Between this thread and the eternal 'what is/should be the Ranger' threads, I think it safe to say that there's space for another generalist character without the bard flavor. Too bad the 3e Factotum didn't catch on*; or artificer felt more... honestly I don't know specifically why I don't think it works.
*although admittedly the name and implementation were both rather droll
I too like a character who has an answer to situations as varied as a charging monster, locked door, castle to sneak into, or dying friend. Back in my redbox days, this would by by playing an elf, cleric, and thief together. In AD&D a cleric/druid and F/M/T or bard. In 3e any of the gish-builds with some skill-support and enough Use Magic Device for healing wands and scrolls. 4e I can't say I landed on any one thing. Same with 5e -- valor bard works; rangers, artificers, dex-based paladins and Eldritch Knights** work; convoluted
multiclass builds work. None of them work perfectly, or come with thematic baggage that I might want to run sometimes but not repeatedly. We'll see if anything becomes my go-to idea for D&D'24.
*honestly, what I did was a fighter, ranger, or paladin and then a half-elf C/M/T because we misread the multiclass chart once and it stuck.
**with feats or dips for skills (and healing for EKs)
Roleplaying Wise I like to play a character who can be the mild butt of the joke for the rest of the party. It seems to encourage more interparty roleplay.
I enjoy either the hyper-competent (or thinks they are) loner-survivalist with a heart of gold who acts like they are being seriously burdened by these naive treasure-hunters or do-gooders, but secretly likes being needed (/actually relying upon them). That, or the character with the glaring buffoonish trait to which they are completely unaware -- say,
Othar Tryggvassen or
Zapp Brannigan (minus the skeeviness).