Really good post. I understand what you mean, but I think that for me specifically, there is no point in a class system if you can essentially be anything anyway.
It's like having a food menu with 100 pages of options. In the end I can only choose one so why have so many. Make the ones you have meaningful.
In the end, if you think about it a non class based system ends up with you picking some kind of class anyway. For example in Gothic 1 you could be a mage or a fighter.
That is a really good point, about why not go to a classless system in that case.
To make it seem like I am contradicting myself I tend to prefer class systems over classless. I tend to feel a little aimless with no classes although I don't mind them. I mean I love FO and Skyrim and none of those games have classes.
Thing is I also grew up on Dungeons and Dragons. It was 1974 (well according to the WIKI not like I would remember the date exactly) so I was 10 then. I started playing when I was around 12 and played it heavily in Highschool then off and on till I was in my late 20's before shifting mainly to computer games.
So I do like the whole aspect of AD&D in general a lot. The classes, the lore, the mechanics and style, and so on. But I am flexible. I don't really care if a game sticks to it or not. I mean I loved FO1 and 2 but also loved FNV and FO4.
Anyhow the point I am making is I do enjoy classes. They give you a template, a structure, they have some cool restrictions at times, and so on. I think Paladins should be LG and Druids Neutral of some sort. It makes sense most divine casters be more on wisdom than intelligence, and so on.
I guess I am not as extreme about it? I don't mind the overlap simply because it gives me the flexibility I talked about earlier. I mean I love playing classes with a wolf or animal companion. If I could only do that with a ranger, or worse, a ranger that was only bow focused, it would be annoying as I don't like bows.
I like in WOTR I could be a Sacred Huntsman, or a Barbarian Mad Dog, or a Ranger, or a Hunter, or a Sylvan Sorcerer. There were lots of flavors with animals.
Also I liked that if I wanted a high charisma I had a few options to work around wisdom limitations.
In short I still find the classes useful even if they do overlap a lot. I do agree they overlap and totally agree it can waterdown the classes and make them less unique.
I still feel, however, you can design a party around traditional AD&D classes though, even with that system. You can still have a party with a pure cleric, a pure tank, a pure mage, and a pure rogue.
My question is this - how does having these additional options get in the way of someone wanting to play with traditional classes? Can't you still do that? Why does it matter if there is also additional cross over and the like? Who does that limit your play style?
So while I value uniqueness and structure and classes … I also value flexibility and in that regard WOTR provides me both options.
Perhaps by doing so other things don't get as nicely developed, I could see how that would be annoying. Perhaps the core classes could have been much better developed if they hadn't made like 100 classes. Still I think they did a good job myself (Owlcats).
Anyhow I get people like things done a certain way following certain traditions and history. I simply am not that way myself.