We're roleplay focused. 3E offered much better multiclassing, prestige classes to flesh out concepts and backgrounds, various skill points, a robust skill system compared to 2E, more classes, more customising options with feats, and a streamlined rules system (d20, roll high).
2E in comparision offered mostly kits, and not much flexibility. Fluff works for both anyway - I tend to tailor fluff to my campaign from various sources - but the 3E feels like the mechanics fit the fluff better.
Thanks for the explanation. I think I know where my confusion came from. It's the definition of what roleplaying is.
In our area when we refer to roleplaying we're not talking about anything having to do with game mechanics. Roleplaying is interacting with each other and the environment. It's not rolling dice, though things like skill checks may be used to direct or support roleplaying.
2E kits were mostly just fluff. It was an exception rather than the rule to get any mechanical benefits for taking a kit. They offered everything required to streamline character concepts, though.
In theory 3E prestige classes could have been an improvement since they always granted mechanical benefits. But they quickly became nothing but a means to get more powerful or realize 'builds' that couldn't be created in a competitive way using just the core classes and multi-classing. They became in short an excuse for power-creep and a fix for badly designed rules. I've always found it difficult to believe how a character could end up having levels in three different base classes and just as many prestige classes.
So, from my viewpoint the 2E kits were a lot better in their support for roleplaying.
4E in comparision feels limited. They cut down so many skills, especially perform. it also feels pigeonholing with regards to classes, and focused on rigid roles, and tactical combat - and draws those out.
That may change with time, but at the moment, 4E simply is not offering enough.
Well, using our definition of roleplaying not having a perform skill isn't really a disadvantage. If you'd like your character to be proficient with an instrument or good at singing it becomes fact by simply stating it in your background. If you want checks to measure how good your performance is, ability checks are absolutely sufficient.
It's true the 4E PHB doesn't have as many classes as the 3E PHB had. But the difference isn't as great as many make it sound. All 4E classes come with two basic builds, something only the 3E ranger class had. There are about 80 powers for every class which compares favorably to the very small number of class features you got in 3E. The 3E sorcerer and wizard were really just a single class, different only in their spell casting mechanics.
I also don't see why so many people insist that the roles are more rigid in 4E. They aren't. It's just the first time the roles that have been defining the game since it's inception are actually spelled out.
Combat has always been tactical. There's only a slight shift from static, individual tactics to dynamic, team tactics. Myself, I prefer that shift.
Still, with so many supplements to look back on, of course 4E seems lacking by comparison. But that's really only a question of time. When the 4E PHB2 has been released all of the 3E core character concepts will have been covered. It will also close any perceived 'holes' like shapechanging, summoning, or unarmed combat.
So, I'm pretty sure, you'll eventually find everything you're currently missing in 4E.
The thing I'm missing most right now are psionic classes. For me D&D isn't complete without psionics. What triggered my switch to 3E was the release of the Psionics Handbook. It'll probably be the same for 4E, unless our 3E campaign dies prematurely because high-level has become so tedious.
