What was originally thought to be the function of each class?

[Particle_Man]

The 3.0 phb came out and pretty soon players did stuff with the classes that the designers had not planned on. Eventually we got the linear fighter quadratic mage and the tier system and CoDzilla and Batmanwizard and the Tippyverse.

But what was the original function of each of the 3.0 phb classes intended to be?

For bonus points: If one were designing classes with those intended original class functions in mind, how would one do it, knowing what we know now?

[Quentinas]

Maybe (and I repeat maybe) some hints of this can be seen in Enemies & Allies with the typical NPC build (Jozan, Lidda , Mialee, Tordek and so on) I know that it's not the best because there aren't each level only 5 10 and 15 but as far as I know they were used to playtest?

[Saradominist]

Maybe I'm not seeing this with the depth you'd like, but...

The four base classes are as you'd expect:
-Rogue: Stealthy skill-based character that is only good in combat when with allies
-Fighter: Front-line warrior, meant to steadily fight toe-to-to with an enemy and wittle them down (probably 10-30 damage per successful attack even at higher levels, instead of ubercharger types)
-Wizard: Primarily a blaster (with all the focus they put on Evocation), launching spells that deal far more damage than the fighter's average swing (in their imagination), and with only a few useful support spells
-Cleric: Healing and buffing the rest of the group, while potentially a back-up meleer because of armor and hp

As for a few others:
-Paladin: Kind of a "tank", with Divine Grace, Lay on Hands, etc; less martially useful than the fighter but with special powers vs evil
-Monk: A more defensive kind of combatant, with AC and mobility; despite Unarmed Damage progression, not meant to deal as much as fighter
-Bard: The quintessential support character

[Aracor]

I mostly agree with Saradominist - bard class is intended to make everyone else a little better between Inspire Courage, Competence, etc. Plus have a few spells (though decent ones) and they're expected to be able to fight in melee - not necessarily win, but maybe hold their own long enough for someone more damage-oriented to help them.

Barbarian is intended to be a more offensive variant of the fighter.
Druid is supposed to be a different flavor of healer. Slightly worse at healing, but getting a "pocket fighter" as recompense.
Ranger is intended to be a jack of all trades that can compare to a fighter against their favored enemies, but less useful in combat against anyone else. In exchange, they're supposed to get a weak pocket fighter, a bit of magic, and decent skills.
Sorcerer is supposed be basically the same as a wizard.

[Kurald Galain]

This recent discussion may be relevant here, too.

[Fizban]

There are only a few edge cases that aren't readily apparent, the bigger question being how much of the discernable backboard features were super intended and what the expected roles are. The expected roles may have been something more like fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, but some things aren't apparent without a trigger. Grapple monsters are oh so scary, except the standard party has a sneak attacker, and a monster in a grapple can be sneak attacked with impunity (also you might never encounter them). The Druid is totally just as as good at Clericing as a Cleric, until you actually look at all the things they have delayed past when they were needed based on enemy abilities (which you may never encounter). You need a bajillion skills to do anything, except actually the only skills the game requires are search/disable to deal with auto-kill traps (which you might never encounter). And so on. And since you're stating 3.0, there are the 3.0 to 3.5 changes to consider, including more non-obvious things like the entire "Animal Companion system" and "Animate Dead." Those changes are some of the best evidence for what things were supposed to be, since there apparently needed a change.

Rogue is obvious, but what about the other "skilled" classes? The only required skills are search/disable, but getting skills must come at a cost to other things, so what's the point of the classes that trade combat for skill without getting those two skills? That's the Ranger and Monk (and Bard). The Ranger was already obviously a nature-ish mirror of the Paladin's mechanics, and its update added bonus feats. This suggests it should be a "combat" character, but "combat" actually means "meatshield," and the Ranger is not actually good at this. Similarly the Monk is about the closest of combat, but fails due to the basics of the AC system.

Bard is specifically designed to not actually fill a role as a "jack of all trades." It doesn't have the Rogue-only skills, which means it can't substitute for the Rogue. It can barely heal and can't blast so its partial casting doesn't infringe on either of the two main casters, it has no hit points or armor or BAB to compete with the "combat" character. It has a buff ability which is not actually accounted for in any math and just kinda hopes it works. Its update made it clear that they should be allowed to wear light armor, but they gutted a bunch of the "dabbler" spells and focused it on enchantment and illusion, making them less jack of all trades and more. . . their own flanderized "Bard" concept.

And that's it. Sorcerer, Druid, Paladin, Barbarian are obvious swap-ins to the standard party. The original expected function of Ranger and Monk were "combat," because even a no-feature Warrior is capable of combat, and the Bard is deliberately "whatever use you find for it."

If I were designing the classes? This is essentially a call for everyone who's made a fix list to present their fixes. In short form rather than just posting the whole list:

• Monk needs a scaling AC bonus to match armor so the dodgy unarmed combatant actually dodges.
• Ranger is low-armor higher skills with situational damage: give it Trapfinding to fit the role it actually occupies (and actually have more than one core class for the role!).
• Abolish the Bard. "Buffing" is not compatible with a game where you're expected to be able to use stock monsters and modules, and that's the only unique thing the Bard has. Replace it with a new core mage with 6th or 7th level which has broader spell access (while still avoiding the theft of spells that are big deals for the two main roles, for the "jack of all trades."
• Make the Druid a spellcaster. As in, it doesn't have a giant pile of extra zomg Druid features. It's defined by its spell list, which is expanded just a smidge so it can actually fill the "Cleric" role, but remains strictly a bit worse in exchange for the added Druid stuff. Wild Shape (long-term shapeshifting into "natural" forms) comes from a prestige class, and Animal Companions should either be a feat or a PrC or a spell (any is fine as long as the game gets consistent about it), but not a major feature on a full spellcaster since full spellcasting is the major feature.
• I would actually consider nerfing the Rogue's skill points. The massive gap leads to a expectations of way more skills than anyone is really supposed to have, let alone need. Knocking them down to 6 would be just fine.

But of course, you must remember that my fixes are deliberately minimalist, because I already liked the game. I don't need a giant redesign because that's not 3.5, that's a separate game that's pretending it can still use a bunch of the same stuff.

This recent discussion may be relevant here, too.

Reading that thread, I find it hilarious people dogpiling on 3.x for making sneak attack not work on things, when the AD&D version required *humanoid* construction, which is far more limiting than "discernable anatomy." Naturally I would make no changes to 3.x sneak attack because I'm already fine with it (or if you prefer, 3.x is already my baseline). Problems of Rogues getting too many attacks are problems with access to too many attacks/ease of sneak attack, while the fact that SA dice don't apply to everything is a feature, not a bug. 3.x actually has more points of simulation than the other editions: sudden surprise, hiding and spotting skills that actually work, flanking (and the allowance of Sudden Strike which doesn't work with flanking), various other ways to deny Dex.

[Maat Mons]

I have a suspicion that the designers expected the game to be very damage-focused. So they would have been considering classes largely in terms of their ability to deal damage, heal damage, and withstand damage.

I'm also pretty sure some of the classes were included not because the game needed them, but rather because the authors were infatuated by specific fictional characters. "We need special classes for Conan, Tumnus, Radagast, Aragorn, and Tarjun. They're too special to be represented as specific options on a generalized chasis."

Actually, I'm not sure if Tarjun is the most famous Wizard in the writings of Jack Vance. I've never read any of his books. Also, I feel like the Paladin class was probably created as an homage to someone specific, but I'm not sure who.

Thematically, rather than mechanically, it looks to me like they wanted to establish "nature," "holy," "arcane," and "martial" as different sets of classes. Actually, I have an as-of-yet-unfinished suite of 12 homebrew classes based on those 4 themes and 3 different spots on the "tough to squishy" spectrum.

[Harrow]

I have no quotes or any direct evidence really, but I suspect the Monk class was made to be a Wizard-killer. Poor regular AC, but good touch AC, all good saves, evasion, still mind, and spell resistance. Speed bonus, so he can move behind enemy lines. Gets an extra attack, but takes a penalty to attacks at low levels. By the time this penalty disappears, their medium base attack bonus progression has hit them hard enough to make up for it. This means they're great at dealing a lot of damage against targets with low armor.

There are two problems with making a class that's a dedicated Wizard-killer. First; they are Wizards. They have too many options to be able to shut down all possible Wizards. If they aren't flying, they're invisible. If they haven't buffed themselves to the gills, they've summoned bigger, meaner friends. I'm not saying rules couldn't theoretically be made for a class that could do it, but "high saves and touch AC" just ain't gonna cut it.

Second; open up the Monster Manual. How many creatures in there are just Wizards? Oh, sure, there are a few creatures that are also Wizards. Dragons, for example, get arcane spellcasting. But, they get that on top of being big, with tough scales and pointy teeth. The vast majority of campaigns do not have you coming across enough arcane spellcasters for "Wizard-killer" to be a viable base class.

[Darg]

But what was the original function of each of the 3.0 phb classes intended to be?

Barbarian: a charge in and take names character with some skill flavor. Uncanny Dodge makes them ideal for providing flanking bonuses
Bard: a party buffer, face, performer, support caster, knowledge junky. Has a lot of options in what ever way one wants to build them
Cleric: divine caster with a frontline kit.
Druid: divine caster with an animal companion and utility from wild shape
Fighter: meant to stand against what is in front of them toe to toe. Tower shield proficiency provides tactical protective options while bonus feats allow them to adopt different fighting styles.
Monk: capable of disabling targets, fast movement around the battlefield, resistant against being shut down with 3 good saves, deals excellent damage in a grapple.
Paladin: frontline kit, resistance to being inconvenienced thanks to divine grace and immunities, can spoil ambushes with at will detect evil, and LoH is excellent for stopping bleeding.
Ranger: gets 3 bonus feats at level 1, good skill selection, and some really niche favored enemy bonuses
Rogue: skill monkey, trapfinding, and sneak attack.

For bonus points: If one were designing classes with those intended original class functions in mind, how would one do it, knowing what we know now?

Barbarian: Rage uses increased by wisdom/charisma bonus.
Fighter: 4 skill points per level, free weapon focus or specialization every odd level beyond 1st.
Monk: AC bonus gives a +1 at level 1 to +5 at level 20, Flurry usable as part of a standard attack, Abundent step becomes at will, UAS is treated as one handed weapon or two handed if both hands are free for the purpose of special attacks (like disarm), BAB = Class level for special attacks (like grapple), never provokes when making special attacks.
Paladin: bard casting progression/caster levels, 4 skill points per level
ranger: bard casting progression/caster levels, capable of TWF in medium armor, free action sheathing of ranged weapons, 6 skill points per level

[rel]

I feel like most of the classes were ported from second edition without a lot of thought. And most of those 2e classes were themselves ported. And so on and so on, all the way back to those first role plays in the 70's.

As such, the original function of all the classes was probably

'provide the existing fans with a familiar version of their favorite character so they don't run off to play VtM'

[Kurald Galain]

Also, I feel like the Paladin class was probably created as an homage to someone specific, but I'm not sure who.

Sir Galahad, of Arthurian myth. He specifically has "the strength of ten, because [his] heart is pure."

[Kurald Galain]

I have no quotes or any direct evidence really, but I suspect the Monk class was made to be a Wizard-killer.

I don't buy that, because (as you say), very few creatures in the MM are just Wizards. Instead, the monk is pretty obviously inspired by certain wuxia movies, and has such a hodgepodge of class features because it is based on numerous unrelated movies.

For instance, quivering palm is from Fist of the North Star, but most monk abilities are from different sources.

Reading that thread, I find it hilarious people dogpiling on 3.x for making sneak attack not work on things, when the AD&D version required *humanoid* construction, which is far more limiting than "discernable anatomy."

It seems that one of the design principles of 4E is that all characters must be at peak capacity all the time and must have all their abilities work on everything they encounter (to the point where 4E's fire elementals don't even have fire resistance). Surely this principle is based on forum complaints about 3E. It's unlikelt that the majority of 3E players feel that way, but I guess some of them were very vocal about it back when WOTC had forums.

[hamishspence]

Sir Galahad, of Arthurian myth. He specifically has "the strength of ten, because [his] heart is pure."

I think it also owes a good deal to the protagonist of 3 Hearts and 3 Lions.

It seems that one of the design principles of 4E is that all characters must be at peak capacity all the time and must have all their abilities work on everything they encounter (to the point where 4E's fire elementals don't even have fire resistance).

4e Red dragons don't have fire immunity, but lots of fire resistance instead. I think MM3 Volcano Dragons might have fire immunity though - I'd have to check. Same with "purely fire" elementals having fire immunity - it was, from memory, the hybrid fire/Something Else 4e elementals that only had resistance, and not always much of that.

[Khedrac]

I don't buy that, because (as you say), very few creatures in the MM are just Wizards. Instead, the monk is pretty obviously inspired by certain wuxia movies, and has such a hodgepodge of class features because it is based on numerous unrelated movies.

For instance, quivering palm is from Fist of the North Star, but most monk abilities are from different sources.

It seems that one of the design principles of 4E is that all characters must be at peak capacity all the time and must have all their abilities work on everything they encounter (to the point where 4E's fire elementals don't even have fire resistance). Surely this principle is based on forum complaints about 3E. It's unlikelt that the majority of 3E players feel that way, but I guess some of them were very vocal about it back when WOTC had forums.

I'd say that all of your above looks true except for the example!

Quivering Palm comes from the AD&D monk (1977) if not before (I don't know what abilities the original Dragon Magazine version of the monk had, but it probably included Quivering Palm and would be earlier).
According to Wikipedia Fist of the North Star is from 1983, so if anything it got Quivering Palm from AD&D!

[Kurald Galain]

Quivering Palm comes from the AD&D monk (1977) if not before (I don't know what abilities the original Dragon Magazine version of the monk had, but it probably included Quivering Palm and would be earlier).
According to Wikipedia Fist of the North Star is from 1983, so if anything it got Quivering Palm from AD&D!

That's interesting, I didn't know quivering was in 1E. I suppose there is probably a monk film (or manga) that is the inspiration for both FOTNS and Quivering?

[Malphegor]

I have no quotes or any direct evidence really, but I suspect the Monk class was made to be a Wizard-killer.

This would fit with a couple of the ACFs for a monk being based around fighting arcane casters, namely one boosts to saves vs savrs and one replaces evasion with spell reflection which is pretty badass for those Yoda Vs Palpatine style ‘oho you think you are the master of magic but in truth it is I’ wuxia feeling madness fights.


Something in this line of logic must have then inspired the Arcanopath Monk prestige class from Dragon Compendium Vol 1 of 1 which was intentionally designed to fight spellcasters with the capstone of ‘slap your memorised spells out of your fool head’ but I dunno if that was because there already was a design plan somewhere for monks to be anti-wizards or just coincidental

[Saint-Just]

That's interesting, I didn't know quivering was in 1E. I suppose there is probably a monk film (or manga) that is the inspiration for both FOTNS and Quivering?

It is an old martial arts myth. I think the most widespread name in the West is Cantonese "dim mak" but there are many others. It can denote any sort of "death attack" where you somehow kill the opponent with an extremely precise strike regardless of its' strength (one possible explanation is interrupting the flow of qi) but even the delayed version existed for quite a while - you can find conspiracy theories that Bruce Lee was killed (in 1973) by the delayed "hand of death".

Most likely nobody invented the idea as such, it just "grew up" like other myths about martial arts.

[noob]

Druid is supposed to be a different flavor of healer. Slightly worse at healing, but getting a "pocket fighter" as recompense.

In the playtests the druid did nearly not use the companion and nearly not use wildshape because both of those were complicated.
So I am not sure they are supposed to be getting a pocket fighter.

[hamishspence]

It seems that one of the design principles of 4E is that all characters must be at peak capacity all the time and must have all their abilities work on everything they encounter (to the point where 4E's fire elementals don't even have fire resistance).

Turns out you're right and my memory's fooling me - MM3 elementals and dragons have no elemental resistances at all. There are fire-immune creatures, but they're mostly in earlier books.

Efreeti in 4e MM1 are completely fire immune, as are Blazewyrms and Pyroclastic Dragons (Draconomicon: Chromatic Dragons).

[Lans]

In the playtests the druid did nearly not use the companion and nearly not use wildshape because both of those were complicated.
So I am not sure they are supposed to be getting a pocket fighter.

Shillelagh or flame blade casting s is myg guess

[Remuko]

Shillelagh or flame blade casting s is myg guess

playtest druid threw scimitars iirc. almost exclusively.

[Lans]

playtest druid threw scimitars iirc. almost exclusively.

Did they only do one play test? I'm assuming they rolled stats, an above average strength, a few items and a little luck could go a long way to match a core 3.0 fighter.

[Zanos]

I'd say that all of your above looks true except for the example!

Quivering Palm comes from the AD&D monk (1977) if not before (I don't know what abilities the original Dragon Magazine version of the monk had, but it probably included Quivering Palm and would be earlier).
According to Wikipedia Fist of the North Star is from 1983, so if anything it got Quivering Palm from AD&D!

IIRC the monk is actually based on a series of now obscure western martial arts novels about an American special forces operative who is trained in a fictional Asian martial art.

So it's a knockoff of a knockoff.

[Fizban]

Did they only do one play test? I'm assuming they rolled stats, an above average strength, a few items and a little luck could go a long way to match a core 3.0 fighter.

As far as I know the information we "have" about the playtests comes from a few mentions in posts on the old (now long gone) WotC boards (presumably by accounts that could be verified as actually being who they claimed they were, and maybe one or two mentions in sidebars or maybe an article in Dragon Mag. As such while I'm willing to believe that the Druid player didn't actually use Wild Shape or Animal Companion for combat, more aggressive claims are likely exaggeration.

However, we do have the book Enemies and Allies (3.0, book of NPCs), which includes what it says are the playtest character sheets at 5/10/15. I see no reason to disbelieve the claim of this published book, and reading those sheets and understanding that there was almost zero change in monster stats between 3.0 and 3.5 and they're indeed meant to be fully compatible- it really dispels any illusions about what was "totally intended." When you consider not just the playstyle they used, but the characters for which the edition was written, forum expectations are just. . . wow. They also all use the Elite Array so no, it's not wacky rolled stats.

And it is true that the Druid statblock there has a throwing+returning scimitar and a bunch of feats for it, rather than spellcaster feats. There are also no animal companion statblocks, because in 3.0 they were completely normal animals you "befriended" with a spell that only worked if you "truly wanted to be their friend," a phrase which rather allows the DM to prevent you from treating them as disposable (unlike 3.5)- and you could buy the spell in ring form. I think Jozan may have been allowed a bunch of extra magic items due to crafting feats, but I've never audited him in detail. And it would seem the assumption is that anyone who can learn Haste, does, and the Sorcerer's low spells known are clearly still sufficient to "hit all the bases" as it were since the example Sorcerer has in fact picked a solid list (that there is so little room for variation will of course be no concern of the sorcerer-hater).

[Zanos]

For the curious, here is one example of play vs a CR 20 monster:
http://archive.wizards.com/default.a...d/tt/20050809a

The wizard inflicts the most damage to the balor with quickened true strike, manyshot, and a holy bow. Which is an...interesting use of 5th level spell slots, in my opinion. In other cases the party was a bit smarter than I expected, using greater spell immunity on everyone to guard against the balors nastiest abilities aided by the party wizards sky high knowledge modifier, hero's feast because it's just good, and some other unlisted buff spells, but moment of prescience is used as well.
The cleric heals, and even goes so far as to have a vow of nonviolence. The barbarian deals damage. The fighter deals some damage and dies, but is noted as being mostly ineffective. The fighter/elocator is useless, because even on internal tables it seems like every party has someone trying out a build that just doesn't have anything going for it.

An interesting read regardless. The wotc wizard was not stacking up Greater Spell Focus to blast the balor with evocations, at least.

[Biggus]

But what was the original function of each of the 3.0 phb classes intended to be?

For the martial classes, someone said on here a while ago (can't remember who, sorry):

The Barbarian is supposed to be very strong when in rage
The Fighter is supposed to be very strong with their specialised weapon
The Paladin is supposed to be very strong against evil opponents
The Ranger is supposed to be very strong against their favored enemies

[vasilidor]

Using true strike? in a fight against a Balor? when your party members need a buff badly? poor form. These guys really did not know what they were doing. I am pretty certain that with the same character sheets the people on this forum could have trounced the Balor with much greater ease.

[Telonius]

As far as I can tell, this was the intent behind each PHB class.

Barbarian: You want to play the Arnold version of Conan. Key tactics: "Grar! Smash!"
Bard: You want to play Fflewdurr Fflam or Luthien. Key tactics: "I seduce them!"
Cleric: You want to play White Mage. Key tactics: "Heal!"
Druid: You want to play Beorn. Key tactics: "Grar! I eat you!"
Fighter: You want to play Gimli. Key tactics: "Axe to the face!"
Monk: You want to play Bruce Lee. Key tactics: "Hi-yah!"
Paladin: You want to play Sir Galahad. Key tactics: "Axe to the face, for justice!"
Ranger: You want to play Aragorn. Key tactics: "He went that way!"
Rogue: You want to play Bilbo Baggins. Key tactics: "I steal his pants!"
Sorcerer: You want to play Tim the Enchanter. Key tactics: "Fireball!"
Wizard: You want to pay Gandalf. Key tactics: "Fireball, thoughtfully!"

[Particle_Man]

Nice list? So when things did not go as planned the game designers later created the warmage to meet one’s Tim the Enchanter needs?

[noob]

As far as I can tell, this was the intent behind each PHB class.

Barbarian: You want to play the Arnold version of Conan. Key tactics: "Grar! Smash!"
Bard: You want to play Fflewdurr Fflam or Luthien. Key tactics: "I seduce them!"
Cleric: You want to play White Mage. Key tactics: "Heal!"
Druid: You do not want to play Beorn. Key tactics: "I throw my scimitar! Because wild-shaping is too complicated to use."
Fighter: You want to play Gimli. Key tactics: "Axe to the face!"
Monk: You want to play Bruce Lee. Key tactics: "Hi-yah!"
Paladin: You want to play Sir Galahad. Key tactics: "Axe to the face, for justice!"
Ranger: You want to play Aragorn. Key tactics: "He went that way!"
Rogue: You want to play Bilbo Baggins. Key tactics: "I steal his pants!"
Sorcerer: You want to play ???. Key tactics: "Haste!"
Wizard: You want to pay Gandalf. Key tactics: "Shoot an arrow with true strike: As an angel you ought to not miss"

That is closer to how the playtests went.