The defender's masochism

[billd91]

Among people playing 4th, TwinBahamut's take is the majority position, look at any poll for the favorite 4th edition class.

For people like you, they introduced the Slayer. Would you be happy if the fighter could be either striker or defender?

I know I'd be happier if they'd stop proliferating classes and instead left role and other focus choices up to the player within fewer classes.

 

[Harlekin]

3) Like Tony Vargas said, it's never been impossible. But various editions have provided different ways to do it, ranging from being a bit more simulative (you need advantageous terrain to do it) or gamist (mechanics just "do it", no matter the situation). Frankly, the former works for me and my role playing style more than the latter, but then the tactical board game aspect of RPGs isn't why I play them.

This is an interesting point. Actually, it's the idea, that you need a chokepoint to keep a single opponent form reaching friends if you are standing between the opponent and the friends is entirely unrealistic. Imagine an open field and an enemy standing 10' in front of you, 2 guys standing 10' behind you and you are trying to keep that enemy from reaching your friends. Let's even imagine, your friends are not moving. To reach your friends, the other guy has to move
at least 25', while you have to move 5' or 10' to intercept him or at least to get a free attack at his back. Easy, right? But its impossible in a turn-based game if the opponent can move 30 ft.

But this abstraction is well accepted because it has been part of the game for a long time. Marking makes this scenario a little less unrealistic, actually.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Another gremlin gnawing on the root of this problem was that marking was introduced in a system that featured every character as equal in combat.

If this is the assumption then things have to be figured out to make everyone equally useful from a design standpoint no matter how awkward it looks.

That assumption proved to be something less than a smashing success else this entire sub forum wouldn't exist right now.

So if we ditch the idea that every class HAS to have combat role that is EQUAL to everyone else, we have a bit more room to play. In a roleplaying game this shouldn't be too hard to envision.

We start by making the fighter the the very best in a combat situation. Best at taking damage, best at dealing it, best all around.

Is there a precedent for such a trope? Why yes there is.

Consider Martin Riggs

" I do it really good you know. When I was 19, I did a guy in Laos from a thousand yards out. It was a rifle shot in high wind. Maybe eight or even ten guys in the world could have made that shot. It's the only thing I was ever good at. "

Thats a fighter.

Elliot Spencer from Leverage is a fighter. He is part of a team that gets things done. Not all of them do so through violence.

 

[billd91]

This is an interesting point. Actually, it's the idea, that you need a chokepoint to keep a single opponent form reaching friends if you are standing between the opponent and the friends is entirely unrealistic. Imagine an open field and an enemy standing 10' in front of you, 2 guys standing 10' behind you and you are trying to keep that enemy from reaching your friends. Let's even imagine, your friends are not moving. To reach your friends, the other guy has to move
at least 25', while you have to move 5' or 10' to intercept him or at least to get a free attack at his back. Easy, right? But its impossible in a turn-based game if the opponent can move 30 ft.

But this abstraction is well accepted because it has been part of the game for a long time. Marking makes this scenario a little less unrealistic, actually.

And how many scenarios involve just one opponent? Not many. Try to block access without some kind of advantageous terrain then.

But who needs a mark when I could stand right in front of the PC I'm protecting and ready an action to strike at anyone circumnavigating to get at him. Heck, I could ready an action to Aid Another and give my pal a +2 on his AC pretty much directly mimicking the mark's effect in that instance.

 

[Skyscraper]

Maybe it's just the HP system acting up again.

In the real world, yes, some fighters would interpose themselves to protect others. But they weren't really trying to get wounded on someone else's behalf, were they? They were relying on their better armor and hoping their skills would save the day.

In D&D, with the HP abstraction and the grinding damage, the defender allows himself not only to be attacked, but to actually take wounds. Even getting beaten bloody, taking comfort in the knowledge that he takes a beating better than Dave Lizewski. Because that's his job in D&D.

Maybe it wouldn't seem so masochistic if you imagine all those wounds being the dazzling way you turn aside the enemy blades with your superior weapons skill, breaking the onslaught that would surely overrun the rest of the party.

In fact, the fighter doesn't want to be hit; he wants to be attacked.

But otherwise, I hear you.

 

[Skyscraper]

I think one of the reasons that they made marking in 4E as limited as it is, was because of the serious pushback that got on the scope and complexity of 3E Attacks of Opportunity. Remember that hoopla? It didn't help any that the initial text on 3E AoO was a bit spread out, repeated apparently inconsistently in places, and lacking the full rationale of what it was modeling. Those of that got the gist of the idea upfront (often because of roots in other systems) typically had no problem with it, but plenty of other people screamed bloody murder. How much would marking be more readily accepted if the rationale had been made explicit instead of implied?

And none of that is taking into account rounding off corner cases and other simplifications for ease of play (with AoO, OA, or marking).

Which is just to show that on these kind of questions for a new twist to the mechanics, they are darned if they do, darned if they don't.

I agree it's a tough call. I haven't personally bought into the marking system and don't find it fun, realistic (or whatever word you wish to use here) or a compelling game mechanic. I know that opinions diverge on this.

 

[Kingreaper]

And how many scenarios involve just one opponent? Not many. Try to block access without some kind of advantageous terrain then.

You can easily "mark" (to use sports terminology) one of them, and prevent that one getting past. Sure, you can't block ALL of them, but you can block SOME of them, slowing down the flood.

But who needs a mark when I could stand right in front of the PC I'm protecting and ready an action to strike at anyone circumnavigating to get at him. Heck, I could ready an action to Aid Another and give my pal a +2 on his AC pretty much directly mimicking the mark's effect in that instance.

Except that, in those cases you describe, you're being less effective than if you just went and hit people. Less effective at defending your ally than if you weren't trying to defend them.

That's a bit rubbish really.

 

[Kingreaper]

I agree it's a tough call. I haven't personally bought into the marking system and don't find it fun, realistic (or whatever word you wish to use here) or a compelling game mechanic. I know that opinions diverge on this.

What's your opinion on the Defender Aura mechanic?

 

[fjw70]

I personally don't like a character having mechanics to defend. I would instead like the general rules to low anyone to defend.

Get rid of marking, defender auras, and shifting, then when the enemy is next to you it can't get away without getting an AoO and anyone who wants to can defend.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I know I'd be happier if they'd stop proliferating classes and instead left role and other focus choices up to the player within fewer classes.

I'm of the opposite opinion. If you want to have a class system, it is way better to make a lot of classes, each of which has clear central mechanics. A system of a small number of loosely defined classes that give you options rather than central mechanics loses all of the strengths of the class system...

Basically, with a lot of well-defined classes, you get both a lot of options as well as a fair amount of balance, elegance, and flavor, and get minimal bloat. With poorly defined classes, you get options, sure, but they come at the expense of terrible balance, no elegance, murky flavor, and a large amount of rule bloat.

I'd much rather have a Fighter with a clear role in the team and solid class features that support that role, rather than the wishy-washy Fighter of older days that gives you a ton of "options" spread across hundreds of rulebooks, none of which even amount to anything at all.