Do all defenders suck?

[Zen Master]

I have made an observation.

When we started our campaign, the guy who played the fighter felt he could contribute nothing in fights, that his role was boring and uninteresting, and that he didn't even deliver what it said on the package: The fighter had hardly better defences than everyone else, and no particular excellence at resisting getting beat up.

Eventually he quit - he moved to another part of the country.

So he was replaced, and the pattern repeats: The guy who now plays the paladin feels he can contribute nothing in fights, that his role is boring and uninteresting, and that he doesn't even deliver what it says on the package: The paladin has hardly better defences than everyone else, and no particular excellence at resisting getting beat up.

I should mention that I'm playing a rune priest. So for one thing I'm not the gm. For another, I just feel that my class is better designed - I have (I feel) way more synergy between my powers, in so far as being able to combine minor, move and standard actions to achieve all kinds of great stuff in a single round.

My question is this: Are defenders just the poor bastards of 4e? Are they consigned forever to being boring, stomping their wooden clogs around and just feeling miserable all day?

Or is the rune priest just overpowered, maybe?

Or are we misunderstanding the whole concept of what it is the defender classes do?

[Craft (Cheese)]

Helpful Note: I don't have much experience with defenders, so I can only speak from passive observation. (I prefer being a Leader myself.) I wouldn't be surprised if the next poster came along to tell me how wrong I am.


Defenders aren't supposed to be invincible tanks who can suck down damage all day long. The real purpose of defenders is being sticky, keeping the enemy on you and away from your allies.

Look at the Fighter's first two class features:

Combat Challenge - Penalizes enemies who don't attack you with a -2 penalty to attack rolls, and gives interrupt attacks against enemies who try to get away from you.

Combat Superiority - Bonus to AoOs, and an enemy hit by your AoO stops dead in its tracks.

If you set up your position right, enemies will have a hard time getting past your Fighter to get to the leaders and ranged attackers behind him. The Fighter's powers (the good ones, anyway) work with this basic idea of making you a "wall", not so much in the sense that it takes tons of hits to kill you, but in that the enemies have to get through you before they can get the rest of your party. Yes, you'll need a healer to keep you alive (this is why Leaders are awesome) as all the critters gang up on you, but team-based combat is sort of the point in 4E.

Also, if you're worried about action economy, maybe someone should pick up some enabling powers? (Again, Leaders are awesome!) Things like the Warlord's Direct the Strike that lets you give your ally extra attacks. In general it's never a bad idea to pick up interrupt and minor action powers if you wanna maximize what you can do in a single round, just be careful not to gimp yourself on the front of the generally more powerful standard actions. Talk to the player to see if he/she wants to retrain into stuff like Martyr's Blessing or Divine Bodyguard.

[Wymmerdann]

Ideally, defenders defenses shouldn't be more than 2 or so points higher than a front line striker (like an avenger) or leader (like a warlord).

The idea is that they mark enemies and force that enemy to choose between attacking the defender and attacking an ally, which usually engenders a penalty to hit (-2, or more with feats) and a free hit (or radiant damage in the case of paladins). If the defenders defences are too high, then the mark will always be violated, which makes them less of a defender than a punisher. On the other hand, if their defences are too low, they become a punching bag.

The Warden's a good example: his defences are marginally higher than melee classes of other roles, but he can mark adjacent enemies at the end of a turn. They then choose between hitting him and hitting his allies. If they hit his allies, he gets a free hit, and his allies are less likely to take damage. If the warden is attacked, he's marginally less likely to take damage because of his higher defences. Even if he does take damage, his higher hp will make it more optimal to heal him than it would have been to heal a striker, and his beginning-of-the-turn saves make it much easier for him to shake off affects.

Defenders can also focus their feats on better hp (toughness, durable) and affects like sudden roots for the warden or mighty challenge for the paladin to become even stickier. They'll be dealing less damage than strikers, and will take a fair bit in return, but they can cope with it much better than other classes. It's hard to appreciate the defenders usefulness in terms of dealing damage: it's about limiting the monster's options and getting the best use of your healing resources.

Some races, like Minotaurs and Devas, even have significant feat support for getting reduced to 0hp during a fight, which has all kinds of strategic significance for a defender.

Paladin's are also pretty easy to pimp out with either of the sun related feats in Divine Power to cause radiant vulnerability: increasing the damage their Challenge and Sanction deal. This also turns their at-will Virtuous strike into near-striker levels of damage. Divine Power is a must for Paladins: as a sourcebook it puts them from sub-par to freaking sweet.

[sol_kanar]

While I only played a Defender in a one-shot, I think that it heavily depends on the Defender. For example, the Warden strikes me as a very fun class to play, with lots of options and minor actions. Lots of hp, almost unstoppable, decent enemy control.

You could propose your fellow player to try a Warden.

[MeeposFire]

A fighter is either two things...

1 It is taking hits that would go to others so operating like how people think it should.

2. Operating as a nasty striker since it gets to make extra attacks when being ignored.

Both are good. The trick is to not think of it like some video game "tanks". You don't want every attack on you and being ignored is fine so long as you get to punish the enemy. In fact when I defend I WANT them to ignore me so I can kill them faster.

[caden_varn]

It does also depend a bit on the DM too, I think. If the DM never violates the mark, the defender never gets to do his mark violation trick, which may feel a bit dull. If the DM is not clear that the defenders mark is making him continue to hit the defender instead of targetting someone easier, the defender may also feel that his mark isn't doing anything at all.

It makes it more fun for the defender when their marks are violated at least sometimes, so they get to see that they are doing something useful.

[Musco]

Well, being a DM, I studied a bit about every class so I could cater to the whole group, whatever they chose to play, so I can say that no, Defenders do not suck. I'll talk mainly about the "most common" defenders, Paladins and Fighters, for now.

A fighter is a GREAT "wall-type" defender, since as been mentioned, he can actually stop an enemy dead on its tracks with his mark and the interrupts from AoOs. Also, fighters have some striking powers that force movement on oponents, so you can not only play wall, but also become a key player in dangerous scenarios, with the ability to push people over edges.

A Paladin, on the other hand, not only has superior defenses, but also has the whole "Paladin" thing going, which combines well with the martyr-esque sense of the role (there are even powers with "martyr" on their name). Sure, his mark is weaker, but that leads to enemies ignoring it more often, not only resulting in extra radiant damage but also in giving your AC bouns (usually 1-2 higher than a frontline striker or leader) to your friends, getting a good net result. Paladins also provide healing, which is great, and have a really good at-will for a Defender in Holy Strike, quite a bit of damage if built right.

One thing I found out to be great is to build Dragonborn defenders, so you get a good minor (Dragon Breath) that also doubles as a controlling power for the frontline (which is where you'll be anyway), not to mention marking multiple enemies at once, should they not drop.

[Ashdate]

As a DM and a player, I think Defenders are one of the most crucial roles to have in a party.

Defenders aren't necessarily going to have the best Ref/Fort/Will defense (probably Fort tho), but they'll have the best AC, which is really important against melee orientated monsters like brutes, skirmishers, and soldiers. If your Paladin serious is not beating other party members in AC despite wearing plate...

Perhaps the better experiment is this. Make a note every time an enemy misses with an attack against the Paladin, or against another party member, that would have hit if not for the Paladin's higher AC or Mark. I think you'll be surprised how much damage you're avoiding thanks to him.

[Kurald Galain]

No, defenders do not suck, and neither are runepriests overpowered.

First, note that if a defender is trying to take every single hit from every single monster, then he's doing it wrong. No character can take everything all by himself

Second, note that if the strikers always take down the enemies before party defense becomes even an issue, then the DM should increase the challenge level (with either more, or higher-level monsters).

Third, note that the fighter is a contender for best defender in the game, but it requires some skill to build and play it properly. Generally, defenders (and controllers even moreso) are significantly harder to play well than strikres (and to a lesser extent, leaders).

[Tankadin]

Ideally, defenders defenses shouldn't be more than 2 or so points higher than a front line striker (like an avenger) or leader (like a warlord).

The idea is that they mark enemies and force that enemy to choose between attacking the defender and attacking an ally, which usually engenders a penalty to hit (-2, or more with feats) and a free hit (or radiant damage in the case of paladins). If the defenders defences are too high, then the mark will always be violated, which makes them less of a defender than a punisher. On the other hand, if their defences are too low, they become a punching bag.

This. When I initially started to play my Dragonborn Paladin, I still was thinking he would need to do what my Paladin in World of Warcraft did--lock down all of the mobs, reduce most of the incoming damage, and completely control each encounter with a plated fist. This is wrong for a host of reasons (Kurald also just talked about this well). As you noticed, defenders don't have crazy defenses to reduce incoming damage. Leaders don't have the kind of healing where they can keep a defender up if he is the only target. In fact, it might be better to think of defenders as highly specialized controllers rather than MMO tanks.

The goal is more to deal with the largest threat to your party members on the board. And the defender wants to do that by giving the mob no good choices--waste a turn attacking a defender with a decent amount of health and armor (also, there may be some conditional benefits. The Paladin level 2 utility Virtue lets the paladin use Lay on Hands to give themselves a surge's worth of temporary hit points, for example) OR attack someone at a -2 AND eat the defender's punishment. So that's why everyone is talking about the balancing act. You want your DM to hate it when her best monster's turn comes up because she has no good choices. As defenders advance, they'll get even more tools to control a fight, but maintaining a vicious catch-22 is crucial.

Also, it is important to remember that everyone in the party has the resources to take at least one hit a fight. This gives the defender some breathing room (though letting a brute into the party's back line is generally a bad idea). It obviously isn't ideal to have the wizard burn a standard on their Second Wind, but that causes fewer problems than having the defender go down.

[Yakk]

Everyone in 4e has HP and healing surges. HP unspent in a fight, and healing surges unspent in a day, are wasted resources.

The Defender will tend to have more HP and more healing surges, and often will have better defences by ~3 points than others, and will often invest more in defensive abilities overall.

The Defenders job is to prevent the enemy from focus firing on one of your allies. It is not to soak all damage. If one enemy (who isn't an elite/solo) goes and attacks a wizard (and doesn't shut the wizard down), that is ok -- it is even optimal! Damage being spread around is good.

You'll generally want 2 or 3 times as many creatures attacking you as attacking each of your allies, but you don't want everything.

Fighters do not lack for offence. They do less damage than a pure striker without optimization, but quite often the margin isn't all that large.

A few quick low level examples:
18str/18con dwarf with dwarven weapon talent and the one-handed weapon talent feature. Brash Assault is your go-to beat down power. Use a craighammer.

Attack: +9(+11 with CA) vs AC for 13 to 20 damage per hit (you grant CA to target).
AC: 19

A baseline level 1 18 dex dagger rogue does an average of 13.5 damage (+10 vs Reflex with CA), and has 16 AC. (note: feats, class options, etc can boost this significantly).

I'm not sure how this dwarf could be considered ineffective. His reflex and will defences are low, admittedly.

A level 4 pixie knight. Melee training (dex), streak of light, surprising charge, fey beast tamer, rapier and heavy shield. Rides into battle on a displacer beast, wears either plate because it is cooler. Dumps strength, pumps dex (once again, cooler, plus boosts initiative). General tactic is to charge enemies while mounted on a displacer beast, getting auto-combat advantage. Uses something like the hammer hands stance to knock targets flying when they violate the defender aura.

A tiefling hybrid warlock|paladin based off charisma.

A tiefling hybrid warlock|paladin that goes both charisma and con, and uses hellish rebuke to force an evil catch 22.

A str/wis paladin with divine power 2 powers.

A brawler fighter who face smashes dragons into the ground (best with a feyslaughter weapon, to prevent teleporting opponents from escaping).

A hammer battlemind (esp. by paragon).

[Tegu8788]

If can tell us more about what happened that made them dislike the defender roll we may be able to give better advice. Personally I hate being a tank, but I actually enjoy the defender, because my mark actually let's me be a threat and gives a solid mechanical way to protect my friends.

If you want to mark the success of a defender, measure it in damage the rest of the party didn't take.

[Musco]

If you want to mark the success of a defender, measure it in damage the rest of the party didn't take.

This, pretty much, as has been pointed out. Measure how many attacks your Defender took that would have dropped another character in range (any character will do) at that point in the fight, plus every attack that misses your Defender's AC that would hit someone else's AC in range, plus the amount of attacks that missed because of the -2 to hit. This is what tells you you're doing something right.

As an exercise, I have a sheet with my player's defenses broken down by rolls, so I know that an attack missed them because of their personal skill (1/2 level), training (bonus from classes), atribute (they dodged/anticipated a blow, for instance, showing INT and DEX on AC), item (the armor/shield itself, in the case of AC or a Shield for Reflex) or magic inherent to the item (the +X it grants), so they know WHY they were not hit by that particular attack, and get to feel good about their choices. Basically, do this to gauge the Defender's success, and you'll be surprised at how effective he probably is.

[Tegu8788]

Another challenge is if a defender is doing a good job, it's harder to see. If the mark is always obeyed, then it doesn't really mean anything. When a striker does a good job things die, a leader has obvious effects when it refills the health bar and give out bonuses, a controller will lock down a field and dish out status effects. A defender doesn't die, and that's not nearly as dramatic.

The different defenders work differently. Fighter and swordmage have striker leanings, the paladin has leader traits, the warden is more of a controller. I don't have a strong understanding of, but I think it's more striker based. Alternately, some classes like the barbarian and iron monk can sub in for a defender in a pinch.

Depending on your group and the kind of fights your DM provides you may not need a defender. If you aren't fighting any big monsters but lots of little guys, and your character are already pretty durable, then you may not really need one. Talk it over with your DM and other players.

[Sol]

Also consider that we're dealing with very low numbers for things like HP and AC compared to any MMOs you might be used to.

The difference between 15 and 20 AC, for instance, is a full 25% chance to be hit. If a level one monster has +5 to hit, he needs a 10 to hit the 15, or a 15 to hit the 20. The player with the 15 will get hit ~50% of the time, and the player with the 20 will get hit ~25% of the time, which is half as frequently. So he will end up taking half as much damage over time.

Now, I realize that unless you've got a wizard, you likely don't have anyone sitting at 15 AC at level 1, but 16-18 is pretty common, and it's possible for defenders to reach 21.

I think what you're seeing is either from not looking at the right things, or from watching new/bad players, as optimized fighters and paladins are ridiculously powerful.

[Caesar]

Hey guys, Im the defender.

I talked to the DM, and got the big green go-ahead for revamping my character in any way I see fit. I think the defender role is useful (no, im not trying to absorb all enemy attacks), but the character I was handed is perhaps less so. For starters, we are level six and Im walking around with ac 20, which is less than some of the other team members. Magic items might be in order.. maybe even a shield, crazy as it sounds.

Currently Im digging thru the books and the char-op boards, I thought maybe about going with a warden or fighter, but eh, I like a challenge (MAD MAD MAD) and a dragonborn paladin with the breath attack divine challenge seems kind of fun.

Stat wise, still not sure whether to go Str or Cha focused, but with a dragonborn its kind of hard not to have a decent mod in both anyhow. Still, Id like to have more than 12 con (shakes head) this time around, and it seems that wisdom is not the stat to ignore, either.

Mostly tho, Id like to work on the powers, so that I have something to do. At the moment, my guy just tosses a mark or two, then everything else is just a weapon based variation of smite -one of the reasons the breath attack looked more fun.

[Zen Master]

Oh gods no - if you bring a dragonborn into my world, I shall weep forever. Not the heavy, heartbroken cries of someone who can eventually be consoled - but the slow, hopeless sobs of the truly devastated soul.

Anyways, there are no dragonborn in the Warhammer universe.

I was thinking about my own character that he seems powerful, because he does kind of a lot of damage. However, all his powers are 1W or 2W damage - I looked over fighters and paladins, and they get a few 3W powers of their own.

So that helps. If you wield a big, heavy 2-hander like I do.

[Caesar]

I shall comfort you in my cold, scaly arms.

[Tegu8788]

Defenders aren't meant to do nearly the damage of a striker, that's what makes strikers special. They do big damage. But at that level, there is something seriously wrong with your AC.

A dragonborn paladin is a solid character, and one of the very few that can pull of a balanced paladin. The strength build uses wisdom more often than the charisma one does, but with boosts to both you can grab any power you want. There is also a lot of great feat support for dragonborns. You can use a big 2-hander or sword and board, depending on whether you want to be more offensive or more defensive.

If the rest of the party has magic items that help them, go for it. If not, and they are much higher-op than your character, be glad you can reroll.

I dabble with Chaladins, and they are fun to me. Look at the effect lines on your smites. With Divine Power you can at-will keep two targets marked if you can stay between two bad guys. Help set up flanking with your allies, be tactical. Some of your powers will help allies out, 4e is not a game for individuals to hog the spotlight. A striker gets a 2W, while a defender gets a 1W plus the target gets debuffed for a time.

[Yakk]

A few tricks.

When working out how good your attack bonus and defences are, subtract your level. This generates "normalized" defences.

A defender wants to have a 17-20 normalized AC, and other defences above a normalized 12.

Basic Dragonborn Str+Cha paladin.
Base stats: 16 str/cha, 12 con/wis, 8 int, 10 dex.
Auspicious Birth (use Str for HP at level 1).
Guardian Theme.
Vengeful Strike, Ardent Strike at-wills.
Valorous Smite, Strength from Valor encounter attacks.
Majestic Halo, Chilling Smite dailies.
Call of challenge, Shield of Discipline utilities

Mightly Challenge, Devout Protector Expertise, Superior Will, Disciple of Freedom feats.

For equipment, Screaming Layered Plate+2, a Challenge Seeking Longsword +2, and then whatever other items you want (including at least one +1 necklace).

Your mark punishment is 11 for your minor action mark, and 7 for other marks. You also get a per-encounter interrupt attack mark. You grant all of your allies +1 shield bonus to AC (if they don't already have it). You have 20 normalized AC (26 actual), 13 nFort, 11 nRef and 15 nWill (19/17/21 actual) -- I'd be tempted to pick up Superior Fortitude and the reflex boosting feat shortly.

Each encounter you can mass-mark, Shield of Discipline to get resist 4 all, then once they swarm you, strength from valor to gain a boatload of temporary HP.

Your intimidate is at charop levels of nastiness assuming you train it. If you ever have a bunch of enemies (or a solo) who is bloodied, use the intimidate-to-force-surrender. With the -10 penalty from hostile opponents, you still get to roll 1d20+6 vs their Will -- and on a hit, they are immediately taken out. Spending a bit more resources on boosting Intimidate can make this seriously broken.

You only get one lay-on-hands per day. And you don't get to pick powers with wisdom riders. But the character is quite solid. I focused on mass-marking and self-durability -- either you are doing ridiculous amounts of auto-damage via marks, or enemies are bouncing off your armor. :)

The at-wills give you a second mark (in addition to your divine challenge), and a situational (reasonably) high damage attack for when you want to hurt things.

[Yakk]

Bah. Warhammer?

Half-orc barbarian (berseker) is a fun defender. Build a charge-optimized build and you can hit 1d12+1d8+9 charge damage (as well as mark punishment) at-will pretty easily. I'd advise MC fighter with at least 13 wis for the Battle Acumen feat (which gives you a bonus pseudo-mark punishment that works after your defender aura drops).

[Fatebreaker]

Anyways, there are no dragonborn in the Warhammer universe.

Lizardmen Saurus (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440066a&prodId=prod1340008a) warriors. Quick and easy stand-in.

[Zen Master]

Lizardmen Saurus (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440066a&prodId=prod1340008a) warriors. Quick and easy stand-in.

I know. And it's up to the gm. But really? Dragonfolk don't work in the old world.

[Raimun]

I don't think defenders suck per se... it's just that they're the most unpopular role. Let's see:

Strikers deal huge damage w/melee or shooting. "l33t!"

Controllers blast, summon and control minds... and bodies. "Wicked!"

Leaders make everyone fight harder. "I'm like Napoleon, only man-sized!"

Defenders... take hits? "... I don't get it."

So if you take just once glance at what the roles do, it's frankly obvious the other three seem more attractive and therefore see more play and therefore, not many people know exactly how the defenders should work... And it doesn't really help that a lot of that is dependant upon monster behaviour and is less proactive.

[INDYSTAR188]

My favorite Defender was the old Dwarf Fighter w/a Craghammer and Dwarven Weapon Training. It's a lot of fun! A guy in the game I DM plays an Eladrin Fighter w/a Greatspear and he's pretty awesome too. And I know a gentleman who was very fond of his Genasi Warden. I think the fun is all in how you play it and personal preference.

[Epinephrine]

No, every defender my players have run has been a complete pain in the butt to get around.

Fighter was likely the worst. He'd move up next to things, and they couldn't get away. Damage might not have been stiker level, but he was knocking them prone, slowing, interrupting attacks, etc.

The Warlock/Paladin in my current group has more ways to mess up attacks than I can count - and he's dishing out damage from his sanctions and curses. Minions are almost useless - a mass sanction pretty much forces them to attack him, and since he can mass curse fairly easily, they die to his pact blade if they attack him. I suppose they can stand around and wait for the controller to wipe them out, but other than that they don't have many options. And his defenses are insane.

There may be weak defenders out there, but I haven't run anything with one present. When I played a defender (Warden), he hit as hard as many strikers, and had enough HP /surge value to tank well.

What defenders do it make enemies miss. And punish them for attacking your party. Or for trying to get away. And a well built defender is a joy (for the players) and a curse (for the DM).

[AsteriskAmp]

A defender works by being an "almost" controller.

Think chess, the controller is the guy able to move the opponent's hand directly, he directly forces an action. The striker is a piece, he simply is focused in killing things fast. The leader is like a coach to the player, he smooths things over, he makes everything run better. But the defender, he is the player himself, if he rushes forward he loses, if he hangs back his pieces get caught easily and he is surrounded.

A defender is meant to be played like a psychological controller, you do not force movement, you make your enemies situation boil down to violate mark or respect it, you limit their actions more than a controller ever will be able to. Character build makes up for the punishing ends of both possibilities, you either want a balance between the two, or focus on one, and plan so that circumstances cover your design voids. The defender forces gambits and the enemy to make choices, ideally choices which both end negatively for them.

Intelligent defender playing is vital, you make their lives hell by:

Making yourself "weak", taking a motivation to attack you away, but your mark in turn forces the enemy to chose between a worthwhile enemy at a penalty and with probable punishment, or you, making him lose actions, if your allies notice your tactics and work accordingly you are effectively forcing enemies to take a lose-lose approach.
Making it so that upholding your mark is simply impossible, the enemy simply cannot attack you, simple as moving away, or setting a gambit so that the enemy is forced away or to attack someone else, and in turn get punished.
Building yourself on retributive strikes, if they attack you they suffer badly, this in turn forces them between being hurt by you, or being hurt by you on another fashion.
Holistic party planning. The defender can, along with a controller allow a party full mobility across the board, since the defender forces binary states for the enemies, and can force heat into an area while the controller can force that heat to be redirected elsewhere, but the original reason it concentrated remains, the enemies can't escape either punishment or direct chase by the defender, this will lock them into an area of action.


Each class of defender will tend more toward one style of psychological forcing. For example, swordmages are wonderful for the second point due to their marks flexibility, you can mark, shift and charge, and do so in a path through allies squares, if he wants to uphold the mark he'll incur in OA, if he doesn't, you reappear behind him and screw him, and then go away again, and at the same time, this can actually allow you to attack someone without the slightest risk of him attacking back since you are gone before his round comes due to mark triggering. In turn, having a powerful retributive strike in store also means when the annoying boss happens you can pierce him quite elegantly to force him into an HP range where upholding the mark becomes vital to him, and then you treat him like a toy.


I don't think defenders suck per se... it's just that they're the most unpopular role. Let's see:

Strikers deal huge damage w/melee or shooting. "l33t!"

Controllers blast, summon and control minds... and bodies. "Wicked!"

Leaders make everyone fight harder. "I'm like Napoleon, only man-sized!"

Defenders... take hits? "... I don't get it."

So if you take just once glance at what the roles do, it's frankly obvious the other three seem more attractive and therefore see more play and therefore, not many people know exactly how the defenders should work... And it doesn't really help that a lot of that is dependant upon monster behaviour and is less proactive.

Defenders screw the enemy over, move around and actively taunt enemies.
You are the master of psychological control.

It's not dependent on monster behaviour, a well played defender FORCES the DM into two negative choices, you do not wait for them to react and chose, you make it so that either way you win.

Put it simply, you are the Chessmaster, and when your gambits work, and they will, you laugh maniacally.

[cupkeyk]

LOLWUUUUUUT!? I love playing defenders!

Defender is fun to play when you are a major asshat like myself and love denying your opponents options and actions. Not a lot of power, but playing defender is a very, malicious game of tease.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't think defenders suck per se... it's just that they're the most unpopular role. Let's see:
Depends on who you ask. I've also seen frequent threads that all controllers suck, because they're harder to play and the other players don't necessarily see them having an effect, even if the DM does.

I also know players who find strikers the least appealing role because they can be rather boring (e.g. the archer ranger).


Defenders... take hits? "... I don't get it."
That's... not what defenders do.

[tcrudisi]

Hey guys, Im the defender.

... For starters, we are level six and Im walking around with ac 20, which is less than some of the other team members. Magic items might be in order.. maybe even a shield, crazy as it sounds.

As a Paladin, you should have AC 20 ... at level 1. At level 6? Egads. You should be ... 10 + 3 (half-level) + 2 (shield) + 8 (full plate) + 2 (enhancement) ... at a minimum. That's AC 25. Small difference between AC 20 and AC 25.

And yes, as the only defender in the party: always use a heavy shield. Always. Yes, even then. If there's a second defender who plans on doing most of the tanking? Then you can use a 2-h weapon instead.

[Yakk]

To have 20 AC at level six you would need to be wearing non magical scale armor. Are you sure the math was done right?

[WickerNipple]

Mostly tho, Id like to work on the powers, so that I have something to do. At the moment, my guy just tosses a mark or two, then everything else is just a weapon based variation of smite...

This makes me think you're playing a Paladin w/o access to Divine Power? In which case, no, Defenders don't suck. But Paladins w/o DP certainly do.

[Caesar]

To have 20 AC at level six you would need to be wearing non magical scale armor. Are you sure the math was done right?

I am wearing non magical scale armor, and have no shield. Your math is correct.

[Kurald Galain]

I am wearing non magical scale armor, and have no shield. Your math is correct.

So why are you not plate armor, and using a shield?

[Tegu8788]

It's perfectly fine to choose that set up up if you like, fluff may be restring what your paladin uses, but it is far from optimal. The trick paladin's have is they get the best AC right out of the bag. And don't forget the shield gives a bonus to AC and Reflex, a NAD that will be inherently weak. If it's speed you're worried about there are magical armor's that remove the speed penalty. Plate and heavy shield have their costs, but are worth it. Let the rogue or ranger be nimble and dexterous.

[WickerNipple]

I am wearing non magical scale armor, and have no shield. Your math is correct.

That's definitely not good enough for a lvl 6 defender. Paladins want Plate. 95% of Paladins want a shield. By level 6 you should be wearing either +1 or +2 magical armor. That means your AC "should" be at least 4-5 points higher than it is now.

If your DM does not hand out level appropriate magic items, you should be using the Inherent Bonuses system to fix this. 4e is based on a scaling system, and everyone becomes useless without the magic +s.

[Yakk]

What is worse is that lightly armored characters are hurt far less by no magical armor than heavily armored ones. Heavy magic armor masterwork bonuses are twice light. Basically they roll attribute increases in.

There are few reasons a paladin would wear scale. Do you know why?

By level 6 a character should have found around 4 magic items of level 2 to 9. And enough treasure to buy a level 5 item outright. If all of your defenders have sucked it might be because your DM is not handing out much heavy armor, so their AC has sucked.

[Kurald Galain]

By level 6 a character should have found around 4 magic items of level 2 to 9.

Well, by the current rules, he should have found 1d6 items of level 1d10 each, most of them common. But anyway.

[Reis Tahlen]

Being a Defender also means to play beyond game mechanics. If you stick to what you're supposed to do (Mark, Mark, being hit, mark, OA, being hit), you're screwed.

In my campaign, at each session, I remind the player to think ahead, and be more cautious. It is a 8 player group, with three defenders (a Berseker, a Knight, and a Fighter played by the DM, myself). What do they do? They charge, mark like frenzied tazmanian devils, and raises huge sign saying HIT ME.

Long story short, with that way of playing, being a Defender means A) being the first one to drop at each fight and B) having no healing surge left when the BBG shows up. Oh and C) being the favorite target of artillery (because, following their opinion, being a good Defender means having a huge AC and nothing else. Seriously, I hit their Ref and Will with a roll of 5...)

Thanks to the Strikers doing insane damages and the Leader being a healing god, they survived, but no lesson learned....

[AsteriskAmp]

Being a Defender also means to play beyond game mechanics. If you stick to what you're supposed to do (Mark, Mark, being hit, mark, OA, being hit), you're screwed.

In my campaign, at each session, I remind the player to think ahead, and be more cautious. It is a 8 player group, with three defenders (a Berseker, a Knight, and a Fighter played by the DM, myself). What do they do? They charge, mark like frenzied tazmanian devils, and raises huge sign saying HIT ME.
The thing is you are not supposed to do that, the only presumption that should exist is that there is a chance at some point you'll mark something. Defenders are defined by the rules as you mark, you have some additional HP and a decent base AC. Of those, the only one that actively matters is the first, the other two are bonuses because it's a bit more likely you'll get caught on the heat, not divinity gifts that make you immortal and capable of attracting heat like no tomorrow.

You aren't meant to survive, you are meant to take away options from the enemy. You mark not to get hit, but to force the enemy to think before hitting your allies, you want them to suffer either way, not for you to suffer instead of your ally. The only thing that can be built into a tank reasonably well would be the fighter, and even then, that's doing CO solely for taking hits.

[Raimun]

A defender works by being an "almost" controller.

Think chess, the controller is the guy able to move the opponent's hand directly, he directly forces an action. The striker is a piece, he simply is focused in killing things fast. The leader is like a coach to the player, he smooths things over, he makes everything run better. But the defender, he is the player himself, if he rushes forward he loses, if he hangs back his pieces get caught easily and he is surrounded.

A defender is meant to be played like a psychological controller, you do not force movement, you make your enemies situation boil down to violate mark or respect it, you limit their actions more than a controller ever will be able to. Character build makes up for the punishing ends of both possibilities, you either want a balance between the two, or focus on one, and plan so that circumstances cover your design voids. The defender forces gambits and the enemy to make choices, ideally choices which both end negatively for them.

Intelligent defender playing is vital, you make their lives hell by:

Making yourself "weak", taking a motivation to attack you away, but your mark in turn forces the enemy to chose between a worthwhile enemy at a penalty and with probable punishment, or you, making him lose actions, if your allies notice your tactics and work accordingly you are effectively forcing enemies to take a lose-lose approach.
Making it so that upholding your mark is simply impossible, the enemy simply cannot attack you, simple as moving away, or setting a gambit so that the enemy is forced away or to attack someone else, and in turn get punished.
Building yourself on retributive strikes, if they attack you they suffer badly, this in turn forces them between being hurt by you, or being hurt by you on another fashion.
Holistic party planning. The defender can, along with a controller allow a party full mobility across the board, since the defender forces binary states for the enemies, and can force heat into an area while the controller can force that heat to be redirected elsewhere, but the original reason it concentrated remains, the enemies can't escape either punishment or direct chase by the defender, this will lock them into an area of action.


Each class of defender will tend more toward one style of psychological forcing. For example, swordmages are wonderful for the second point due to their marks flexibility, you can mark, shift and charge, and do so in a path through allies squares, if he wants to uphold the mark he'll incur in OA, if he doesn't, you reappear behind him and screw him, and then go away again, and at the same time, this can actually allow you to attack someone without the slightest risk of him attacking back since you are gone before his round comes due to mark triggering. In turn, having a powerful retributive strike in store also means when the annoying boss happens you can pierce him quite elegantly to force him into an HP range where upholding the mark becomes vital to him, and then you treat him like a toy.



Defenders screw the enemy over, move around and actively taunt enemies.
You are the master of psychological control.

It's not dependent on monster behaviour, a well played defender FORCES the DM into two negative choices, you do not wait for them to react and chose, you make it so that either way you win.

Put it simply, you are the Chessmaster, and when your gambits work, and they will, you laugh maniacally.

I know the basic defender drill but not all people do. I was just speculating why people usually choose other three roles.

Also, yes, the defender is dependant on monster behaviour, since it determines what the defender will actually do off-turn. You can't activate Mark-dependant attacks if the monster attacks you and sometimes the monster couldn't care less about ignoring the mark and goes for the kill. Sometimes you'd really need the one and not the other, even if both are technically bad options for the monster. Battles never go along as they do on paper... even if it's a pen and paper-RPG. :smallwink:

Also... I've always found chess a horrible analogy to strategy and tactics. The game has a serious lack of random variables and therefore, the way of thinking required to win a game of chess is not really applicable outside of a chess board. :smallamused:

[AsteriskAmp]

I know the basic defender drill but not all people do. I was just speculating why people usually choose other three roles.

Also, yes, the defender is dependant on monster behaviour, since it determines what the defender will actually do off-turn. You can't activate Mark-dependant attacks if the monster attacks you and sometimes the monster couldn't care less about ignoring the mark and goes for the kill. Sometimes you'd really need the one and not the other, even if both are technically bad options for the monster. Battles never go along as they do on paper... even if it's a pen and paper-RPG. :smallwink:

Also... I've always found chess a horrible analogy to strategy and tactics. The game has a serious lack of random variables and therefore, the way of thinking required to win a game of chess is not really applicable outside of a chess board. :smallamused:

The thing is you do not need to depend on it, if you plan forward, and with some team coordination, monsters should not be having choices, they should be falling into traps, even if consideration is taken by them. That's were build does come up, you are supposed to force the conditions to be such that you excel, if he couldn't care for your mark less, than you taunt him, or never allow him to have such choice to begin with. Or if you are forcing them into attacking you than you should be good with retributive strikes otherwise you shouldn't even go there unless the tactical advantage of an ally being unharmed nearby is TOO GOOD. You don't take actions and hope, you take actions to prevent the need for hoping. You don't plan and hope everything goes accordingly, you make everything go accordingly and simply leave hope for the dice rolls (and even then, planning should involve even failures being secondary level successes).

Tournament level chess maybe, most of it is already written down, and the mid-game is probably the only really interesting bit. But amateur level chess is very good because there are random variables since both players haven't memorised each and every opening ever and every endgame ever. Also, it's not exactly chess, there are outside forces, like the controller forcing the opponent hand literally and the leader coaching from outside the board.

[Raimun]

The thing is you do not need to depend on it, if you plan forward, and with some team coordination, monsters should not be having choices, they should be falling into traps, even if consideration is taken by them. That's were build does come up, you are supposed to force the conditions to be such that you excel, if he couldn't care for your mark less, than you taunt him, or never allow him to have such choice to begin with. Or if you are forcing them into attacking you than you should be good with retributive strikes otherwise you shouldn't even go there unless the tactical advantage of an ally being unharmed nearby is TOO GOOD. You don't take actions and hope, you take actions to prevent the need for hoping. You don't plan and hope everything goes accordingly, you make everything go accordingly and simply leave hope for the dice rolls (and even then, planning should involve even failures being secondary level successes).


I have to agree about the importance of having a plan B but remember, if the plan has a chance of failure (dice rolls), you will fail sometimes. If the dice really hate you, there comes a point when you just can't claim with a straight face "Everything is going according to plan". No plan is immune to failure but a good plan will succeed regardless of a few individual failures.

You might roll a few misses when you needed to kill your enemy and he will down you with a freak Crit but you're almost 100% certain you will rise to fight again (after Minor-healing yourself) next turn because you have a Daily "Get back to life"-Utility and you made sure to isolate your target previously.

[AsteriskAmp]

I have to agree about the importance of having a plan B but remember, if the plan has a chance of failure (dice rolls), you will fail sometimes. If the dice really hate you, there comes a point when you just can't claim with a straight face "Everything is going according to plan". No plan is immune to failure but a good plan will succeed regardless of a few individual failures.

You might roll a few misses when you needed to kill your enemy and he will down you with a freak Crit but you're almost 100% certain you will rise to fight again (after Minor-healing yourself) next turn because you have a Daily "Get back to life"-Utility and you made sure to isolate your target previously.
But part of the idea is to make dice roll don't factor in. While yes, if dice roll there is a potential for failure, the risk should only be there, not in your enemies' choices. The idea is that the only random variable is the die roll, that the enemy is really left with no option that benefits him and the one that hinders him the least is the one that benefits you the most. A dice roll is impossible to predict, but you should be able to plan so that failure on a dice roll is nothing but numerical failure, not a plan failure. Even if all rolls fail, you still manage to fulfil a long term objective, which should most of the time be different from kill "enemy" in regards to your part.

[Raimun]

But part of the idea is to make dice roll don't factor in. While yes, if dice roll there is a potential for failure, the risk should only be there, not in your enemies' choices. The idea is that the only random variable is the die roll, that the enemy is really left with no option that benefits him and the one that hinders him the least is the one that benefits you the most. A dice roll is impossible to predict, but you should be able to plan so that failure on a dice roll is nothing but numerical failure, not a plan failure. Even if all rolls fail, you still manage to fulfil a long term objective, which should most of the time be different from kill "enemy" in regards to your part.

Failure is not an option. It's a statistical certainty at some point. That's because you can't make plans for every possible scenario and execute them. Either that or your DM is not giving you a challenge. :smalltongue:

Successful plans usually include minor failures too, it's just that the minor successes outweight the minor failures.

Also, what's wrong with killing the enemy? When diplomacy has failed, it's (usually) the most effective form of eliminating a threat. Though, sometimes even that isn't a foolproof plan.

No matter who you are, there's always someone you struggle against or aren't really equipped to fight. Think rock-paper-scissors but with thousands or millions added gestures. And sometimes the scissors beat rock.

Of course, I'm assuming a reasonable level of optimization, ie. you are capable in your role with neat tricks but didn't just copy a theoretical build with insane DPR or Saving throw-skullduggery.

[AsteriskAmp]

Failure is not an option. It's a statistical certainty at some point. That's because you can't make plans for every possible scenario and execute them. Either that or your DM is not giving you a challenge. :smalltongue:

Successful plans usually include minor failures too, it's just that the minor successes outweight the minor failures.

Also, what's wrong with killing the enemy? When diplomacy has failed, it's (usually) the most effective form of eliminating a threat. Though, sometimes even that isn't a foolproof plan.

No matter who you are, there's always someone you struggle against or aren't really equipped to fight. Think rock-paper-scissors but with thousands or millions added gestures. And sometimes the scissors beat rock.

Of course, I'm assuming a reasonable level of optimization, ie. you are capable in your role with neat tricks but didn't just copy a theoretical build with insane DPR or Saving throw-skullduggery.
I meant it from the hollistic point of view, rolls shouldn't factor in. If the goal is drop their leader, than a reasonable plan is to draw underlings to you so that the striker has a clear way into. There is a way to keep them occupied without depending on rolls.

About someone overpowering, it will happen, and in those cases everyone will have issues, the defender least perhaps, his role is not based on power but tactics, the controller will have issues reaching the saves, the striker will be fragile, the leader will, along with with defender make the important decisions.

What I meant for not killing is that your goal shouldn't be to kill them, part of the process maybe, but dropping things is not the defender's role.

Failure is not failing a roll, that's just some minor piece not going perfect there, failure is an underling going were you did not want, or someone attacking someone you didn't want to. A roll does not determine that, proper planning does.

[Dust]

And yes, as the only defender in the party: always use a heavy shield. Always. Yes, even then.
B-but I'm a swordmag - EVEN THEN.

Anyhow, a lot of this thread completely baffles me. Defenders are bar-none my favourite role to fill, and it's the spot our 4e group is always fighting over. And a lot of the 'You're doing it wrong' attitude is this thread is really....I don't know. Something I'd expect from other boards, perhaps, but not here.

[tcrudisi]

B-but I'm a swordmag - EVEN THEN.

Hahaha. Yes, even then!

Okay, seriously, I forgot about the Swordmage. But you could still make an argument for a SM using one if you want to boost your defenses up as high as possible. (Seriously.)

[Tegu8788]

Swordmage would be the exception, though I hear good thinks about the light blade/light shield combo item.

I think the tone of this thread was already edged from the OP. I see your concern, but I'm reading it more along the lines of telling a rogue to use a dagger, a wizard to not wade into melee constantly, or a barbarian to use the biggest weapon possible. If you don't like the features of a class, then don't play that class. Paladins get the best AC right out of the box, and it's best to use it. If you want a divine defender in scale, then a fighter MC cleric or hybrid might be better suited for you.

I think there are wrong choices in 4e. Playing a fighter in cloth armor using an orb is wrong, or a wizard with tons of fire improvement feats and no fire powers is wrong. Many hybrids are wrong. Unoptomized is one thing, unplayable is another. There are things that are good for controllers but wrong for defenders. A "wrong for this situation," instead of "just always wrong." though those exist.

[MeeposFire]

There are always bad choices if there are any real choices to be made. 4e has done an overall good job of limiting bad choices especially in broad areas such as making it so that it is not a bad choice to pick a weapon wielder.

Oddly from what I have seen defender is one of the more popular roles and one of the better designed in general.

[Raimun]

I meant it from the hollistic point of view, rolls shouldn't factor in. If the goal is drop their leader, than a reasonable plan is to draw underlings to you so that the striker has a clear way into. There is a way to keep them occupied without depending on rolls.

About someone overpowering, it will happen, and in those cases everyone will have issues, the defender least perhaps, his role is not based on power but tactics, the controller will have issues reaching the saves, the striker will be fragile, the leader will, along with with defender make the important decisions.

What I meant for not killing is that your goal shouldn't be to kill them, part of the process maybe, but dropping things is not the defender's role.

Failure is not failing a roll, that's just some minor piece not going perfect there, failure is an underling going were you did not want, or someone attacking someone you didn't want to. A roll does not determine that, proper planning does.

I do see your points but I just see things in a different light. I guess you have more experience playing a defender, so it's more likely you're more effective in that role than I am. For example, eliminating the opposition (one way or the other) is usually an intrinsic part of my plans while support is at the most a secondary objective. Agree to disagree?

[Reis Tahlen]

There are always bad choices if there are any real choices to be made. 4e has done an overall good job of limiting bad choices especially in broad areas such as making it so that it is not a bad choice to pick a weapon wielder.

Oddly from what I have seen defender is one of the more popular roles and one of the better designed in general.

4e has added something new in D&D, which is: playing badly. I mean, in 2nd,edition once your fighter is created, if it is well rounded he should have no problem slaughtering the ennemies and... well, being a fighter. In 4e, even if you optimized your fighter, you can make awful choices in combat which leads for your character to be near useless.

[AsteriskAmp]

4e has added something new in D&D, which is: playing badly. I mean, in 2nd,edition once your fighter is created, if it is well rounded he should have no problem slaughtering the enemies and... well, being a fighter. In 4e, even if you optimized your fighter, you can make awful choices in combat which leads for your character to be near useless.
It was always there, 4E just reduced build importance to efficiency heavily. Its easier to learn how to play a fighter relatively well than to have to check 200 source-books before even creating him if you want to work properly, and THEN you needed to learn tactics, insanely overpowered builds meant that your diving into 200 books reduced tactical error to a minimum.

Learning tactics is fun, they develop organically over the course of play, more efficient players need less combat to see what works, or what could work and run with it, but the thing is you can change tactics in a heartbeat, a build... not so much. So yes, your excellently build fighter can be near useless because you don't have tactics, but next time you should learn from your mistakes develop some and work properly, while previously, your poorly designed fighter could be played by a genius and would still fail horribly because his number crunching was high enough.

All in all, to a certain point it promotes intelligent play, at least on the Defender's side and from a tactical point of view.

[INDYSTAR188]

In a group that I play in we have the following:

-Dragonborn Sorcerer
-Dragonborn Ardent
-Halfling Rogue
-Human Ranger/Rogue
-Eladrin Wizard (me)
-We're all level 3

The point I'm trying to make is that we severely need a Defender! I use the Shield utility spell every encounter (really thank goodness for the awesome utility power!) and have come very close to being unconscious a couple of times. I do what I can to control the battlefield (it's in the job description) but I can't always get everyone! If we have a Defender instead of three Strikers we'd probably be a lot more effective. Also, I think Ardent kinda sucks.

[Tegu8788]

From what I've read and no actual gameplay experience of my own, nor knowing how your fellow players play, but the dragonborn sorcerer could be changed into a dragonborn swordmage the easiest of any of them.

If the human ranger/rogue is a melee ranger then there are some fighter builds that could be fluff wise similar enough to the current character so that a new sheet could be made without losing all the RP.

[Sol]

Also, I think Ardent kinda sucks.

Ardents are perhaps the most power-selection dependent class in 4e. With the right powers (Energizing Strike, Demoralizing Strike, Focusing Strike), they become one of the best leaders in the game.

[MeeposFire]

4e has added something new in D&D, which is: playing badly. I mean, in 2nd,edition once your fighter is created, if it is well rounded he should have no problem slaughtering the ennemies and... well, being a fighter. In 4e, even if you optimized your fighter, you can make awful choices in combat which leads for your character to be near useless.

Um that is not new as a 3e fighter had choices that made you much worse. Generally speaking unless you put your stats in strange places a fighter will be more than playable even with the "bad" powers.

Also there were bad choices in AD&D as well. If you are not using, darts, cesti, and several other weapons you are "doing it wrong". Or you could choose a poor kit etc. Any game that gives a choice of any significance can make a "bad" choice.

[Shatteredtower]

4e has added something new in D&D, which is: playing badly.

In every edition, that's been relative to the table. Where one group will thrive with a bunch of goblin commoners, another can't accomplish a thing with a squad of Pun-Puns.

[Airich]

B-but I'm a swordmag - EVEN THEN.

Anyhow, a lot of this thread completely baffles me. Defenders are bar-none my favourite role to fill, and it's the spot our 4e group is always fighting over. And a lot of the 'You're doing it wrong' attitude is this thread is really....I don't know. Something I'd expect from other boards, perhaps, but not here.

We are trying to figure out how to like defenders. For those who do not know how to play them, they do suck, like a toy that doesn't quite work.

I am trying to convince myself to play a defender. My party:
Rogue
Rogue
Wizard
Ranger
Monk

So you can imagine the issues. After reading this thread I think I get it, correct me if I am wrong.
An effective defender Is basically playing tag, or teasing, or trying to make a fool of the enemy.

Step one:Defenders move in on the enemy (however many they may be) and taunt, poke, shove and offer them a taste of beat down. As soon as a defender does what he believes is a good job of harassment, (one standard action worth)
Step two:He (or she, I do remember one half Ork female...) then MOVES AWAY from the enemy who were marked.

Now we see the field of battle as a giant game of "piss off the bad guys" and make them (want to) chase you. So the enemy has many choices, but of them, two should be on top:

1)chase the defender. This choice should be fraught with tactically bad decisions like offering your allies AoO's, Moving into into bottlenecks or grouping up (good for your spell casters), moving into an easily flanked position (good for your rogues and other defenders (if you have them)) So maybe minor bad stuff, but still ALL BAD stuff for the enemy.

2)Stay where they are and attack someone other than the marking defender; Take penalties to attacks etc, and hopefully suffer some free damage or at least extra attacks. More bad stuff for the enemy.

Other thoughts: If you mark their spell caster who you know is AOE, stay all up close and personal with that enemy spell casters buddies so he must hit his allies to hit you, or stay out of LOS. If you really need the BBG to lay off the Mage, move just far enough away to make him one square away from being able to get to you. Once he moves out a bit and takes a shot (hopefully missing) the Mage can retreat without fear of dieing to run, and it's back to the playground.

Does this sum it up? Any other thoughts/examples of Tactical Teases and Tricks? Thanks in advance!

[windgate]

Hey guys, Im the defender.

I talked to the DM, and got the big green go-ahead for revamping my character in any way I see fit. I think the defender role is useful (no, im not trying to absorb all enemy attacks), but the character I was handed is perhaps less so. For starters, we are level six and Im walking around with ac 20, which is less than some of the other team members. Magic items might be in order.. maybe even a shield, crazy as it sounds.

Currently Im digging thru the books and the char-op boards, I thought maybe about going with a warden or fighter, but eh, I like a challenge (MAD MAD MAD) and a dragonborn paladin with the breath attack divine challenge seems kind of fun.

Stat wise, still not sure whether to go Str or Cha focused, but with a dragonborn its kind of hard not to have a decent mod in both anyhow. Still, Id like to have more than 12 con (shakes head) this time around, and it seems that wisdom is not the stat to ignore, either.

Mostly tho, Id like to work on the powers, so that I have something to do. At the moment, my guy just tosses a mark or two, then everything else is just a weapon based variation of smite -one of the reasons the breath attack looked more fun.

Yeah something is seriously wrong with your AC. Unless you are playing a dual wielding fighter or 2-handed weapon warden, you should have atleast 23 AC right now:

Take a level 6 Dragonborn Paladin:
+3 1/2 Level
+1 Magic Armor Enhancement:
+8 Plate Armor
+2 Heavy Shield
+10 Base Value
= 24 AC

Level 6 Monster (average) +11 (Level +5) Attack
You will avoid 60% of typical attacks vs. your AC


Defenders who don't use shields (excluding swordmage's) tend to have AC problems. Those builds need to design themselves as semi-strikers with counter attack powers.

The vigilante theme and hybrid cleric (battle cleric lore feature) can allow a more strikerery(sp?) defender, but be advised hybrids are complicated.


My advice for a dragonborn paladin is to go dual primary STR/CHA. There is a feat that adds strength to your divine sanction punishment. Your punishment at level 6 will be (no attack roll): 3 + CHA + STR radiant. There are additional items that can enhance it farther.

Select the Sohei theme for a minor action attack.
Unless you are spending feats on it, I would suggest dragon fear instead of dragon breath.

[Ashdate]

NECROMANCY! :smallfurious:

[windgate]

We are trying to figure out how to like defenders. For those who do not know how to play them, they do suck, like a toy that doesn't quite work.

I am trying to convince myself to play a defender. My party:
Rogue
Rogue
Wizard
Ranger
Monk

So you can imagine the issues. After reading this thread I think I get it, correct me if I am wrong.
An effective defender Is basically playing tag, or teasing, or trying to make a fool of the enemy.

Step one:Defenders move in on the enemy (however many they may be) and taunt, poke, shove and offer them a taste of beat down. As soon as a defender does what he believes is a good job of harassment, (one standard action worth)
Step two:He (or she, I do remember one half Ork female...) then MOVES AWAY from the enemy who were marked.

Now we see the field of battle as a giant game of "piss off the bad guys" and make them (want to) chase you. So the enemy has many choices, but of them, two should be on top:

1)chase the defender. This choice should be fraught with tactically bad decisions like offering your allies AoO's, Moving into into bottlenecks or grouping up (good for your spell casters), moving into an easily flanked position (good for your rogues and other defenders (if you have them)) So maybe minor bad stuff, but still ALL BAD stuff for the enemy.

2)Stay where they are and attack someone other than the marking defender; Take penalties to attacks etc, and hopefully suffer some free damage or at least extra attacks. More bad stuff for the enemy.

Other thoughts: If you mark their spell caster who you know is AOE, stay all up close and personal with that enemy spell casters buddies so he must hit his allies to hit you, or stay out of LOS. If you really need the BBG to lay off the Mage, move just far enough away to make him one square away from being able to get to you. Once he moves out a bit and takes a shot (hopefully missing) the Mage can retreat without fear of dieing to run, and it's back to the playground.

Does this sum it up? Any other thoughts/examples of Tactical Teases and Tricks? Thanks in advance!

Didn't notice the date of the original post.... Yeah definitely a necro :p

but anyways.. Defender is the wrong fit for this party.
You have 4 strikers and a controller. The model thus far is the "blitzkrieg" strategy. Ideally your party members should be killing multiple things per turn with focus fire while the wizard locks down the other enemies.

Instead of a defender, I suggest looking at either warlord or cleric and pick powers that can mark (or any leader in general). most of the challenge of the fights will be gone by round 2..

[Kiero]

I played a Tempest Fighter, and he was awesome fun. Hella effective both at locking down the enemy/making them come to him and also smashing the crap out of them too. Equal parts Defender and Striker.

[Epinephrine]

Instead of a defender, I suggest looking at either warlord or cleric and pick powers that can mark (or any leader in general). most of the challenge of the fights will be gone by round 2..

Yes, an enabling leader like a warlord or a panther shaman seems like it would help a fair bit.

[DHKase]

Now we see the field of battle as a giant game of "piss off the bad guys" and make them (want to) chase you. So the enemy has many choices, but of them, two should be on top:

1)chase the defender. This choice should be fraught with tactically bad decisions like offering your allies AoO's, Moving into into bottlenecks or grouping up (good for your spell casters), moving into an easily flanked position (good for your rogues and other defenders (if you have them)) So maybe minor bad stuff, but still ALL BAD stuff for the enemy.

2)Stay where they are and attack someone other than the marking defender; Take penalties to attacks etc, and hopefully suffer some free damage or at least extra attacks. More bad stuff for the enemy.


You probably want to choose a Swordmage if that's how you want use a defender. Swordmage marks last until the end of the encounter (or until a different target is marked) and their punishments can be triggered at range. With two rogues in the party, you probably want to go for an Assault Aegis sword mage so you can teleport in with a flank if they chose to violate your mark. The downside to their punishment is the teleport attack is a reaction, not an interrupt, so it only triggers AFTER your ally is hit.

[Macros]

Agreed. The swordmage fits perfectly well with the idea of "I mark you, then teleport elsewere. What do you dou, now, huh?". It's extremely fun (but works better if most members of your party are not made of glass and can afford being exposed for a while).

On the other hand, you pretty much can't do that with a fighter, which is all about getting close and personal with his intended target, and then sticking to it like glue. But he's scarily efficient at that.

EDIT : concerning the OP, I admit I have trouble agreeing with the analysis. I started 4e by playing an hybrid wizard / swordmage, and it was awesome (ok, not a full defender, but still), I played a paladin and it was a strong, solid choice with many options, and I played alongside several fighters who were absolute monsters in combat. What's the problem with defenders, exactly ?

[Yakk]

The Fighter is the standard defender, and does *not* work like that (run away and hide).

The Fighter instead sets up a different catch-22: you either stand next to the fighter and attack the fighter (who has lots of defences, HP, and point-blank damage), or you run away (and give the fighter free attacks, while taking a penalty to your own attacks).

This works fine in an all-striker party, especially after level 7 when you get "come and get it". Come and get it provides a way you can *force* foes to clump up around you all marked. A human fighter at level 11 can get it twice using adroit explorer, and it is such a great power that this is often optimal.

Defenders tend to have slightly different styles: Paladins, Wardens, Fighters, Battleminds and Swordmages are all different kinds of defenders. Wardens can mire foes in difficult terrain, Battleminds can cross the battlefield forcing foes to attack them instead, Swordmages can set up arcane-riposte catch-22s or aegis-kite foes, and Paladins can lay down a radiant mantle over an entire battlefield melting any who harm their allies.