Honestly, did Pride and Prejudice ever make anyone argue about the stats of a Jane Austin character?
*cough* Well, I couldn't pass that up, because yes, I have argued the stats of a Jane Austen character with friends. Why? Boredom, but still, it has happened.
Now, to get into the actual discussion at hand.
I think that as it stands now, the character classes are lenient enough that, with some creative thinking, classes can be built how the user chooses. For example, in the current game I'm running, we've got a Half-Orc Fighter, a Human Barbarian, a Half-Orc Warlock, and two Elven Clerics.
One might say, when looking at the party, "Well, that's a little strange. Two melee classes, two healers, and <insert one's POV on Warlock here>." But they work rather well. The Fighter is a fighter, and hits stuff very hard with his Greatsword + 3. The Barbarian went more for the 'wild man in the woods' type, and plans to multiclass to ranger for more effect. He can hold his own in combat, but can't keep up with the fighter, as he didn't design his character that way. The Warlock...I don't even know. Refuses to use Eldritch Blast, and instead uses all the spell-like abilities to fill in a bunch of gaps that the party doesn't quite have. Also wields a Greatsword to rather powerful effect. The Elven Clerics are twins, with one going down the healing path, making certain that everyone stays alive. The other, is most definitely evil, and puts out more damage than the other characters. (Nevermind the fact that the good cleric has to constantly make excuses for the evil acts of his sibling, which can get humorous.)
Aside from the 'lock, all the characters use the PHB for 3.5, and have created a fairly diverse party, despite the fact of many overlapping roles.
Now, I'm not saying that I wouldn't want a book like Buy The Numbers handy, in case a player wanted to do some flipping around of feats, skills, etc. But I don't believe that Core D&D is broken, so I've no need to fix it. While freedom is nice, it needs to be balanced with a bit of restriction as well. Despite what a book says, the DM is still the lord and master of his campaign, and reserves the right to say "no" to something s/he doesn't agree with.
Also, as a small addition to an argument that has come and gone, the 'useless' classes. If someone wants to play an extremely ineffectual character, I nor the rest of the party will complain. However, we do ask for what they 'can' do, so we know what to expect from them. We've had Adepts, Experts, mentally challenged Wizards, physically handicapped Fighters, etc. The character usually lasts a session or two, (unless for some reason they're particularly effective, upon which I'll elaborate below,) and is usually killed, or 'retired' by the Player in favor of a more effective character.
Now, the 'useless' character that became wondrous: A character of mine, named Samuel. Sammy, as he was often called, was a Sorcerer. A sorcerer who dedicated his magic to the art of performance, and thus took no offensive or defensive spells, but was mainly an illusionist. Somehow, my goofy, ridiculous spells came in handy more than they should have, and Samuel was somehow a viable member of a team. With spells such as Ghost Sounds, Fear, Flare, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Gust of Wind, etc, going into the more powerful 'useless' spells like Mirage Arcana and Persistent Image, and a LOT of quick thinking, I saved the party from death many a time. (I constantly cast Permanent - Dancing Lights on one of the main antagonists whenever we came across him. He was a Rogue/Shadow Dancer/Assassin that was effective at killing while hidden, but with the Lights, we knew where he was all the time. Pretty nifty.) I used a lot of my XP on crafting items and using Permanency (I like that spell), but it was worth it.
So it all kind of depends on the person playing a character, for all sides. Now, I'll admit there are characters who are useless in certain campaigns, but someone who knows what they're doing can quickly turn a 'useless' character into a possibly viable one. Granted, with mine I got lucky, but I found the more I played, the better I was. Just like everything in life, it's all relative.
