See my above post of what I think should and shouldn't be a class to answer your last question.
Is there anything about the statement "A class should be unique enough from other classes that there is a reason for it to exist separately" that you're not understanding? The statement seems pretty clear. How should I re-word it so you can understand the meaning?
As far as being subjective, your argument is invalid. One of the clear goals of the playtest as stated by the designers is "Does this playtest feel like D&D?" That's as subjective as you can get.
If my requirements for what should and should not be a class as opposed to a theme or build, what do you think those requirements should be?
If all you're going to do is tell me that my arguments are wrong without providing anything else, you're not adding anything to the discussion. If you're not adding anything to the discussion, why are you here?
That's pretty much my argument. If we're doing a new edition, we need to examine every aspect and not give something a pass just because it's legacy. Whether WotC is going to do that or not isn't the question - they're going to include paladins and rangers because fans are going to throw rabid mouth-foaming tantrums if they don't. However, we should force them to examine and approach classes in an intelligent and well-thought manner. And as much as my OCD side likes the organization of your strategy, there's a good chance it'll just force a 4e-style bloat of classes like when they tried to stick every power source and role together to spit out a class, giving us such oddities as the runepriest and...what was the psionic leader again? I can't remember...Short answer, other than the warlock,...tradition, basically. I know it's become something of a dirty word in these sorts of discussions, but that really is the reason.
I like the assassin class. I think it should be a theme. Very first thing I said in this thread.In any case, the present set up re: background and theme suggests that classes are customizable to at least a limited degree. Fine. But, and I am not the first person to point this out, if assassin (or bard, or paladin, or whatever) is reduced to a theme to whatever actual class, then for any given character of that type it requires both sacrificing a customizable slot and also leads to a bunch of that character type being mechanically identical. IOW, you lose customizability because you've opted to play something that isn't a base class. I think that stinks.
It seems to me that a lot of folk advocating that class x should be a theme at heart are motivated to say so because they don't like that class. That's not a valid reason for a design decision, and trying to dress it up as something otherwise is, at least, disingenuous.
Which is not to say that some objection isn't valid - I want a separate assassin class but I'll acknowledge that the generic and bland rogue covers the same abilities and so some mechanical differentiation would be necessary. I make the same case with the cleric. (I was really sold on the notion of separate priest and cleric classes, with the value of cleric largely equaling paladin, as they originate from the same sources.) The real question is how to make such a mechanical distinction and make it work.
No, it's trolling. Saying "Nope, you're wrong" adds nothing to the discussion and exists solely to piss people off. It's not educating. Speaking of...I like to educate people, it's my only vice.
*you're.If your taking what the designers say as some sort of unquestionable truth...
It should be a Class.
It will be a Class.
It will apparently generate threads unique threads about these facts in the same way as every core class that is not Fighter, Cleric, Rogue or Wizard.