Appeal of the defender?

[nogray]

That's the main characteristic of the bar-lgura. It can "abduct" people by teleporting them along against their will - even though the spell can't do that.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that, and the only reference I could find for the Bar-lgura (http://www.enworld.org/cc/converted/outsider/demon/bar-lgura.htm) didn't mention it. Thank you for clearing that up for me; I should know better than to post without a current reference in front of me. Still, point is viable, no?

 

[jackston2]

Another problem may be that when you give the players NPC's you use them as the focal point for the punishment that occurs due to bonehead (parden the expression - I'm speaking of all players not just yours) moves by your players.

That's true... when the other character's screw up the fight, it's the defender that has to roll up a new character. But I think it's in the nature of the Defender role. The mage can fly away and the rogue can slink off quietly, while the armor laden defender is all too easily outrun by the horde of monsters that are already surrounding him.


BTW, I want to make a list of famous Defenders. Starting with, apparently, Berserk.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Well, first, a Defender is a mindset, not a toolset. They care about _protection_; protecting themselves and others. Some people consider the best defense is a good offense. Others prefer to be the immovable object. That's fine. To answer the anime charge first, here's a list of Anime protagonists who are (IMO) Defenders.

1) Vash the Stampede from Trigun

Vash is a total pacifist. Everything he does works towards helping others and preventing harm. The fact that he can do this with a _loaded gun_ just makes him more badass.

2) Himura Kenshin from Rurouni Kenshin

Kenshin is another pacifist, yet extremely proficient/deadly in his chosen form. Note how many times there's a fight where others are involved, and how often Kenshin 'takes the hit' (wound or not) instead of the other.

3) Gourry Gabriev from Slayers

His entire job is to protect Lina. Last I checked, he also was a badass swordsman who no one wanted to cross.

Those are three examples off the top of my head. Unfortunately, your players seem to be reasoning backwards. 'Those guys are meatshields, and so must be Defenders.' _Even if true_, that does not in any way imply the converse is true.

For a humorous way of injecting some Defender love into them, have them read Order of the Stick, at http://www.giantitp.com. Roy is the leader of the group, a Fighter, Yea verily a Defender of the entire party... and is quite possibly the smartest one in the group and _wholly resents_ the 'meatshield' stereotype. Alternatively, have them watch Slayers. While Gourry _is_ dumb, he's also completely badass and in no way plays 'second fiddle' to the other characters.

If they are at all team-oriented, point out parallels to team sports. Are the offensive/defensive lines in (american) football 'meatshields'? Most would say so. However, if they are not there, or in any way less proficient than those they are opposing, the 'stars' of a football team (i.e., quarterback, receivers, RBs, whatever) cannot perform.

It honestly sounds to me like you have an entire group of prima donnas who are unwilling to share the spotlight with others. I feel for you. Personally, if none of my players wanted to play a Defender, I'd try to help them as long as they weren't disparaging the role. If they did so, I wouldn't 'assist' their party by making appropriate encounters. I would watch them TPK themselves, and probably show them (not tell them) that a Defender would have given them the victory.

There is peer pressure involved here. It seems from the description you have given that your players are unwilling to play a Defender _mainly due to how the other players will treat them_. You should counteract that as swiftly as possible.

 

[Derren]

Partially your players are correct. The defenders role simply is to stand there and get hit or block the movement of enemies.
With good planning defenders can be replaced by barricades, traps, battlefield altering spells, flying, terrain use and everything else which makes it hard for the enemy to reach the PCs. Against some animals just climbing on a tree is enough so you don't need a defender.

 

[Wiman]

Jackston, I think 4e is trying to take care of the whole "mage can fly away, and thief can sneak away" situation for better or for worse. As my second choice behind fighters was rogue I'm not sure how I feel about it.....but as a fighter foremost I will take great pleasure in the fact that if I go everyone goes....having escaped fights by taking 20D6 falling damage (that is the cap by the way) when my party made a run for it I have to say grats for that. It is my experience, especially in Ravonloft that sneaking away as the rogue as you say is entirely more difficult then it sounds (even with ungodly hide and move silently).

By taking it easy on PC's I was thinking of perhaps targeting that teleport on a PC instead of an NPC once in a while might make them appreciate a defender more....afterall PC's taste better then NPC's, have purer souls, etc. As for will saves with equal magical protection your NPC paladin should have had a better will save then say your rogue. If your players were using the paladin as a "mark isn't here tonight" character....ie. bait on the 200 foot line...well then the paladin was going to die no matter what anyway....just like any other character put in that situation.

 

[nogray]

The Paladin suffered from Multi-Ability-Disorder, or whatever it's called (basically being forced to spread its stats across STR, CON, WIS, and CHA, with decent DEX), so it's grapple suffered. Whereas the rogue has high dex and escape artist skill ranks.

Yeah, on second thought, that is a strong possible source of the discrepancy.

The Bar-Igura has a special power called "abduct" I think, which let's it steal away victims.

The Ravenloft book actually said that the Bar-Igura's combat tactic is to teleport themselves and their victims 2,000 feet into the air.

Although, I never knew that damage is capped at 200d6. I only remembered that you take 1d6 damage after the first 10'. 200 damage alone is enough to be lethal, though.

I just looked up the encounter, and you are spot-on for the tactics. It's a shame when adventure writers can't research the rules for teleport effects (here, I am referring to the general rule about appearing unsupported).

The encounter does mention the falling damage, though (20d6, not 200d6).

A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.

There is some wiggle room, but the intent seems to be "no teleporting into mid-air."

 

[jackston2]

The encounter does mention the falling damage, though (20d6, not 200d6).There is some wiggle room, but the intent seems to be "no teleporting into mid-air."

Huh, completely my bad. 20d6 is VERY survivable. He had at least a coin toss' chance of living.

EDIT: well, maybe not that high actually. That's like 70 average damage versus I think 60 hp.

EDIT AGAIN: wait that is a coin toss

 

[ZetaStriker]

??? Make them watch Lodoss Wars. Parn ftw!

Much agreed. Record of the Lodoss War is basically DnD the Anime. The main character starts off as dirt-farmer with a sword and gets beaten around by a Hobgoblin he barely managed to kill, and ends as a powerful fighter who helps take down dragons and epic wizards. Even the races/'classes' represented by the core cast are DnD archetypes.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I'll put my $.02 in here. I love playing warriors. Fighters. Fighter/barbarians. Paladins. Melee clerics. Fighter/wizards. Fighter/Rogues. Whatever. The guy who picks up a sword or guisarme and stands his ground against the hordes of chaos is an archetype that I like and that I enjoy playing.

That said, I detest so-called defenders. The knight with his sword stands up front and inflicts minimal damage while the monsters do their best to ignore his impotence and the other party members silently wish he was useful is not a role that I want to play or that I particularly want other people to play. In general, the role is a waste of space.

Now, in 3.x that hasn't been too much of a problem because characters who fill the so-called defender role can be pretty darn effective. Even my halfling monk/cleric/fighter/paladin/pious templar has always been able to make the enemy pay for disregarding her. 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. (Fortunately, the designers in 3rd and 4th edition don't have a particularly strong history of actually succeeding in creating boxed in character roles, so there is still a chance that clever players will be able to create and play a strong warrior who his enemies fear for his own abilities rather than because he can get in their way when they want to attack someone else).

 

[tombowings]

That said, I detest so-called defenders. The knight with his sword stands up front and inflicts minimal damage while the monsters do their best to ignore his impotence and the other party members silently wish he was useful is not a role that I want to play or that I particularly want other people to play. In general, the role is a waste of space.

I disagree. I don't think 4E defender will be doing any less damage than anyone else. If you look at the pregens, all of them do about the same amount of damage. Powers either inflict high amounts of damage and/or have addition effects that go along with them. I would be willing to bet that, in general, all characters have equal damage potential, but their methods are what define their rolls, not the specific amounts.