Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6297729" data-attributes="member: 17106">That's a circular argument. (Is there a <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?354907-Monsters-based-on-logical-fallacies" target="_blank">monster</a> for that?)Any number of "sacred cows" have been killed. Classes are not unkillable. The wisdom of doing so would be debatable, but classless D&D would be exactly that: classless D&D.That's what rules do, period. The question is whether the game that is silhouetted by those restrictions is a good one, better than it would be without them.To my way of thinking the rationale for classes is that they provide an easy entry point to playing a character. Choosing between fighter and wizard is a much more comprehensible choice than trying to allocate a swath of resources among various magical and nonmagical abilities. This purpose does not require any amount of niche protection.Obviously, some other people have (or think they have) a rationale for classes that does require niche protection, for which that protection serves some useful purpose that would be lost if we allowed more flexible character creation. That I'm not sure of; I don't know what the purpose of those limits is.</blockquote>