Roles - do they work?

[Spatula]

Maybe I want something that is really a blend of controller and defender.

Swordmage, primal guardian druid.

Or what if I want someone who strictly serves to buff all the player characters (without any other role whatsoever on the field).

Tactical warlord.

Or what if I want a character whose only role is to move really well throughout the battlefield, and take lots of damage.

...wut?

 

[TwinBahamut]

I think what I find constraining about the roles is that I always seem to be limited to the same tactic in combat, and I just don't feel like I have enough options available to me. Even with the powers, my fighter is always getting tied up with opponents or shifting the halfing into positition. I feel like a basketball player, not a hero.

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".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I can also imagine a Defender that has both a lot of toughness, and a lot of mobility.

Swordmage.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I am in fact now playing an Eladrin Fighter with some powers that allow her to move and shift a lot (Pass Forward from Martial Power is one of the best utilities ever that way). Combined with the teleport and a greatspear, this character makes a nice balance between defender and striker. Add to that the multiclass feats to allow her 1/day inspiring word and a 1/encounter heal (lvl 6 warlord utility) and you have some leader abilities in there as well.
She moves fast if she wants, hits hard when needed and has a bit of healing thrown in there for comfort. She's not the primary defender, but she's been very useful to get that extra oomph in the place where it's needed.

So who says you can't combine roles? Sure, 4e is stricter in which class can do which roles than in 3e, but it's not like you suddenly can't do anything at all aside from your assigned role...

 

[Voadam]

Wizard... a leader? Did you miss the part of leader that says you heal, something the D&D Wizard has been incapable of for decades?

Wait, is someone whose viable niche in combat is to buff the group a leader even though he does not heal or is this a fifth role?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Wait, is someone whose viable niche in combat is to buff the group a leader even though he does not heal or is this a fifth role?

It would be the close to a leader, but I am not sure it would be sufficient. Of course, it might be possible, but his buffs would need to be very strong to compensate for the lack of healing. Which means that he needs a strong class feature to achieve that, since his powers need to stay within certain limits to not be overpowered on multi-classing. I suppose a lot about granting extra attacks, refreshing powers, and maybe granting resistance or negating damage.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Wait, is someone whose viable niche in combat is to buff the group a leader even though he does not heal or is this a fifth role?

I would say that a buffing focused wizard could be classified as a leader. I think that WotC erred when they said that leaders need to be able to heal. What they really need to be able to do is mitigate damage. If a wizard were to create a barrier that partially absorbed damage, he would be providing a similar function to a cleric restoring lost HP.

 

[Voadam]

The fighter was barely a defender. He had no capability to prevent his foes from circumventing him and attacking his allies, nor did he have any way to make it more appealing for a foe to attack him instead of a weaker ally. Why would my ogre fight the fighter when he can crush the wizard easily, or prevent the cleric from healing his party?

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? If he comes in from a distance before the fighter closes he can move around the fighter and get to the others still right?

I don't see the difference in kind between that and AoOs from 3e or the nonwithdraw style of movement in 1e and 2e. The fighter has new powers designed to stop foes that are class specific but everybody who is a shield wall with a weapon acts like a defender role.

In Basic to 3e the fighter is a big combat threat dishing out lots of damage accurately, he handles the striker role of parties in that respect. An ogre who ignores the fighter and lets the fighter wail on him so the can ogre can get to squishy foes is generally opening himself up to a world of hurt.

Picturing an ogre ignoring the strong guy with the greatsword chopping into him so he can get to the cleric and the wounded guy in the back who are not chopping into him causes a disconnect for me. I'd expect the ogre to deal with the big threat who is actively wounding and threatening him and within reach.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I would say that a buffing focused wizard could be classified as a leader. I think that WotC erred when they said that leaders need to be able to heal. What they really need to be able to do is mitigate damage. If a wizard were to create a barrier that partially absorbed damage, he would be providing a similar function to a cleric restoring lost HP.

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...

 

[Scars Unseen]

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...

Well there is always necromancy...