I'd prefer classes be mechanically driven and NOT flavor driven. You choose your mechanics and then assign the flavor. The fact you get your power from a God or from yourself is your decision based on the campaign.
1. Heavily Armored Martial 2. Lightly Armored Martial 3. Vancian all dailies Caster 4. AEDU type power Caster 5. Point based Caster (I'm not for this and realize there are dangers but wanted to just illustrate the idea)
What isn't built into the above should be feat progressions. If you want to limit healing or certain magics to particular background flavors show the DM how to set that up for HIS world. Provide multiple examples.
You pick your mechanics and then flavor as you like... Here is a few examples 1. I want a wizard so I choose #3 and declare my power is arcane. I use a spellbook flavor. 2. I want a no armor robed priest so I choose #3 and declare my power is divine. I pick my spells daily from my diety. 3. I want a heavily armored battle cleric so I choose #1 and #4 as a multiclass or a #1 and #3 multiclass. 4. I want a swordmage so I choose #2 and #4 multiclass
I'm certain it will never happen but it might be nice. I'm for this kind of reflavoring. If the classes were mechanical names then the players would have to come up with in world names. I'm a mystic from the seven falls order (he's a vancian caster). And so forth.
I understand what your getting at, but I'm hoping that 5e doesn't make the mistake of making fighter a defender again. This was a mistake that caused continuous problems because a large percentage of people want to play a stand and fight melee striker and expect fighter to be that class.
And again, 4E got it right on spot with its semiotic square of defender/striker/controller/leader.
Really, conceptually there are only three roles, doing damage, preventing the monsters from doing damage and helping the party do damage. Defender is really a melee controller, both work by interfering with the enemies ability to attack the party. That is why 4e never could find a viable martial controller, because a sensible class design ends up being a defender.
In any case, no categorization scheme really covers everything cleanly. Area of effect vs single target could be added to your list. There is no reason there shouldn't be an area of effect striker (that which sorcerer aspires to and doesn't quite reach) or a single target controller (some wizard builds work that way).
What is the power that this character has? Is it training? Is it arcane magic? Divine, primal, shadow magic? Is it a psionic class? In one word, the power source. Every class has one, and multiple classes share one too, in every edition. You can avoid the jargon if you wish, but this is a core concept for a class
Every class uses at least one source, but not necessarily just one source. E.g., the Cleric uses both training and divine magic. Most classes use more than one power source, except in 4e (Essentials partially corrects this issue already, BTW).
How does the class fight? Is it a weak class that needs to stay in the back and cast? Is it ranged? Is it melee based? Is it so tough it can face demons toe to toe, or does it require movement and skirmish tactics to avoid being killed in direct confrontation? Essentially, you can have one of three core concepts, which can be further mixed: ranged, skirmisher, melee. I still have to find one class that doesn't fall into one of these categories. The ranger comes close, but only because it has two possible categories rather than one. Something truly divergent doesn't really exist in my experience.
Once more, this is primarily a 4e distinction. Sure, there are classes that can and cannot go into melee and survive. But it ends there. Just because you're able to fight in melee doesn't mean you have to. A Fighter should be equally competent in ranged combat.
Either your experience is just with 4e, or you can refer to any other editions' Fighter, Ranger, or multiclass character.
The BECMI/RC Elf also applies.
What does your class do in a fight? Again, you can leave the jargon out, but it's roles we're talking about. I agree that "a class should be able to fit any role", but only because I believe those are really distinct classes catering to distinct character concepts. Or sub-classes if you wish. And again, 4E got it right on spot with its semiotic square of defender/striker/controller/leader.
That is questionable. "Defender" and "Controller" share a lot, and "Striker" is a very broad generalization (compare with the monsters' classification into Brute, Skirmisher, Artillery and Lurker). Finally, the Controller and Leader role alone do not stand except in very niche classes (the 4e Wizard is actually a mix of Artillery and Controller, for example, while buffs are almost non-existent before 3e, so the Cleric is really more of a Soldier/Leader).
Also, the 4e definition only work to define a combat role for the character.
Apart from that, it's a bit difficult to find other defining traits of a class. They tend to fall under one of these categories. That's why I believe those five classes are not nearly enough: I need at the very least one class per power source OR the ability to change the class' power source, then I'll need to be able to choose between ranged, melee and skirmish for my character based on what suits it better - and this is probably the most important part, as it is effectively impossible to reflavor; and finally I'd like to choose the role that class has in a fight, be it though subclasses or different classes or whatever. That way, I'm sure all concepts can be mechanically represented.
Perhaps, but not every concept needs to be mechanically represented -- even in 4e, the "martial controller" never really materialized. Or a ranged defender, or a melee controller, etc.
Moreover, if you look at 4e classes, you see the negative impact of this way of thinking: take the Battlemind, Paladin and (especially) Warden. These classes are little more than (4e) Fighters with a reflavoring. So, it is pointless to have them in the game (you've got multiclassing for that). That's because power sources in 4e have little to no mechanical impact.
Moreover, if you look at 4e classes, you see the negative impact of this way of thinking: take the Battlemind, Paladin and (especially) Warden. These classes are little more than (4e) Fighters with a reflavoring. So, it is pointless to have them in the game (you've got multiclassing for that). That's because power sources in 4e have little to no mechanical impact.
Wrong.
Fighters, Battleminds and Wardens are all very different.
Fighters - All fighters must be strong. Fighters have no inherent access to any kind of supernatural abilities. Fighters mark their opponants automatically whenever they attack, and punish ony those opponants who violate their mark who are adjacent to them.
Wardens - All wardens must be strong. Wardens have inherent access to supernatural primal abilities, which allow them to polymorph into primal forces and summon natural forces to aid them in combat. Wardens can only mark once per round, but they mark everyone who is adjacent to them. They can either punish those who violate their mark by hitting them, or by pulling them closer to them.
Battleminds - Battleminds do not have to be strong, but must be hardy. Battleminds have inherent access to a wide variety of supernatural psionic effects, that might allow them to harden their skin, teleport, cloud their enemies mind, etc. Battleminds use a power to mark, and they can cause an adjacent enemy who violates their mark to take the same pain they inflict upon the battlemind's ally.
If 5E allows fighters to polymorph into primal forces of nature, or psionically teleport themselves, then we've reached lunacy.
4. I want a swordmage so I choose #2 and #4 multiclass
4E's swordmage as a class provided an effective gish build that no other edition has ever been able to accomplish without using Tenser's Transformaion type spells. It was a blast to play and see played. It will be sad if it gets axed for some kind of fighter/wizard multi-class that won't work, just like it didn't work in any other edition of D&D.
Fighters - All fighters must be strong. Fighters have no inherent access to any kind of supernatural abilities. Fighters mark their opponants automatically whenever they attack, and punish ony those opponants who violate their mark who are adjacent to them.
Wardens - All wardens must be strong. Wardens have inherent access to supernatural primal abilities, which allow them to polymorph into primal forces and summon natural forces to aid them in combat. Wardens can only mark once per round, but they mark everyone who is adjacent to them. They can either punish those who violate their mark by hitting them, or by pulling them closer to them.
Battleminds - Battleminds do not have to be strong, but must be hardy. Battleminds have inherent access to a wide variety of supernatural psionic effects, that might allow them to harden their skin, teleport, cloud their enemies mind, etc. Battleminds use a power to mark, and they can cause an adjacent enemy who violates their mark to take the same pain they inflict upon the battlemind's ally.
The warden polymorph is but flavoring, not an actual polymorph mechanic. They mark like the fighter, there's no specific reason why the Fighter could not mark all around them or the Warden should not be able to mark once per round. What you're stating is essentially what I've already said: there is but a thin veneer of flavoring given by the source, but mechanics are essentially the same (defender).
* Actually, the Monk is odd in that it can easily be construed as a variant Fighter, Cleric, Psionicist, Thief, or even Wizard. It was even done for most of these options:
Cleric: Fighting Monk kit (Savage Coast Campaign Book and other sources in AD&D 2e)
Psionicist: Sensei kit (The Will & the Way, AD&D 2e, 4e Monk with Psionic source)
And Prestige Classes exist in 3e for Monks using divine, psionic or arcane powers. Essentially, the Monk is an unarmed combat specialist, and its powers can be attributed easily to any source (obviously, each version does have somewhat different powers), from extreme martial prowess to inner strength (psionics) to magical energies to divine power.
Ah, you know your stuff (I know/have all of those products), the Monk is tricky (can be construed in many ways), starting in 1st Ed they were not in alphabetical order, and seemed to share a bit with the Thief; oh, can someone tell me, in the the 1st Ed PHB it said Monks use the Thief's attack table, but in the DMG it listed Cleric, which is it?
I get the feeling the 4th Ed Monk was going to have the Ki power source, but they obviously, and rightfully so, ditched the "Asian" power source, and made it Psionic, which definitely can work, but of course it could work with others, though this means nothing as power sources are going bye-bye.
As for classes included in the base/core 5th Ed, last I heard they were aiming to include every class that has appeared in a PHB 1 (good move, no, where the hell is my Bard/Druid/Sorcerer etc)
