@ Midnight: The variance of opinion you have just explained can easily be represented with different builds and different levels on each. My suggestion for specialisations was also designed to achieve the precise thing you indicate with the ninja. I am not, in any way, encouraging for any kind of stifling of player creativity with my suggestion of fluff-crunch integration. What I am saying is that ultimately, we must have one represent the other, or, more precisely, be ABLE to represent the other. I actually want a class to be able to represent the ninja in both the forms you present (albeit likely at different levels) - what I want to avoid is people deliberately avoiding a class because it sucks mechanically, not because it doesn't fit their concept.
On multiclassing, I think you are well off-base. You are essentially in the same paradigm as Monte Cook and the other designers, because you are essentially claiming that 'mastery of the system' is a good thing with what you have said. If this is truly your opinion, then I'm afraid we will never agree, and should probably just leave it at that, and not argue back and forth and clutter this thread (or this project).
The reason why I dislike this 'dumpster-diving' principle in DnD is that it's highly labour-intensive (and book-intensive). Not everyone has the time or inclination to go hunting through 10+ books to build a character that is competent (which some classes or class combinations plain-out require you to do), and not everyone can, or wants to, focus so heavily on mechanics to make a character that keeps up. Unlike what many people think, there
is an objective measurement of character power, which some characters reach more easily than others. What this does is essentially force people to work mechanics-up, rather than fluff-down. I find this sad and problematic, as this simply results in certain concepts being unplayable, regardless of how cool they are, and it also keeps people without a heavy mechanical focus from playing the same game as people who do have one.
Your mileage may, and seemingly does, vary on this issue, but I cannot see any way that what I have outlined above is a positive thing for the game, at all.
In my opinion, multiclassing shouldn't outpower a base class - I'm with an 'equal, but different' solution here.
@ JaronK: You have just said precisely what I think.
@ The issue of alignment restrictions: As I have described
here (WARNING: This read is dryer than a 70-year old virgin), some alignment reqs do make sense, while others (such as the monk) do not. However, I don't believe that 'departing the path' should be something you are punished for - that's just daft. It's basically saying that 'if you stop training as a paladin, you stop being one', which is just ass-backwards and a fistful of stupid.