Also, roles aren’t an end-all. A team lacking a role may be slightly less able, but the DM can make up for this by either tailoring events towards that class, or, for a tougher challenge, attacking that weakness, i.e. attacking a group lacking a defender with Brutes, or attacking a group with no controller with a lot of Minions.

Just my take. I’ve not been doing this for as long as most of you have, so feel free to disregard it.

Paladins, on the other hand, get some interesting abilities around being holy: laying hands, dealing radiant damage, etc.

I think the work that that Wizards has done makes it pretty easy to custom design new classes within a role (and power source), and that’s a better path to follow than the path of “classless roles”, in my opinion.

Toldain’s last blog post..Where’s the Pipeweed?

I think that this is pushing your argument to its logical conclusion, but fear it is an advancement to far.

Roles perform similar options, in so much that strikers deal damage and defenders are meant to withstand and attract enemy fire . . .

However, the classes in 4e manage (more often than not) to achieve there role in unique enough ways that the the role is still secondary to it.

So, while all strikers deal extra damage and all have certain ‘expectations’ on them for combat, a few caveats still place the character class above and separate from role:

a) Combat is still not the end all be all for what defines a character. The roles almost exclusively deal with the ends towards which or the means by which a class operates solely in the field of battle. If the game was 100% combat, then yes roles may elevate above class choice.

and

b) admittedly, combat is a big part of the game. However, still each class is able to approach filling their roles through a myriad mechanics, powers, class-specific feats, etc.

So, yes, roles are important, but, tying into your statement above, I do not think they replace character classes because the classes still have enough defining characteristics to offer a measurement of uniqueness to a player.

So, while the swashbuckler example works, I do not believe it necessarily does so any more than applying any Character Concept to any chosen class.

@ Scott
I feel that power sources are an unnecessay mechanic, little more than fluff really. Had WotC treated power source and role as a decision that was made during character creation they would carry more weight and make character creation much more involved.

One thing I’d like to add, though: I think the power source is pretty ephemeral, too. If you think the Avenger class suits your swashbuckler, but you don’t want to be divine, it’s really not that hard to rewrite your fluff to make yourself martial. The one potential issue I see is the conversion of ranged implement powers to ranged weapon powers. When this happens, you can either try to equalize, so a power that’s 3d6 damage with an implement becomes 2[W] if your character uses a 1d10-damage bow… or you can just figure that the couple of extra points of damage on average from 3[W] damage is a fair tradeoff for making an attack vs. AC instead of vs. a (usually lower) non-AC defense. I play it by ear and consider the new fluff.

Wyatt’s last blog post..Feats of Eden II

@ Mike E
You’re right when you suggest that providing more options during character creation will complicate the game. However, it will also provide more versatility to players and expand the role system greatly. Look for more from Ameron and myself on this subject matter.

@ Wyatt
I have to disagree when you say Wizards aren’t leaders. Leaders are now the healing and buffing class and in 3.5 Wizards had their fair share of buffing spells. I agree that they aren’t healers, and again I think this is another problem with roles as they are currently presented. They pigeon hole the characters a little too much.