CapnZapp
Legend
That answer is so relativizing it says next to nothing.Short Answer: It is hit and miss, but then that's pretty much always been the case.
To me, it's obvious that dedication-style multiclassing is way less impactful than levels-style multiclassing. (That this likely is the point of inventing dedications is not the point here)
I would be surprised if they ever created levels-style multiclassing rules. (At least if we're talking a "core-adjacent" general option)I'm okay with the Dedication Feats as an option for multiclassing, but I'd like to put the D&D3.5/PF1 approach with it and have both options. It needs to be part of a toolbox, not the only multiclass option.
Paizo is clearly going down a different path than D&D, so this is likely intentional and not a bug. They clearly intend you to either be a spellcaster (with a good selection of spell choices) or not a spellcaster.Also, spell lists are too constraining. This isn't new with PF2, but since the game is still early in its releases it could get better. This plays out most obviously to me when trying to make a classic Ranger -- the Druid's spell list isn't close enough to the Ranger spell list -- and the Shadow Weaver, where all spell lists include spells that aren't part of the theme.
Rangers are clearly not spellcasters in Pathfinder 2. What you call a "classic" Ranger would in Pathfinder 2 be a character with a weirdly constricted selection of mostly Nature spells. (Not saying this because you're wrong to want a D&D-style Ranger-with-spells. Saying this to turn your assumptions on the head in order to make it easier to see it from a POV where "Druid's spell list isn't close enough to the Ranger spell list" is not considered a bug).
Also, it's unrelated to multiclassing.