ranger]

Oh, I totally believe the Defender role is important, useful, and fun. But honestly, if the players don't think Defenders are important or useful, I think the OP would be better served just to make scenarios and situations where needing a Defender isn't so important.

Heh, whereas, if you were correct about their opinions, I would prescribe the opposite! Show them just how important Defenders are!

But you missed the OP's contention. It's not that the players think Defenders are non-useful, it's that the player think they're better than Defenders. Defenders are "servants." Mere hired muscle. They actually feel superior to anyone playing a Defender. They look down on them.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

But you missed the OP's contention. It's not that the players think Defenders are non-useful, it's that the player think they're better than Defenders. Defenders are "servants." Mere hired muscle. They actually feel superior to anyone playing a Defender. They look down on them.

There's a quote in Races and Classes that goes something like "If you don't choose a defender, the monsters will choose one for you."

With the high hit points/damage ratio of 4e I think it's going to be hard for a party of strikers and controllers to completely take out the monsters before they get to act themselves. The monsters can then try the same "lets all pile onto the one guy until he's dead " tactic. They have to hope that any solo enemies they fight fails its save against the controller attacks, otherwise it will be complete freedom to choose which of the party buffet gets eaten first.

 

[thewok]

Their two secret weapons!

What about fear?

 

[fba827]

None of my players want to play a defender. Not in 3rd and still not in 4th.

According to them, defenders are "dumb servants" and "meat shields" whose sole job is to get hurt/ be incapacitated so the wizards and assassins can bask in the limelight.

Can anyone help me put a positive spin on the defender for my players?

Why bother? If they don't want to play a defender, no need to make them.

A defender isn't necessarily a class, it is a play-style within the party.

They can keep hiring NPCs if they want - but consider how you play them, you may be inadvertently giving them poor role-models. It doesn't have to be a paladin, just someone who can take the focus (even if a mage with a bunch of illusions, and extra armor/hp feats/items).

At the same time, keep in mind that the local society may start to catch on -- "hey look those 4 guys always leave with another person, but always the same 4 return and the 5th comes back in a body bag -- every single time."

But, anyway, like I said, if no one wants to play the role, no need to say that someone has to / should.

 

[Dausuul]

Heh, whereas, if you were correct about their opinions, I would prescribe the opposite! Show them just how important Defenders are!

But you missed the OP's contention. It's not that the players think Defenders are non-useful, it's that the player think they're better than Defenders. Defenders are "servants." Mere hired muscle. They actually feel superior to anyone playing a Defender. They look down on them.

Well, if no one is playing a Defender, then this isn't an issue, is it?

I guess I'm just not clear on what the actual problem is that the OP wishes to solve.

 

[Patlin]

Another thought, if it helps: The main character in Bleach, Ichigo, has had his name translated in the english dubbed version of the show either as "he who defends" or "first defender."

If they like anime, maybe that's a selling point?

 

[small pumpkin man]

Now that I think about it, it's because of Anime. My players like Anime.

Anime protagonists are never defenders. They are always lean, wiry strikers or wizards. With inferior, muscular defender sidekicks.

While Western protagonists are defenders. With sneaky rogues and crafty wizards as sidekicks.

One of problems with 3.x is that the Defender is supposed to be The Deteminator, which is an incredibly common anime trope, but it didn't really work higher level in 3.5 as divine casters stole their schtik. 4e Seems to be giving it back it back a bit.

On a completely different note, regarding 4e damage output, while looking at the stats, I don't really see how you can get "dramatically" more damage from a conditional extra d6 damage. The Fighter's extra OAs (or even just having OAs that do decent damage) easily make up for that.

 

[Pistonrager]

No, but The Phantom, Flash Gordon and Mandrake would.

ah lol...they're the best neighborhood watch on the planet.

but seriously....

Don't force them to to play a defender. BUT ALSO!!!!! Don't engineer the game to their strengths or weaknesses, make them fight the same thing no matter what they play.

I know I'd rather loose a fair fight, than win one weighted in my favor(on purpose).

 

[Gloombunny]

In the 4th edition design philosophy articles, however, there is no mention of defenders actually being able to kill things themselves. It seems like the design space allotted to them is now simply taking up space and absorbing damage for the real characters in the party while hoping that their "sticky" abilities make opponents unable to move away from them.

I am getting really sick of hearing this. If that's what you think 4e defenders are like, then you simply haven't been paying attention. The lead designer himself stated flat-out that fighters are the go-to class for dealing heavy damage in melee. Not rogues, not two-weapon rangers - fighters. As I already detailed in this thread, the DDXP pregen characters indicate that a fighter can equal or exceed a ranger in damage. There is no reason to think "defender = meatshield with no offense" other than knee-jerk WoW comparisons.