Controller, Defender, Leader, Striker AND... a Fifth Role!?!?

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Besides some possibility with scrapper vs. blaster opening up some room for variation in the striker role, I don't really think there's a viable 5th combat role. Everything I can conceive fits within shades of the controller/defender gradient or is too narrow to be particularly useful (see: Lurker).

Non-combat roles have some space, but I think it's a very positive feature of the 4e system that everyone has a combat role. I wish everyone also had a viable non-combat role. (Fighter, I'm looking at you). The way things are now, some classes can effectively choose to fulfill at least 3 if not 4 of monster knowledge guy, ritual guy, wilderness guy, thief guy/trap guy, face guy, and spotter, while others are lucky if they manage to do one thing really well besides Athletics.

EDIT:
The pacifier idea is really just another controller, albeit one with a unique skill-based hook. You're removing combatants from the fight or imposing penalties and/or action denial. I like the idea, but it's really just another controller.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I would think it may be easier to subdivide roles.

The Essential method seems to go along the lines of:

Defender - Melee only
Leader - Melee mostly
Striker - Melee, but with ranged options
Control - Ranged

So some of the older ranged based strikers could be their own thing. The sorceror especially, with the ranged and area effect stuff is a mass damage striker, while most are single target. Within the strikers there is a variety of spike damage vs. constant good dpr.

The sort of weird nature of the controller could be a way to split things up.

Take the striker and controller, and turn them into three roles. The pure striker role, who is mostly single target based, melee or 'close range', good mobility, etc. The pure control role is about crowd control and debuffs. Controlling enemy movement (slow, immobilize, restrained, prone, difficult terrain, slide/push/pull), limiting actions (daze/stun), and penalties to attack/defense, etc. The 'discouragement' type stuff can also fit there (i.e. if you do X then Y happens, like movement causing you to fall, or attacking dealing damage, etc). The third would be something like the sorceror, or the original wizard. Attacks which do damage to lots of targets at once, and stuff that dumps out ongoing damage, auto damage stuff like conjurations with auras, zones that deal auto damage, etc. In MMO terms, it's the DoT guy instead of the DPS guy.

As it is though, I think it's easier just to have the 4 roles, as the 5th wheel can let the group tweak things, and doesn't require that everyone is 'optimal' at their role, etc.

 

[delericho]

The lurker class has be tried and it failed. See the original Assassin and there Shroud and Shade Form mechanics.

Isn't the Vampire class also a Lunker? I thought the jury was still out on that one?

(Also, of course, does that fact that it has been tried and failed, once, mean that the concept is automatically a bust?)

 

[Xris Robin]

A lurker is just a striker who waits and then novas. Which is why it fails, because front loaded damage is better than back loaded. Killing a monster in the first round helps the party. Standing around for four rounds and then killing something, less so.

 

[blalien]

The thing about the four roles is that they fundamentally define anything you would want to do in combat.

In combat, you have two goals: reduce the enemies' HP, and not get your own HP reduced. You can contribute in two ways: you can directly affect your party's or the enemy's HP total, or you can do something that will affect the HP total later. In other words, a character may be offensive or defensive, and may contribute directly or indirectly.

A striker is a direct offensive role. He immediately contributes to lowering the enemy's HP total.
A leader is a direct defensive role. He boosts the party's HP total and keeps them alive longer.
A controller is an indirect offensive role. He doesn't do a lot of damage, but he makes it easier for the other party members to deal damage in the future.
A defender is an indirect defensive role. He marks enemies now and prevents his allies from taking damage later.

This grid isn't strictly defined. You could argue that a leader's buffs are indirect offensive, or a controller's debuffs are indirect defensive. But any action a character can take in combat can fit into one part of that grid. If you wanted to add a fifth role, it would have to either not involve combat, or you would have to redefine the other four roles.

A possible fifth role is a noncombat role, like a skill monkey. But D&D 4e is based on the assumption that most encounters are combat, so Wizards wouldn't publish a class whose primary focus is diplomacy.

You could look to other games for inspiration. For example, in Spycraft the roles are roughly socialization, information gathering, stealth, and combat. Or in WoW there is the aggro manager, which keeps too many enemies from ganging up on the defender. But I don't think a fifth role would add anything to D&D as its design philosophy is now.

 

[LostSoul]

The thing about the four roles is that they fundamentally define anything you would want to do in combat.

In combat, you have two goals: reduce the enemies' HP, and not get your own HP reduced. You can contribute in two ways: you can directly affect your party's or the enemy's HP total, or you can do something that will affect the HP total later. In other words, a character may be offensive or defensive, and may contribute directly or indirectly.

Going with this, could you create a role that bypasses HP? Or would that be part of the controller's thing?

 

[On Puget Sound]

Roles that other game systems have that aren't reflected in the four:

Decker, from Shadowrun: a Dream Warrior, who encounters and engages enemies in a whole separate environment (the dream world). It worked poorly in shadowrun because 4/5 of the party members were reduced to spectators, but maybe a Quori/ Kalashtar based campaign could find a way to make it work.

Plotter, from Vampire: the Masquerade: Taking the "face" to an actual combat-like level, where you sneer at an enemy and he drops his sword, or (at paragon) drop a rumor and it starts a revolution. Come to think of it, this is just like the first example, creating a new battlefield especially for this new role to fight in.

Noble/Patron, from Traveller: Your shtick is simply having and managing resources. Another extreme version of the face, and a role that many characters of any class fall into as a secondary role, depending on the campaign. Not every group can keep this role interesting. If this were a separate class I would give it combat powers somewhere between a summoner and a warlord - he fights using the minions and bodyguards he brings along, and has powers to enhance and inspire them. Should break the action economy rules.

Summoner/ necromancer, various including D&Dv1-3.5: This could actually be a legitimate role for groups who don't mind dumping the action economy rule entirely. Instinctive and intrinsic actions for companions are already heading that way. I know there was a reason D&D4e did not include them... but I miss them.

Shapechanger/ rolechanger: not a new role, but might make an interesting class. Something that can change forms and change roles between, and maybe during, encounters.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Shapechanger/ rolechanger: not a new role, but might make an interesting class. Something that can change forms and change roles between, and maybe during, encounters.

They alluded to something like this--a class whose role changes at some point in the middle of combat, in the upcoming Heroes of the Feywild.

 

[Caerin]

I've got a strangely effective character that switches roles constantly in our Dark Sun game (we've gone 1-9). High charisma hybrid Warlock/Ardent, Templar theme, multiclass Wizard (although the Wizard part doesn't do a whole lot). Definitely a face, kind of a backup everything else and a whole lot of fun.

 

[Psikus]

The adventuring roles of controller, defender, leader and striker are well established. I was wondering if there was a 5th role, what would it be? Would it involve splitting up the current four roles and re-sharing them out in five new ways; or is there room for a totally new role?

I have long thought that the Controller role wasn't all that well defined, and would work much better as two separate roles: the Controller, and the Blaster.

- The Blaster role would cover characters focused on damaging multiple enemies at once, typically at a range (as Sorcerers and Evocation Mages currently do).
- The Controller would do little to no damage, but be huge on inflicting negative conditions, moving enemies around, and creating hindering zones. Enchanter mages and, to a lesser degree, Illusion mages are good examples of this.

Both are attractive concepts with a bit of overlap (since pure control often affects multiple enemies at once and can deal some damage as an afterthought, anyway), but they pull a character in opposite directions, with negative consequences for the game. I think 4E would have been better served if each controller class, or at least each class build, had been clearly focused on one of these roles, with appropriate class features.

This is how I would apply these labels to existing controller classes:

- Wizard (PHB) - Blaster/Controller. (it is possible to build it as a pure blaster, though it's not terribly effective).
- Invoker (PHB2) - Blaster/Controller.
- Druid (PHB2) - Controller/Striker, or maybe Controller/Defender, depending on build
- Psion (PHB3) - Controller/Blaster
- Seeker - Controller/Striker (but hardly good at either role)
- Mage (HotFL) - Blaster (Evoker, Pyromancer), Controller (Enchanter, Illusionist), or something in between, depending of schools.
- Hunter (HotFK) - Controller/Striker, with a tiny bit of Blaster.
- Binder (HoS) - Controller/Striker, but mostly a worse Warlock
- Sorcerer - Blaster (yeah, not an actual controller, but it's not exactly a striker, either).