A fighter with a bow is different from a ranger with a bow, both thematically and mechanically. Since a lot of the ranger theme is focused on woodsmanship, and that's achievable through backgrounds, I would agree that 5E has too many options. Likewise, a battle master is not sufficiently distinct from a champion.
What we could have used is more different options, but the designers were somewhat handicapped by their adherence to tradition. The ranger class isn't sufficiently distinct from the fighter, but they had to include it, because it's been its own class for so long.
So...it really depends on the
resolution to which you're talking about "represent your character," doesn't it? I mean, sure, this is already a matter of taste, but "only one way to represent your character" seems to be a hell of a lot more ambiguous than how you originally presented it, if we're able to take in all the details of fluff and such.
As a DM, you can choose not to use the multiclassing rules, and instead make 4e-style MC feats....
Funny how this is exactly the kind of thing I mentioned earlier. That is: "You're the DM! Make something up!" as an ironclad, unassailable explanation for why any and all dissatisfaction with the system can be handwaved away.
I was surprised also by them reversing the trend of D&D systems increasing the number and intricacy of rules, and going rules-light by trusting DMs to make calls. I'd much rather have to endure the occasional bad DM ruling than an entire system that I find badly designed with a hodge podge of hokey jargon and confusing, counter intuitive corner cases.
And I would much rather have a system that's just well-designed to begin with. I'm not asking you to like something you don't. You're asking me to
like fixing something I don't like. Why on earth would I like doing that? Especially if I *already* have something I like better AND which needs few to no modifications, which is exactly what the person you quoted said?
Mr Mearls said it right when he said there is no way they could publish a game with a rule for every situation that could possibly come up (better to have'em when you need 'em). It's fairly straightforward that the desire for rules-completion is an unachievable goal and probably undesirable as well. Given how successful 5th edition is, its flaws are minute compared to the overall wisdom they had in deciding to keep the game simple and easy to play. This allows fast combat, and better storytelling. Game rules jargon coming up often is not very immersive.
A few points of order:
1) Wanting rules when you "need 'em" is not "a rule for every situation that could possibly come up." You are twisting "gee, I wish I had rules for
extremely common situations" (like, say, the value of items if there WERE a magic item economy, which the default setting *has*) into "this doesn't have rules for riding a penguin down the nether-ice glaciers of the Inverse Mountains, so it's totally useless to me." Wanting a game to cover common issues, or *at least* provide a couple of suggested options (like, I dunno,
modular stuff?) is not the same as wanting "a rule for every situation." If you think it is, you have a serious misunderstanding.
2) Thanks for calling my tastes "fairly straightforward[ly]...undesirable." Or, y'know, not.
3) Questions of "success" or "failure" are rather premature, wouldn't you say? 4e was also selling quite well less than a year after release. I'm not saying 5e isn't successful, nor that it absolutely has to follow a similar path to 4e. Just that any argument which starts with "given the success..." is not really going to convince me, or most people who disagree with you here.
4) You keep calling it "simple" and "easy." For me, it's exactly the opposite. Forging into unknown rules territory
on a regular basis and "making something up" is
not "easy" or "simple." I find these both daunting tasks, have legitimately failed at them multiple times in the past, and am very thankful that I've never actually been a DM for anyone else before because I am *certain* I'd have screwed up and damaged others' fun as a result.
I'm certain that, for you, the "do whatever you want, you're the DM!" philosophy is freeing, regardless of whether it's "how hard are monsters?" or "what's the difficulty of penguin-sledding down a nether-ice glacier?" On the latter, I'd even agree with you, because I'd never expect a core rulebook to deal with something like that. On the former, however, your "freedom" is my "shackles." That you cast it in utterly absolute, everyone-should-feel-like-I-do terms doesn't help the discussion.