Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
When did the Fighter become "defender"?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5905815" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>I remember back when 4e came out talking on WotC boards about how the titles of leader, controller, defender and striker were so absolutely generic that they could be applied via alternate definitions for different classes.</p><p></p><p>Leader, I argued, could be the LEADER of the group... the face man. Hell the leader could be (and often was in our games) the fighter.</p><p>The defender then may be the cleric, who boosts all his friends and heals them.</p><p>The wizard is a striker, as he does more damage to multiple enemies.</p><p>The rogue could be a controller as he is able to maneuver around the battlefield and hit for extra damage in sensitive spots.</p><p></p><p>When I said this I was immediately rebuffed by the already entrenched 4e supporters who said the class roles could only look one way and operate one way and that my definitions made no sense, wouldn't work and that I should go away now please.</p><p></p><p>I guess the reason I brought this up is simple, why bother using extra terms to describe how the party is <em>supposed </em>to work. Why not be satisfied when it simply <em><strong>does </strong></em>work? If a group is adventuring and realizes they need some extra firepower, or healing, or whatever, can they not adjust? Do they specifically need to be told you <strong>must</strong> have one of the following: Leader, Striker, Controller, Defender?</p><p></p><p>Next, why is the game built that way? Why should you have to have those four groups? A cleric should be helpful but never absolutely necessary. A wizard should be magical and knowledgeable about magic. A fighter should be the tough-man or expert at arms who can take down the enemy. The rogue should be good at helping out the fighter in certain situations while being invaluable in others - namely stealth or trickery. Why create an artificial construct to reinforce their IN BATTLE context only?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If anything, using teamwork is MORE important in videogames, usually. I can't think of a single RPG where you control more than one character where it isn't vital to keep all characters you control in fit fighting shape.</p><p></p><p>As far as your actual comment however - DnD is about friendship and teamwork certainly but it shouldn't be mandated by the game. What if you aren't friends with the group? What if ROLE-playing develops and not everyone gets along. What if the party decides to fight one another for whatever reason? What if an encounter ends up being handled by only one person. Why does the game assume you are doing everything in a group. Why does the game assume you have all 4 class types covered in a battle? It is a balancing act that the game expects certain things and if you start leaving the beaten path then the system stops being balanced. And since balance is the chief thing that 4e praises and talks about, when it isn't there it is sorely missed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 5905815, member: 95493"] I remember back when 4e came out talking on WotC boards about how the titles of leader, controller, defender and striker were so absolutely generic that they could be applied via alternate definitions for different classes. Leader, I argued, could be the LEADER of the group... the face man. Hell the leader could be (and often was in our games) the fighter. The defender then may be the cleric, who boosts all his friends and heals them. The wizard is a striker, as he does more damage to multiple enemies. The rogue could be a controller as he is able to maneuver around the battlefield and hit for extra damage in sensitive spots. When I said this I was immediately rebuffed by the already entrenched 4e supporters who said the class roles could only look one way and operate one way and that my definitions made no sense, wouldn't work and that I should go away now please. I guess the reason I brought this up is simple, why bother using extra terms to describe how the party is [I]supposed [/I]to work. Why not be satisfied when it simply [I][B]does [/B][/I]work? If a group is adventuring and realizes they need some extra firepower, or healing, or whatever, can they not adjust? Do they specifically need to be told you [B]must[/B] have one of the following: Leader, Striker, Controller, Defender? Next, why is the game built that way? Why should you have to have those four groups? A cleric should be helpful but never absolutely necessary. A wizard should be magical and knowledgeable about magic. A fighter should be the tough-man or expert at arms who can take down the enemy. The rogue should be good at helping out the fighter in certain situations while being invaluable in others - namely stealth or trickery. Why create an artificial construct to reinforce their IN BATTLE context only? If anything, using teamwork is MORE important in videogames, usually. I can't think of a single RPG where you control more than one character where it isn't vital to keep all characters you control in fit fighting shape. As far as your actual comment however - DnD is about friendship and teamwork certainly but it shouldn't be mandated by the game. What if you aren't friends with the group? What if ROLE-playing develops and not everyone gets along. What if the party decides to fight one another for whatever reason? What if an encounter ends up being handled by only one person. Why does the game assume you are doing everything in a group. Why does the game assume you have all 4 class types covered in a battle? It is a balancing act that the game expects certain things and if you start leaving the beaten path then the system stops being balanced. And since balance is the chief thing that 4e praises and talks about, when it isn't there it is sorely missed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
When did the Fighter become "defender"?
Top