What edition had the ideal version of each class?

[Dedekind]

I tweeted the following question to Greg Bilsland and he retweeted it for responses. I thought it would be worth asking here, too.

Which edition represents the ideal version of each core class. Here is a template:

Fighter:
Cleric:
Rogue:
Wizard:

And here is my opinion:

Fighter: 4th
Cleric: 3rd
Rogue: 3rd
Wizard: 2nd

I had an internal debate with Rogue. I think the 3e rogue was such an improvement over the 2e thief, that I can't help but think it was the best. Otoh, the 4e rogue still feels pretty rogueish...

Wizards in 3e had more choices, but I guess I just see 2e to be the "ideal" form of the wizard. Maybe not the best mechanically...

 

[Hassassin]

Fighter: 1st-2nd
Cleric: 3rd
Rogue: 3rd
Wizard: 1st-2nd

Fighter and Wizard AD&D, because they were in better balance than in 3e. Not sure about 1st vs. 2nd edition, because I haven't played them recently.

Cleric and Rogue 3e, except that high level Clerics are... somewhat powerful.

 

[the Jester]

Fighter: Halfway between 3e and 4e; if you could make a 4e fighter with feats, 3e would win.
Cleric: 2e (specifically, specialty priests).
Rogue: 3e (except for the blanket immunity to sneak attack that was so common).
Wizard: 1e with 4e elements (specifically, at will spells/powers).

 

[Bluenose]

Fighter: That's easy. BECM. Hit points and Saving Throws that match up to the AD&D Fighter, and Weapon Mastery on top of it. I'll take that version any day.


Cleric: My favourite version, the one that I think got the god-botherers right, was the specialty priests from 2e.


Rogue: 4e, I reckon. Skilled, versatile, and fighting dirty and mobile.


Wizard: The 1st edition Magic-User and his cousin the Illusionist. If you could give me equivalent specialists for the other types of magic, then I'll go with that.

 

[Spatula]

Fighter: 4e
Cleric: 2e (specialty priests)
Rogue: 3e/4e
Wizard: 3e

 

[JRRNeiklot]

First Edition.

 

[steeldragons]

This is actually a very intriguing question.

Unfortunately, I can not really speak to 4e's anything having extreeemely limited experience with the system...so with that in mind...I think I'll go as follows:

Fighter: 2e to 3e (insofar as I understand 3e classes). Specialization and skills and such did a world of good diversifying and making every fighter not just the guy with the sword.

Cleric: 2e. The intro of "Spheres of influence" and "specialty clerics" was fantastic.

Rogue: I'm going to go with 2e for a similar reason to the fighters and clerics. The 2e "kits" made playing a "rogue" of any kind 10 times more interesting and diverse than the 1e thief/assassin/acrobat split.

MU: I'm going to say straight up 1e here...but, ok, with Unearthed Arcana, though. Opening up "specialist" mages/"schools of magic" (regardless of how much you like the split of what the various schools entailed) [EDIT] AND the intro of "cantrips" [/EDIT] was a great idea even before becoming more "specialized/specific" in 2e and later. But I am mostly in favor of the "memorized" (I'm so tired of the term "Vancian") mage who is a wimp at 1st level that has to really rely on his fellows and play "smart" to survive and really scrape to increase their power...I do prefer the 3e/d20 SRD list of cantrips than the "separate cantrip for every gods-blessed thing, though.

 

[ferratus]

That's a tough one, because my ideal of each class would probably come from tacking together things from one or two editions.

ie.

Fighter - Special combat manuevers from 4e, the simplicity of 1e/2e, the round after round damage dealer of 3e, and the followers, stronghold and domain rules of BECMI.

Thief - Dirty fighting combat style (crippling, blinding, tripping) supported as core class rules from 4e, the specialization kits from 2e, and the gang of thieves rules from 2e.

Cleric - Okay this one is just 3e, but maybe toned down a little bit. Domains allowed for much better specialization by diety than spheres did, though it would be nice to see some 2e style variant abilities that came with specialty priests (swapping out armor, weapons and undead turning for new class abilities).

Wizard - 2e or 3e since the wizard is pretty much unchanged, especially if you consider that metamagic feats are largely useless for a wizard compared to a sorcerer. 4e familiars and summoning were improvements.

 

[Guinnessbot]

Fighter: 4th - Marking and control abilities finally give the class a firm role in combat other than metal-encased-meat-brick-with-a-sword. Mostly balanced with casters.

Cleric: 3rd, with 4th heal-as-minor capability. I liked 3e domains much more than 4e's approach, but keep heal-as-minor. Don't give the cleric the false choice of healing vs other spells.

Rogue: 3rd/4th - No strong opinion here.

Wizard: 2nd (w/ 4e balance) - Keep the wizard-y feel of 2e (varied spells with strategic uses rewarding creative thinking, non-combat utility spell with a "better living through magic" feel) but balance the class so it doesn't clearly outshine every single role in the game. End the 10-minute work day, and give the class an interesting at-will attack.

 

[BobTheNob]

Fighter 4th : Just far more interesting to play. Though it did feel a little "wizard with an axe..." at times

Cleric : 2nd with healing seperate from standard magical stream (ala 4th)

Theif : 2nd (Sorry, I wasnt online with "combating up" the theif)

Wizard : Somewhere between 1st and 4th. It had good elements across the versions