direkobold
First Post
So I've been playing a defender (a paladin) and DMing two defenders since just after 4E was released, and they just don't seem to be very good at their jobs. All the other roles feel like their name and stand out with respect to other party members with respect to that role, but not defenders.
Here are my specific issues:
1- AC: With a shield defenders are probably going to have equal or maybe one point on a striker, without a shield it's pretty easy for a striker to have a better AC. If a Defender can't count on having the best AC in the party, i.e. the best defense, then what the heck can they count on? To just use one example (possibly an extreme one) and compare a level 11 elven ranger with a level 11 fighter.
Assuming that the Ranger rolled at least a 17 for dex (giving him 19 to start) and put all his stat bumps to dex he'll have a 22 dex for +6 to AC.
If we further assume that both the ranger and the fighter haven't taken any extra feats and that they both have +3 armor (a level 11 item), then their respective ACs are:
Ranger: +6 Dex, +6 Armor(Hide) +5 Level <Left:19><Right:18> +10 Base = 27 AC
Fighter: +10 Armor(Scale) +5 Level = 25 AC (27 w/ shield)
At a minimum this raises questions about whether a two-handed weapon defender is a viable build.
And of course the only thing keeping leaders from having the same AC as a defender is a few feats (and considering how many you get in 4E that's not that big of a deal). And the only thing keeping a wizard from being being in the same AC position as a striker is one or two feats.
2- Marking: So you can get the attention of one guy, well in your average 4E combat there's a lot more than one guy, and yes there are some encounters and daily powers that allow marking of more than one but their core class ability let's them get the attention of one dude, and it has to basically be a dude that they're adjacent to anyway. Now I don't have any hard math here, but in my experience the defenders do most of their "locking down" in the same way everyone else does. Threating Opportunity Attacks and providing occasional cover vs. ranged attacks.
To put it another way I've seen only a few instances where marking really changed who a monster would have attacked and even fewer where having the monster attack the defender as opposed to someone else really changed the course of a combat.
3- Reflex, Fortitude and Will Defense: I'm sure there's some math to be done here, but just eyeballing I don't see any reason either from the numbers or from play experience to see any reason why the "Defenders" are any better at "defense" in this area then any of the other roles.
4- Hit Points: Here defenders have a clear advantage, but how much of an advantage is it really? I'd say just based on eyeballing it that it allows them to take one, maybe two more hits than a leader or a striker. Now the paladin has lay on hands (which in my experience goes disproportionately towards healing themselves) so that helps on this count, but over all give how much the defender gets beaten on the hit point difference is not that big of a deal. In my play experience the defender gets the lions share of the healing and still goes down more than any other character.
So anyway that's my experience. Other than the defender the classes seem to pull of their roles, fairly well. The defender seems the exception to that rule.
Anyone having a similar experience?
Anyone want to tell me that I'm smoking crack?
Anyone have suggestions for house rules to rectify this problem?
I'm toying with giving defender's a blanket +2 to AC, or maybe going to 7 hp/level, but I'm still in the "watch and see" mode. I'm going to switch from a paladin to a swordmage in the campaign I play in as soon as the FR book comes out, so I'd like to get the experience of playing that defender before I pass judgment on the entire role.
Here are my specific issues:
1- AC: With a shield defenders are probably going to have equal or maybe one point on a striker, without a shield it's pretty easy for a striker to have a better AC. If a Defender can't count on having the best AC in the party, i.e. the best defense, then what the heck can they count on? To just use one example (possibly an extreme one) and compare a level 11 elven ranger with a level 11 fighter.
Assuming that the Ranger rolled at least a 17 for dex (giving him 19 to start) and put all his stat bumps to dex he'll have a 22 dex for +6 to AC.
If we further assume that both the ranger and the fighter haven't taken any extra feats and that they both have +3 armor (a level 11 item), then their respective ACs are:
Ranger: +6 Dex, +6 Armor(Hide) +5 Level <Left:19><Right:18> +10 Base = 27 AC
Fighter: +10 Armor(Scale) +5 Level = 25 AC (27 w/ shield)
At a minimum this raises questions about whether a two-handed weapon defender is a viable build.
And of course the only thing keeping leaders from having the same AC as a defender is a few feats (and considering how many you get in 4E that's not that big of a deal). And the only thing keeping a wizard from being being in the same AC position as a striker is one or two feats.
2- Marking: So you can get the attention of one guy, well in your average 4E combat there's a lot more than one guy, and yes there are some encounters and daily powers that allow marking of more than one but their core class ability let's them get the attention of one dude, and it has to basically be a dude that they're adjacent to anyway. Now I don't have any hard math here, but in my experience the defenders do most of their "locking down" in the same way everyone else does. Threating Opportunity Attacks and providing occasional cover vs. ranged attacks.
To put it another way I've seen only a few instances where marking really changed who a monster would have attacked and even fewer where having the monster attack the defender as opposed to someone else really changed the course of a combat.
3- Reflex, Fortitude and Will Defense: I'm sure there's some math to be done here, but just eyeballing I don't see any reason either from the numbers or from play experience to see any reason why the "Defenders" are any better at "defense" in this area then any of the other roles.
4- Hit Points: Here defenders have a clear advantage, but how much of an advantage is it really? I'd say just based on eyeballing it that it allows them to take one, maybe two more hits than a leader or a striker. Now the paladin has lay on hands (which in my experience goes disproportionately towards healing themselves) so that helps on this count, but over all give how much the defender gets beaten on the hit point difference is not that big of a deal. In my play experience the defender gets the lions share of the healing and still goes down more than any other character.
So anyway that's my experience. Other than the defender the classes seem to pull of their roles, fairly well. The defender seems the exception to that rule.
Anyone having a similar experience?
Anyone want to tell me that I'm smoking crack?
Anyone have suggestions for house rules to rectify this problem?
I'm toying with giving defender's a blanket +2 to AC, or maybe going to 7 hp/level, but I'm still in the "watch and see" mode. I'm going to switch from a paladin to a swordmage in the campaign I play in as soon as the FR book comes out, so I'd like to get the experience of playing that defender before I pass judgment on the entire role.