So far in that regard, it's identical to dos2.
There are classes in dos2 (lol?) and despite lohse making a strange fighter or ifan a strange wizard, this was *allowed*, not mandatory.
If an option does not affect the game if you don't use it, it's a good option.
It's very clear they are going for the same thing, because just like in dos2, companions in bg3 never ever never ever never mention their class - for this reason. I am sure shadowheart can still be a devotee of her goddess without being a cleric - it's ridiculous to argue this.
And I'm sure wyll doesn't need to be a warlock to make a pact with some entity. An eldritch knight or a shadow monk seem pretty immersive to me.
Which is what matter because this is a strong rpg, the more options, the better personal experience. You just need more imagination.
Also, what the other person said above: in d&d you build your own party, fully aware and in control of everyone's classes, so you are at a disadvantage when you build your char in bg3, not knowing who you are getting in the party.
It is good to have characters with a predisposed class to not overwhelm players, but it's even better to be able to control that, appearance, too.
Dos2 did that marvelously, you could change red prince from fighter to knight and his hairstyle.
No one's asking about changing names, backgrounds, tags, races etc.
