Seeing the changes implemented in Pathfinder to the classes has sparked my thought process, which boiled down to this: How the heck are classes in D&D defined? I don't think there is any rhyme or reason behind it beyond "hey this sounds cool" and "it's been in the game since the beginning."
It's time to throw that thinking out the window, my friends. I wanted to start with by explaining my thought process behind this whole idea. I've struggled a lot with how to classify the classes (?). What separates them mechnically? How could they be grouped? 2nd Edition D&D broke the classes down into the following four categories
Warrior - Fighter, Ranger, Paladin
Priest - Cleric, Druid
Wizard - Mage, Illusionist
Rogue - Thief, Bard
Those were the base classes as presented in the 2nd Edition PHB. In 3rd Edition I started to break it down even further. Thoughts that came into mind included grouping by base attack bonus (low, middle, high), ability focus (feats, skills, magic), or traditional (warrior, priest, wizard, and rogue). Nothing really fit.
Here are the 11 classes as presented in the 3rd Edition PHB:
Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard.
Of these classes I've had problems with two specifically - Paladin and Sorcerer. The Paladin was too specific, and basically meant that all Paladins were the same beyond their personality (which with LG characters still tended to be the same). The Sorcerer was not different enough from the Wizard to justify a separate class. It had fewer spells and received new spells less often, which meant that a party with a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard would always lag behind in terms of spellpower.
In addition, 3rd Edition took the approach that the party should be composed of four characters - Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard. All of the encounters are based around the presence of these four classes, or at least classes that fulfilled their function. What did this requirement actually mean? You need a tank, a healer, a skill-user, and a spellcaster. That's the approach that 4th Edition is taking, and I don't really like identifying them as such. Too World of Warcraft-y.
And then it hit me. There are six ability scores - Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. These abilities have been with the game since the beginning, and have persisted throughout each incarnation. Why not base the classes around the ability scores? Heck, 75% of that work's already been done!
So you have the six ability scores, and you can divide them into two groups - Physical and Mental. That gives you six base classes. When you look at it like that you start to see how the classes came into being. Fighter? Strength. Wizard? Intelligence. Taking it a step further you can combine abilities between the two groups to create a few more. Bard? Dexterity + Charisma. While combining the aspects of two classes, these new classes took on a life of their own.
With that in mind I started looking at the six ability scores and matching them up between the two groups. Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity VS. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Here's the list I came up with:
Strength
Constitution
Dexterity
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma
Strength/Intelligence
Strength/Wisdom
Strength/Charisma
Constitution/Intelligence
Constitution/Wisdom
Constitution/Charisma
Dexterity/Intelligence
Dexterity/Wisdom
Dexterity/Charisma
Fifteen combinations. Looking at the list like that you can see some immediate corrollations between existing classes. Bard = Dexterity/Charisma. Barbarian = Constitution. Etc. D20 Modern took a similar approach to this but genericized it too much. They removed the classes and made Strength heroes and Intelligence heroes. Too generic for D&D.
In comparing the list above to the clases there are still a few inconsistencies. As I stated earlier, the Paladin was a problem. What was the Paladin? A martial Cleric? Isn't the Cleric already martial? Isn't the Paladin really just a Cleric with less spells and a few specific abilities? The Paladin gets dropped to remove duplication.
The problem then becomes what defines a Wisdom based class versus a Strength/Wisdom class. So I took a look at a niche that was missing - the pure divine spellcaster. Someone who eschews combat for spells, just like the Wizard. That relegates the Cleric to the Strength/Wisdom niche, which means their spells are going to get reduced (not much) in favor of more abilities. I'm thinking more specific abilities around Domains.
The Wisdom class then becomes a pure divine spellcaster with no combat abilities. I'm going to call this class the Priest since that is what it is. Now things make sense - the paladin is now a Cleric of Heironeous (or other LG ideal) and the Cleric is now able to function as a fighting divine spellcaster.
The Druid is also a problem. What is a Druid but a nature-themed Cleric who can shapechange? The Druid as written gets dropped and its abilities get absorbed into nature-themed Domains. The wild shape gets turned into something else, but I'll get to that in a moment.
Taking the classes as presented in the 3rd Edition PHB here's what I came up with when applying them to the fifteen combos:
Strength -- Fighter
Constitution -- Barbarian
Dexterity -- Rogue
Intelligence -- Wizard
Wisdom
Charisma
Strength/Intelligence
Strength/Wisdom -- Cleric
Strength/Charisma
Constitution/Intelligence
Constitution/Wisdom -- Monk
Constitution/Charisma
Dexterity/Intelligence
Dexterity/Wisdom -- Ranger
Dexterity/Charisma -- Bard
Sorcerer is too much of a duplicate class to include, and both the Paladin and Druid get eliminated as discussed above. I think the matches make an eerie kind of sense actually - the Ranger is really a Dexterity and Wisdom based class, and the Monk combines Wisdom and Constitution. Now to fill in the gaps.
Let's just populate Wisdom with Priest. It's abilities need to hammered out but getting the concept is the hardest part, which is already done.
Charisma and Constitution are problems, and have been a problem in D&D for a long time. These two ability scores are pretty important for EVERYONE depending on how you view your character, Constitution more so because it governs hit points. Charisma is definitely a "throw away" ability score - few game mechanics are based around it.
The fix for that is to create a game mechanic that is based on Charisma and to base a class around it. In 3rd Edition they tried this with Sorcerer, but failed to make it unique enough. So where to go from there?
I toyed with the idea of making the Charisma-based class psionic in nature. It kind of makes sense - the force of your personality fuels mental powers. But the flavor never really felt altogether there and I abandoned it.
One phrase that kept rolling around in my head surrounding this conundrum was "sphere of influence." I don't know why, but I've always associated Charisma with this phrase. Playing around with some naming conventions I decided to create a mechanic that this Charisma-based class would have access to surrounding the idea of "Spheres."
Some of the names I considered for this class (since I think the name tells a lot about the thing) include the following: weaver, beguiler, psion, noble, wellborn, and patrician. Nothing jumped out at me, though I liked weaver (and Beguiler was a new class presented in PHB II). I've come around to the idea that this Charisma-based class was going to be an influencer of people and have abilities that make the party better, kind of like the Bard.
After mulling the idea around I settled on Lord. The Lord is my Charisma-based class with abilities relating to spheres (like the Cleric/Priest has abilities surrounding domains and the Wizard has abilities surrounding schools). The name lord has kind of a noble connotation, but I think the name works - it's simple, it's direct, and it can apply to any number of character concepts. The Lord is someone who can stop a swordblow from landing, command men and women to do his bidding, and to control the situation from behind the scenes. That covers Charisma.
With that in mind the Strength/Charisma class almost writes itself - Knight. This fulfills the honorable warrior role the Paladin previously occupied and creates a new class to incorporate more of the sphere based abilities. I'm going to start with the Knight as presented in the PHB II but take it in a different direction.
Four left - Strength/Intelligence, Constitution/Intelligence, Constitution/Charisma, and Dexterity/Intelligence. You could make an argument that the Bard is really a Dexterity/Intelligence class, but I decided to focus it on Charisma instead. One idea I've always liked and haven't seen implemented well in 3rd Edition is the concept of the spellfilch - a thief/mage combo from 2nd Edition. Changing it slightly to be just Filch fills the role of the Dexterity/Intelligence class, which will have abilities akin to the Arcane Trickster prestige class from the DMG.
The two Constitution classes took some thinking. I came up with the idea of a class who cavorts and deals with outerplanar entities, perhaps specializing in summoning or controlling. The Warlock falls out of this union (Constitution/Charisma). Not sure what its abilities will be at this point but the concept is there. Perhaps a focus on summoning (kind of like the World of Warcraft warlock). Still thinking on that one.
To me, the idea of Constitution and Intelligence brings to mind someone who uses their body to change how they appear. With a little creative tweaking this becomes the Shaper - a classed based around the wild shape Druid ability but with expanded abilities. The Shaper could be a totem-based warrior or an avenger of nature.
That leaves Strength/Intelligence. There are quite a few prestige classes that work to fill this niche (including Eldritch Knight and Spellsword) but nothing's really struck me as being the right fit for a base class. What about fitting the lame 3rd Edition Sorcerer into this role? Unearthed Arcana had alternate class abilities for all of the base classes, and one of them was the Battle Sorcerer - access to fewer spells but combat abilities to compensate. Why not turn the Sorcerer into this variant? I decided on that and thus the Strength/Intelligence-based Sorcerer class was born. Adding bloodline abilities from the Pathfinder RPG alpha release made sense.
That rounds out the list, which looks like this now along with the classes primary focus:
Strength -- Fighter (combat feats)
Constitution -- Barbarian (rage)
Dexterity -- Rogue (sneak)
Intelligence -- Wizard (schools)
Wisdom -- Priest (domains)
Charisma -- Lord (spheres)
Strength/Intelligence -- Sorcerer (arcane combat)
Strength/Wisdom -- Cleric (divine combat)
Strength/Charisma -- Knight (presence)
Constitution/Charisma -- Warlock (summoning)
Constitution/Wisdom -- Monk (personal training)
Constitution/Intelligence -- Shaper (wild shape)
Dexterity/Intelligence -- Filch (arcane skullduggery)
Dexterity/Wisdom -- Ranger (wilderness)
Dexterity/Charisma -- Bard (music)
Fifteen classes. The new ones (Priest, Lord, Sorcerer, Knight, Warlock, Shaper, and Filch) I think fulfill existing roles and create interesting combinations that would otherwise have required multiclassing for lesser effect. Each class needs to stand on its own, and it also needs to make sense from a multi-class standpoint.
So ... too much change? Does this alter what Dungeons & Dragons is on a fundamental level? And is it too hard to implement with existing sourcebooks? Thoughts are appreciated.
Very interesting post. Some nice solid points. Biggest problem is that it breaks entirely with the design goal in Pathfinder of backwards compatibility. Other than that I think it makes things even more comvoluted. I think the 11 classes we have is pushing the limit myself. I prefer a reduced system of Fighter, Rogue (possibly replace with a increased Expert), Priest, and Wizard with class feature options.
The only sort of class i feel really needs to be added to the base four is a primarily social class. Using class options you can pretty much fit any character under those five for most major PC or NPC. Background NPCs are dealt with very well using the NPC classes.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
Wow. My heart gets all fluttery for any kind of systematic approach like this. Even if they don't all get used, breaking it down like this is a great way to find some gaps that we hadn't even noticed.
I agree 100% on the Priest as a non-combatant cleric. You're right about the lack of a pure Charisma class, although I might think of it as more a diplomat. Knight sounds good and I like the Filch too. I rarely play spell casters and when I do I tend to stick to the basics so I have no opinion on the Sorcerer, Warlock and Shaper but your logic seems sound.
Because of backwards compatibility issues, I doubt you'll see too much re-engineering of classes like Druid, Paladin or Sorcerer, but I see no reason why some of your new classes wouldn't work. If you pursue this, their mechanics will be important but so will your explanation of how they are different from the current core classes and fill an empty niche. Good luck.
I do feel bad about addressing a post to "Wierd Dave" (my mum always told me not to call names), but here goes:
I really like this idea. Some ideas you may want to check out for these would be some of the class talents from d20 Modern, but also the Spycraft 2.0 conversion, Back to Basics. This used 'Knack' trees like d20 modern, but allowed classes access to a few trees.
For example:
Alacrity: Fast Hero (extra movement, mobility etc)
Brainiac: Smart Hero (good at research/Knowledge skills etc)
Brawny: Strong Hero (bigger, stronger)
Champion: Strong Hero (resist intimidation, resist debuffs)
Chiseled: Fast Hero, Strong Hero (athletics)
Combat Training: Strong Hero, Tough Hero (better armed, better at combat)
Leadership: Charismatic Hero, Strong Hero (give orders better, undo 'fail actions')
Manhunter: Dedicated Hero, Fast Hero (hunt a specific target, gain sneak attack)
These are just a few very quick synopsis[es] of the document, but it's very good. You can pick it up here for $4.50, I think.
|
Seeing the changes implemented in Pathfinder to the classes has sparked my thought process, which boiled down to this: How the heck are classes in D&D defined?
I like your analyses of classes through their abilities.
I think however that the crunch comes after the fluff and that a class is first a set of skills and abilities which are meant to match or extend cultural archetypes which exist outside of the game.
The archetypes which were used for the 11 core classes are:
1. civilised fighter
2. savage fighter
3. guerilla fighter
4. bare handed fighter
5. civilised priest
6. nature priest
7. entertainer
8. educated spellcaster
9. intuitive spellcaster
10. thief
11. crusader/holy warrior
When we use the flavour or realism arguments for or against a suggested rule, we look at these archetypes and wonder if Jackie Chan, Conan, Merlin, Legolas would do things as the rule suggests it.
The archetypes guide designers in defining the important ability scores but also class abilities and perks.
Now, taking abilities and systematic combinations of ability scores is a great analysis tool to analyse the mechanical aspects of the game.
This allows to find out which abilities are important for which class and indicate which ability scores or ability score combinations are not so hot in the current class list.
My problem with the tool is that it doesn't take into account:
- suboptimal ability scores in core abilities (average STR fighter with high INT)
- ability-independent class features
- ability boosting items and effects
- alternative builds (very intelligent cleric or a beefy, clumsy thief)
I also think that it's not warranted to use the tool to remove existing classes/archetypes, such as the crusader/holy warrior, the intuitive spellcaster and the nature priest. The fact that these archetypes don't fit an ability score combo shouldn't make them less valid or less important to a party's success against challenges it will encounter in an adventure.
That's the kind of discussions I wanted to spark! This was really just a starting point, some way to classify the classes. As each class gets fleshed out the abilities muddle the line about each class being stat based. Taking what exists already, the fighter is a Strength-based class but have no abilities based on Strength. They get feats, and in the PRPG armor and weapon trainings, but nothing based solely on Strength. You WANT a high Strength as a fighter, which I think is what the "stat-based" class boils down to.
My biggest problems are in the Paladin, Sorcerer, and Druid (as stated above). If you get rid of these three classes (rolling Paladin and Druid into Cleric somehow) you are left with 8 base classes. I still really feel there needs to be a class that utilizes Charisma in a meaningful way. The Bard is the closest thing so far besides the Sorcerer, but the details of that class meant that you were really an entertainer. Not much room for a non-music variant. I wanted to make something that could contribute meaningfully to the party while still had a focus on Charisma while giving the player freedom to create a character different from other characters of the same class.
I think that's pretty fundamental of a class-based system such as D&D. To have classes that are give the player options not restrictions. I love the idea of the Paladin, but c'mon - it's needlessly restrictive and contains no options for the player beyond a small spell list. The four base classes are pretty good - Fighters have their feats, Clerics have their domains and spells, Wizards have their spells and schools, and Rogues have their skills and (in PRPG) talents.
The other thing to note (as others pointed out) is that basing the classes on ability scores is simply a starting point. You want the abilities of each class to benefit a character with a high primary ability score without penalizing someone with a mid or low primary ability score. Spellcasters are the obvious exception here - a low prime score means they can't cast their highest level spells. But a fighter with a low Strength still has a high base attack bonus, and a barbarian with an average Constitution still gets a solid bonus when he rages.
I've mocked up both the Priest and Cleric in class form, with the distinction between them being the prime divine spellcaster (Priest) and the holy champion (Cleric). As written so far the Cleric spontaneously casts spells while the Priest prepares them, and I'm trying to come up with a benefit to preparing spells versus casting them on the fly. Hmm ... probably something for a different post.
The Cleric I have so far gets spells starting at 1st level, but gets a new spell level every 3 levels (2nd level at 4th, 3rd level at 7th, 4th level at 10th, etc.) and caps out with 7th level spells. The Priest gains spells per the PHB cleric along with bonus feats. I'm trying to work the paladin abilities into the Cleric as well, specifially smite. Still working on the details.
|
|
I find it interesting that your model dismisses three base classes. The sorcerer, for example, can already do what the Lord might do, and uses Charisma for his core mechanic.
The paladin, according to the model, seems to fit the role of knight already as a Strength and Charisma class. I would call the monk a Dex and Wisdom class, except you have reserved the ranger for that spot. Is it so obviously a better fit? I can see the advantage in his ranged attacks, but the monk's skill set is dominated by dex and wis, too.
With the changes to druid's shapeshifting in Alpha 2, I forsee a slight increase in druids with one or more high physical scores. This makes another potential Con+Wis or Str+Wis class.
|
|
The archetypes which were used for the 11 core classes are:
1. civilised fighter
2. savage fighter
3. guerilla fighter
4. bare handed fighter
5. civilised priest
6. nature priest
7. entertainer
8. educated spellcaster
9. intuitive spellcaster
10. thief
11. crusader/holy warrior
I once tried to do what Weird Dave did using categories similar to Lockworks' ...
Fighters
1. trained fighters
2. fighters by experience
3. instinctive fighters
Divine Casters
4. trained divine casters
5. divine casters by experience
6. instinctive divine casters
Magic Users
7. trained magic users
8. magic users by experience
9. instinctive magic users
Experts
10. trained experts
11. experts by experience
12. instinctive experts
Then I tried to map existing classes to this and fill in the missing spaces. I also added another category, Nature Casters, and because there is so much combat in D&D, a martial slot to each. I also added arcane experts ...
Fighters
1. trained fighters = Soldier (né Fighter)
2. fighters by experience = Warrior
3. instinctive fighters = Brute (could also be Barbarian, but I prefer the term Berserker and having it as PrC)
Divine Casters
4. trained divine casters = Priest
5. divine casters by experience = Acolyte
6. instinctive divine casters = Favored Soul (or other spontaneous divine caster: Seer, Prophet, Mystic, etc.)
7. martial divine caster = Cleric or Paladin
Magic Users
8. trained magic users = Wizard
9. magic users by experience = Adept, Hedge Wizard
10. instinctive magic users = Sorcerer
11. martial magic users = Battle Mage, Sword Sage, etc.
Experts, i.e., skill monkeys
12. trained experts = Bard
13. experts by experience = Expert
14. instinctive experts = Rogue
15. trained magic using experts = Magewright
16. instinctive magic using experts = Spell Thief
Nature Casters, including spirits
17. trained nature casters = Druid
18. nature casters by experience = Witch
19. instinctive nature casters = Shaman
20. martial nature casters = Ranger
Most of these are already classes, PrCs, or NPC classes (especially the on-the-job training 'by experience' folks), so I'm not proposing any major changes, just a different way of looking at what already exists to see if it gives us any insight or allows us to better focus them.
Of these classes I've had problems with two specifically - Paladin and Sorcerer. The Paladin was too specific, and basically meant that all Paladins were the same beyond their personality (which with LG characters still tended to be the same). The Sorcerer was not different enough from the Wizard to justify a separate class. It had fewer spells and received new spells less often, which meant that a party with a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard would always lag behind in terms of spellpower.
You seem to have a strong prejudice against Paladin and Sorcerer. Their problem is they are Strength/Charisma (many paladin abilities - Smite, Divine Grace, Turning Undead - rely on the Charisma modifier) and Charisma classes respectively, but their link to Charisma has been somewhat neutered. A sorcerer acts very differently from a Wizard, even though they use the same spell list. Barbarians are Strength/Constitution, BTW - they rely on Power Attack and Rage synergy. The Ranger is Dexterity/Constitution (TWF, archery and light armor all rely on those abilities). Also, I believe the Druid should have been linked to Constitution/Wisdom, though none of its abilities bear that out.
As for the "Lord" idea, strap a "War" to it, and you have basically the same 4E class. The Warlord class of 4E seems to do what you're attempting to accomplish with the Lord class, so if you continue with this approach, I'd go ahead an use the term.
While this all food for thought, I think backwards compatibility will make significant changes to the classes a moot point - though this information could certainly be used to help steer the reshaping of some of the class abilities, and perhaps be useful towards generating new classes.
|
The only sort of class i feel really needs to be added to the base four is a primarily social class.
That's really interesting, since I usually play rogues as a primarily social class. I have a pretty big thing for city-based spies in a fantasy setting (spent too many days home sick watching entire seasons of Alias, I guess).
With the Rogues emphasis on skills, I saw it as the natural place for that sort of character. Whenever I make a Rogue, CHA comes first, then INT, then DEX.
Thinking about it, I would go so far to say that single-ability score classes are in fact, NPC classes, and that all the core PC classes are at least dual-stat dependant.
Strength - Warrior & Fighter**
Strength/Dexterity - Ranger
Strength/Constitution - Barbarian
Strength/Intelligence - (Swashbuckler)
Strength/Wisdom - Cleric
Strength/Charisma - Paladin
Dexterity - ?
Dexterity/Constitution - ?
Dexterity/Intelligence - Rogue
Dexterity/Wisdom - Monk
Dexterity/Charisma - ?
Constitution - ?
Constitution/Intelligence - Wizard
Constitution/Wisdom - Druid
Constitution/Charisma - ?
Intelligence - Expert
Intelligence/Wisdom - (Thuerge)
Intelligence/Charisma - Bard
Wisdom - Adept
Wisdom/Charisma -?
Charisma - Sorcerer*
* There's always gotta be one oddball
** The fighter can go a myriad of ways due to feat selection - Intelligence (Combat Expertise), Dexterity (Archery, TWF) & so on.
Some really interesting ways to think about how the classes are structured. I tried to make things work on the martial/magic/skill triad but the balance in D&D was never there for it. I was thinking that whatever class fell into the Charisma category would focus on skills, perhaps gaining skill tricks as they moved up in levels. Nothing really fit, and I still maintain that the sorcerer is a tack-on class.
I liked classifying them by trained, experience, instinctive, and martial. That creates a lot of combinations. Perhaps just variations on each "base" class?
I like D&D because it's easy to pick up for new players and easy to customize for experienced players. The addition of prestige classes in 3rd Edition opened this up immensely, but I really felt like the base classes should have been reviewed and reshuffled for the purpose of generalization.
Keep up the ideas. I don't know why, but I really enjoy seeing other people's views on this kind of stuff.
Some really interesting ways to think about how the classes are structured. I tried to make things work on the martial/magic/skill triad but the balance in D&D was never there for it. I was thinking that whatever class fell into the Charisma category would focus on skills, perhaps gaining skill tricks as they moved up in levels. Nothing really fit, and I still maintain that the sorcerer is a tack-on class.
Intelligence is the base for skills in D&D, it directly determines the # of points you get to spread around, and it does make sense (mostly). Charisma is the "talky" skill whose primary use has always been influencing others - only in 3E did it start taking on aspects of "force of personality", and had the designers really been thinking along those lines, Will saves might have been Charisma based instead of Wisdom based.
A good way to find out what ability scores a class is tied to is to pretend giving them a "6" in that score and see if they lose access or are severely hurt by a reduction in a class ability. I'll point out all classes are hurt with a 6 CON due to hit point loss, but if they lose a class ability (or a favored feat chain, such as Barbarian & Power Attack or Paladin and Mounted Combat) that's more along what I'm talking about.
Sorcerers are a tack-on class to fix a deficiency with the spellcasting system, but they are different enough from wizards that they work as a viable class in 3E. Favored soul (a cleric variant that uses spontaneous casting) is in the same vein; they play very different despite the similar roots. Warlocks are basically heavily flavored sorcerers; they work as a class because they play very differently from Wizards or even Sorcerers, though they have access to similar abilities.
However, removing sorcerer would pretty much entail also removing Fighter, Barbarian, Rangers, Monks, Bards and Druids as each is essentially a specialization of the four base classes.
I liked classifying them by trained, experience, instinctive, and martial. That creates a lot of combinations. Perhaps just variations on each "base" class?
I'm not seeing it; short of martial those are very bad qualifiers and have much more to do with a character's backstory than mechanics.
Other groupings I've seen used over the years are Tank (Heavy armored fighters), Skill Monkey (rogues and bards), Healbot (cleric), but that leaves many classes out.
In terms of what makes classes different, I'd argue that flavor isn't enough of a reason; if the mechanics aren't different, there should be one class with several "flavors." I look at classes as combinations of the main building blocks: BAB, skills, feats, spells, and special abilities. If we arbitrarily assign a "0" for "poor or lacking," a 1 for "somewhere in the middle," and a 2 for "best," the classes look like this:
Barbarian - BAB 2, skills 1, feats 0, spells 0, abilities 1 (total 4)
Bard - BAB 1, skills 1, feats 0, spells 1, abilities 1 (total 4)
Cleric - BAB 1, skills 0, feats 0, spells 2, abilities 1 (total 4)
Druid - BAB 1, skills 1, feats 0, spells 1*, abilities 1 (total 4)
Fighter - BAB 2, skills 0, feats 2, spells 0, abilities 0 (total 4)
Monk - BAB 1, skills 1, feats 1, spells 0, abilities 1 (total 4)
Paladin - BAB 2, skills 0, feats 0, spells 1, abilities 1 (total 4)
Ranger - BAB 2, skills 1, feats 0, spells 1, abilities 1 (total 5)
Rogue - BAB 1, skills 2, feats 0, spells 0, abilities 1 (total 4)
Sorcerer - BAB 0, skills 0, feats 0, spells 2, abilities 1 (total 3)
Wizard - BAB 0, skills 0, feats 1, spells 2, abilities 1 (total 4)
I'll admit that the numbers are hardly proportional as shown - I don't feel that ranger is stronger than any of the others, for example, and the druid gets "mid" spells because most of their spells suck compared to the arcane list -- although the sorcerer is indeed lame in my opinion. The point is, all of the classes differ from one another in the relative proportions of the building blocks. Why bother? So that when people point out "flavor" archetypes that lack classes, we can assign them unique combinations of building blocks that would make them different to play than the other classes.