Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Morgan_Scott82" data-source="post: 4630750" data-attributes="member: 79594">I disagree, Fighter's are better Defenders. I'm not saying that fighter is a better class, but if all you're measuring is how good a defender each class is the fighter is the clear winner. Though it may be that we're arguing from different definitions of Defender. For me being 'sticky' is the defining element of the defeder role.  I tend to evaluate the game from an action economy impact perspective. Leaders give actions to allys or make allies actions more effective, while defenders and controllers take actions away from enemies or make enemies actions less effective. Strikers are an interesting case in that their action economy effect is backloaded, but they're not really material for this conversation. Assuming the above definition is valid, the question of who's the better defender comes down to who causes their enemies to use their actions less efficeintly. An attack against a defender is less efficient than an attack against another party member, defenders incentivise enemies to attack by marking them, therefore the defender that can incentivise more enemies to attack him, by marking more enemies, has an edge in this catagory. Point Fighter.  Ok, but what about the potential consequences for violating the mark, how do they weigh in? The fighter gets an attack which has the potential to do damage, the paladin gets automatic damage, but damage isn't what being a defender is about, and therefore has no impact on who is the better defender.  What about other class features? Which is more defederish? The Paladin gets Channel Divinity, and Lay on Hands, while the Fighter gets Weapon talent, and Combat Superiority. With the expectation that we will continue to see new and varied Channel Divinity feats its fair to say that there will be some that increase the defenders ability to hamper the actions of his enemies, but those released so far don't seem to have defender-type effects. Lay on Hands, heals the Paladin or his allies, which is nice, but it makes him a better leader than the figther, not a better defender. Contrarily Combat Superiority is very, very defender, its all about spoiling your enemies actions, causing him to waste, or at least not get full benefit from a move action. Weapon talent, makes those OAs more likely to hit, which increases the likelihood of combat superiority coming into play, but otherwise isn't very defender. So if defender is defined by forcing enemies to inefficeintly spend their actions, as I believe it is. Fighter is unequivicably the better defender because he can potentially cause several enemies to inefficiently use both their standard action and thier move action every round, while the paladin at most causes one enemy to ineffeceintly use their standard action. Multiple enemies & Multiple actions is greater than One enemy & One action.  Two points here, damage isn't what being a defender is about, so how much, or what type of damage you're doing is inconsequential to who is the better defender. As for the Paladin's range, its only sort of material, but I'll give you that has some valid applications.  If the enemy shifts away the fighter gets an immediate interrupt attack, and unless another of the fighters ally was within shifting distance the enemy still has to move after his shift, leaving him no action left to make the attack that would trigger the palladin's punishment. if the enemy moves away the fighter gets an OA, which might prevent the movement altogether, which means the enemy won't be attacking an ally, so no pally damage in that case either.  Ok.  This doesn't make them a better defender, as the analysis above shows the fighter will be more successful at absorbing enemy attacks than the Pally the fighter is likely to go through more surges in a given day, giving the guy who's less likely to take damage an extra surge is like handing Bill Gates $5, he doesn't need it.  Also true, but also not what being a defender is about. Sure when the one enemy you've marked attacks you you're less likely to take damage, meanwhile the party fighter has impeded the actions of several enemies through the combination of Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority.  This makes the paladin a better leader than the fighter, but is has no relevancy to who is the better defender.  A better defendery of this power would be to use the at will on someone other than you're mark, thereby mitigating the standard actions of multiple foes, something the fighter can do already.  Better than the fighter's OAs? The fighter likely has also prioritized Strength, making him equally likely to hit, plus the fighter's OAs have an additional action economy impact that makes them a better defender. All of this goes to show that the fighter is hands down the better defender. I'm not saying that paladin's are not effective in the defender role, and they do get a lot of milage out of doing other non-defender things. But when what you want is straight up ability to mitigate the enemies abilities to use their actions effectively (read: A good defender) the Fighter is head and shoulders above the other defenders we've seen thus far (Paladin, and Swordmage, not sure about the Warden yet as I've never seen one in play).</blockquote>

Verification