The defender's masochism

[Ahnehnois]

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. )

Certainly all my opinions with 4e are limited by lack of personal experience.

However, another point that you made also tends to go unspoken and unacknowledged:

plenty of 4E fans have seriously played and enjoyed 3E, but the opposite is not true--either the played or enjoyed.

If you're talking about building a consensus 5e, it becomes rather important to consider that many if not most 4e players played 3e for years as their game of choice, but most 3e/PF stalwarts rejected 4e either before or after trying it.

To wit, most 4e players have played a game where fighters did not have defender powers and been pretty happy with that game; it's hard to justify changing these kinds of things.

 

[Kingreaper]

.
To wit, most 4e players have played a game where fighters did not have defender powers and been pretty happy with that game; it's hard to justify changing these kinds of things.

On the flip side: Most 4e players have played a game where fighters did not have defender powers, and consider 4e superior to that game.

Many 3e players have never given 4e an honest try, due to game loyalty.


Trying to argue that 5th should leave 4e players in the cold because they may have played 3e, so obviously they'll go back to a game like 3e asks the question: why are they 4e players then?

4e players won't go back to a 3e like game, because those who would already have.

 

[Grydan]

However, another point that you made also tends to go unspoken and unacknowledged:If you're talking about building a consensus 5e, it becomes rather important to consider that many if not most 4e players played 3e for years as their game of choice, but most 3e/PF stalwarts rejected 4e either before or after trying it.

To wit, most 4e players have played a game where fighters did not have defender powers and been pretty happy with that game; it's hard to justify changing these kinds of things.

You make a couple of assumptions there that may be unfounded.

You assume that people who played 3E before switching to 4E were "pretty happy" with it, rather than making do with what they had.

You also assume that they bothered playing fighters in 3E.

I put forward the suggestion that if said players actually were happy with 3E, they probably wouldn't have switched to 4E at all, given that 3E, 3.5E, and later Pathfinder were all options.

I furthermore put forward the suggestion that if one has been raised on a diet of plain bread and water, then been given steak and wine*, one might find the suggestion that one should return to the bread and water diet rather unappealing. The revelation that more enjoyable options exist can make previously tolerable options seem much less so.


*Feel free to substitute other desirable and flavourful options, to suit your taste.

 

[Ahnehnois]

On the flip side: Most 4e players have played a game where fighters did not have defender powers, and consider 4e superior to that game.

Many 3e players have never given 4e an honest try, due to game loyalty.


Trying to argue that 5th should leave 4e players in the cold because they may have played 3e, so obviously they'll go back to a game like 3e asks the question: why are they 4e players then?

4e players won't go back to a 3e like game, because those who would already have.

Fair enough. On the other hand, many 4e players probably do not have any serious objections or criticisms to other games (though I doubt they're posting on message boards much), and simply play it because of the name, easy availability, because their friends like it, etc.

I also suspect that most 4e detractors feel they have given the game a fair shake, according to their standards (which as I posted above, may or may not involve actually playing it).

My feeling is that if you could somehow collate everyone's opinions, there would be a strong weight in favor of 3e mechanics (and earlier D&D, for those who have played it); there were disagreements, but no edition wars before this one. Thus, *to me*, consensus involves addressing the legitimate concerns of the entire existing and potential of D&D players, the majority of whom *I think* don't see a fighter as a defender or expect mechanics to that effect. The very existence of 5e at this point in time supports my opinions. But we can't actually know what everyone thinks, unfortunately. An open playtest and related market research (and vigorous message board debates) may be the best we can hope for.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

I have played 4E fighters.

I'm playing an eladrin knight in an essentials game on Friday nights currently.

Marking mechanics and the defender concept are so wonky because they are built on a lie.

The fighter is not the butt kicker of the group, those would be the strikers. There would be no need to shield the squishies if the fighter was actually the biggest threat in the party.

Marking is a lame way to try and convince a target that the defender is a bigger threat than the others who are actually ripping him to shreds.

What if the fighter actually was the biggest threat in a fight? (What a concept) There wouldn't be any need to mark because enemies are pretty good at identifying real threats. If they ignore the fighter, then they get slaughtered in short order.

 

[Kingreaper]

Marking is a lame way to try and convince a target that the defender is a bigger threat than the others who are actually ripping him to shreds.

No. Marking is a way to show that the fighter is a bigger threat, if you ignore him, than anyone else.

If you GM a game of 4e, and have all your monsters ignore the fighter, the fighter will dish out FAR more damage than a striker would.

The mark is a way of distinguishing between "Continually keeping you locked down, so if you move you hurt massively" and "hurting you quite a bit whatever you do"

When it comes right down to it, the fighter's mark is Backstab. It's saying "Face me, or I will kill you".


If the fighter is less of a threat to the guy he's marking than the rogue is, that guy will go hit the rogue. He'll ignore the mark, because if the fighter isn't a threat he can ignore the mark. But, as it happens, the fighter is generally more of a threat to the guy he's got marked than the rogue is.

 

[Fanaelialae]

To wit, most 4e players have played a game where fighters did not have defender powers and been pretty happy with that game; it's hard to justify changing these kinds of things.

I played 3e from the time it came out until 4e did. However, I was always unsatisfied with the fighter's lack of ability to defend his party (even before 3e). We even devised various hacks, such as a Taunt skill, but they always felt klunky because earlier editions weren't designed with that sort of mechanic in mind, therefore the DM tended to make it weak in order to avoid giving the players too much "extra". Once the Knight (who had an aggro mechanic, albeit one much more primitive than marking) was released in the PHB2, I never played a fighter again. So chalk me up as someone who much prefers the 4e fighter's way of doing things, and doesn't want to go back to the pre-4 approach.

Would if make any difference if the term mark was replaced with the term threatening? Because that's typically how it's described with the fighter. The fighter threatens the target, preventing that target from fully focusing his attention on anyone else (because it's unwise to turn your back on the big man with the big sword).

I think marking is a good mechanic in a turn based game. Sure, it would be nice if the fighter could interpose himself in real time, but I've never found an elegant solution despite trying. Marking is a simplification, akin to D&D's traditional use of AC instead of DR for armor. After all, in a real fight, you can't just stroll around your opponent like you can in D&D.

Also, I'll echo those who say that there's a distinction between how defenders function and the OP's statement. Defenders protect their allies by penalizing enemies. If it worked the way the OP says it does, the fighter would give enemies a damage bonus against him, in order to give them an incentive for attacking him. That quite simply isn't how it works. After all, if only the results mattered (that the fighter is attacked instead of his allies), then most of the complaints about the 4e power system would also have to be moot, wouldn't they? You can't have it both ways...

Caramon and Raistlin (Dragonlance). Moiraine and her warder Lan (Wheel of Time). Arya Stark's defense of Mycah from Prince Joffrey (Song of Fire and Ice). The idealized form of the medieval knight. The noble warrior who interposes himself between his (or her) charge and those who would do them harm is a deeply rooted fantasy archetype. Certainly not every fighter needs a mark-like ability, but I think the designers would be remiss to exclude the mechanics to do so for those who desire to play such a character.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I'll suggest it again: only Fighters should get Opportunity Attacks.

It's pretty much the same effect as Marking, only simpler, eliminating a complication other classes rarely deal with at the same time. Movements might need reducing to prevent it being too easy to avoid. It makes reach weapons useful again. Offer upgrades to defensive reach, or movement options to get to enemies trying to get around you. It makes Wizards want to block or ruin terrain. I'm sure there are many more options.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No. Marking is a way to show that the fighter is a bigger threat, if you ignore him, than anyone else.

If you GM a game of 4e, and have all your monsters ignore the fighter, the fighter will dish out FAR more damage than a striker would.

The mark is a way of distinguishing between "Continually keeping you locked down, so if you move you hurt massively" and "hurting you quite a bit whatever you do"

When it comes right down to it, the fighter's mark is Backstab. It's saying "Face me, or I will kill you".


If the fighter is less of a threat to the guy he's marking than the rogue is, that guy will go hit the rogue. He'll ignore the mark, because if the fighter isn't a threat he can ignore the mark. But, as it happens, the fighter is generally more of a threat to the guy he's got marked than the rogue is.

You can't use the benefits provided by an ability to justify its inclusion.

Without the attack penalties and free opportunity attacks provided by the marking mechanic, is the defender a bigger threat than the striker?

If the answer is no then marking exists to justify something that isn't true.

 

[Aenghus]

I grew tired of constant chokepoint fights in 3e. The lack of tanking mechanics meant most fights had to be at chokepoints to isolate monsters from the squishies in the party. That and the need for full attacks made 3e combat very static.

I would prefer not to go back to static chokepoint fights in the next edition. Beent there, done that.

I tended to play fighter-type classes like defenders in eariler editions and like 4e because the defender classes get mechanics to actually defend other PCs, a rarity in previous editions. It's not about being masochistic. The monsters are going to hit someone, better to mostly be the PC designed to take lots of damage, and be healed more efficiently. As healing in 4e is tied to healing surges which are 25% of hp, healing high hit point PCs with lots of healing surges is a lot more efficient in 4e, and this is intentional design.

I think some of this debate is due to different preferences on class design. I prefer a number of tight classes with interesting and flavourful mechanics to fewer broad classes with lots of options, and a lack of prescriptive class features, that can be build any which way. I find the former are easier to design and balance, and less prone to allowing players to create accidentally incompetent or overpowered PCs. YMMV.