Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller Dynamic

[RigaMortus2]

This is no different in 4E. Monsters can just as easily run/fly/teleport past a defender as they could in 3E, and at high levels it's even easier since you won't have an enlarged spiked-chain-wielding fighter who owns a 40x40 foot chunk of the battlefield.



If the monster is running around, it's making one attack instead of maybe 6 or more. It's a very stupid thing for the monster to do as wizards can walk around and still cast spells, fighters can use bows, leap attack, slashing flurry, spring attack etc.



Disengaging the fighter means the monster gets tripped and a free attack. Disintegrating wizards need to get past spell resistance and the monster needs to roll a 1 on it's fort save and if the planets align the wizard will do the same damage as the fighter.



4E defenders are less sticky than decent 3E meleers who actually bothered to try to be sticky. And yes, marks are nice, marking the BBEG then running and hiding behind the wizard who has a higher AC so the game becomes a ring-around-the-rosey can be quite amusing, but mechanically, nah. Trips, grapples and 3 or more attacks of opportunity as the monster tries to leave your zone... THAT is protecting your party and being mechanically sticky.

LOL

I have nothing constructive to add. Just wanted to say, thanks for the chuckle.

 

[Aenghus]

I remember feeling concern about a balanced party composition back in 1e and 2ed days. Tank, healer and controller roles certainly existed then. The striker role wasn't as class based, more based on weapon options ,
specialisation, and magic items. Since magic items were often random, they couldn't be planned for. A belt of giant strength could turn anyone vaguely decent in melee into a striker.

(Incidentally a dart specialist with high strength was a known high damage build in one of the earlier editions, UA 1st ed was it?, though generally not permitted here).

Because 1e and 2e tanks couldn't lock down monsters efficiently unless they physically blocked the way I remember lots of fights in doorways, gates, on bridges etc as holding narrow points were the best means of defending the squishies. 3e still had this, though there were more options to actively defend they competed with offensive options. And full attack was so important that fights were very stationary.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In the 1e days, there was many a battle that happened in a 10x10 corridor, with a 'fighter wall' in front that the monsters had to chew through. Simpler times, I guess.

In 3e, that still worked, it was hard to bull rush a strong fighter, so they still presented a barrier, plus they could take opportunity attacks, so a fighter covered a 15' wide area, where before it too 2 to block a 10' corridor. A fighter with combat reflexes and a guisarme (OK, Spiked Chain) could hold a 25' wide corridor or other choke point (though 25' isn't much of a choke point, you should be able to do better, most days), tripping enemies that tried run past or disengage, not to mention WWA all of them, and smacking them as they got up for good measure. Nowadays, that'd actually be more a controller power set than defender. 4e defenders use marking and a variety of similar powers to make attacking thier charges less effective. The fighter still has a feature that lets his OAs help keep enemies from reaching his allies, but that doesn't seem to be a focus of the role as much as it used to be. Restricting enemy movement is now more a controller function.

 

[Regicide]

of course it won't match the shelf loads that regicide commands (hats off) for persistent version wining.

I'm a far distant second to WotC themselves who have pointed out they ed up the very basic and very simple core math of 4E with skills (errata), skill challenges (errata), armour (buy a new book for masterwork), monster HPs and damage (buy a new book and toss out the old) to-hits (buy a new book and pay the feat tax fix) and defenses (buy a new book and pay the feat tax fix.) But see, I'm a positive kinda person, I know statistically they'll eventually have to get something right.

4E's published 1st to 30th adventure path is soon to be crowned with the party facing Orcus. It'll be 1-rounded by a wizard. That's entertainment.

 

[Herschel]

But a whole lot people have fun playing as 5+ individuals.

Then those people should stick to video games.

Seriously, as a DM that would be boring and painful to run a game for. There's plenty of room for individuality in the game, but playing as a team is the way not only "group-dynamic mature" individuals (for lack of a better term) tend to enjoy the game, but also many DMs. It gives the DM a lot more options and things to do with everyone rather than trying to juggle a bunch of guys wanting to do their own thing.

 

[Saeviomagy]

(Incidentally a dart specialist with high strength was a known high damage build in one of the earlier editions, UA 1st ed was it?, though generally not permitted here).

It was still viable in 2nd ed, even if it was invented earlier. Darts gave 3 attacks per round that applied str bonus.

Ah, how I fondly remember my half-giant psion dart-hurler.

 

[ChristopherA]

I think 4th edition has done a lot of work to reduce the need for specific character roles in the party. In earlier editions the need to have "Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard" could seem rather onerous. In 4th edition, the perfectly balanced party might be optimal, but the game still seems to work fine if you skip some of the types. Except that not having a healer, while far more practical than in earlier editions, still seems like a rather unpleasant prospect. But at least you have lots of equally good choices for what type of healer that might be.

I haven't been that inspired by the idea that each 4th edition class should fit neatly into a specific role. I tend to like the classes that cover multiple roles better than those which exclusively focus on a specific role. I've written about this at more length here.


__________________
Come read my game design/analysis blog at: http://gamedesignfanatic.blogspot.com

 

[outsider]

Yeah, this is nothing new. I was introduced to the concept of roles(though we didn't call them that) back in my first AD&D group around 1992ish. Heck, the experienced players in the group even called the fighter the "meatshield", YEARS before mmos even existed. The main difference is rogues actually have a combat role now, and fighters are able to fulfil their role in places other than 10 foot wide corridors.

With VERY specific builds, 3rd edition fighters could actually manage the defender role pretty decently. The problem: this build contained both the most hated weapon in the edition(spiked chain), and rules so complex that even the rare player that managed to figure out the build themselves would find that their DM wouldn't allow it due to it slowing down the game/being broken/etc.

I think the problem alot of players are having is that in 4th edition, the man behind the curtain is in plain view. They are afraid that by acknowledging the game is a game, you make it more of a game.