Classic / Stereotypical Class Roles?

[Broken Zenith]

I'm trying to figure out what the most classic/stereotypical roles that different classes should take on. They should also be viable builds for the class, and something the class (theoretically) does better than anyone else. Here is what I have so far. Secondary role is listed in parenthesis:

Barbarian: Tank (Melee Single-Target Damage)

Bard: Group Buff (Out of combat utility)

Cleric: Healer (???)

Druid: Melee General? (Nature Utility)

Fighter: Melee General

Monk: Melee Multi-target Controller (Melee Single Target Controller)

Paladin: Melee Single-Target Damage against some targets (Tank)

Ranger: Ranged Single-Target Damage (Nature Utility)

Rogue: Melee Single-Target Damage (Urban and Dungeon Utility)

Sorcerer: Ranged Multi-Target Damage and Controller (Utility)

Wizard: Ranged Multi-Target Damage and Controller (Utility)

What do you guys think?

[loaba]

Martial types need AC and hit-points and need to be able to hit for damage. Non-martial types are less dependent on AC and hit-points and need to hit for ranged damage or do other utility-type things.

Skill-types just need to survive encounters. heh

And that's all I got.

[Jonathan Henson]

Bards, Wizards, Rogues are more skill. Rogues are sneaky, deceitful, and stack damage. Bards are loud, obnoxious, and useless in combat almost. Wizards are smart, spelly, and touchy too.

[Crysknife]

Too many archetypes to safely do this. For example, looking at the ranged/melee split, there is nothing preventing paladins, monks and fighters to be just as effective as a ranger in ranged damage.