The defender's masochism

[ExploderWizard]

And for those of us who WANT to be able to defend our allies?

Oh, hey, look-at-that, you pretend like we don't exist.

In D20 Modern, I played a bodyguard.

I like standing in the way and stopping the wizard getting knocked down.

And if the wizard can take care of himself, if he can soak all the hits that the monsters get time to dish out?
Then it's not a fight, it's pest control.

The best way to defend your allies is making sure there are no enemies still in fighting shape. This is the way of the fighter.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Still, to be realistic a defender doesn't have to be able to defend more than one ally.

I think that giving the defender some sort of reactive movement power at the beginning of the fight might have some effect.

 

[Kingreaper]

The best way to defend your allies is making sure there are no enemies still in fighting shape. This is the way of the fighter.

So playing a tough character is, well, pointless. Because if you're tougher than your ally, the monsters have no reason to go for you.

I'm sorry, but just because your favourite version of D&D made it impossible to play a guy who guarded his friends, doesn't mean it SHOULD be impossible.

It's a pretty standard mythic scenario, holding back the foe, protecting your ally. But, according to you, it should be impossible.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's a pretty standard mythic scenario, holding back the foe, protecting your ally. But, according to you, it should be impossible.

The best defense is a good offense.

There are also plenty of perfectly good methods of disabling or redirecting foes, including grappling, disarming, tripping, bull rushing, or any kind of stunning or similar effects. You can also stand between the foe and his target and take attacks of opportunity, possibly using them to disable the foe as above. More advanced combat reactions aren't bad either. In other words, just using tactics instead of creating a new set of mechanics specifically to justify this "defender" concept. There's certainly room for improvement in some of those tactical options (PF has done pretty well).

So playing a tough character is, well, pointless.

Not if playing a non-tough character means starting with 4 hit points!

Fighters should also have better saves then they do, which may be more viable under a six-save system.

 

[TwinBahamut]

The best defense is a good offense.

There are also plenty of perfectly good methods of disabling or redirecting foes, including grappling, disarming, tripping, bull rushing, or any kind of stunning or similar effects. You can also stand between the foe and his target and take attacks of opportunity, possibly using them to disable the foe as above. More advanced combat reactions aren't bad either. In other words, just using tactics instead of creating a new set of mechanics specifically to justify this "defender" concept. There's certainly room for improvement in some of those tactical options (PF has done pretty well).

You know, it is hard to agree with you when you are advocating giving up a set of abilities that made the Fighter effective and fun in order to revert back to the list of abilities he had when he was weak and boring.

To be honest, I absolutely despise having grapple, trip, disarm and bull rush be the end-all-be-all of the Fighter's choices. Mostly because it is an overly limited set with terrible flavor that is being forced on all fighting classes. Why not better options? More fun options? Like, say, marking and the powers that make it work. Particularly since the 4E options actually let the Fighter protect his allies in a meaningful and direct way (which I like about the class), and the 3E options simply don't.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You know, it is hard to agree with you when you are advocating giving up a set of abilities that made the Fighter effective and fun in order to revert back to the list of abilities he had when he was weak and boring.

To be honest, I absolutely despise having grapple, trip, disarm and bull rush be the end-all-be-all of the Fighter's choices. Mostly because it is an overly limited set with terrible flavor that is being forced on all fighting classes. Why not better options? More fun options? Like, say, marking and the powers that make it work. Particularly since the 4E options actually let the Fighter protect his allies in a meaningful and direct way (which I like about the class), and the 3E options simply don't.

How about because "powers" for fighters just don't make much sense unless the assumption is that everyone is a superhero from level 1, then it works. For those that are not looking for Marvel four color in a fantasy game THAT doesn't work.

....and round and round it goes........

 

[Ahnehnois]

How about because "powers" for fighters just don't make much sense unless the assumption is that everyone is a superhero from level 1, then it works. For those that are not looking for Marvel four color in a fantasy game THAT doesn't work.

....and round and round it goes........

Couldn't XP, but you pretty much nailed it with this and the previous post.

There's "better" and then there's "different". I see the impetus to make D&D better, but I don't see the need to make it different.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

How about because "powers" for fighters just don't make much sense unless the assumption is that everyone is a superhero from level 1, then it works. For those that are not looking for Marvel four color in a fantasy game THAT doesn't work.

....and round and round it goes........

Well yeah, of course it goes round and round. That is a lot of non-sequitors to cram into such a short paragraph. It seems to be based on what things are called more than how they work. So I don't see how that can possibly qualify as a legitmate criticism of the mechanics. It might qualify as a valid criticism of naming conventions.

The problem, which is also evident in the start of all this topic, is that plenty of 4E fans have seriously played and enjoyed 3E, but the opposite is not true--either the played or enjoyed.

One can't usefully criticize marking or powers until you actually have some inkling of how they work in practice.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One can't usefully criticize marking or powers until you actually have some inkling of how they work in practice.

I don't think that's true. I dislike many movies I haven't seen, people I haven't met, and game mechanics I haven't played with. I am perfectly capable of using my own experiences and knowledge to reason about situations beyond my experience.

It's true that those opinions could all be more informed, but I don't think the standards for intelligent discourse obligate people to speak only within the limits of what they have personal experience with.

Moreover, anyone's experiences with rpgs are bound to be limited, because it is a very individualized game. Playing in my 3e game is not the same as playing in anyone else's. However, simply because 3e's critics have not played my version of the game (or most of the infinite permutations of the game), it doesn't invalidate their opinions, it merely limits them. No one has played most of what D&D is (any edition) or has played in a 'typical' game of D&D, because it is impossible to define those things, which limits all of our opinions.

I don't think any of us 4e critics are making any false pretense as to the reason for our opinions or the level of knowledge and experience we have to back them up.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Moreover, anyone's experiences with rpgs are bound to be limited, because it is a very individualized game. Playing in my 3e game is not the same as playing in anyone else's. However, simply because 3e's critics have not played my version of the game (or most of the infinite permutations of the game), it doesn't invalidate their opinions, it merely limits them. No one has played most of what D&D is (any edition) or has played in a 'typical' game of D&D, because it is impossible to define those things, which limits all of our opinions.

Emphasis added by me. I'll grant everything else in that quote and the rest of the post it is part of. I don't think, in general practice, that those limits have been acknowledged quite as much as prudence would dictate. (Feel free to cue the church lady here, if you want to retort. )

I don't like Rifts. My reasons are somewhat informed, somewhat idiosyncratic, partly personal, but mainly that it manages to strike some discordant notes that I have learned through experience to be characteristic of things I dislike intensely the more I study them. So I fully get where you are coming from here. I know reasonably well that I dislike Rifts sufficiently that it is not worth my time to investigate it more deeply to explain to other people exactly why that it is so. So I don't try to explain it that deeply. I'm comfortable saying I don't like it for my own reasons.

If someone doesn't like marking or powers or anything else in any version of D&D, I'm the last person that would tell them they need to justify that. They are free to dislike whatever they dislike for whatever reasons they have. However, IF you want to explain your dislike to people who may like these things, or explain why they don't work to your satisfaction, then you really need to understand them well enough to constructively critique them.

Otherwise, it comes across a bit (but just a bit, fortunately) like those people that used to always pop up in D&D discussions that would say things like, "Hit points are stupid. Armor Class is stupid. No one can take 5 arrows to the heart and keep going, and armor should weigh you down, make you easier to hit, and then knock of some damage." So you try to explain that some system do indeed work as they prefer, but there are perfectly good reasons why D&D has not been one of them. And they follow along with you, seeming to understand. And then next month, here they come again, same statement.