The defender's masochism

[Kingreaper]

This is like saying: I'm not rich, it's the others that are poor.

This is also related to the illusion that not giving ability score penalties, and only bonuses, changes anything.

Being rich only exists as a relative comparison of wealth, it doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Ability score penalties and bonuses are the same thing, it's the relative ability score adjustments between PCs that makes one better than the other.

If enemies are punished when attacking other PCs than the fighter, they are, in fact, encouraged to attack the fighter.

Someone who wants to be attacked walks into a bar, goads people to attack them. Goes "Hit me or I will kill you"
He is being self-destructive.

A fighter walks into a bar, notices some people being menacing and goes "If you attack my friends I will kill you"
He is being defensive.

Significant difference.

If the menacing people don't attack anyone, they're fine. The fighter isn't out to get attacked, he just defends his friends.

Your argument relies on the idea that the fighter is the former; which has been rare (but extant) in historical warfare. Certainly not a role people were trained for.

In fact, the fighter is the latter. Which is something that has been seen in history repeatedly. Units of swordsman/pikemen defending archers and preventing enemies attacking the archers, yep, has really happened.
And it's even more common in mythology.

 

[Belphanior]

Couple of things.

1. What historical warriors did is of practically no consequence to D&D, beyond "uses a sword". This is a game. One that has very little to do with historical accuracy.

2. Defenders typically don't encourage all opponents to attack them, they encourage one or two to attack them. Defenders are not so tough that they can laugh off the focused fire of an entire encounter at once. The statement "don't worry, I have plenty of hit points and healing surges, they can swing their swords at me as much as they want" is something I've seen exactly once, and it did not end well.

3. There are fighters and paladins which can't mark (e.g. the Slayer option for Fighters).

 

[KidSnide]

That's actually how the Knight version of the Fighter works in D&D Essentials. No marking, but a Defender Aura around the Knight that works just like it. There is a little bit of rules confusion because it needs to avoid stacking with marking or other defender auras, but otherwise it works fine.

That's not quite right. A Defender Aura only creates a penalty on attacks that don't include the Knight (or allies that also have a Defender Aura):

Effect: You activate an aura 1 that lasts until you end it as a minor action or until you fall unconscious. While in the aura, any enemy takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls when it makes an attack that does not include among its targets either you or an ally of yours who has this aura active. Marked enemies are not subject to this aura.

But, yes, less complicated mechanics can fulfill the defender function.

-KS

 

[TwinBahamut]

This is like saying: I'm not rich, it's the others that are poor.

This is also related to the illusion that not giving ability score penalties, and only bonuses, changes anything.

Being rich only exists as a relative comparison of wealth, it doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Ability score penalties and bonuses are the same thing, it's the relative ability score adjustments between PCs that makes one better than the other.

If enemies are punished when attacking other PCs than the fighter, they are, in fact, encouraged to attack the fighter.

Nonsense. This kind of analogy completely ignores the massive difference in playstyle and game mechanics between the two situations.

Fundamentally, if the tank loses aggro in an MMO, then it means he has failed and that the entire group is in serious peril. If the enemies attack other characters that the Defender in 4E, then the Defender can take advantage of that and actually improve the team's situation. Sure, the effect that enemies generally attack the guy in heavy armor is the same in both, but otherwise the consequences and gameplay are totally different. The massive difference between a tank and a Defender's mindsets is enough on its own to make the two situations completely different.

 

[Spatula]

What melee "fighter" in any army that has existed in the history of mankind, has actually wanted to have more than one enemy around him at any given time, to fight?

In all of history? I'm sure there have been a few. They probably didn't die of old age. In legend and myth and fantasy? Happens all the time.

 

[the Jester]

This is like saying: I'm not rich, it's the others that are poor.

This is also related to the illusion that not giving ability score penalties, and only bonuses, changes anything.

Being rich only exists as a relative comparison of wealth, it doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Ability score penalties and bonuses are the same thing, it's the relative ability score adjustments between PCs that makes one better than the other.

If enemies are punished when attacking other PCs than the fighter, they are, in fact, encouraged to attack the fighter.

No, they are encouraged to not attack the fighter's allies.

Other options than attacking the fighter include not attacking at all, using aid another, movement to a superior tactical position, etc. Attacking the fighter is one option, but far from the only option.

 

[Kingreaper]

This is also related to the illusion that not giving ability score penalties, and only bonuses, changes anything.

Oh, yeah, as a side-note, this is also wrong.

Giving one race a +2 bonus, and another race a -2 penalty, means that there's a 4 point difference.

If you only give the +2 bonuses, the max difference is 2 points.

Which is significant.

Now, there's no difference between having only bonuses and having only penalties*, but there is a HUGE difference between either of those and having both.

*(other than the fact that to do 4e's system with only penalties you'd need each race to have 4 racial penalties, which is a lot less clean than two racial bonuses)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Some MMORPGs developers would kill for AI smart enough to do something like marking in place of aggro.

 

[Minigiant]

Defenders in 4E aren't trying to attract attention.
Nor are they discouraging attacks on allies.

They just hold up a sign stating:

"I'm the baddest, toughest, and strongest guy around and I'm gonna kill you!!"

It's not their fault enemies tend not to ignore the sign.
Maybe because defenders ain't play around.
They kick butt and drink ale.

 

[Skyscraper]

Most of you say essentially the following:

Someone who wants to be attacked walks into a bar, goads people to attack them. Goes "Hit me or I will kill you"
He is being self-destructive.

A fighter walks into a bar, notices some people being menacing and goes "If you attack my friends I will kill you"
He is being defensive.

Significant difference.

There's a difference if you want, but knowing that the base premise in a battle is that two teams (the "PCs" and the "monsters") are attacking each other until one slays the other, saying "don't attack my friends" is equivalent to saying "attack me" from where I'm standing. They're not starting from a standoff where everyone has the choice to attack or not; they're in a battle, the fighter, on his turn, moves in and marks his opponents. There is a difference in terminology to which I agree, but the end result is essentially the same.

If the menacing people don't attack anyone, they're fine. The fighter isn't out to get attacked, he just defends his friends.

I don't think I agree with that assumption. Everyone on that battlefield is there to kill the opponents. Period. The fighter is not a do-gooder that wishes to avoid bloodshed and is simply there to protect his friends. (Why call him a "figther" otherwise?)

In fact, the fighter is the latter. Which is something that has been seen in history repeatedly. Units of swordsman/pikemen defending archers and preventing enemies attacking the archers, yep, has really happened.
And it's even more common in mythology.

There is an obvious tactical reason that relates to weapon reach why pikemen are installed behind shieldmen/swordmen in mass battles where the military unit can dispose its troops shoulder-to-shoulder. This has nothing to do with marking or other defender abilities that suggest to enemies to avoid attacking allies (and, my contention: to consequently attack the defender, although I know you all seem to disagree with this cause-consequence line of thought, that I see every time I play the game.)