4th Edition Quirks

[mlangsdorf]

I think the phrase "you can prepare a number of daily and utility spells according to what you can cast per day for your level" is meant to mean that if you have 1st, 5th, and 9th level dailies, you can cast 1 of each. And the FAQ clarification means that if you replace one of your 1st level spells with a 15th level spell, you can memorize either the 15th or the 1st level spell. Though presumably, at 15th level, you're supposed to be able replace both 1st level spells with 15th level spells.

Unfortunately, that's not what it actually says, and the clarification is complete nonsense. Did they even do a blind playtest of this game?

[Koumei]

Did they even do a blind playtest of this game?

They did a blind-drunk playtest, does that count?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

In the 4e core rulebooks Npc attitudes like "hostile" are not defined anywhere.

On a completely unrelated note, I stumbled upon this quote: "4e sucks 'cause you can't run an instance multiple times to get the drops you want. Although it is kinda cool that mobs don't respawn."

[Koumei]

I think that quote sums up the problems with D&D nicely.

It's occurred to me. If it means once again having good things, powerful characters and interesting abilities, I'm willing to say "Fuck it, the kids they're trying to appeal to can fuck off and sniff paint or whatever it is kids do. Let's add complexity."

Seriously. If it'll make it less of a MMORPG, and allow for interesting stuff, I'm willing to once again have "Some numbers are good when low! Some are good when high!", "You seriously want your hit points to be one more than a number divisible by 4", "see chart X to determine what table to roll on. That table should help determine three others to roll on." and even an "anal circumference" stat.

No really. In fact, let's try making an edition which is awesome but also very complex and screens people out just because they don't happen to be good at (subject). I won't be satisfied if I'm able to understand the rules.

[RandomCasualty2]

It's occurred to me. If it means once again having good things, powerful characters and interesting abilities, I'm willing to say "Fuck it, the kids they're trying to appeal to can fuck off and sniff paint or whatever it is kids do. Let's add complexity."

It doesn't have much to do with complexity, so much as imbalance.

Seriously, when you envision "a powerful character with interesting abilities." You're pretty much going to gravitate to the shit that's crazy powerful.

The problem is that in an ideal level system, you don't gain power. Not really. Your attacks go up, your defenses go up, but pretty much the math stays the same when you're fighting someone of the same level. The perceived power gain in 3.5 was pretty much just the shitty divergent system having offenses grow faster than defenses. So you actually did get more powerful in comparison as you leveled, but only offensively. Your defenses were still made of fail.

As far as being interesting. Honestly I didn't find it interesting unless you were playing a caster. Fighters, rogues, barbarians, rangers, paladins were just about spamming the same basic attack. Even the tome characters got only a few extra useable abilities, but you still didn't gain much in the way of options, and all noncasters were exclusively spammers. You picked one or two gimmicks that you were decent at, like charging or what not, and that's it. That's pretty much all you did.

Spellcasters in 3.5 seemed interesting quite simply because they transcended their level and CR. Instead of bothering with damage or anything else they got save or dies, which were like a sword attack, only the damage was infinite.

And I honestly couldn't even see the 3.5 world being anything close to what I envison for a heroic fantasy game. Because it was so offense oriented, nobody is really a bad ass. Everyone plays scared, because everyone is made of glass. If the villain ever tried to talk to you, your best strategic move was just going ahead and killing him on the free round he gave you where he wasn't attacking you. 3.5 wasn't a game of heroic fantasy, it was a game of tactical cowardice.

[virgil]

Or maybe something closer to modern day, where combat is brutal, tactical, and short? However, it's also the Iron Age because of the lack of large societies being able to curtail adventurers.

[RandomCasualty2]

Or maybe something closer to modern day, where combat is brutal, tactical, and short? However, it's also the Iron Age because of the lack of large societies being able to curtail adventurers.

Yeah, I mean and that stuff is fine for a game with guns. In fact, I even prefer it, but brutal and short just doesn't have a place in heroic fantasy in my opinion. Dark fantasy perhaps, but certainly not heroic. I just find super deadly combat really boring and dull in a fantasy setting.

Fantasy really needs to be made up of immovable objects as well as irresistable forces.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

The perceived power gain in 3.5 was pretty much just the shitty divergent system having offenses grow faster than defenses. So you actually did get more powerful in comparison as you leveled, but only offensively. Your defenses were still made of fail.

Anecdotal. Some characters are created as Frenzied Berserkers with Shock Trooper. Not all are. Some keep up with their defenses.

Spellcasters in 3.5 seemed interesting quite simply because they transcended their level and CR.

Spellcasters transcended noncasters, not CR.

Instead of bothering with damage or anything else they got save or dies, which were like a sword attack, only the damage was infinite.

What are you even talking about? SoD's are only a small part of what casters do. Also, any decent martial character does enough damage that their attacks are like a save or die as well.

Because it was so offense oriented, nobody is really a bad ass. Everyone plays scared, because everyone is made of glass.

Simply not true.

If the villain ever tried to talk to you, your best strategic move was just going ahead and killing him on the free round he gave you where he wasn't attacking you.

That is only true because of a specific failing in the combat rules. It is easily fixed.

3.5 wasn't a game of heroic fantasy, it was a game of tactical cowardice.

What does this even mean?

[RandomCasualty2]

Anecdotal. Some characters are created as Frenzied Berserkers with Shock Trooper. Not all are. Some keep up with their defenses.

Honestly, you're just not going to be able to stand up against a caster as a fighter ever. Mostly because even if your defenses are impossibly high, like a paladin, there are stuff that outright ignores any defense you've got (like maze). And there are just too many things to even defend against.

Spellcasters transcended noncasters, not CR.

Nah, they transcended CR too. There's really very little that most monsters can do against a well prepared caster. I mean, one glitterdust alone can basically take out something equal or higher in CR. And flight, well lets not talk about how flight can make a wizard untouchable by a great many of creatures equal or over his CR. And then you've got crap like ghostform where if the monster doesn't have DR /magic or spells, it can't even hurt you.

What are you even talking about? SoD's are only a small part of what casters do. Also, any decent martial character does enough damage that their attacks are like a save or die as well.

Exactly my point. The game is all offense. What if I wanted to play a fighter who was based on resliency and not pure damage dealing capacity? I mean you pretty much can't play someone like Achilles in D&D, because by default you're made of glass, and your only real recourse is to pump your offense as high as you can and win initiative. That's boring if you ask me.

If the villain ever tried to talk to you, your best strategic move was just going ahead and killing him on the free round he gave you where he wasn't attacking you.

That is only true because of a specific failing in the combat rules. It is easily fixed.

Really? Because I'm not quite so sure how to fix that problem.

3.5 wasn't a game of heroic fantasy, it was a game of tactical cowardice.

What does this even mean?

It means that you can't make dramatic entrances or spend time talking to the villain before combat starts. You basically enter into combat SWAT style, where your assaults are based on surprise and swift action.

It's just not particularly cinematic fantasy if you ask me.

[Bigode]

If the villain ever tried to talk to you, your best strategic move was just going ahead and killing him on the free round he gave you where he wasn't attacking you. 3.5 wasn't a game of heroic fantasy, it was a game of tactical cowardice.

Hold the phone. What's the fvcking problem? Moreover, what else would someone be supposed to do?

Spellcasters in 3.5 seemed interesting quite simply because they transcended their level and CR. Instead of bothering with damage or anything else they got save or dies, which were like a sword attack, only the damage was infinite.

Ridiculously false. What about the fact that spellcasters and rogues had actual meaningful choices out of combat?

[Talisman]

And I honestly couldn't even see the 3.5 world being anything close to what I envison for a heroic fantasy game. Because it was so offense oriented, nobody is really a bad ass. Everyone plays scared, because everyone is made of glass. If the villain ever tried to talk to you, your best strategic move was just going ahead and killing him on the free round he gave you where he wasn't attacking you.

This is easily solved by not gaming with jerks. Villains get a monologue, provided you keep it short. Heroes and villains trade snappy quips; heroes shout things like "Now you face justice, Blooddrinker!"; villains explain their diabolical plans. It's part of the genre.

If your players are interested in the story side, as well as the tactical side, they're cool with this. PCs and NPCs talk before - and during - combat, and no one is arbitrarily punished for it.

3.5 wasn't a game of heroic fantasy, it was a game of tactical cowardice.

Sez you. My experiences with 3.5 have been totally different.

[CatharzGodfoot]

3.5 wasn't a game of heroic fantasy, it was a game of tactical cowardice.

What does this even mean?

It means that you can't make dramatic entrances or spend time talking to the villain before combat starts. You basically enter into combat SWAT style, where your assaults are based on surprise and swift action.

It's just not particularly cinematic fantasy if you ask me.

What do you do in `cinematic fantasy'? Line two armies up on a wide field and lead a charge? Wake up the dragon before you try to kill it in honorable single combat? Stand in the middle of a battle and take turns vaunting before getting out of your chariot, throwing your spear, and hacking away with your sword?

I don't know where you're getting your material from, but as far as I can tell there are three winning tactics: initiative, intimidation, and being the most powerful guy in town. If you can't use any of the above, you run away or sit tight and hope for the best.

Oh yeah, and magic. Magic tends to be made of equal parts arbitrarium an win in a `cinematic fantasy'.

[Bigode]

This is easily solved by not gaming with jerks. Villains get a monologue, provided you keep it short. Heroes and villains trade snappy quips; heroes shout things like "Now you face justice, Blooddrinker!"; villains explain their diabolical plans. It's part of the genre.

If your players are interested in the story side, as well as the tactical side, they're cool with this. PCs and NPCs talk before - and during - combat, and no one is arbitrarily punished for it.

Is that a discussion mostly among people who haven't ever actually fought? Time spent talking's time not spent winning, period.

3.5 wasn't a game of heroic fantasy, it was a game of tactical cowardice.

Sez you. My experiences with 3.5 have been totally different.

He's (sorta) right. Your experiences don't consist of using the system to anywhere near full extent, and the early bright blade versions should make that painfully obvious. But I don't know what SWAT members have of cowardice (or jerkery) ...

[Talisman]

This is easily solved by not gaming with jerks. Villains get a monologue, provided you keep it short. Heroes and villains trade snappy quips; heroes shout things like "Now you face justice, Blooddrinker!"; villains explain their diabolical plans. It's part of the genre.

If your players are interested in the story side, as well as the tactical side, they're cool with this. PCs and NPCs talk before - and during - combat, and no one is arbitrarily punished for it.

Is that a discussion mostly among people who haven't ever actually fought? Time spent talking's time not spent winning, period.

Talking is defined in the PHB as a free action. Thus, my PC's witty quips have no effect on his combat ability.

But more importantly than that, hero-villain interaction is part of fantasy - hell of the action uber-genre. I have never, as a GM, told a player "Well, that speech used up your action...Joe, you're up." Nor have I seen this happen. Talking happens before and during combat; it doesn't replace combat.

And of the 5 of us, one's ex-Navy, another's a student of military history, and another may be ex-military; he's never said, but he acts like it sometimes.

3.5 wasn't a game of heroic fantasy, it was a game of tactical cowardice.

Sez you. My experiences with 3.5 have been totally different.

He's (sorta) right. Your experiences don't consist of using the system to anywhere near full extent, and the early bright blade versions should make that painfully obvious. But I don't know what SWAT members have of cowardice (or jerkery) ...[/quote]

My experiences consist of playing to have fun. Sometimes I play hell-on-wheels wizards; right now I'm playing a paladin/rogue. I play to pretend to be someone cool, with whacky powers I don't actually have. However, I can certainly craft a badass character if necessary. Extreme optimization isn't the only way to play D&D.

And I would argue that any issues with the Bright Blade have more to do wih the fact that it was my first full homebrew base class, rather than my qualifications as a player. There's a big difference between assembling something using parts and a vague blueprint, and inventing your own parts and cobbling something totally new together.

[RandomCasualty2]

What do you do in `cinematic fantasy'? Line two armies up on a wide field and lead a charge? Wake up the dragon before you try to kill it in honorable single combat? Stand in the middle of a battle and take turns vaunting before getting out of your chariot, throwing your spear, and hacking away with your sword?

Yeah, pretty much there's time to be dramatic and cool. And it's not just "Gee I better attack now, otherwise I could be dead next round." I mean that thinking is fine flavor for a gun battle, but in fantasy it's not very acceptable to get punished for giving up your first action to talk to your foes instead of just blasting them.

It's pretty dry fantasy if your evil wizard can't even give his villain's speech because if he does anything but attack, he dies. Empire Strikes back would have totally sucked if Vader chopped down Luke in the first attack (or vice versa).

I just dont' see how the game benefits from being super deadly. All it means is that you now have to insert some resurrection mechanic (because you don't want the heroes to stay dead), which only mkaes world consistency and drama even worse. And all that just because we want wizards to turn people to stone?

I mean fuck, only the gimps tend to get to turned to stone anyway. It's a fine way to kill a minion, but main characters tend to last longer.

I don't know where you're getting your material from, but as far as I can tell there are three winning tactics: initiative, intimidation, and being the most powerful guy in town.

Actually initiative is rarely a winning factor in most fantasy combat. Battles are an exchange of blows, not a wild west duel at high noon. Even mage duels tend to have some kind of battle of wills or a puzzle battle where you've got wizards shifting forms to try to counter each other, or using various spells to beat other spells.

Very rarely do you ever see a SWAT style assault on major villains where the big bad guy is taken out by one swing of the sword. Even in stealth attacks, no main characters die that way, just mooks. When Conan fought the important guys in Conan the Barbarian, it wasn't by striking from the shadows, it was in an actual fight.

[Talisman]

This is easily solved by not gaming with jerks. Villains get a monologue, provided you keep it short. Heroes and villains trade snappy quips; heroes shout things like "Now you face justice, Blooddrinker!"; villains explain their diabolical plans. It's part of the genre.

If your players are interested in the story side, as well as the tactical side, they're cool with this. PCs and NPCs talk before - and during - combat, and no one is arbitrarily punished for it.

Is that a discussion mostly among people who haven't ever actually fought? Time spent talking's time not spent winning, period.

Talking is defined in the PHB as a free action. Thus, my PC's witty quips have no effect on his combat ability.

But more importantly than that, hero-villain interaction is part of fantasy - hell of the action uber-genre. I have never, as a GM, told a player "Well, that speech used up your action...Joe, you're up." Nor have I seen this happen. Talking happens before and during combat; it doesn't replace combat.

And of the 5 of us, one's ex-Navy, another's a student of military history, and another may be ex-military; he's never said, but he acts like it sometimes.

3.5 wasn't a game of heroic fantasy, it was a game of tactical cowardice.

Sez you. My experiences with 3.5 have been totally different.

He's (sorta) right. Your experiences don't consist of using the system to anywhere near full extent, and the early bright blade versions should make that painfully obvious. But I don't know what SWAT members have of cowardice (or jerkery) ...

My experiences consist of playing to have fun. Sometimes I play hell-on-wheels wizards; right now I'm playing a paladin/rogue. I play to pretend to be someone cool, with whacky powers I don't actually have. However, I can certainly craft a badass character if necessary. Extreme optimization isn't the only way to play D&D.

And I would argue that any issues with the Bright Blade have more to do wih the fact that it was my first full homebrew base class, rather than my qualifications as a player. There's a big difference between assembling something using parts and a vague blueprint, and inventing your own parts and cobbling something totally new together.[/quote]

[Ravengm]

So, with Wizard Utility powers and preparation. If you take the Expanded Spellbook feat, does this mean you can cheese your way into preparing and casting three level-appropriate utility spells every day?

[Ice9]

4E is warping the space-time matrix of the thread! ... Or maybe it's just the forum software. Now in reverse order:

Ravengm: Pre-FAQ, it would seem so. Post-FAQ, I'm a bit confused how it works. Honestly, I wish they'd just left it as written - what's the point of forcing people to prepare level-inappropriate utility powers if the math is so "rock solid"?

RandomCasualty2: BBEG delivers his speech; because it's a free action, he also readies an action to do whatever. The PCs try to take advantage of the "free round", they get a sword/spell in the face. And if he has minions, they can do likewise.

Koumei: Very much agreed. Imbalance is something I can work around, or at least minimize the practical effects of. But blandness to the point of inducing apathy is a much worse dealbreaker.


I mean sure, the 4E classes have as much or more interesting stuff to do than some of the 3E classes, such as the Fighter. But who cares? That only matters if you were playing a straight Fighter in 3E, and I wasn't! If 3E was a buffet, it had some dishes that were delicious and exciting, and others that were bland and starchy. The 4E buffet makes all the dishes average. While this may be an improvement over the bland and starchy stuff, it's a downgrade if you were previously eating and enjoying the delicious parts.

[Voss]

And the portions are really, really small.

One of the bigger disappointments is the 1st level characters looked OK. They had some shit, and it was functional, and looked potentially interesting. But they never grow beyond that. And I don't fucking understand why. And really, they barely keep up with most of the numbers, and damage just full out falls behind. And 'epic' is the height of completely uninteresting.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Honestly, you're just not going to be able to stand up against a caster as a fighter ever. Mostly because even if your defenses are impossibly high, like a paladin, there are stuff that outright ignores any defense you've got (like maze). And there are just too many things to even defend against.

The main point is that this is the caster vs noncaster problem, again. This doesn't support your assertion that "So you actually did get more powerful in comparison as you leveled, but only offensively. Your defenses were still made of fail." You can defend against maze. As to "...there are just too many things to even defend against," you are subjectively defining 'too many.' It might be too many for you, it might not be for others.

Exactly my point. The game is all offense. What if I wanted to play a fighter who was based on resliency and not pure damage dealing capacity? I mean you pretty much can't play someone like Achilles in D&D, because by default you're made of glass, and your only real recourse is to pump your offense as high as you can and win initiative. That's boring if you ask me.

A character based upon "Resiliency" is meaningless. You don't get points for dying last and not helping your teammates. There are ways of contributing and not doing damage, and you can play a character like that. You can play a character who specializes in protecting his teammates, for example.

Really? Because I'm not quite so sure how to fix that problem.

My preferred houserule on the issue:

When the party is in a social situation, which then proceeds to combat, there is no surprise round for saying “I attack him!” first. Instead everyone rolls initiative and the game progresses from there. (note that people can ready an action if they are first in the initiative count and nothing has happened yet.)

If you would get a surprise round on an enemy, you can talk to them and not lose the surprise round. That is, if you sneak up on the BBEG and catch him unawares, you are allowed to have dialogue with him, and if the dialogue turns to combat, the combat will start with the PCs getting a surprise round.

It means that you can't make dramatic entrances or spend time talking to the villain before combat starts. You basically enter into combat SWAT style, where your assaults are based on surprise and swift action.

It's just not particularly cinematic fantasy if you ask me.

If teleporting in, or flying in on a Dragon aren't dramatic entrances, I don't know what is. See above about talking to villains. Surprise and overwhelming force are just a fundamental part of war and combat.

[Kaelik]

I'm going to have to jump in with Random for a bit, there is no problem making defensive characters.

If you want a "Resilient" character make a Sorcerer 1/Paladin 2/Monk 2/Hexblade 3/Fist of the Forest 1

Use the race with +3 LA that has a +8 to Cha, and gets Cha to saves and AC.

Now you have an AC equal to 10+Cha+Cha+Con+bonuses, nearly all of it touch as well, and you have Cha to saves three times.

You never get hit, you have evasion, mettle, and the most ridic saves ever. You are a freaking titan of not doing anything. You can stand around the battlefield better then anyone else ever.

The reason people don't make or play this character is that no one cares, because your allies ignore you because you never help them, and your enemies ignore you because you can't do anything to them.

Of course, in high level combat, rocket launcher tag isn't what I have experienced. Sure one hit kills. But it's always been a lot more like a sniper duel for me.

I mean, persisted shapechange and superior invisibility, mindblank, non-detection, ect. There is pretty much no way to detect you, so you run around doing crazy stuff, and your enemies have similar protections, so you basically play, peekabo, and everytime you see them they die, but you never do.

[RandomCasualty2]

The main point is that this is the caster vs noncaster problem, again. This doesn't support your assertion that "So you actually did get more powerful in comparison as you leveled, but only offensively. Your defenses were still made of fail." You can defend against maze. As to "...there are just too many things to even defend against," you are subjectively defining 'too many.' It might be too many for you, it might not be for others.

Well wizards are glass cannons to begin wtih. I mean come on. d4 hit dice. Doesn't take a heck of a lot of creativity to take that out. Just toss a single maximized AoE spell, and the wizard is going to die.

A character based upon "Resiliency" is meaningless. You don't get points for dying last and not helping your teammates. There are ways of contributing and not doing damage, and you can play a character like that. You can play a character who specializes in protecting his teammates, for example.

Right. well the point of a resiliency character is soaking blows. Unfortunately, again, there's really no way to protect your teammates in 3.5 without being offensive. Which basically means you're better off casting maze than having a high hp and AC total.

My preferred houserule on the issue:

When the party is in a social situation, which then proceeds to combat, there is no surprise round for saying “I attack him!” first. Instead everyone rolls initiative and the game progresses from there. (note that people can ready an action if they are first in the initiative count and nothing has happened yet.)

If you would get a surprise round on an enemy, you can talk to them and not lose the surprise round. That is, if you sneak up on the BBEG and catch him unawares, you are allowed to have dialogue with him, and if the dialogue turns to combat, the combat will start with the PCs getting a surprise round.

I guess that sorta works. Though it just seems weird that the other guy wants to launch a surprise attack in the middle of conversation and cant'.

If teleporting in, or flying in on a Dragon aren't dramatic entrances, I don't know what is. See above about talking to villains. Surprise and overwhelming force are just a fundamental part of war and combat.

Surprise and overwhelming force really aren't a big part of fantasy combat though, at least not as far as the heroes are concerned. Generally when the heroes use stealth, it's because they're grossly outnumbered and anything else would be suicide. Teleport/Scy assassinations just aren't heroic tactics, nor is sneaking in and slitting your opponent's throat.

Tools of war, sure. But in heroic fantasy, doing that is seen as dishonorable cowardice.

It may well be highly effective and efficient, but it's not the tools of a hero, it's the tools of the assassin.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Well wizards are glass cannons to begin wtih. I mean come on. d4 hit dice. Doesn't take a heck of a lot of creativity to take that out. Just toss a single maximized AoE spell, and the wizard is going to die.

Sure. If the wizard has no way to perceive an attack coming. If the wizard has no protections up. If the wizard stands in Fireball Formation. If the wizard has no contingency plans. If the wizard has no battlefield control. Etc.

Unfortunately, again, there's really no way to protect your teammates in 3.5 without being offensive.

You are just flat out wrong here. It should be obvious by now, considering the posts and threads discussing this topic.

Right. well the point of a resiliency character is soaking blows.
...
Which basically means you're better off casting maze than having a high hp and AC total.

Of course. You are better off doing something rather than doing nothing and having larger defenses.

Though it just seems weird that the other guy wants to launch a surprise attack in the middle of conversation and cant'.

That is a good thing. I personally don't want a game where everyone is clambering at the Dm saying "I attack him! Now!" at the beginning of every social encounter that could possibly lead to combat. My change allows players to talk to Npc's without worry of being screwed over for it. It allows you to talk and roleplay as much as you want, and doesn't punish you for it.

Surprise and overwhelming force really aren't a big part of fantasy combat though, at least not as far as the heroes are concerned. Generally when the heroes use stealth, it's because they're grossly outnumbered and anything else would be suicide. Teleport/Scy assassinations just aren't heroic tactics, nor is sneaking in and slitting your opponent's throat.

Tools of war, sure. But in heroic fantasy, doing that is seen as dishonorable cowardice.

It may well be highly effective and efficient, but it's not the tools of a hero, it's the tools of the assassin.

This is just a conflict of genres. Some people want combat to reflect the conventions of gritty realism, and indeed some fantasy utilizes this. Your personal preferences for "heroic fantasy" seem to be pretty specific. Reading your posts I just keep getting images of bad Saturday morning cartoons where verisimilitude is thrown out the window in favor of superficial dramatic tension.

Could you specify what is "heroic fantasy" and what is "dishonorable cowardice?"

[RandomCasualty2]

Sure. If the wizard has no way to perceive an attack coming. If the wizard has no protections up. If the wizard stands in Fireball Formation. If the wizard has no contingency plans. If the wizard has no battlefield control. Etc.

Well most of that stuff, barring contingency requires that you get to act first. Sure, wall of force stops anything, but it does you no good if you lost initiative.

As far as contingency, that depends on how your DM is going to treat it. Most DMs I know don't give contingency the ability to predict the future, only to react to what's already happened. So you could have a contingency "if I get turned to stone" or "if I get killed" but not "If I'm about to be turned to stone or killed"

If you allow contingency to act as an interrupt rather than as a reactive ability, then obviously wizards get a huge boost.

You are just flat out wrong here. It should be obvious by now, considering the posts and threads discussing this topic.

Most of the ways of "defense" stated here consist of taking actions away from foes in an offensive manner. Hold person, forcecage, glitterdust, etc. You're not so much defending as you are debuffing your opponent's ability to act.

That to me is just another form of offense.

Defending is more the 4E defender powers, stepping in front of attacks and taking the damage yourself, or having abilities that make it more advantageous for the creature to attack you than your allies.

This is just a conflict of genres. Some people want combat to reflect the conventions of gritty realism, and indeed some fantasy utilizes this. Your personal preferences for "heroic fantasy" seem to be pretty specific. Reading your posts I just keep getting images of bad Saturday morning cartoons where verisimilitude is thrown out the window in favor of superficial dramatic tension.

Odd because your stuff just reminds me of watching a game of Rainbow six. The offensive guys have MP-5s, the "Defenders" throw flashbangs and maybe you've got one guy with a lock picking kit. You don't bother talking, ever, since it's alot easier to just run in and flashbang the hell out of people.

Could you specify what is "heroic fantasy" and what is "dishonorable cowardice?"

Heroic fantasy is pretty much getting into a relatively fair and honorable combat with your opponent. IF anything your opponent has the advantage. Consider the end of Gladiator. Pretty much like that. Any episode of Buffy or Angel for that matter. The Mask of Zorro, pretty much all the fights in LotR (of course here there really wasn't anyone to assassinate). Record of Lodoss War (pretty much the entire thing)

Dishonorable Cowardice is basically just trying to get a cheap kill on your opponent. Whether it's gangbanging the warlord while he's squatting over his chamber pot, or slaughtering the dragon while it sleeps. Keep in mind that I don't think this is necessarily cowardice in the modern age, but in a fantasy setting, it is. And the fact that I really can't think of a single fantasy hero who kills people in their sleep or makes use of 4 on 1 teleport ambushes, I'm just going to let that speak for itself.

Heroes don't do those sorts of things. At least not fantasy heroes.

[Orion]

Actually, teleport ambushes are more common in the literature than you'd think.

Off the top of my head, a lot of that shit goes down in Lackey's Velgarth (Valdemar) books.

The Black Gryphon climaxes with the protagonist teleporting into the enemy palace, dropping an atom bomb, and teleporting out. This is actually a really awesome scene.