Appeal of the defender?

[Elder-Basilisk]

Really? On what basis do you say that? The strikers among the sample characters did dramatically more damage than the fighter and the only way the paladin reputedly did damage was to abuse his mark in a manner that the designers are supposedly eliminating from the game.

I'd like to be able to take the various DDM 2.0 minis as a basis and say that so-called defenders still get to deal a lot of damage, but based on the RPG side of the new cards, the stats: 1. are based on NPCs who have different roles and different rules from PCs and 2. do not bear much resemblance to the RPG stats when it comes to damage dealt.

Luckily, 4e defenders are not WoW tanks. I feel like a broken record saying this over and over, but 4e fighters are a strong damage-dealing class. They are not going to be consistently overshadowed by strikers. (Sometimes the strikers will do more, and sometimes the fighter wil do more, depending on what you're fighting and such.)

 

[tombowings]

In actual practice, I found the pregens had equal damage dealing potential, beside, maybe, the Paladin and the Ranger. The Rogue did about as much as the fighter because of how I ran the monsters; the rogue was not able to sneak attack every round, while the fighter had constant damage. The Wizard had many area of affect attacks, but, like the rogue, could not use them every round. The Cleric and Paladin has enough rider effects that their slightly lower damage output was made up for.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

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? Just let them play the classes they want, then design adventures and scenarios that play to their strengths. Don't worry about "teaching" them anything. Just make the game fun for them.

 

[Protagonist]

the answer: look at pro wrestling

 

[jackston2]

Would Spiderman be considered a defender?

 

[Protagonist]

Would Spiderman be considered a defender?

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

 

[Aezoc]

300 is another good example of defenders (sword and board defenders, no less) being badasses.

To be fair though, even those of my group that like to play defender archetypes are a little gun-shy now after how badly outclassed fighters and paladins were at high levels in 3e. As others have said, I wouldn't give your group NPC defenders, as that's likely to just reinforce the stereotype of them being dumb meat shields who just run interference for the damage dealers. Nor would I suggest creating scenarios specifically designed to punish them for not having a defender. But I suspect if they opt to run without one for a while, they'll start to appreciate how useful having a defender can be. I don't know how things will look at higher levels, but in the playtests I've run, the wizard and rogue got eaten alive by enemies that got past the front lines. I don't see a defender-less party allowing for very much player error.

 

[Nifft]

Appeal of the Defender? Easy. In four words: [sblock]YOU SHALL NOT PASS![/sblock]

Cheers, -- N

 

[Satori]

It's all about image and flavor.

All you need to do is create some BBEGs and NPCs that are badass Defender builds.

Also, think outside the box when it comes to "roles". Too often someone says "Defender", and immediately an image of a dwarven tank, outfitted in Full Plate/Tower Shield, comes wobbling out like a steel turtle.

What about the savage, blood thirsty Ravager that charges out to battle in nothing but the skins of his fallen opponents?

What about the ascetic, masochistic cultist/monk that grins maniacally every time his scarred body takes a wound?

What about the skilled, nimble, lightning fast duelist that holds several enemies at bay with his deft parries?

---

While it seems obvious to resolve this issue by simply reworking the flavor, the fact that you said, "The Wizards and the Assassins get all the glory" is very telling. Wizards and "assassin" have a flavor and image about them that appeals to a lot of people.

Take that flavor and apply it to defenders.

What I've found is that most gamers are interested in a very narrow category of flavor...with function following second. This works out great when you have an even "spread" of player interests...but if everyone in your group fawns over "Wizards and Assassins", then you simply have too many players that share the same "categorical interest".

To remedy this, you need to make it clear that certain players can keep the same image/flavor while providing a different function.

For instance, I had a player who was obsessed with Necromancers. Every character was a Wizard or Cleric specializing in Death/Undead. During one game, we REALLY needed a "Tank"...and since this player was late, the Cleric/Wizard spots were already taken.

He seemed about to pitch a fit (he was a younger player), but then I worked with him to create a "Shadowknight" style Necromancer/Paladin class. Life stealing, animating dead, dark magic...combine that with spiked plate and a scythe to create the ultimate Necromantic Tank!

Just a thought.

 

[That One Guy]

Really? On what basis do you say that? The strikers among the sample characters did dramatically more damage than the fighter and the only way the paladin reputedly did damage was to abuse his mark in a manner that the designers are supposedly eliminating from the game.

You know, I had heard that before I played the demo... but my fighter was by far the most valuable character (and not just IMO). The other players commented on how my character (The dwarf fighter) did on average the best damage and got the most kills. Maybe it was the dice or the tactics used (I held the middle of the battle field as best as I could), but I went home being a serious proponent of the defender (I've always preferred controllers and strikers).