A bit behind, but when it comes to fighter/defensive build design, what play styles are you shooting for?
To me, a lot of players usually min/max a sword and board character to be a defensive powerhouse. Little more than fire and forget threat holders who act as a massive steel wall while their 'real' characters do the actual work of engaging in combat. Combine that with the idea that certain characters are more 'hands off' compared to the wizard makes me wonder what you guys plan to do that will interest players looking for sword + shield?
You're playing an entire party, not a single character. In 4E, class design (with understandable motives) moved toward unified progressions where every player sitting at the table, regardless of class, had about the same number of actions to choose from on a round-by-round basis.
In PE, all classes start out with the same number of active-use or modal Abilities (2) vs. passive Abilities (1) (N.B.: spell sets are counted as "one" Ability for casters, so the casters technically have more, but they come from the same resource pool). As levels rise, some classes push more toward modal/passive and others more toward active. Fighters continue to gain modal/active abilities as levels rise, but the balance with passive abilities is about 1:1. Wizards gain active abilities (more spells) every level, but fighters (who are the most passive characters overall) still have a lot of active-use/modals to manage. If you just click Defender and plant a fighter without ever using his or her other modals and active-use abilities (like Knockback, which is really valuable), he or she might be able to hold a line reasonably well, but you're not using them to their potential. And if you really want to manage your fighter even more, you can buy active-use Talents to do so.
