Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6117004" data-attributes="member: 2067">I see that as potentially problematic, though. "Okay, the main antagonists in this adventure are undead, someone's going to HAVE to play the cleric!"I think there's probably a continuum, but I really don't ever want any player at my table to feel like they're required to take Class X just because the game is like Y. Kinda lame, IMO. Part of this depends on how you view the function of a class in D&D. If only someone were to write, say, 1800 words or so on that topic....<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I think a big part of the desire for exclusivity in a class is to ensure that the player gets to contribute in a unique way in play. If you play the fighter because you want to be the best at fighting, and the rogue comes along and is just as good, you might not feel like you're getting what you want out of your selection -- you want your character to be special at something that others can't do as well. That doesn't necessarily mandate that a class be almost-entirely exclusive, though. You can get character distinction in a classless game.</blockquote>