Party Op: replacing roles?

[Alpha]

These are just some thoughts rumbling around my head, so it's not going to be a terribly organized post.

A classic party is made of a Defender, Leader, Controller and Striker.
The stereotype is Fighter, Rogue/Ranger, Warlord and Wizard.

Wizard is the only full controller, so is almost always required.

So far, the most popular 5th man has been a hybrid of some sort(defender/striker, defender/controller, etc.).
However, what is the potential of filling a role with two hybrids?

Example:
-Warlock/wizard, Paladin, Cleric/wizard and Rogue.
That's one striker/controller, one defender/leader, one leader/controller, and one striker.

Or variously:
-Warlock, Paladin, Cleric, Assault Swordmage/Wizard.
That's one striker/controller, one defender/leader, one leader, one defender/controller.
Between the assault swordmage and the warlock, is there sufficient battlefield control to sustain the group?

It's tougher to replace the defender this way, but what about leaders?  Strikers?
-Fighter/Swordmage, Cleric, Wizard/WotST, Paladin/Warlock(Witch Knight)

-Swordmage/Wizard, Warlock, Warlord/Wizard, Warlock

Can we replace multiple roles this way?
-Shielding Swordmage/Warlock, Paladin/Warlock, Assault Swordmage/Wizard, Paladin/Cleric
Behold, the mighty tanking party!

Thoughts?

[edit]Am I behind the times on this?

[Dan2]

Did I miss something recently?

The stereotype for the party was Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard last I knew...

As for your idea, I think that classes can be built to kinda replace a role...

Leaders, IMO, can kinda tank if they go strength, and defenders can kinda strike if they go for damage and/or mobility.

However, I don't think that it would necessarily be productive.  After all, the standard group size for the monster manual and DMG is 5...

Also, you may want to look into the ideas on a stealth-based party that have been floating around.
They replace defenders and sometimes leaders by changing the rules of engagement.

[Taishar]

Honestly, the only roles really neccessary for a party are defender and leader.  Most classes have controller powers of some type, and every class has striker powers .  Sure, it likely won't be as "good" as an optimized party, but it'll still work fine.


Cheers

[DemonLord57]

Honestly, the only roles really neccessary for a party are defender and leader.  Most classes have controller powers of some type, and every class has striker powers .  Sure, it likely won't be as "good" as an optimized party, but it'll still work fine.


Cheers

I'd argue that only a Leader is necessary, but a Controller gets increasingly more valuable as the number of party members (and thus likely number of enemies) goes up. Defender is really just a fair amount of extra hp and help at keeping enemies off of ranged/squishy members of the party. If you don't really have many ranged members or anyone too squishy, (Wizard is really the only one too squishy) I think you'll do fine without a Defender. Having no Leader will hurt. Your healing surges are now quite a bit less valuable and much less accessible in encounters. The total beating you can take over the day is quite a bit less, and the beating you can take in any encounter is much less as well. You're just less effective overall. (and I'd argue that the benefit of whatever else you'd get by not having a Leader will almost never outweigh the increased effectiveness, though that may change in the future.

[Lokathor]

The more your DM loves Artillery, Skirmishers, and Lurkers, the more you need strikers.

Similarly, Brutes and Soldiers cause Defenders to be more important. Minions and large parties strengthen Controllers. Leaders do best against Elites and Solos.