Designing party roles from the ground up

So, I'm doing my custom D&D-derived system, which I refer to as the Rule of Three, and I'm creating these numerical guidelines for what each class does in combat. Mostly based on 4e roles, though I shift my definitions a little.

For instance, my core 4 classes are all martial. The Skirmisher is most similar to the 3.5 Barbarian or Scout, damage boosts at the expense of accuracy, movement speed, and the ability to bypass armor-DR-effects. The Leader is a warlord/marshall/White Raven hybrid, who focuses on the morale side of restoration and healing, IE, temporary hit-points, morale boosts to actions, and restoring Surges, a hybrid of 3e Action points and 4e Healing surges. The 'Control' martial is the Brawler, a martial artist who uses trips, shoves, stunning strikes, grappling, and a guard zone ability that treats their space as larger than their original size to control more of the combat field. The 'Tank' martial, the Guardian, is a bodyguard, who uses active-mitigation to defend allies. Guardians can body-block strikes meant for allies, parry melee and eventually ranged attacks, and either do a 'mark' akin to 4e or possibly a more direct taunt ability.

Edit: Updated this chart in this post, post #12.

• Striker - Deals damage over distance
  
  • Base damage per-round
  • Bonus-action damage
  • Mobility/ranged effects
• Support - Improves abilities/actions of allies
  
  • Boost allies' effectiveness
  • Recover resources
  • Grant bonus actions
• Tank - Blocks attacks against allies/self
  
  • Deter enemy attacks vs. allies
  • Soak damage
  • Negate attacks
• Control - Stops enemy activities/actions
  
  • Hinder enemy movement
  • Burn enemy actions
  • Cancel enemy effects

This is part of where I would like your opinions, I'm trying to create a level-based chart to set guidelines for what three things each of the classes can do. Goals shouldn't overlap between roles (at least not too much) but getting the Control role (which eats up some of the 4e Defender's schtick) to not overlap with the Tank is rather challenging.

Can you guys think of any better job labels between roles?

For each of these, there is a quantifiable number that increases with level. The idea is that the chart sets a standard, both for writing the classes, and for building a character. The columns set expectations of effectiveness. Some numbers can be divided fractionally, usually using three as the base increment (it's sort of thematic to the game, use of 3s repeatedly, so I'm sticking with it).

• For instance, in terms of modifiers to an action, three boosts equal an auto-success, while three hindrances equal a cancellation.
• Each character has three main actions (Standard, Move, Verbal), so costing them one action is 1/3 of a whole turn lost, while one extra of those actions is equal to 1/3 of an extra turn granted.
• Area effects I'm still working on, my leading calculation is that they count as 3x the radius of the circle they effect, (counting from a corner as a round number, while counting from a square out counts as .5) representing the increasing difficulty in getting enemies to bunch up. So a 2x2 space:
  
  • counts as 3 enemies/allies effected
  • a 10-damage blast would count as 30 damage

Edit: D'oh, lists are different here vs MinMax.

Something else for note: This chart is dependent on the non-exclusive nature of the classes and my multiclassing system.

Classes are non-stacking, meaning that when a character is a 5th level Defender, let's say, and adds 2 levels of Skirmisher, they're still all together counted as a 5th level character, until those Skirmisher levels exceed the Defender levels. Overall character strength is rated by their earned XP total, because they could have spread that XP amongst several different classes, or focused onto one single class.

The chart is a guideline for a single-class character of that role, who should be capable of two of the three metrics to be a capable character, and, if focused on that role, capable of all three. A character who has divided themselves a little wider between multiple roles should be able to get at least one from each of their major roles they've built for. Classic archetypes might be built up from multiple classes, however you choose (so like a Warpriest/Paladin-type might be Defender/Healer/Evoker(Radiant), or it could be Skirmisher/Rider/Adept, as more of a mounted aura-granting general). The chart lets you say, "My character can do X, Y, but not Z, so maybe another character can do Z, even though they're mostly focused on A and B from those other classes."

I love the idea. I have a similar, but different set, based on minor Arcana:

Sword-Massive damage to a single target.
Chalice-Healing (HP) and curing (ailments). This does not include buffs and debuffs, since every role can do that.
Pentacle-Blocking damage directed at allies and enduring damage.
Wand-Area attacks and ailments.

Area attacks don't deal a lot of damage, but rather break through defenses, since consecutive attacks reduce the effectiveness of defending. Essentially, Wands are meant to cripple Pentacles, so that Swords can deal massive damage, while Chalices keep everyone alive.

Here are some things I've noticed about 4e roles that might prove useful to you, with some side notes on how those relate to the roles you posted.

Strikers in 4e are the only strictly offensive role in game as their focus is strictly on reducing the enemy team's time to defeat. They are especially good at delivering damage precisely where they want it. This makes focusing fire easier for them as well as making them good at landing finishing blows. Note that high offense and ease of targeting are independent but synergistic features, with ease of targeting often being accomplished by some combination of ranged attacks and mobility.

Your striker matches that pretty well, though "delivers heavy damage where it's most needed" might be a better summary than "deals damage over distance", especially given melee strikers.

Leaders in 4e help their group stay at full strength by helping allies recover, acting as a kind of life line for those running out of hit points. This helps mitigate focused fire somewhat as it let's the group shift defensive resources to anyone who's being focused on. Since the need for this is small when the party is at full health, leaders often have secondary jobs as well. If fully defensively oriented, their secondary focus will be on providing protection to mitigate damage before it happens. If they've got a somewhat more offensive bent, they'll act as an enabler, making allies better at performing their jobs.

This matches your support role fairly well, though your emphasis seems to be more of the recovery and enabling aspect and less on the proactive protection side.

Defenders in 4e actually seem to have discouraging focused fire as their unofficial job. Their high hit points and defenses make them unappealing focus targets. By itself, this would just result in their allies being taken out first. However, their marking mechanics let them counter that by making themselves more appealing targets to an enemy of their choice. In effect, this lets them peal a specific foe of the group that might be trying to achieve focused fire. The selective nature of marking and punishment mechanics make them less "everyone attack me" like classic "tanks" and more about making sure attacks are distributed around the party so nobody falls. From there, they tend to mirror leaders somewhat by either proactively setting up protective measures or increasing their offense. The main difference being that these defensive and offensive boosts tend to be self oriented as opposed to the leader's more ally oriented focus.

As written, your Tank description hit a lot of the same points. However, it can potentially read as more of an interceptor or living shield than the damage distributor of the 4e defender. There's less "I control who gets attacked by whom" and more "I reduced party damage". That's certainly a useful role, but it's a distinction worth pointing out.

4e controllers are bit of mess in that their focus is split between acting as artillery and manipulating the opposing side's options with few class features directly supporting either. Granted, either of those can be made to support the other. For example, if the character was primarily artillery they might want strong manipulation options as back up plan for when limited targets cuts their total damage output. On the flip-side, area attacks can be used to discourage grouping, making it a situational way of altering enemy plans. From what I've seen, the online community tends to favor the focusing on the manipulation side, with the artillery side mainly used as a way to distribute control effects over multiple enemies. One side effect of the system is that "minion popping" became a secondary job of the role due to the availability of multi-target powers for this role. It's interesting to note changing enemy plans overlaps with defender's deciding who attacks them, which lead to occasional comments about defenders being a specialized type of melee controller.

Your control role seems to avoid the split by focusing on negating actions. While that focus is welcome, I will say spending an action to block an action has it's problems. From the player side, such effects are usually balanced by low damage with leads to prolonging combat. From the GM side, having an action blocked means nothing happens which can be frustrating while also leading to less actually happening during the fight. (See duels against control decks in Magic for a similar feel.) It's certainly workable, just keep in mind it's got a strongly defensive emphasis, which might be part of why you're seeing overlap with the tank. If desired, shifting toward "they fight on my terms or not at all" might be worth exploring as it brings back some of that emphasis on changing enemy plans.

I think negating actions may be something that's better encapsulated in something else. As Shimeran mentions, spending actions to negate actions isn't terribly fun, although as someone who's played quite a bit of Final Fantasy Tactics Advance lately, conditions that do so aren't nearly as annoying. Something like a dazed (ala 4e DnD), an immobilization, and a "bind" (standard action negation) could be employed instead. I am curious what you come up with in terms of powers et cetera, however - you could make the setup work as is.

I'll have to flesh out my definitions, but that's actually what I mean. These are broad categories that include a lot of conceptual space within them.

• Control's 'burn enemy actions' includes trips (costing move action to stand), dazes (cost standard), stuns (skip whole turn), etc.
• The Tank's 'negating attacks' also includes parrying, or (as a fraction of a negation, as I mention) hindering attacks vs allies via penalty (like a 4e mark).

Somewhere between the two, a negated/wasted attack might also come in the form of a mirror-image-style miss chance. (I'm actually debating letting the overlap between the two settle firmly onto Control, and instead add some base functionality like 'hit points' be a Tank quality to measure.)

A 4e-style defender isn't a direct counterpart of my Tank, it's a mix of Tank and Control, intentionally, because these are simple task-goal points, not the entirety of a character. (I've also heard 4e Defenders defined as 'melee control' versus the Controller being 'ranged control', with a lot of power-overlap between the two. Forced movement, attack penalty effects, broad-area damage..) Even a single-classed character in my system would likely have powers tagged as intended for other roles, because of the open form of my system.

My goal here is to define what the baseline expectations for a role's unique qualities, both to make sure the classes I write stay true to those qualities, and to offer a guideline for a player, to be able to say "If you're going to be the party's main Tank, you need to be able to accomplish X, Y, and probably Z, to fight opponents of this level." It's kind of like optimization standards mixed with MMO-style raid ratings. A larger group might manage with characters who spread those goal-numbers around a bit (and thus because their focus is higher, be able to handle higher-level opponents/groups), while a smaller group might concentrate those numbers across the fewer characters (and because their focus is more divided, be aimed at lower-level opponents).

Now, I'm not opposed to breaking away from this set of 4, either, I would just want to establish a defined identity that matches a set of tasks. I crossposted this to MinMax, and a guy there brought up his own division of "dealing damage / buffing / debuffing / summoning / field control" which somewhat matches, but in my response I mention I want to keep my categories power-source agnostic (so that a pure-martial party can exist, as could a pure-martial setting without any major balance alterations) and specifically, I see 'Summoning', whether that is abstracted into minion control by any means (magical summons, engineered constructs, or military leadership) as just an extension of Control (wasting enemy actions on engaging non-primary minions) and Striking (by the extra damage the minions deal). I've got one magical Summoner class (with sub-classes for elementals, demons, undead, etc), and two beast-based classes (the Tamer uses mundane animals, which are captured/trained to obey commands but static-level and killable, while the Hunter is spirit-bonded with a beast that levels with him, with the 'beast spirit' able to transfer to a new creature to upgrade or on death).

For instance, to help explain how I see this breaking down, a single-classed 'wizard' type doesn't exist under Rule of Three's system. It's too complex, that's actually the biggest issue with the conventional 3.5-style system I'm trying to fix. 'Wizard' might be more properly placed in my system as a Background, sort of the key archetype-setting descriptor in my system. The 'Apprentice Conjurer' is probably the most 'book-wizard' of the different types of Arcane backgrounds I've got. They get Alchemist, Evoker (Arcane), Hexer, Shaper, Summoner, Telepath.

• Alchemist - Support, makes mixtures to heal and boost allies.
• Evoker (Arcane) - Striker, using energy-damage effects. Arcane subtype means that while the Evoker can learn any kind of damaging spells, they deal better damage with force type spells versus others (fire, ice, necrotic, radiant, etc).
• Hexer - Control, debilitating curses, various negative non-damage-based effects.
• Shaper - Control, creates walls, obstructive terrain, forced movement, with a material/elemental focus, earthbending/waterbending-like.
• Summoner (etc) - Striker/Control, summons minions to attack and distract enemies. (generic summoner subclass, doesn't elementals, demons, undead, or beasts)
• Telepath - Control/Support, mind-affecting effects, slow/stun/etc, can also boost allies.

When you start out, you pick a background, which gives you some starter skills/powers, and a trait, which is usually some unique mechanical feature for your character. You also select one of your allowed classed from your background. Each class has a starter feat, a core trait or ability of that class. You get one of the starters for those three for free. (You also have an open feat, which can be used on another of those starters, unlocking access to some of that other class's abilities from the start, if you wish.) From there, you get that class at 1st level, and get some class-specific powers (either locked or some choices), plus extra skill points to spend on powers or skills how you wish, allowing you to add focus where you want.

So our Wizard-type, above, takes that Apprentice Conjurer background, which nets her the Spellbook feat. She starts off with Evoker, with an Arcane Blast feat. As she gains XP, she spends it on more Evoker levels, until she buys Evoker level 3 (which costs, let's say, 3,000 XP, after the other 2k she spent on Evo2), and a new Feat. She gets Telekinesis, the starter feat for Shaper, and decides to spend the spare 1,000 XP she has right now on Shaper 1, rather than wait to get Evoker 4 (costing 4k XP). She gains little, since Shaper has the same save chassis and lower HD, so no gain compared to her level 1 Evoker stats, except for Skill Points. There, her gains are high, since skill points don't gestalt the same way as saves, and she can use those extra skill points to buy new spells that work for the added Control function she wants to use. There's probably even some synergy, a way to combine Arcane damage with a Shaper's pushback. Now fast-forward to a couple levels later, she's now 5/3, as compared to her party-mate, a Thug who's now 6 levels in Skirmisher, also a Striker. He deals slightly higher damage, but she has the added abilities of the Control suite.

Am I making any sense with this? I've been working on this post for a few hours, and I realize now I might've rambled..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedWarlock

I'll have to flesh out my definitions, but that's actually what I mean. These are broad categories that include a lot of conceptual space within them.

• Control's 'burn enemy actions' includes trips (costing move action to stand), dazes (cost standard), stuns (skip whole turn), etc.
• The Tank's 'negating attacks' also includes parrying, or (as a fraction of a negation, as I mention) hindering attacks vs allies via penalty (like a 4e mark).

Somewhere between the two, a negated/wasted attack might also come in the form of a mirror-image-style miss chance. (I'm actually debating letting the overlap between the two settle firmly onto Control, and instead add some base functionality like 'hit points' be a Tank quality to measure.)

A 4e-style defender isn't a direct counterpart of my Tank, it's a mix of Tank and Control, intentionally, because these are simple task-goal points, not the entirety of a character. (I've also heard 4e Defenders defined as 'melee control' versus the Controller being 'ranged control', with a lot of power-overlap between the two. Forced movement, attack penalty effects, broad-area damage..) Even a single-classed character in my system would likely have powers tagged as intended for other roles, because of the open form of my system.

My goal here is to define what the baseline expectations for a role's unique qualities, both to make sure the classes I write stay true to those qualities, and to offer a guideline for a player, to be able to say "If you're going to be the party's main Tank, you need to be able to accomplish X, Y, and probably Z, to fight opponents of this level." It's kind of like optimization standards mixed with MMO-style raid ratings. A larger group might manage with characters who spread those goal-numbers around a bit (and thus because their focus is higher, be able to handle higher-level opponents/groups), while a smaller group might concentrate those numbers across the fewer characters (and because their focus is more divided, be aimed at lower-level opponents).

Now, I'm not opposed to breaking away from this set of 4, either, I would just want to establish a defined identity that matches a set of tasks. I crossposted this to MinMax, and a guy there brought up his own division of "dealing damage / buffing / debuffing / summoning / field control" which somewhat matches, but in my response I mention I want to keep my categories power-source agnostic (so that a pure-martial party can exist, as could a pure-martial setting without any major balance alterations) and specifically, I see 'Summoning', whether that is abstracted into minion control by any means (magical summons, engineered constructs, or military leadership) as just an extension of Control (wasting enemy actions on engaging non-primary minions) and Striking (by the extra damage the minions deal). I've got one magical Summoner class (with sub-classes for elementals, demons, undead, etc), and two beast-based classes (the Tamer uses mundane animals, which are captured/trained to obey commands but static-level and killable, while the Hunter is spirit-bonded with a beast that levels with him, with the 'beast spirit' able to transfer to a new creature to upgrade or on death).

For instance, to help explain how I see this breaking down, a single-classed 'wizard' type doesn't exist under Rule of Three's system. It's too complex, that's actually the biggest issue with the conventional 3.5-style system I'm trying to fix. 'Wizard' might be more properly placed in my system as a Background, sort of the key archetype-setting descriptor in my system. The 'Apprentice Conjurer' is probably the most 'book-wizard' of the different types of Arcane backgrounds I've got. They get Alchemist, Evoker (Arcane), Hexer, Shaper, Summoner, Telepath.

• Alchemist - Support, makes mixtures to heal and boost allies.
• Evoker (Arcane) - Striker, using energy-damage effects. Arcane subtype means that while the Evoker can learn any kind of damaging spells, they deal better damage with force type spells versus others (fire, ice, necrotic, radiant, etc).
• Hexer - Control, debilitating curses, various negative non-damage-based effects.
• Shaper - Control, creates walls, obstructive terrain, forced movement, with a material/elemental focus, earthbending/waterbending-like.
• Summoner (etc) - Striker/Control, summons minions to attack and distract enemies. (generic summoner subclass, doesn't elementals, demons, undead, or beasts)
• Telepath - Control/Support, mind-affecting effects, slow/stun/etc, can also boost allies.

When you start out, you pick a background, which gives you some starter skills/powers, and a trait, which is usually some unique mechanical feature for your character. You also select one of your allowed classed from your background. Each class has a starter feat, a core trait or ability of that class. You get one of the starters for those three for free. (You also have an open feat, which can be used on another of those starters, unlocking access to some of that other class's abilities from the start, if you wish.) From there, you get that class at 1st level, and get some class-specific powers (either locked or some choices), plus extra skill points to spend on powers or skills how you wish, allowing you to add focus where you want.

So our Wizard-type, above, takes that Apprentice Conjurer background, which nets her the Spellbook feat. She starts off with Evoker, with an Arcane Blast feat. As she gains XP, she spends it on more Evoker levels, until she buys Evoker level 3 (which costs, let's say, 3,000 XP, after the other 2k she spent on Evo2), and a new Feat. She gets Telekinesis, the starter feat for Shaper, and decides to spend the spare 1,000 XP she has right now on Shaper 1, rather than wait to get Evoker 4 (costing 4k XP). She gains little, since Shaper has the same save chassis and lower HD, so no gain compared to her level 1 Evoker stats, except for Skill Points. There, her gains are high, since skill points don't gestalt the same way as saves, and she can use those extra skill points to buy new spells that work for the added Control function she wants to use. There's probably even some synergy, a way to combine Arcane damage with a Shaper's pushback. Now fast-forward to a couple levels later, she's now 5/3, as compared to her party-mate, a Thug who's now 6 levels in Skirmisher, also a Striker. He deals slightly higher damage, but she has the added abilities of the Control suite.

Am I making any sense with this? I've been working on this post for a few hours, and I realize now I might've rambled..

---

Some rambling did occur, but I think I see where you're going with this. This sounds a bit Warhammer to me - don't get me wrong, I have next to nothing in the way of system knowledge, but spending XP on class features is something they did - plus the obvious DnD sources (3.5, 4e, and 5e all have pieces). I'd like to see where this is going, as some of it's unclear. As for level-by-level guidelines, that might be...well, without a better knowledge of the base mechanics behind it, I'm not sure where to go. Which DnD system are you basing this primarily off of?

Not XP spent on class features, more like on power-suites. Build strength is established via an XP-earned total, much like a BP pool, but the classes provide a bit more structure than a fully-open freeform system like Mutants and Masterminds (or Warhammer, as you say, though I've not seen it), and provide a capability-by-level guideline to follow. It's also intended to follow a growth curve like regular D&D, starting low and building into major power.

My general reference is using the more structured flow of powers and level progression of 4e, but with more of the mechanical flexibility of 3.5.

• All six stats have use on any character, intentionally. Strength, Agility, Endurance, Intellect, Vigilance, Charisma.
• There are four 'saves', Brawn (strength), Dodge (agility), Spot (vigilance), and Will (charisma), though I need a new name other than 'save'.
• Powers (spells, maneuvers, tricks, and other things) are unified into a rank scheme akin to 3.5 spell/maneuver levels (including 0-level), 1 per 3 levels, which can be purchased through skill points.
• Skills follow the same rank scheme and level basis, but are entirely used in out-of-combat challenges (in-combat things that would be handled by skills typically use the four 'saves'). So, like, Arcana, Leadership, Streetwise, History, but not Jump (Brawn check), Listen (Spot check, which works for all senses), or Tumble (Dodge, or 4e-style Shift speeds).
• Characters start with their Endurance score in hit points at 0-level, and get 5+End-mod hit points every character level, with extra HP granted by whichever classes of that level they possess. (Fort saves for 'death' effects generally don't exist, more things are straight up damage points. Poison is a damage type, like 4e.)
• Character also start with their Intellect score in skill points, which can be spent on whatever. (this corresponds with the 4x first level from 3.5, but because both skills and powers use these, you can put your focus anywhere you like. Basics will be covered by your class's granted powers, so these allow extra things to be tried, variety to be included. Class-granted powers also come to you a level earlier than you can just buy a given rank with skill points, driving home the point that the classes are the best way to do a thing.)
• Class levels grant 'surges' per level, which function like a hybrid of healing surges and action points (3e and 4e), though these other uses are typically accessed through powers.
• Powers generally favor an encounter or at-will use, of a sort. Most powers have a cost, but that cost is reducing or negatable in particular circumstances.
• Most spells use Mana, which is directly matched to one's Charisma score. Classes based on a particular type of spell make that spell cheaper. Powerful spells (4e Daily-like) use larger starting values. The fixed pool size forces the character to 'focus' to regain their mana when they've run out, and makes an experienced Summoner who picks up Evoking not instantly rolling in excess mana.
• Maneuvers functionally use a ToB-type system, with all three refreshes at once, for most manuevers (though some are 'at-will', and are excepted from this). At the outset, they use the Surges mentioned (but you don't really want to do that, waste of good resources unless in an emergency), but there are three 'refresh' methods that negate that cost, making it free. As a costly action (such as a move+standard or something), you can make several (based on your Vigilance modifier) maneuvers free, as you spot the environment and see several openings. As a lesser action (like just a move or standard or something), you can get one maneuver of your choice for free, as you figure how to make that one special trick-move work. And finally, if you don't do either of those, you can get one randomly-selected manuever refreshed for free at the end of your turn, as the battle shifts and you spot a new opportunity.
• Others power types use different methods. Alchemy and tech devices are 'fire and forget' in that you prepare them, typically, during your short or long rests, and then expend them as needed. I'm trying to keep them fairly concrete, rather than over-abstracting.
• Opportunity attacks don't break turn order. Instead, when a character crosses your threatened space, you can choose to automatically deal a flat/simple amount of damage (which their armor may ignore) or save the opportunity, allowing you, on your next turn, to attack as if they were in melee. Since the 'round' is an abstraction, your turn includes all the actions that occurred since the end of your last turn. On the other hand, that attack is still just your main attack action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedWarlock

Now, I'm not opposed to breaking away from this set of 4, either, I would just want to establish a defined identity that matches a set of tasks.

---

Since you are big on number 3, this might work for you:

Offense
-Striker-Physical Damage
-Caster-Magical Damage
-Inducer-Ailments
Defense
-Defender-Physical Protection
-Sentinel-Magical Protection
-Guardian-Ailment Protection
Support
-Healer-Healing HP/Curing ailments
-Supporter-Buffing
-Manipulator-Debuffing

No, like I said, I would want to keep everything power-source-agnostic. If I did cut it down to three, it would be Striker, support, control. Tank, by this metric, can be condensed into the other roles. Survivability in the form of hit points would go to the striker as a metric, while the other defensive qualities would go to control, since they echoed what it already had by more specific terms. I only had two tank classes, and one of them was invented strictly for the idea of having a magical tank, who generated shield spells as a prime tactic, but I could drop her easily. The defender class might get scrapped out entirely, or reworked into a striker/control hybrid. (I could spread the hybrid classification a little more widely, too.)

The TANK needs an ability to attract enemies... "agro"

How can a skill or feat compare to a 9th level spell?

Interesting ideer otherwise

So, just to update, then, if I go with three roles, this is where I'm at:

Combat - Merging Striker and some of Tank, Combat covers basic damage-dealing/damage-taking and mobility.

• Damage Output - Ability to deliver damage, whether by direct attack, spell, or summoned minion attack. Accuracy affects effective damage rating.
• Health/Survivability - Ability to survive damage. Primarily based in just having decent hit points, also includes mid-combat self-recovery and incoming-damage-negation.
• Mobility/Range - Ability to reach a target at a distance from one's starting position more easily, combining improved movement rates, spring-attack/shifting movement speeds, and ranged-attack improved distances.

Support - As before, improves allies' abilities in combat, through both active additions and passive enhancements/equipment. (So, not just a cleric's healing/buffing, but also an artificer's enchantments done out-of-combat, or even potions.)

• Boost ally effectiveness - Check bonuses, damage boosts, making existing abilities better.
• Recover resources - Healing HP and 'injury' conditions, recovering surges, and renewing other class resources. (game is intentionally tuned so alpha-strike-and-heal-up-after doesn't happen and invalidate healing)
• Grant bonus actions - Grant actual bonus actions (attacks, moves, etc) as well as granting one-time special attacks/effects.

Control - As before, controlling enemy actions and effects.

• Hinder Enemy Movement - Create walls, difficult terrain, other blocking and slowing effects.
• Waste/Negate Enemy Actions - Personal parry/shield-block, mirror images, summoned/commanded minions as distractions (any attack on a minion is an attack not aimed at you).
• Cancel enemy effects - Clearing obstacles, disabling enemy buffs (including sundering enemy armor/weapons!), plus resistance to magic or anti-magic, and other such things.