What edition had the ideal version of each class?

[kitsune9]

Fighter: Pathfinder
Cleric: Pathfinder
Rogue: 3.5
Wizard: 3.0

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Fighter: 4e mostly essentials, but the initial one was also cool
Rogue: 4e essentials
Cleric: 4e/3.5 (i like channel divinity and the templar build) but domains and praying for spells were nice too...
Wizards: 2nd edition/3.0
bard: 2nd edtion (complete bards)

 

[Invisible Stalker]

Wizard: 1e
Cleric: 2e
Rogue: 3e
Fighter: 4e

Paladin: 1e
Ranger: 1e
Druid: 3e
Bard: 4e
Monk: 1e

 

[Kynn]

Fighter: 4e (Essentials builds)
Rogue: 4e (Essentials builds)
Cleric: 2e with spontaneous casting
Mage: hasn't been done right yet

 

[Ratskinner]

What part of the 2e thief would you take? I remember thinking nothing positive of the 2e rogue.

I liked the way backstab worked better than sneak attack.

Now if I could have both...

 

[Stormonu]

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).

Jester, you seem to keep thinking my thoughts for me. I can't XP you fast enough.

 

[Mengu]

Fighter - 4e did it right for me.

Rogue - 3e/4e, not too terribly different for me. Give me skills, maneuvering, sneak attack, and I'm good to go.

Cleric - 4e, except I would have liked domains and other venues of customization to matter more from the start. They got close with essentials, but there is still room for improvement.

Wizard - Every edition had some high points and failings, this one is a tough call. I'll go with 4e, with the caveat I hate the ritual system, and wish there was something better in its place. In previous versions I dislike the low level incompetence, and high level godhood.

 

[Lanefan]

Fighter: 0e and 1e. Dirt simple to play but could still be loads of fun.
Cleric: my ideal would be 1e with spontaneous casting.
Thief-Rogue: 1e and 3e in combination, backstrike beats sneak attack but flanking beats - well, no flanking.
MagicUser-Wizard: 0e or 1e or 2e particularly if they had 3e Sorcerer-style casting.
Ranger: 1e. Anything after that has been soiled and tainted by Drizz't.
Paladin: probably 3e.
Druid-Nature Cleric: my ideal would be a beefed-up 1e or a very toned-down 3e.
Monk: an unenthusiastic vote for 3e as the best of a bad lot.
Bard: no edition has got this one right enough yet to deserve a vote.


Lanefan

 

[Kynn]

Monk: an unenthusiastic vote for 3e as the best of a bad lot.
Lanefan

I'm playing a 4e monk in D&D Encounters this season, and so far it feels pretty good and monk-ish.

 

[Bluenose]

Frankly I'm surprised the 3e version isn't polling stronger, though I suppose its execution was weak compared to the concept (the definition of ideal coming into play, perhaps).

People who like their high-level Fighters to be able to stand in combat with a dragon and hard to take out of the fight with magic are likely to prefer an edition where that is the case because the Fighter is a badass over an edition where that may be the case if the Fighter has a large array of magic items and a friendly spell caster willing to buff them up. "Eggshells armed with sledgehammers" is a game the Magic-User used to play in D&D, not the Fighter.