As I said before, IÂ´ve never said that the classes are less unique, I said that a class could fulfill a lot of roles, so it doesnÂ´t matter if you do not have a cleric, a warrior of a rogue in the party, for example, because there are many other classes that could do their job, even more than in previous editions. Also never said I liked it that way, I was exposing bare facts.
You do not seem to understand that the skills, saves and attack rolls in 5e are calculated by 2 things: Proficiency and stat.
I do know that proficiency governs a lot of things in 5E. But saying the proficiency bonus and skills make classes equal? Just no. A class is defined by so much more than the proficiency bonus, especially in 5E, where every level or so classes gain a specific ability.
Just so you know, I'm currently DM of the Descent into Avernus campaign and we lost our cleric during chapter 2 (those who play know what) but we still have a warlock and a druid for healing and we are HURTING. We are usually forced to rest after even an average fight. Their healing just cant maintain the party.
No offense, but youÂ´re just picking only the party/character choices to back your facts. Try to do it in reverse. Pick the classes you want and give them the skills the party needs.
You can give your druid the criminal background and do not use a rogue, you can train your cleric in perception and survival and your ranger could stay home, you can use a half-elf sorcerer and give him the charlatan background so you do not need a diplomat, your half-elf rogue arcane trickster could be a sage and fullfill all your knowledge needs, your paladin could make a performance to rival your average bard, you can use a gith hexblade warlock and you do not need another melee fighter.
I do not say thatÂ´s a perfect, but ThatÂ´s something you cannot do in previous editions. Just saying.