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

[catastrophic]

One option would be the Stake-Changer.

The 'stakes' in this sense are the risks vs rewards of an encounter. Can you die in the combat? Or will you just have to flee if you lose? If you win, is it a minor victory, or a major one? The GM usually defines this stuff, but what if a PC class could do so?

So, a fifth role would be a role that could effect the meta-qualities of combat, which are normally up to the gm, and the random roll of the die. Gambling greater risks for higher rewards, and eroding foture good fortune to make up for current bad luck.

Imagine a Fateweaver class which could twist the skeins of fate to determine what the party risked in a given battle. If a battle is going well, thay can try and boost the outcomes of the fight, making it more important, while if it's going badly, they could insulate the party from negative effects.

But beware! For toying with fate is risky, and poor strategy and luck by the fateweaver could see the pcs suffering additional negative outcomes!

You could even do this without too much of a 'back end' by having their powers be based around normally random factors like die rolls, and resources like treasure parcels, and healing surges. A fateweaver could borrow a crit from you, to cancel a miss later on, or vice versa.

Each power source could have a class in the 'staker' role- The Arcane Fateweaver, the Divine Oracle, the Martial Mastermind, and so on.

 

[mkill]

I agree with blalien's grid. Any class design has to weigh offensive vs. defensive, and direct damage/healing vs. indirect effects (buff/debuff, tactical movement etc.). In that sense, every class will fall within one of the combat roles, even if there are big differences in detail.

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.

The 4 roles were explicitely created to give every character something useful to do in combat. What you suggest here creates a separate combat system, which would then have the 4 roles again in its own right (Dream Striker, Dream Defender etc.) Same goes for the idea of a social combat system.

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.

Using minions / bodyguards / summons is just a shtick. Depending on how the class uses them in combat, it would still fall into one of the roles in the grid. For example, summoning small exploding furballs would be a striker, while summoning something big and tough that can mark makes you a defender.
For a leader with a summon see the Shaman.

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.

Technically not a 5th role, but a mix. Still, a very interesting idea. It would create a number of headaches, but maybe less than hybrids / multiclasses already do. I'd definitely give it a try.

[MENTION=81381]catastrophic[/MENTION]: Your Fateweaver is either a Leader (tilt fate in the groups favor) or a controller (tilt fate against the enemies).

As for the Blaster (area damage dealer), that should be a striker variant, but actual class design has been less clear on that. There are two problems with blasters:
1. It is usually more effective to take one monster off the battlefield than damaging many
2. Many blast effects create friendly fire
Most classes are better off if pure area damage spells are only one part of their abilities.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

mkill hit it pretty well. The 4 existing combat roles really do cover the available possibility space. This is partially because the Controller and Leader roles cover a lot of ground.

Everything is going to be a hybrid of the existing four to a greater or lesser extent.

I will pedantically quibble with one thing, though:

The 4 roles were explicitely created to give every character something useful to do in combat.

Not really. The roles are really just D&D finally co-opting the language of the video games that really defined these roles. Of course, the roles were originally derived from how people were trying to play D&D (just with no mechanical support to really do it), so it's all circular. Those roles really developed somewhat organically. If you just look at D&D, they appear to pop out of nowhere and be explicitly designed, but that's not really the case.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You might be able to come up with a 5th role, but I think it will be straining the definitions to do so, and you'll almost assuredly be stuck on 5 or 6 max going that route. The more you subdivide the reponsibilities, the more the roles become like classes, and that has its own set of problems.

If you want more variety in roles in practice, then I'd say given every character two roles. That is, not just acknowledging a secondary influence (which is a good thing), but overtly designing so that every character has two roles. For starters, this gives you six strong base combinations:

Defender/Controller
Defender/Striker
Defender/Leader
Controller/Striker
Controller/Leader
Striker/Leader

Then on top of those, you have the option to layer a third secondary role, if you want.

And note that this kind of definition means that a character without any striker aspect at all can be really hurt on damage dealing, and so forth. A defender that only defends and doesn't do a moderate punch is boring. A defender/controller has enough to do without worrying about the damage dealt.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Despite my previous post, if I really wanted to expand the design space at the base building blocks, I'd do what I suspect they looked into early in 4E (but abandoned), and elevate power source to a prime mechanical influence, from the more flavor-oriented nature it now has. Now that they have a better idea of which power sources they want, this might even work. If you give the sources mechanical heft, then let's see what we are up to now? Martial/Arcane/Divine/Primal/Psionic/Shadow? What am I missing?

Even six sources cross-referenced with four roles is plenty of options, even if you don't actually develop classes for all 24. But if you really want diversity, stick with one role and use 2 sources for every character.

Time you decide role, power source, ranged or melee, you've covered an awful lot of ground. Then, on top of that, you come up with some "power sources" that aren't about combat. This is where you bring in the out of combat opportunities. Since every character pulls from two sources, you can mix and match to make things work:

1. Want something more or less like 4E? Pick two combat sources and roleplay the non-combat stuff or use skill challenges.

2. Want a bit of enforced mechanical broadening of characters, but still keep the 4E combat balance? Everyone picks one combat source and one non-combat source.

3. Want an earlier style, with some characters shining at different times? Let each player pick any two sources of their choice.

Or you could also go from a flavor/option drive. For example, I don't want my "fighter" to have any magic. So I pick martial and some non-combat option to stay as far away as possible from arcane, divine, etc. Or I want my "wizard" to be even more of the "Ur Wizard" type. I pick arcane and some kind of "lore" non-combat option.

 

[Mengu]

In my head, D&D has 2 roles, melee, and range. That's it. Everything else is "stuff your character does". With each action, you do a % of each role.

Say a goliath runepriest pops stone's endurance, walks up to an elite hits with word of binding, action points, hits with word of diminishment in defensive rune mode, and tells everyone, I'll hold this big guy up, you guys, go deal with everything else. At this point, he is very much being a defender and a controller. A couple rounds later, he is beat up, but his buddies have cleared out everything else, and are ready to aid him, he starts with Rune of Mending to heal himself, uses shield of sacrifice to heal 2 others, and drops Rune of the Final Act. Now he is leading. His buddies fail to finish off the elite, when his turn rolls around, he wants the elite gone because there is a time crunch, and he doesn't want the elite taking another turn, minor action makes the target his bravo prey, smacks with a 2[W] power, triggers his Quick Weapon daily, and smacks once more, finishing off the elite, concluding his striker turn.

You can keep adding more roles to the game, but it's all just labels, nothing more. Everyone does every role, it's just a percentage. A fighter is a defender, but when his marks are being ignored, or when he is pulling out rain of blows or trip up, he is more of a striker. An invoker is a controller, but when he drops Rain of Blood on an enemy group, he is really leading. A rogue is striker, but when he hits with compel the craven, granting all his melee allies opportunity attacks against a target, he is being a leader. The paladin is a defender, but on the turn he uses Battle Cry, Lay on hands, healing word from his cleric multiclass, action point (her's armor healing), Righteous Smite to hand out temps, it really feels like you have another leader at the table.

I've seen a wizard step in front of the paladin to protect him. I've seen the fighter dish out more damage and take down more enemies than the avenger in an encounter. I've seen a buffed hunter do more damage than an assassin who spent most his time blind in an encounter. Roles are rather swappable, depending on what is happening at any given moment during an adventure. everyone has hit points, everyone has healing surges, everyone does damage. When your paladin is down to 0 surges, and the hunter ranger is sitting at his full complement of surges, maybe he needs to get out there and take a few hits for the paladin. When your leader is down for the count, maybe the hunter needs to do some healing.

The roles don't really define classes. They just give you an idea of what the majority % work of a character will be, with a typical build.

I don't even think the roles are as well defined as you might think. If I said striking is just damage, some people would be coming at me with pitchforks, as a degree of mobility, self reliance, and survivability are often attached to the striker role. So maybe mobility should be a role? Is survivability a role? Defending is also multiple roles, you have to be able to "draw aggro" encouraging monsters to attack you (or suffer consequences), and take a punishment. But the ranger in my game draws aggro like nobody's business, so is he a defender too? My runepriest can take punishment like the best of them, is he a defender? Defender fanatics will undoubtedly say no, because neither character can do both.

Roles are pretty nebulous, and we could certainly create more nebulous roles. But it's I think best to think of each character as a pie chart of role functionalities.

 

[wlmartin]

Hello Everyone,

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?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Candlestick Maker




Everyone needs candles right?

 

[SSquirrel]

If there was a fifth that was unique in any way, I'd think it would either be a hybrid type that is a pretty even split of two roles, which is already a common thing, or character intended to excel in non-combat encounters with a significant skill repertoire.

That just sounds like the Bard made into an actual role. I almost played a Gnome Bard for our current campaign (went Halfling Daggermaster Rogue instead heh) and he was gonna be a lot of fun. Lowest skill was a 9, lots of attack penalties to throw out and he even had access to the Death Subway (Arcane Gate L10 Wizard Utility) courtesy of the Fey Beguiler PP. My old Dark Sun group dubbed it the Death Subway when we used it to surprise some enemies and we eviscerated the psionicist of the enemy group.

I don't know that there really needs to be a 5th role. The 4 roles of 4E are built around the 4 core classes of Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric and most character ideas can fit w/in one of those general concepts.