10% Controller, 50% Striker, 20% Leader, 20% Defender

[Stormonu]

One of the things that really got my goat about 4E was being pigeon-holed into a role, instead of being able to choose the direction I wanted to take the character in. I think classes can cover a variety of the four roles Wizards came up with, and being told which class covered what role was pretty much telling me how to run my character instead of letting me choose how I wanted roll with my character.

Like the Robin Laws player breakouts, I think that when someone chooses a class they should be able to mix and match abilities according to how they want the class to act, and to what degree each class should tackle that ability. I very much doubt that anyone would be satisfied with a character stuck 100% in a given role - I don't think such absolutism even exists in 4E currently (some powers having aspects of other roles for a little bit of variety).

Now, I wouldn't mind if they were to use the power system and put a descriptor on a given power or class ability for it's intended purpose, but don't pigeonhole me.

 

[Alzrius]

I like the idea, but this would be fairly difficult to put together for each class. Just eyeballing it, I'm guessing that building the classes so that they're each like this would be 10% luck, 20% skill, 15% concentrated power of will, 5% pleasure, 50% pain...and 100% reason to play in that game.

 

[keterys]

I will say... it's very easy to cover multiple roles in 4e, regardless of what it says on the class you've chosen.

At one point, one of my characters could have qualified for all 4 (decent defender, solid damage, 2 encounter heals, daze and immobilizes close up), for example. Not as well as someone focused entirely on one, but hey, that's a good thing.

The roles mostly helped them stop making classes that weren't functional at _any_ of them. Also for groups having a better idea what they were getting into. ("Err, what do you mean you can't heal. You're the cleric!?" or "Druids heal as good as clerics, right?" from previous editions, or more troubling "So, errm, your bard can do a lot of stuff, but what is he actually _good_ at?")

That said, I don't expect them to persist due to the prejudice that many have against them.

At least, not in an obvious advertised fashion. They might still be right there under the hood.

 

[Dausuul]

Roles were a ham-fisted way of accomplishing a worthy goal, to wit, making sure every class can do something useful. As in so many things, early 4E was insanely dogmatic about it, to the point of injecting the same mechanics (e.g., [insert flavor text] word for leaders, marking for defenders, and a once-per-round damage bonus for strikers) into all classes under a given role. Later, 4E loosened up and started playing around with variant mechanics and blurring the lines.

I think the idea underlying roles is a good one--each class should have something it's good at, and be consciously designed to be good at that thing, and balanced against other classes doing their things so that no class is just clearly better than another. I trust 5E will not take it to the extremes of core 4E, though.

 

[exile]

My two highest level 4E characters break down more like this...

Denerii Breezechaser: Elven Rogue / Daggermaster / Thief of Legend: 90% striker, 10% controller (only because she's got a few powers and supporting items to make her pretty good at popping minions)

Aleena of Amaunator: Human Cleric (MC Fighter) / Battle Chaplain: 80% leader, 20% defender (she's got a couple of weak marks and a feat that let's her punish enemies who would overlook her in melee)

 

[Aeolius]

My PCs tend to be "93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% evaporation, and 2% butterscotch ripple"

 

[FireLance]

I think roles were the alignment of 4e: they only cause problems when they are misunderstood, but it is so, so easy to misunderstand them.

Seriously, it's like "You can't do that, you're a [role]" killed "You can't do that, you're [alignment]" and took its stuff.

 

[exile]

My PCs tend to be "93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% evaporation, and 2% butterscotch ripple"

That sounds like the description of a new Ben and Jerry's flavor.

 

[FireLance]

One additional thought: if the same logic that tends to apply to combat roles gets applied to non-combat situations, you'd get silly ideas like: you're not a ranger, you can't follow tracks; or you're not a bard, you can't persuade people; or you're not a thief, you can't hide in shadows, move silently, pick pockets, open locks, or find and remove traps.

 

[On Puget Sound]

My sentinel druid has striker encounter powers, two encounter heals, the ability to threaten OAs in 16 squares, a lot of hit points, and an at-will area minion killer. I think later class design shows a lot more willingness to blur the roles, while making sure that each class does have a role.