... However what drove me to ignore the rule set was that fundamental lack of variability that 3rd Edition actually offered. It seems like I'm pretty much stuck in the class I began the game in and I can either choose a mediocre stat bonus where I used to be able to alter the standard progression path by taking a feat, and the stat bonus would come later which demonstrated a focus in a differing area of my character's priority.
So, why should I play 5th Edition? It eliminated the wonderful options a player could take his character and even it's weak multiclassing can't portray the most famous characters of our favorite DnD novel characters. I mean, stat out Elminster the way he should be in 5th Ed, or even Mirt the Merciless.
See, this is where I have nearly the opposite opinion. I think 5e is the first ruleset since early 2e that moved towards
more flexibility. I can create any character type I want, because the type of character, their personality, their favored approach isn't limited by what rules I can pick that are acceptable. To me a character is more about who they are than the crunch of the game.
It's already moving more toward a 3e approach with the addition of more races, classes and archetypes. (Although how could it not).
Take the swashbuckler. It's a pretty cool archetype. Except why do you have to be a rogue to buckle swashes? I like the different approach to sneak attack, although it's not entirely necessary. You could have played a perfect swashbuckler with the core bard, fighter and rogue classes quite easily (along with others). To me perhaps a Dex-based build of whatever class, add acrobatics, and a lot of attitude. Additional mechanics aren't necessary. Now it's a bit tougher because they'll "never be as good as
the swashbuckler."
I get the irony. I have a huge set of houserules. But as I continue playing, we're stripping back more and more of the abilities and such, and getting back to a class being just the framework that you build a character on top of. Any way you'd like. In my case, I've kept most of the abilities, but allow the player to select which class abilities they want from a pool of "rogue abilities" if you're a rogue. Other than cleric and paladin, which logically follow a more restricted approach, I don't see any reason to limit any character to the archetypes that the designers decide are appropriate.
Why does every mastermind gain the ability to mimic the speech of others. I don't recall Capone, Blofeld, or...well any mastermind, really, having that ability. Heck, even the disguise and forgery aspects. If I want to be able to mimic, why can't I just take proficiency in performance and/or deception and tell the DM that I want the character to be able to mimic other's speech? Why does it have to be a special ability in a class, or a feat (of which it's both)?
Elminster's another good example. Ever since he started acquiring additional classes in the novels, they started adding classes in the game. Sure he was once a rogue. But that was hundreds of years ago, and a 20th level anything will be better than your average person at rogue stuff if they want. He knows how to pick a lock? Great, get proficiency in thief's tools, and call him a 20th level wizard. My only real complaint here is that there is still no general wizard class.
So for my preferences, I find that it still has too many rules. But it's much, much closer to a "less is more" approach that I think is the better one for me. The mechanics themselves are quite streamlined and elegant, and much easier to extract from the rest of the rules to modify and tweak. It's not quite the separation of mechanics and fluff that I'd hope for, but the package as a whole is much better designed (as expected) than AD&D in terms of complexity.