The Compleat Adventurer (1983) does for the non-magic classes what The Compleat Spell Caster did for magic-users. Basically: made up a whole bunch of new ones.

We have: Beastmaster, Buccaneer, Gladiator, Harlequin, Knight, Martial Artist, Rogue, Spy, Swordsman, Warrior and Hunter, which has three sub-classes – Scout, Bounty Hunter and Witch Hunter. Many of these are expressions of professions from literature or history that seem like they should be represented in RPGs. Solomon Kane is the frame for the Witch Hunter. Spies, Knights, Buccaneers and Gladiators have clear real-world corespondents. Beastmaster is indicated as a stand-in for Tarzan, and I am sure the 1982 film of the same name has nothing to do with the class. The swordsman is interesting because it gestures at (without really fulfilling) the role of the Dexterity-based fighter a la Errol Flynn. The Rogue meanwhile tries to remix the Thief into a better representative of literary predecessors like Cugel and Gray Mouser. Same for the Martial Artist, which I think does the concept more justice than the Monk. The Harlequin is most interesting for me, as it moves a Thief sort of character toward acting, trickery and low magic (and I think might influence some ideas the lads at Games Workshop got a few years later).

I don’t think any of these are great classes right out of the box, but they are almost all interesting in some regard and could certainly be mined for something like OSE. I’d welcome that! I think they (and other books like these) indicate a baseline dissatisfaction with the official D&D offerings (that has maybe since become hard coded into the hobby’s DNA).

I haven’t talked about the art in these books, partly because they mostly lack clear credit. Peter Blandori did all the covers, though and most of the memorable interiors. I love how he makes everyone look haunted and possibly unstable — most of the people look like they could be NPCs in a Mothership game.