I appreciate the value in having a “menu” of answers to read through and learn from. These can be really informative and a great way to self-learn.
However, a question generating that kind of set of answers has some inherent problems when asked here.
Generally speaking, the kind of question you're thinking about is considered incomplete here. “What can I multiclass my bard with in order to expand my spellcasting abilities?” could be a great question, but if we have to resort to guessing what might be the solution, that means the question is missing vital information for both answer-writers and voters to determine the best answer.
If voters have to guess when voting, the site's systems break: voters who refrain from voting out of doubt don't help raise up the real right answer(s), and voters who vote anyway are just contributing to what's effectively a popularity poll.
Lack of well-considered votes, and a surplus of popularity-votes, fails to fulfil the site's mission.
“But… Huh? Didn't you say those answers are valuable?”
I started by agreeing that those sets of varied answers are valuable. Why would we throw out that value just because they cause some seemingly minor problems for voting?
This does, despite appearances, come back to the same reason we reject list questions: SE wasn't designed to generate those sets of answers, while discussion forums are pitch-perfect for them. RPG.se exists in symbiosis with the other RPG help and resources sites that are our neighbours, and it throws sand in our site's gears when we try to duplicate badly what those other sites already do smoothly.
By rejecting questions that go against the system's intended purpose and fail to properly trigger its quality assurance features (voting, etc.), we ensure that this specialised site works well for the questions it was made for: the ones that don't work well elsewhere. That's our core service and mission.
So to serve our intended function and audience, we need to be a bit tough-love on questions that don't fit here, even if they seems like they'd be fun or interesting.
It also means that questions that would get better results elsewhere are more likely to be posted in those places. Those fun and interesting questions have a home on the Internet already, and should hurry to where they can flourish, instead of being stunted by our constraining mechanisms, like a square peg in a round hole.
The silver lining: We still generate these “menus” of answers, just differently and more slowly
We actually do still have a way of hosting menus of answers. Instead of being strung out under one incomplete question though, we host them by having fewer answers under a set of related, complete questions. By closing questions that are too broad — in the sense that they can only be answered by guessing at possible solutions — we encourage question-askers to add details to make it possible for voters to tell which submitted answers are actually correct.
A set of such questions about, e.g., rangers and spellcasting means that all the answers that might have been guess-submitted to a vaguer question will have homes under more specific questions. The system works at high efficiency with such questions and answers, fulfilling our mission and preventing noise from interfering with our core audience's use of the site. Browsing all our questions in a search for rangers and spellcasting will turn up the same set of answers — except that they will be well-vetted, quality answers with documented conditions under which they work and don't work.
This obviously takes longer, as it takes time for varied but related questions on a topic to be asked naturally. So the Internet is enriched by the different approaches: here there will be a curated set of quality answers that accumulates slowly, and meanwhile elsewhere on our neighbours' discussion forums there will be more raw-and-uncut discussions that happen more quickly.