Were the four roles correctly identified, or are there others?

[Neonchameleon]

Um, no? Nothing in a Defender's power prevents a Mark-like effect on a different target so far as I can tell.

So Defender A can continue to get in someone else's face via a Mark while Defender B has him Marked. So much for "the ability to single someone out in combat, say "You're mine" and be able to enforce that".

Apparently you don't think that giving an expert fighter free attacks is anything to worry about. Me, I do. What you are saying as a fighter is "You're mine. And if you pretend otherwise I'm going to gut you faster than anyone except a two weapon ranger could". This isn't mind control. The reply "No I'm ... argle" is a possible one. (What you're saying as a Paladin is "You're all mine - and the Gods are going to lightly singe you if you disagree").

 

[Remathilis]

The Striker. If you drop him there's no more choice to make and you are more likely to drop him than the steel wall.

One thing I always thought is two opposing Defenders should cancel each other out -- Defender A marks someone but Defender B marks Defender A. Now the two in-your-face fighters are locked together incapable of taking their attention away from each other.

I'd aim for the Leader: without his healing, the fighter can't recover (easily) from the wounds my allies are springing on him. He also can rely of that leaders free buffs and extra actions. Sorry, I'm taking the cleric or warlord out first.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I am beginning to think that the Defender role doesn't truly exist in reality.

This is probably controversial because the knight with shield is a core iconic image. But if you look at a fight with multiple roles, the most logical thing for an enemy to do is ignore the defender and attack one of the other three roles.

To prevent this, games give the defender all sorts of "unnatural" abilities. Come And Get It, threat, taunts, etc. Things to force the enemy into taking a sub-optimal attack. These are abilities that often end up being very controversial.

Perhaps a triad of Striker, Leader, and Controller is more correct. Shield classes could be fit into Striker and Leader types.

If you look at MMOs, Defenders really only exist in Player vs Environment situations, where the computer-controlled enemies are programmed to attack the Defender first. In Player vs Player combat, the Defender role often disappears (unless there is something like flag carrying in a capture the flag game). Instead PvP collapses into Striker/Leader/Controller.

In my view, this implies that the Striker/Leader/Controller roles are more "real", and that Defender is an artificial role.

Hmmmmm, I don't think so. Having a strong front line, "plug the gaps" type guy that can act as an anchor for the the party's tactics is a pretty strong role. It corresponds to the 'infantry' in classic tactics, a type of force that can tie up enemy firepower, deliver punishing attacks if not dealt with, and generally impedes any attack that tries to go through it. Its really very classical.

You can see very much the striker/defender basic breakdown in classical and medieval warfare with strong infantry formations representing the staying power of a force and its cavalry/chariots/elephants/etc representing the offensive power needed to force a break in the opponent's formation. Later armies added a stronger artillery function that could concentrate firepower under cover of infantry, but the 'defender' type infantry is the most core piece.

 

[Nagol]

Apparently you don't think that giving an expert fighter free attacks is anything to worry about. Me, I do. What you are saying as a fighter is "You're mine. And if you pretend otherwise I'm going to gut you faster than anyone except a two weapon ranger could". This isn't mind control. The reply "No I'm ... argle" is a possible one. (What you're saying as a Paladin is "You're all mine - and the Gods are going to lightly singe you if you disagree").

The question I have does Defender A get free attacks against his mark target even though he's marked by Defender B? If so, does Defender B get a free attack against Defender A if he takes that option against his mark target?

How much attention must Defender A put towards Defender B who has him marked? So far as I can tell, so long as he doesn't declare an attack on his turn against a different target, the mark is inconsequential.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The question I have does Defender A get free attacks against his mark target even though he's marked by Defender B? If so, does Defender B get a free attack against Defender A if he takes that option against his mark target?

Yes and yes. Nothing about any mark punishment I can think of says that it only applies to attacks in their turn.

How much attention must Defender A put towards Defender B who has him marked? So far as I can tell, so long as he doesn't declare an attack on his turn against a different target, the mark is inconsequential.

If Defender A doesn't attack anyone on his turn then Defender A is almost inconsequential and the mark has more than done its job. (Especially as the fighter mark will then drop entirely).

 

[Nagol]

Yes and yes. Nothing about any mark punishment I can think of says that it only applies to attacks in their turn.



If Defender A doesn't attack anyone on his turn then Defender A is almost inconsequential and the mark has more than done its job. (Especially as the fighter mark will then drop entirely).

So there's no limit to the number of free attacks a character gets a round? Interesting.

As for letting an expert take extra swings at me -- I'd be happy to if I felt I could stop the much more damaging blows I'm taking every few seconds from the other guy in the room. A mark attack is a basic melee attack, right? How much extra damage is the Striker doing per hit compared to that?

 

[Neonchameleon]

So there's no limit to the number of free attacks a character gets a round? Interesting.

Different question. There is no limit to when the extra swing can be taken other than on your own turn. But you only get one immediate action per round. Knights use Opportunity Actions and you get one of those per turn. Paladins get their (admittedly pretty trivial) extra damage as a free action that always hits, meaning that minions automatically die unless they attack the Paladin (or attack no one). And they frequently mark everyone in burst 3.

As for letting an expert take extra swings at me -- I'd be happy to if I felt I could stop the much more damaging blows I'm taking every few seconds from the other guy in the room. A mark attack is a basic melee attack, right? How much extra damage is the Striker doing per hit compared to that?

Depends on the level. Say twice as much damage as a back of the envelope estimate. But the fighter's probably done one and a half times as much damage as the melee basic attack already that round with their standard action attack. Fighters frequently outdamage non-martial strikers even without their Combat Challenge.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the 4e roles work better in theory than in action.

The problem partially was the fact they only linked to their COMBAT roles, and classic D&D party "roles" being a mix (Fighters to combat, Rogues to skills, Wizards to magic, Clerics to healing). Combat got split between Fighter (defender) and Rogue (Offense). Magic was split up so that buffing was solely the provo of Clerics/leaders, Wizards got area of effect and debuffing, both classes had to have single-target attack spells, and everything else got shuffled off to to Rituals. Skills likewise was no longer a category since all classes were equally good "skill users".

This forced nearly all four classes to have to play differently. Fighters stopped focusing on maximum damage (from specialization or feats) and worried about marking and aggro. Rogues stopped being skill monkeys and instead only focused on the assassin/ninja part. The cleric spell list became mostly rituals, so they ended up having to get all of these one-shot mini-buffs and heals. Likewise, wizards often could do anything, so pairing them down to just debuffs and mini-nukes really changed them.

Even moreso, trying to cram other classes into the four roles created some weird effects, like druids who couldn't heal (well) or artificers that were Cleric replacements (wha??) Eventually, classes broke the mold anyway (see: Barbarian) and the roles ended up mostly useless.

I am happy that roles in 5e are more descriptive again than prescriptive; classes have an organic element and trying to confine them to combat roles make them a less than the sum of their parts.

I disagree with you on what the original D&D classes did. Even in 2e there weren't really skills, and the NWPs were actually mostly given to the INT classes preferentially. So the breakdown was Fighers were ONLY good at melee combat (and maybe STR based ability checks, assuming your fighter was strong, something that was far from guaranteed). Thieves good ONLY at backstabbing in combat and had a narrow group of 'sneaky thief' skills outside of combat. They certainly weren't skill monkeys. The 2e bard was basically a thief that could cast, again not really a skill monkey though his bardic musical/lore abilities make him somewhat of a know-it-all. Clerics ONLY head and buff, with a few specialized attack spells that are rarely taken because they waste precious heal slots. Wizards get all the NWPs AND all the best utility spells. Druids are not bad, but they are not nearly as good at healing as clerics.

4e fighters can focus on damage, but you can also just make a different character that is a striker or near-striker (avenger, slayer, barbarian, ranger, BRV fighter, tempest, or many of the two-handed FWT fighter builds). However 4e fighters are less one-dimensional and weak than previous e fighters. Rogues work EXACTLY like AD&D thieves, except better. Clerics again are much like 2e ones with heavy healing and some rarely used spells moved off to the ritual list. Wizards are definitely less completely overpowered in 4e, but what can you do?

I'm not saying 4e characters are JUST LIKE 2e ones, that's patently not true, but I don't see where they have radically different roles or capabilities. In fact you can make a wide variety of 4e characters that simply can't exist in 2e (at least not without delving far into the later and more questionable supplemental material). 3e allows for most of what 4e does, but comes with some really serious issues and STILL has effectively some of the same limitations that 4e doesn't.

 

[Nagol]

Different question. There is no limit to when the extra swing can be taken other than on your own turn. But you only get one immediate action per round. Knights use Opportunity Actions and you get one of those per turn. Paladins get their (admittedly pretty trivial) extra damage as a free action that always hits, meaning that minions automatically die unless they attack the Paladin (or attack no one). And they frequently mark everyone in burst 3.



Depends on the level. Say twice as much damage as a back of the envelope estimate. But the fighter's probably done one and a half times as much damage as the melee basic attack already that round with their standard action attack. Fighters frequently outdamage non-martial strikers even without their Combat Challenge.

So I'm taking 3.5x damage per round and I'll move that up to 4.5x damage if I try to take out someone other than the steel wall. That someone is also causing more than half the damage I'm taking each round and that will fall to about half while I try to take him out. So if I'm likely to last a few rounds, I should try to drop the other guy if I think I can do it in 1/3 the rounds I have before I drop.

I thought the Paladin mark burst affected a single target inside the burst - the burst is just so he can catch someone around a corner or otherwise untargetable?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Um, no? Nothing in a Defender's power prevents a Mark-like effect on a different target so far as I can tell.

So Defender A can continue to get in someone else's face via a Mark while Defender B has him Marked. So much for "the ability to single someone out in combat, say "You're mine" and be able to enforce that".

The exact details of how it will go depend on the classes of A and B and details of their builds. If B is a Warden then A will keep getting hit and dragged back by B all the time. If B is a swordmage then A won't be able to ignore him, and if he's a fairly typical fighter then A will just take a heck of a lot of extra damage for ignoring someone who's marked him (and get a lot of -2s). Clearly A is going seriously consider paying attention to B and pay a price if he doesn't.