Arcane Archer: One of the hardest to place if not the absolute hardest for me, the AA is a full BAB class with rogue HP and some spell-like abilities, putting it reasonably between all three camps. The largest problem for me was that the class is ranged- and where, really, does that go? Wizards are ranged, but the characteristics of the AA class aren't really very similar to Wizards. Rather, they share a combat ethos with the rogue- strike without putting yourself in danger if possible. Because its BAB is so high it gets a leaning towards fighter, but overall its skills and abilities seem to make it somewhat more roguelike.

Assassin: Easy Rogue decision. Assassins are more or less Rogues with a little more fighting power and a couple spell-like abilities, but they still fall very decisively into the Rogue camp.

Barbarian: Heavy leaning towards Fighter. No Rogue at all- rather, it relies on raw power and a few combat buffs to win, pulling it ever-so-slightly away from Fighter and towards Wizard.

Bard: Heavy middle leaning, as the Bard is the Jack-of-all-trades among classes. It can fight, support buff, or work like a Rogue. However, due to its 3/4 BAB and d6 HP it's not really that much of a fighting class on its own, landing it a little towards a Rogue/Wizard hybrid.

Cleric: I'll admit, I may have placed this one poorly. On review I think it should be much closer to Bard, albeit more towards Wizard. With d8 HP and 3/4 BAB, it's on the high end of rogues, giving it a little weight towards fighter (its buffs help a lot with that, too). However, it's one of the few ninth-level spell classes, a defining trait of a Wizard.

Divine Champion: This one was somewhat hard to place, as it functions a lot like a Paladin but is quite a bit less proficient at combat (no divine might/shield). If it were a stronger combatant it would easily lean more to Fighter, but because of this weakness combined with its buffing abilities it gets somewhat of a bump towards Wizard. Still, could be a little farther left.

Druid: Wizard-Rogue with less combat ability than a Bard. Shapechanging gives it a high degree of toolbox-ness, but not to the level of a Shifter. Full spellbook leans to Wizard, but HP and a 3/4 attack bonus coupled with a dearth of true "make you dead" spells pull it towards Rogue significantly.

Dwarven Defender: Brick house. 'Nuff said.

Knight-Champion: A Fighter with some group buffs. Less buff-ey than the Paladin, so it winds up closer to the Fighter corner.

Master Scout: Rogue, leaning slightly more to Fighter than Wizard. Wide array of buffs and skills. This is more of a guess, as I don't know much about the class.

Monk: This one was very hard to place. While it does have some buffs and spell-like abilities, these are few and far between. Rather, it can go for crippling strikes or just raw damage. Really about dead center between Fighter and Rogue, as while it lacks in BAB and HP it makes up for it with its sheer attack spam. Skills are about an even mix of Fighter and Rogue as well.

Paladin: The magic Fighter. Paladins rely heavily on buffs, pulling them a little out of the Fighter corner towards Wizard.

Pale Master: A Wizard, but much tougher. Thanks to powerful class abilities it does have limited close combat capacity, though it's not one you'd want in a melee brawl. Rogue HP buff but Wizard BAB, the Pale Master's focus on survivability moves it somewhat away from Wizard, though not by much.

Ranger: Another middle-of-the-pack class, Ranger in and of itself can be played like a Fighter or a Rogue, often like both. Additionally, it has a paladin-like spellbook, pulling it towards Wizard as well. Full BAB, d10 HP and a plethora of freebie combat feats balance out with a lack of heavy armor capability and heavy rogue skills to put it about midway between Fighter and Rogue, with a leaning to Wizard.

RDD: Another 'buff' class, RDD itself has a leaning towards Fighter. With few self-buffs, it is rather a jack-of-all-trades mechanically. I think this one could stand to be a little more towards Rogue and Fighter and away from Wizard.

Shadowdancer: Rogue with some magic abilities. Done.

Shifter: I'll be the first to admit I don't know Shifters well, so this could be way off. Shifters seem to be very Druid-ish, but without the huge spellbook. Rather, it relies on its innate shifting abilities to fill just about any role, making it much more apt in the middle than anywhere else. Still, as it is not a dedicated combatant, it does shy away from any strong Fighter tendencies- though to be fair it shies away from strong tendencies of any class.

Sorcerer: Wizard with more HP and some weapons training. Should be closer to Wizard in the diagram.

Weapon Master: Do I even need to explain?

To do this properly you'd first need to acknowledge that DnD does a 4-role system not a 3-role system, because divine and arcane are treated very different.

Defining things with a "sufficiently broad brush" seems to be pretty much the opposite of your intention here....

Actually Tormak is correct, so much so that at the beginning, 1e DnD had seperate character sheets for each of the four primary arch-types. One for Fighters/rangers/paladins, one for Magic Users, one for Thieves, and one for Cleric/druids. Inclusive as well is the idea that when creating adventures and encounters, this mix of character classes is the benchmark for an average party of four characters.

Granted, 3e and NWN do their best to destroy the usefulness of party diversity, but there it is. I do like the idea of graphic illustration of where each class is, compared to each other. I look forward to seeing every ones opinions on where each class relates.

Personally, I think that if you changed the points on the triangle to "Caster", "Melee", and "Sneak" you may be able to better garner better results.

I think this is something you told me a long time ago: "You can sneak, fight and cast. Pick two."

Bard 30.

Wizard 24/Rogue1/SD6.

Cleric 23/Rogue 1/Monk 6.

All three.