4E: Defenders vs. Strikers

[Crow]

This has been hiding in the back of my head for a little while now, so I thought I would toss it out there.

As it seems to be, the defenders are going to be stepping into the "tank" role, while strikers are supposed to be capable of great damage in certain circumstances. This bugs me a little bit, because shouldn't the fighter be more than just a tank? Shouldn't he be able to dish out great amounts of damage as well?

D&D seems to favor the guy with the best offense, especially when you get into higher levels. If the strikers are the primary damage dealers, why would somebody want to play the defenders? If the defenders can dish out great amounts of damage, and the strikers are fragile (defensively) in comparison, why would somebody want to play the stikers? Have there been any releases dealing with how they intend to balance these two roles? To me they seem like they would just be variations on a single role.

[DraPrime]

Personally I don't fully believe in the role thing. Supposedly each class is very customizable. While all classes will be limited to certain things, theoretically they should still be able to choose what they do. So the roles might turn out to be meaningless. If not, then you've just found the biggest flaw in 4e.

[Reinboom]

Think of a high sneak attack rogue (possibly with two-weapon fighting) vs the fighter warblade tank, currently.
The rogue = striker
The fighter = defender

I see the role as already existing.

[Counterspin]

I presume fighter will be where you go to get defensive skills, regardless of your character concept, where rogue or ranger will be for melee and ranged power respectively. I see 4th as moving away from the presumption of single class characters (fighter bonus feats with level restrictions, spellcasting dramatically dependent on staying in a class that grants casting levels) and more towards a buffet style, where you build your character in order to get the class features you want(No multiclass penalties, no level or class restrictions on feats). Taking stuff from fighter will make you tougher, more threatening, and better to protect your allies, taking striker levels will give you more punch, and it's up to you as a player to decide where on that spectrum you want to fall.

[RTGoodman]

I'm also not as worried. There was an article/blog/something a while back talking about the Warlock, and how it started as a Striker but, through more design and playtesting, sort of became a Controller also. I can't imagine that sort of blur wouldn't occur between the other combinations also.

[Morty]

While this whole things with roles is a bit worrying, I don't think that "defenders" being obsolete will be any real problem. Someone at WotC was even talking about giving paladin offensive abilities because noone likes to just get beaten up instead of rogue and wizard.

[Roderick_BR]

As people said, it looks like strikers will be squishy, while defenders can fight for longer times. There's word about each role being able to work on a different role with a little effort, like defenders being able to be strikers, although not as good as actual strikers.

[AKA_Bait]

As people said, it looks like strikers will be squishy, while defenders can fight for longer times. There's word about each role being able to work on a different role with a little effort, like defenders being able to be strikers, although not as good as actual strikers.

This actually concerns me. Mainly because of 3e's faied attempt at producing the same results with Clerics. Cleric's were supposed to be able to do some fighting with a little effort but primarily be healing spell casters. As we know, it just ended up that Clerics are better at both.

[Crow]

As people said, it looks like strikers will be squishy, while defenders can fight for longer times. There's word about each role being able to work on a different role with a little effort, like defenders being able to be strikers, although not as good as actual strikers.

Really, with the way D&D seems to "work", the offense usually trumps the defense. If you can play a Striker with some defender abilities, why would you ever play the defender?

[SadisticFishing]

Think Warblade versus Swordsage. Both do large amounts of damage, but the Warblade has far more survivability and the Swordsage has far more adaptability, to make up for it.

I was gonna compare Barbarian and Rogue, but that wouldn't work, as Rogue is underpowered... But try comparing Barbarian to what they wanted rogue to be.

[Dausuul]

Really, with the way D&D seems to "work", the offense usually trumps the defense. If you can play a Striker with some defender abilities, why would you ever play the defender?

The reason offense trumps defense in 3E is that the monsters can always just target the least defense-oriented PC. If you've got a fighter standing there with scads of hit points, armored like a Sherman tank, wielding a sword, and right behind him is a wizard in robes hurling spells around, which are you gonna attack?

In 4E, they're addressing this by giving Defenders means to make the enemy fight them. Paladins have the Divine Challenge, which causes monsters to suffer penalties when fighting anyone but the paladin (at least, that's what it seems like). Fighters get abilities that let them pound the living snot out of creatures that turn their attention away from the fighter. "Defender" thus becomes a viable option.

I'm guessing that the role of the Defender classes will be to wade into melee and mix it up. They'll deal substantial damage with every attack, and can take a lot of punishment. The role of the Striker classes will be to circle the edges looking for openings. If they can set up their attacks right, they'll be able to dish out horrific damage, but it will require some maneuvering, and if anything attacks the Striker it's going to get ugly fast.

[Crow]

The reason offense trumps defense in 3E is that the monsters can always just target the least defense-oriented PC.

We're slightly misunderstanding eachother. I was referring to the ability to more quickly take a monster out of the fight, rather than fighting defensively and slogging it out.


Think Warblade versus Swordsage. Both do large amounts of damage, but the Warblade has far more survivability and the Swordsage has far more adaptability, to make up for it.

Personally, I never really noticed much of a difference between the two in the damage-dealing or survivability departments. But think for a moment if they increased the swordsage's damage output so that it was signifigantly higher than the warblade. Would they still be considered balanced.

I really hope they can do something other than what amounts basically to "aggro" to make the defenders viable. I really would favor it if they just put the two roles together and called it something else. Like "Warrior" or something.

[....]

In 4E, they're addressing this by giving Defenders means to make the enemy fight them. Paladins have the Divine Challenge, which causes monsters to suffer penalties when fighting anyone but the paladin (at least, that's what it seems like)..

Thus doth D&D turn into WoW without the PC.

[SadisticFishing]

Nah, there's a difference between Warblade and Swordsage - the way they survive. It's the difference between a Striker and a Defender.

Trust in Wizards, it's one of the two gaming companies that seem to be worth it.

[AKA_Bait]

Trust in Wizards, it's one of the two gaming companies that seem to be worth it.

*snort* Oh, I do trust in wizards. I trust them not to playtest across a wide enough range of possible styles. I trust them to later on in 4e's run put out a ton of additional options many of which wildly change the powerlevels of each class in the game. I just don't trust them to do anything other than what will yield the most profit. Nor should I, they are a for profit company after al.

I presume the other gaming company is the one in my sig right? :smallwink:

[Jerthanis]

I've got my reservations about this aspect of 4th edition, but I'd really like to see how it works out before judging it. It feels at a gut level like it's MMO gameplay in tabletop format. Now, I sort of like MMO gameplay, but it's the sort of logic I don't care to think too hard about, because the idea of anyone entering the battlefield with the idea that it's his or her job to get stuck with swords and claws and death doesn't seem human to me. If I were a person in this fictional world, and I had the choice between being the guy whose job was to get attacked so other people would NOT be attacked, you've got to wonder who would willingly choose that path if they had an option to be one of the people who didn't get hit instead.

However, if this is handled well, it could be amazing. A shield-sword guy standing in front of a mage, determined to protect them at all costs, or a phalanx fighter holding a shield for the guy on his left, or a bodyguard who defends their charge fanatically with dual knives, nigh-inhuman discipline and crippling strikes to the weak points of any attacker... any of those could be awesome defender concepts if the mechanics can help represent them. If the mechanics end up being: "I jump into the pile of enemies, calling them Doo-doo heads so they'll attack me while I watch my friends carve them up." Then it's going to lack any sense that real people are doing these things rather than characters in a video game. Particularly if the Defender gets attacked by mindless creatures, or those who don't share a language with them because of their ruthless taunts.

[Kaelik]

Think Warblade versus Swordsage. Both do large amounts of damage, but the Warblade has far more survivability and the Swordsage has far more adaptability, to make up for it.

Except that Warblades actually do more damage then Swordsages, Swordsages just have versitality. Swordsages are not Strikers, nor are Warblades Defenders. They both do roughly the same amount of damage, more then a Defender, less then a Striker, and they both lack any concrete way of being a "Defender" (IE Battlefield Control, Aggro, something.)


I was gonna compare Barbarian and Rogue, but that wouldn't work, as Rogue is underpowered... But try comparing Barbarian to what they wanted rogue to be.

Um? Rogue is more powerful then Barbarian, so I don't see how it doesn't work because Rogue is underpowered. Although at least this example sort of works. Even though A barbarian does more damage.

[Dausuul]

Thus doth D&D turn into WoW without the PC.

Yes, yes, yes, we know. Any mechanic in 4E that's even vaguely similar to anything in World of Warcraft means 4E is turning D&D into WoW wholesale. It's in no way possible that the 4E designers simply noticed some good ideas in WoW and decided to incorporate them. And any mechanic that lets a tank mess up people who turn their backs on him is exactly the same as WoW aggro management.

The designers have specifically said that they are not including the concept of aggro; they experimented with it and determined that it didn't work for PnP. Instead, the tank just gets ways to make life very unpleasant for people who try to slip past and attack the squishier party members.


I've got my reservations about this aspect of 4th edition, but I'd really like to see how it works out before judging it. It feels at a gut level like it's MMO gameplay in tabletop format. Now, I sort of like MMO gameplay, but it's the sort of logic I don't care to think too hard about, because the idea of anyone entering the battlefield with the idea that it's his or her job to get stuck with swords and claws and death doesn't seem human to me. If I were a person in this fictional world, and I had the choice between being the guy whose job was to get attacked so other people would NOT be attacked, you've got to wonder who would willingly choose that path if they had an option to be one of the people who didn't get hit instead.

I wouldn't think of it that way. It's more like, if you're a fighter, you're the sort of guy who likes to stand there howling in fury, up to his elbows in blood, whacking off monster heads left and right; and you're tough enough to do it. If you're a wizard, you're the sort of guy who likes to stand in the back coldly shaping the battlefield to your design. Obviously, putting the fighter in front of the wizard is only sensible.

It's kind of a wash, really. The fighter is exposed to more danger, but has the durability to survive it pretty well. The wizard isn't exposed nearly as often, but when he is, he's in a whole lot of trouble.

[SadisticFishing]

Hey, I'd beg to differ with the rogue vs barbarian thing. Only thing rogue has over barb is Use Magic Device. Other than that, the barbarian really has a lot of things it can do.

White Raven helps the Warblade be a defender, though I actually meant to say Crusader >_> oops.

[MCerberus]

I think the whole 4e = WoW thing started with people thinking that the new fighters would work exactly like arms warriors. Well let's face it Fighters were always about "pick one weapon type and stick with it" it's just that in 3.x the benefits weren't really up to par, so they mixed it up a little and now people are calling WoW wolf on 4e.

That isn't to say that Wizards isn't looking at certain things about WoW and acting on them. Take defenders vs strikers, the topic of this thread. For a while warriors (tank/defenders) were dealing more damage than rogues (dps/striker). They decreased warrior damage but that made less warriors because not everyone wants to tank. Eventually they decided on that warriors would be more survivable but have their damage be less than rogues (but this was messed up by Cloak of Shadows but let's not get into that), but they would still hit hard.

If you think that any game company does not look at what other people have had to deal with, then you are mistaken. The entire gaming industry is based around previous things that work mixed with new ideas. If you really wanted to you can trace WoW back to Tolkien, and one of the steps it goes by is DnD.

[Orzel]

I hear/read somewhere that the class to role thing was the defaults to make all classes good at at least 1 role. All fighters are decent defenders. You can use up all your feats on Basket Weaving and Art History and still be a good defender. You could also take strike powers and feats and be striker/defender. Or you can take all defender powers and feat and be a super defender. This way there would be no useless classes (outside of screw ups) because each class will be good at one role by default and can take on another role or beefer up their base role. A multiple role character can't outshine the single role classes because the single roles do their job better. A fluffy and flavorful character can still do his job because it gains most of his powers automatically.