Thesaurus Classes

Thesaurus Class? Let's define this as a derivative character class from a role-playing game from one of the four base classes that specializes in one function rather than covering a field different from the existing classes in the game. Usually the increase in the specialized field is offset by a reduction in the other abilities of the base class. Examples?

Assassin

Role: A rogue that kills people. Wait. I thought rogues killed people? No, this one kills them even better, plus they specialize in poison. Wait. I thought rogues could use poison? So now my rogue can't be an assassin-for-hire? Well, no, you still can, no one's going to stop you, it's just now there is this class that does it better. So I have to re-roll an assassin now?

Ranger

Role: A fighter that uses bows. Now, some games do rangers right and give them combat pets, dual wielding, and specific nature powers, but many games do not do ranger right and we get a sort of fighter sort of rogue that sort of maybe can use magic powers that feels like a mash -up between three classes. Good rangers are a lifestyle choice. Bad rangers are fighters that can't wear plate and are limited to bows.

Cavalier, Knight, Swordsman, Guardian, Battlemaster, etc

Role: See fighter or paladin. Yes, you can use a thesaurus! Good job game designers, and thank you for making the base fighter class so unappealing. Thank you also for making me a buy a splatbook just to get a power-creep fighter class that makes my original book less valuable now. I absolutely do not need a splatbook knight thesaurus class, if you would have done your job in the base book you would have covered a knight option in fighter. If it is even needed. A knight is a fighter that belongs to an order of...fighters. Seriously. Choice? I don't need choice, I need less choices in class selection that matter more. Not more choices that matter less.

Swashbuckler, Pirate, Corsair, etc

Role: Rouges that live on boats. See also, cavalier, dragonrider, or knight in some games, which are basically fighters that fight from mounts. Since dungeon masters typically do not design dungeons for boats or mounts, these vehicle-limited classes do some things related to their home really well, and then everything else on dry land kinda less well.

Investigator, Brawler, Blacksmith, Sage, Guard, Archaeologist, etc

The old job-as-class qualifies as a thesaurus class, because these are either trade skills you should be able to purchase or just some sort of alternate-world "aren't town guards just fighters" thing. This really applies to classes like investigators and archaeologists, because in an ideal game, I should be able to buy a job specialization in those types of jobs and have a mage-investigator or a rogue-archaeologist and be able to combo a job and a class without all of a sudden having to multi-class and be forced to make the choice "do I want to be less of a mage or less of an investigator" every level. When you design a game, there are the important roles in the game that deserve to be primary classes, and then the everything else stuff that should be job specializations. While some jobs should be classes (depending on your world and story), not every job should be.

Thief-Acrobat, Shield-Fighter, Specialist-Mage, etc

Another thesaurus class exists when game designers give you an option to do one thing really well at the expense of everything else. Aka, the specialist class. It is silly, because really, you should make the base class flexible and able to do a variety of things well to keep thing interesting and give a player more choices during combat. Picking a specialist class limits you to doing one thing really well, and that one thing often becomes the only thing your character does. These appeal to min-maxers, make the base classes less appealing to play (because they are not the best at this one thing anymore), and force you to pick them because you know content will be balanced for thge specialist and not the general class. As a game designer, if you know the ultimate defender is the shield-knight, you will balance all of your game's boss monsters against that class and not the generic fighter. In doing this, you have just put everyone who picks generic fighter at a disadvantage and forced all fighters into the specialty class. A base fighter should be able to pick up a shield and be the best defender in the game.

"Other Games Have Them" Classes

Druid, ranger, paladin, warlock (witch), bard, and a bunch of other classes tend to creep into fantasy gaming because other games have them. This is okay if you put the design effort and time in to make these classes unique, special, and fun classes to play. If you are going to just make a warlock a variant mage and give them a special spell list of spells that wizards can use also I am going to be one pissed-off warlock and say you cut game-design corners and cheated me of a unique and exclusive spell list. You shouldn't add classes that don't belong in your world either, if your world doesn't have paladins, don't feel pressured to put them into your game.

Sword-mage, Holy-fighter, Spell-blade, Divine-mage, etc

Hybrid classes! In games with multi-classing, you don't need classes that  have multi-classing built in. If you can already make the choice of playing a level 5 fighter and a level 5 mage, why do you need a hybrid sword-mage class that is part fighter, part mage? This is not technically a thesaurus class, but you will often see a thesaurus name slapped on these to make them more palatable. Either multi-classing is going to work and be the way you do multi-classing, or you need to ship a complete set of hybrids to fill the roles you have in your game world. It is sad, because you know when the hybrids come out they are usually better than a multi-class kludge solution. Hybrids have some design behind them and typically work better (unless you are exploiting multi-classing because the low level classes have scaling powers and those are really all you need).

The Moral of the Story

Ask anybody involved in MMO design, your base classes matter. Pen-and-paper games typically think they live in a world where they can ship unbalanced designs and multiple classes to chase the holy-grail of 'choice' - but really, less is more. I don't want fifty or sixty classes in the game, I would love eight classes that do what those sixty do equally well. When I go to design a character, I want less choices that matter more. Let me specialize as I level up, but don't make those specializations things that limit me into one role. Good design matters, and doing what everyone did before is not an excuse to abdicate your choices as a game designer.

It is important for referees as well, if all you want to do is play basic Pathfinder or D&D 5 without the splatbooks, say that is what you are doing and don't let the tide of popular opinion force you into playing your game somebody else's way. Realize that splatbook classes are typically power-creep filled affairs to get you to buy a book, but in doing so, you make your original books and classes less desirable. Choice is not always a good thing to chase as a designer, or as a consumer, to reward. It is great if you are trying to sell books, of course, but as a referee or player, it is the inevitable drip-drip-drip of power creep that makes you say, "I hope they clean this all up in the next edition."