I Need Some Class [4E homebrew challenge]

[Zeta Kai]

This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127881) has me thinking that there must be some way for a class to be functional in 4th Edition without conforming to the strictures of the four party roles. I want to prove that a viable class can be made that is not a controller, a defender, a leader, or a striker. Unfortunately, I'm very, very busy with other projects right now, & I'm not confident in my 4E homebrew chops yet. So here's a challenge to the forum, for anyone who is brave enough to take up the task.


Goal
To create a class that can function effectively without being a controller/defender/leader/striker.


Guidelines
A fully-written class is not necessary, just a clearly-written concept that unambiguously defies the four normal conventions of party role.
The class must be balanced & functional in combat, as well as able to work within a party.
The class can do anything you wish to imagine otherwise, as long as the previous guidelines are met.

[Jokasti]

Tattoo Monk: This class uses a special ink derived from a rare plant to magically inscribe runes onto his skin. These tattoos are used as spells, but since their abilities are somewhat sporadic, these monks have learned to fight with weapons in case their magic fails them. Each different tattoo is a "spell" and does one of 4 random things. They can use their tattoos to attack enemies, enhance themselves, and heal allies. However, each tattoo is physically taxing, and low-level tattoo monks can only have 1 or 2 tattoos at any time, while epic tattoo monks can have 15.
This what you are looking for?
Also: I believe you said you were looking for some class. (www.xkcd.com/72)

[jmbrown]

I was actually going to make a topic like this but you beat me to it! I'll happily admit to being proven wrong. I say this because I've been running 4E games since it came out last year and in all the homebrew rules I've created nothing that deviated from the core roles has ever worked.

I'll be participating as well. I want to try and break the role reliance because I seriously don't think it can be done.


Tattoo Monk: This class uses a special ink derived from a rare plant to magically inscribe runes onto his skin. These tattoos are used as spells, but since their abilities are somewhat sporadic, these monks have learned to fight with weapons in case their magic fails them. Each different tattoo is a "spell" and does one of 4 random things. They can use their tattoos to attack enemies, enhance themselves, and heal allies. However, each tattoo is physically taxing, and low-level tattoo monks can only have 1 or 2 tattoos at any time, while epic tattoo monks can have 15.
This what you are looking for?
Also: I believe you said you were looking for some class.

I can see a possible build for this. His tattoos would be the focus for his powers.

You said tattoos can attack enemies and they're physically taxing; you could have an at-will power that deals massive damage in exchange for a penalty or giving your enemies a bonus to hit you (similar to the barbarian). "enhance themselves and heal allies" is a leader's job so an at-will power could be a burst effect that lets a character spend a healing surge + gives them a bonus to attack or something. At-will powers are limited to 2 but additional encounter/dailies can be obtained.

Based on the information provided, this character neatly falls in the leader role while leaning towards striker.

[Jokasti]

I was actually going to make a topic like this but you beat me to it! I'll happily admit to being proven wrong. I say this because I've been running 4E games since it came out last year and in all the homebrew rules I've created nothing that deviated from the core roles has ever worked.

I'll be participating as well. I want to try and break the role reliance because I seriously don't think it can be done.



I can see a possible build for this. His tattoos would be the focus for his powers.

You said tattoos can attack enemies and they're physically taxing; you could have an at-will power that deals massive damage in exchange for a penalty or giving your enemies a bonus to hit you (similar to the barbarian). "enhance themselves and heal allies" is a leader's job so an at-will power could be a burst effect that lets a character spend a healing surge + gives them a bonus to attack or something. At-will powers are limited to 2 but additional encounter/dailies can be obtained.

Based on the information provided, this character neatly falls in the leader role while leaning towards striker.
Yes, but his tattoos can also control enemies, and can defend allies.
One tattoo could negate half the damage done to an adjacent ally, with the monk taking one eighth the damage every round for four rounds. Something like that, but the tattoos allow him to do anything and everything. This would also allow for some serious homebrewing.

[jmbrown]

My current ideas revolve around two things:

Runic Knight. Inspired by Celes in Final Fantasy VI, this is a class that can negate powers with certain key words in order to store energy then release that energy to do certain things. For example, if she's targetted in an area attack she can negate the damage and store it as energy points. An at-will power could let her deal damage to an enemy equal to the stored energy or let an ally spend a healing surge with a bonus equal to 1/10 the stored energy.

Problem is, the character falls under the defender role since she keeps enemies from attacking her ally. The energy points system would be a new addition but the character itself is still a defender at heart.

My second idea is the Karma Mage. His powers revolve around giving enemies penalties when they do well and allies bonuses when they do poorly. He'd have a single, uniform at will power like "Karmic Shift" which would have a broad ruling like "If an ally within 10 squares of you misses an attack he gains a +2 bonus to the next attack on his next turn. Secondary: If an enemy hits an ally within 10 squares of you that ally takes damage equal to half the damage it did."

The problem is "how will this character defend himself" which is where 4E's roles come into play. If the character has ranged attacks that deal high damage, he'll fall into the striker category. If his attacks cause enemies to shift focus to him, he's a defender. Currently I'm thinking having a power that deals damage if the enemy damages you and grants an ally combat advantage against that enemy (although granting combat advantage is a leader ability).

[Alteran]

Zeta, I think that you're looking at class roles in the wrong way. WotC didn't sit down and choose four categories that classes would fit into, they determined what categories most or all classes could be classified under. The reason that it's hard to make a class that won't fit into these roles is that they cover the four main aspects of combat: protecting allies, damaging enemies, buffing allies, and debuffing/disabling enemies. What class doesn't do any of these things?

Class roles only define the general focus of a class. You may not be able to give a 3.5 Wizard any role, but that's because he has the potential to do all of them equally well. Part of the improved balance in 4e relies on the assumption that nobody is able to do everything. Classes with a more specific "purpose" help achieve that goal. Remember, they say nothing about how the main aim of the role is achieved. Some defenders protect allies by discouraging enemies with marks and extra damage, while others reduce damage taken by allies or physically keep enemies near them.

If you think class roles are too limiting, remember this: class roles are very very vague descriptions of what a class does. It's impossible to predict how a class will play based on its role, all you get is an idea of which aspect of combat it's best at. How it covers that aspect can vary wildly. Consider the Barbarian, Rogue, and Sorcerer. All of them are strikers, and all of them are extremely different classes in play. Even within each class, one can create many different builds that result in completely different play styles. Furthermore, class roles are not only vague, they're inaccurate. I can't think of a single class that only has one role. Some builds of certain classes will, but I don't believe there is any class that is restricted to a single role. The fact that one role is given for each class doesn't mean it can't include aspects of others. I'm going to go back to the three previously mentioned classes for a minute. Barbarians can be Striker/Leaders or Strikers (with maybe a bit of defender). The majority of rogue builds are overwhelmingly Striker, but they'll often have control aspects. Some rogue builds can be very controlling, they get a lot of great single-target disabling powers. Sorcerers are almost always Striker/Controllers, but some builds focus more on the AoE aspects of control while others have more of a debuffing/disabling angle.

Roles are only as restricting as you make them. Still, I must admit that I dislike the way that they make some players think in boxes. More than once (usually as a defender or leader), I've been told that I'm not "doing my job". Sometimes you need to remind players that the only job a character has is the one that you give it. If you make a fighter that focuses more on doing damage and less on defending, then that's what it's supposed to be doing. Class roles are classifications that summarize what a class will probably be best at achieving in combat, they are not "jobs" or restrictions.

Considering your challenge, I feel it's an exercise in futility. All it will do is make a homebrewer feel frustrated, as they'll almost inevitably be stuck with an overpowered, underpowered, or overly general class. To address each of your points specifically:




Goal
To create a class that can function effectively without being a controller/defender/leader/striker.


What else needs to be achieved in combat? The end goal is always to kill your enemies, and every role covers one of the four main aspects of combat that eventually lead to the death of your foes. Dealing the damage (Striker) is an obvious one. Stopping enemy damage-dealers (Defender) is another. Leader/Controller are also complimentary roles, with the aims of empowering your team and weakening the other. This makes it easier for your side to resist or deal damage, and harder for the other side to do the same. If you can present a fifth aspect of combat with similar importance, I'd consider the challenge feasible (although you would likely consider it another role).



A fully-written class is not necessary, just a clearly-written concept that unambiguously defies the four normal conventions of party role.


It's possible to defy the conventions without not using any role, I suppose. You could make a class that equally fills two or more roles. That's much easier than making a class that fills none of the roles, but it has its own issues. I'm addressing those in my response to the next quotation.



The class must be balanced & functional in combat, as well as able to work within a party.



This is where the "multiple roles" idea sort of falls apart. Obviously, no class can both lead as well as a Cleric and defend as well as a Fighter. That's simply not fair. The only way I can possibly see this working is with a class that covers two roles well, but not as well as a class with one primary role. However, it's also not necessary. The Hybrid rules are very effective for making a character that balances two roles. While you might be able to achieve greater internal synergy and consistency with a single class, it's my opinion that your efforts would best be spent creating a normal class instead. Once you have a full class, it's trivial to create a hybrid half-class. If you try to cover more than two roles, then I feel the character will be too stretched. D&D has always favoured specialization, and once you have more than two roles you won't be very good at any of them. To remain "balanced" you need to make each role of the class weak, compared to a dedicated class. If a three-role class was able to compete with single-role classes, in all three roles, then it would be too powerful. If it covers one or two roles well and another one or two in a supplementary way, then you're just describing single-role or hybrid characters with more precision. The phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none" is very appropriate here. Such a character will simply be outshone by a single-role or hybrid character in every aspect they cover. They'll be able to do a lot, but none of it well.



The class can do anything you wish to imagine otherwise, as long as the previous guidelines are met.



There isn't anything to debate about this part, but it gives me a chance to again bring up the fact that what role a class fills is only a small part of what the final thing is. It's these other things that make a class, not the role. You may have inferred this from what I've said already, but I think the best way to look at a "role" is a goal to be achieved. Well, a suggested goal to be achieved. If you find a way to use a Defender class that isn't defending, more power to you. But back to what I was saying, I feel that the role of a class is simply what you can expect them to achieve in the end. There are any number of ways that you can fill a role, and that's what makes each class unique. Roles are not a restriction, because classes have always done these things. 3.5 classes also defend, strike, lead, and control. More consistent focus on roles is a necessity of balance, and that consistent focus is what allows WotC to describe each class with a single role. I'm not going to deny the relative lack of mechanical diversity in 4e compared to 3.5, but it's not the class role system that does it. If I had to pick a cause for that, I'd say it's the power system (which we're seeing changed a bit with the new Psionic classes, actually).

The class role system isn't as big a deal as people are making it. It's a little descriptor, a hint, a general idea of what a class is best at. Nobody should let a role define their character.

Edit: To correct myself, it seems that the defender was a bit of a 4e invention. While there were certainly classes with defending abilities in 3.5, the now-common methods of marking a target and imposing some kind of Bad Stuff upon them if they don't obey it is apparently a new thing. At least, I haven't heard of anything in 3.5 like that. Except for the knight, maybe? I've heard that class was focused on defending, but I don't know the specifics of its abilities. Regardless, what most 4e players consider defending seems to be a relatively new concept. The need for defense exists in 3.5, but the 4e methods of defending are new.

[Jokasti]

My current ideas revolve around two things:

Runic Knight. Inspired by Celes in Final Fantasy VI, this is a class that can negate powers with certain key words in order to store energy then release that energy to do certain things. For example, if she's targetted in an area attack she can negate the damage and store it as energy points. An at-will power could let her deal damage to an enemy equal to the stored energy or let an ally spend a healing surge with a bonus equal to 1/10 the stored energy.

Problem is, the character falls under the defender role since she keeps enemies from attacking her ally. The energy points system would be a new addition but the character itself is still a defender at heart.

My second idea is the Karma Mage. His powers revolve around giving enemies penalties when they do well and allies bonuses when they do poorly. He'd have a single, uniform at will power like "Karmic Shift" which would have a broad ruling like "If an ally within 10 squares of you misses an attack he gains a +2 bonus to the next attack on his next turn. Secondary: If an enemy hits an ally within 10 squares of you that ally takes damage equal to half the damage it did."

The problem is "how will this character defend himself" which is where 4E's roles come into play. If the character has ranged attacks that deal high damage, he'll fall into the striker category. If his attacks cause enemies to shift focus to him, he's a defender. Currently I'm thinking having a power that deals damage if the enemy damages you and grants an ally combat advantage against that enemy (although granting combat advantage is a leader ability).

Runic Knight = Awesomesauce. Have you played FFTA, and if so, you could incorporate the Nu Mou Runemaster's (his name escapes me) powers. It ties with this.
Kamic Mage= Not as much. Maybe more like a Wild Magic Sorcerer, where you roll d%, and do what happens, then the next turn, do the complete opposite. Example: you roll 50 + 3, giving you 53, which is "Increase allies Con by 6 for 10 turns, as long as they are within 20 feet, giving them 3 x level temporary hit points". Next turn, look up 35 (opposite) which is "Decrease enemies Con by 6 for 10 turns, as long as they are within 20 feet".
Something like that?

[Starsinger]

The only thing I could think of would be like a generalist class... a red mage of sorts, who would have at every level a defender power, a striker power, a leader power, and a controller power.