Again with this "just", as if it was a reasonable request.
It really is a reasonable request - or, rather, would be if it were any game that wasn't D&D, that didn't have 40+ years of inertia & stereotyping perpetuating the split-genre/double-standard, and closing the game to a wide swath of fantasy-sub-genre emulation and playstyles.
But, if one were to take 5e's founding principles of inclusion and supporting /more/ playstyles seriously, it might also seem a reasonable request to add options to facilitate such things.
They already are in the same genre. That genre is called "dungeons and dragons".
A game can't emulate a genre it defines, that'd be circular reasoning.
Maybe you like to be disappointed.
Like I said, some of us just like complaining about it. ;P
Another unpleasant reality of the situation is that if fighters weren't horribly under-versatile victims of 'realism,' and casters weren't wildly over-powered 'supers,' you might well see all-fighter or nearly-all-fighter (or at least all-martial) parties ('cleric-less' parties have always been a problem, and even with Druids/Bards/Paladins as alternative in 3e & 5e, the healer-less party is still a problem), because the heroic archetypes the fighter represents (however poorly) are far more popular than those represented by the cleric or the like.
The more pressing issue is the lack of build depth. We would dearly like more crunch in our charbuilding.
That's something I appreciated about 3.x that's still somewhat lacking in 5e.