Roles - do they work?

[Voadam]

Similar perhaps, but it wouldn't get an unconscious ally back on his feet, so there is a critical difference.
Other than that I agree with you that a leader should not be defined solely by the fact whether he can heal or not, even though it is an important function. Reducing damage, other ways of healing and giving temp hitpoints should work just as well...

True, healing and buffing are not the same.

Healing does not make you do your job better, it means you can get back to doing your job after being impaired and do your job longer in combat. Healing never increases you over your baseline.

Buffing can make you do your job better. Hit harder, be more accurate, attack more often, move quicker, etc. With buffing you go above your baseline.

I think you could conceptually lump these two into the same role as 4e did or separate them out into their own roles. 3e's Mini handbook had a healer class and the marshall, for example which both seem conceptually to be viable classes for a group in combat.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Swordmage, primal guardian druid.

You may have a point here, as I only have the PHB and the DMG, so I am not familiar with the newer classes. But my understanding is that none of them blend roles (could be wrong though). That all of 4E is built around having characters that are one role.

...wut?

I guess what I am saying, is a character that functions as a highly mobile interceptor on the field. Someone who can get around defenders, can take tons of damage, and possible engage the controllers and leaders in melee.

 

[Voadam]

There has never been a class in D&D that only buffs, and never will be. You may find the role fun, but most players prefer to play an active role in combat themselves.

It was easy to do PC spellcaster builds that only buff. Limited spells combined with buffing spells. A wizard or sorcerer with all buffing spells does not really fill many other combat roles. Now the class could do different things and rolls, but it was easy to make a pure buffer if you wanted.

Is it possible to make a 4e warlord or cleric who just buffs? Or does the armor and hp necessarily give them another role as a front liner with a weapon (defender?).

 

[ProfessorPain]

The odd thing about this argument is that "shifting the halfling into position" is not part of the Defender role. That is technically the kind of thing that Leaders build their schticks around. If you spend a lot of time having your Fighter shift an ally halfling around into position, then you have already broken your Fighter outside of his designated Defender role, into a slightly more hybrid Defender/Leader role.

It seems to me that your real problem is not with roles at all. You simply seem to chaff at the fairly narrow range of abilities that 4E characters possess (characters have many powers to choose from, but can only choose a few, so no character can ever use anything close to the full range of their class's potential, and thus can end up feeling like they use the same trick over and over). This is certainly a valid complaint of the 4E system, but I don't think it has anything to do with Roles.

As for your proposed role involving a character with both a lot of hitpoints and a lot of mobility... I don't think such a thing is a "role" at all. I mean, the Barbarian is practically such a class already, and it is easily a Striker. I can also imagine a Defender that has both a lot of toughness, and a lot of mobility. Attributes like toughness and mobility are factors that can be used to construct an implementation of a role (in other words, a class), but they do not directly define roles themselves. You can theoretically create a Defender who doesn't mark and can't take very many hits himself, so long as he can still prevent his allies from getting hit by attacks. Nothing about the Defender role means "just like a Fighter".

Being able to shift adjacent allies is one of my fighters key powers; so I end up using it a lot.

This is a fair assesment. Though I think the narrow range of abilities are built around the role concept, so I do feel limited in my role as defender. So I think the role concept is somewhat to blame, as well as too much emphasis on balance (I often feel like my guy ends up equally powerful no matter what choices I make, and I guess I feel like the choices I make at character creation and as I level should be important.) Honestly with the fighter, my biggest complaint would be they don't really have striker potential. In 4E terms, I saw the fighter as a perfect blend of defender and striker. In my mind would have been better if they had fused those roles.

 

[malraux]

I'm not that familiar with the 4e classes. I thought the 4e fighter marked someone in melee so if they run past the fighter can wail on them hard, providing a disincentive to run past them or disengage with them. A 4e ogre can still push past the 4e fighter and take the damage he dishes out to get to the squishier foes right?

Not very easily. The 4e fighter's OA also ends movement, preventing the ogre from going past. At best, the ogre could use his standard action to move past, but at that point, he can't attack. Also, in 4e you get one OA per opponent's turn, so the fighter can do that to every enemy, not just the first one.

 

[Voadam]

As for the original topic, I really like monster roles. Brute and soldier in particular I think are great concepts for affecting the flow of combat and giving combats different feels.

I use some of the 4e monster roles conceptually when thinking about my 3e creatures and combats now.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I often feel like my guy ends up equally powerful no matter what choices I make, and I guess I feel like the choices I make at character creation and as I level should be important.

I'd just like to take a moment and quote Kain from Soul Reaver.

"Free will is an illusion."

The way D&D works there are really only two situations that you end up with if you care about power. Either you have no choice that matters or there are only a few correct choices with all others being sub-optimal. In my mind it's best just to come up with a fun concept and roll(role?) with it. Right now the edition is still young, so if you want options you are going to have to make them yourself. Later on WotC will shove enough choices down your throat to choke on.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well there is always necromancy...

Target: Even an unwilling ally

 

[Rel]

Honestly with the fighter, my biggest complaint would be they don't really have striker potential.

My question to you here would be How do you define Striker in this case?

What I mean is that no, the fighter isn't going to run up to the BBEG and lay out a Daily power that does 4[W] damage in one shot. BUT, the total aggregate damage dealt to the BBEG by the Fighter might approach that of the Rogue or Ranger if you take into account damage dealt by Opportunity Attacks while trying to protect those other characters. Especially if your weapon and feat selection supports doing as much damage as possible.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You may have a point here, as I only have the PHB and the DMG, so I am not familiar with the newer classes. But my understanding is that none of them blend roles (could be wrong though). That all of 4E is built around having characters that are one role.

Warlock: Striker + Controller
Warlord: Leader + Defender
Fighter: Defender + Striker
Paladin: Defender + Leader

These are probably the best examples. Usually, the primary role is aided by the secondary role. For example, the Fighter especially becomes a Striker if people ignore him (immediate action attacks and opportunity attacks.) The Paladins leader ability can undo damage enemies dealt to his allies, making their attacks ineffective in hindsight.