Thanks for all the thoughts everyone. I got distracted by Unearthed Arcana and stopped thinking about 4E until today. Then I dusted off my D&DI sub and just spent three hours copying all of the 1st level at-will attack powers into an excel sheet so I can start doing some comparisons.
I did notice something related to my question of "what is a controller?". Sorcerers, who are strikers, have a lot of the area blaster type powers one would consider to be controller abilities.
So, a thought I was having was this for a simple baseline controller ability: what if controllers turned 1 round effects into save ends, and then penalized creatures saves against their powers. Then they'd have their control features last longer. Or, change "save ends" to be repeated attack rolls or rolls against a DC like (10+attack bonus) with bonuses like (Defense-10), then give controllers an attack bonus (yes, this lends itself to more average damage, but it's more constant damage so the control that needs to be applied is applied when it's needed).
I was leaning heavily towards the notion of each class able to be multiple roles based on their specialization. Each class would have a defining class ability that would key to a particular play style, but role would be a separate choice. Here were my starting thoughts on those styles (and these are separate from powers):
Barbarian) Rage: Barbarians play with a toggle, which switches their focus. Do they restrain themselves to keep access to certain abilities, or do they snap and switch to others? Probably will have auto rage at bloodied, or an action to induce it otherwise. Role) possibly all; defender: meat shielding; striker: obvious, though possibly not a base choice but a function of raging; controller: battle roars or big arching swings; leader: lead from the front bravura warlord type stuff.
Bard) Bardic Inspiration: Bards function by improving their allies or hindering their enemies. Their play style involves shifting small but constant effects. Role thoughts) likely all, Bard is easy.
Cleric) Channel Divinity: Cleric's domain choice functions almost like minor multiclassing. Their play style is one of hybridization. (As a note, to limit toe-stepping, the cleric is mostly a robewearing spellcaster, and even a War Cleric will be functionally different from a Paladin). Role) as a core class, ideally any role based on domain.
Druid) Wildshape: A druid's playstyle involves shifting forms. Form changes involve minor role changes. Role) the Druid would involve role switching. Different Wild shape choices would switch to different roles, while base form would be a separate fixed choice.
Fighter) Weapon Mastery: Im loathe to say it, but I intend Fighters to be the baseline. Their play style is about being good at what they do. I'm tempted to have some arms specializations, possibly with some ability to switch roles based on equipment (shield makes you a defender, polearm a melee controller, great weapon a striker ...), or just with a higher amount of baseline at-wills. Suddenly, I like the idea of a fighter having a "spellbook"-type ability where they can swap between different powers based on their equipment, showing that fighters are masters of techniques and arms and armor. Role) any.
Monk) Martial Arts Stances: My idea for monks is that they learn stances which flow between one another. Each stance could bring an at will and an encounter, but the encounter ends the stance (openers, finishers). Role) likely any other than leader.
Paladin) Divine Challenge: The paladin is about fighting a single opponent at a time. Whether their challenge is a defender's mark or a striker's mark for death is determined by their role choice (I see Paladins as defender, leader, or striker).
Ranger) Animal Companion: A ranger's playstyle involves playing two characters. The choice of companion is also the choice of roll: a beefy pet is a defender (it harries and only functionally attacks as mark counters), an attacking pet is a striker, a harassing pet grants a controller effect. Role) any other than leader.
Rogue) Sneak Attack: A rogue's playstyle involves searching for openings. I envision rogues skipping turns, with set-up followed by action. A defender rogue could still defend while they set up (swashbuckler harrying foes with feints and parries), a striker rogue would deal devastating attacks after delay, leader rogues would create or point out openings for their allies ... Role) as a core class, any role.
And then it gets harder ...
Sorcerer) A sorcerer's style is about having power all the time. Maybe they don't get dailies, but get enhancements to their at-wills or something. Sorcerers become their bloodline, so a dragon Sorcerer could pick up draconic powers and a necromantic Sorcerer gets vampire stuff. Role) unsure. Defenders could be summoners. Any other than leader?
Warlock) Curse: Sort of the anti-paladin, a warlock's playstyle involves trying to attack everything to spread their curse's effect. Role) any other than leader? I feel like that's too easy to say.
Wizard) Spellbook: where the fighter is the baseline weapon user, the wizard is the baseline spellcaster. Their play style involves having the right spell for the task at hand. Role) any. I do like the idea of summoners as defenders (or at least temp defenders if they summon a defender).
I'm still very much in the drawing board phase here. It maybe easier to tweak 5E (but that would require making a wholly new monster manual, in addition to upping player HP and adding a martial techniques system). I'm not sure which would be more work, and which would be more fulfilling.
As an aside, I had decided on these twelve classes before we learned of 5E's twelve, so 5E using the same twelve as me reinforced my belief that they're the most broad classes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk