I'm OLD, and I started back at the beginning of all this
Excellent! We can reminisce and share together!
Yeah, again, I think the existing class, theme, feats, and background are pretty much adequate to this task.
Thinking more about what I'd written earlier, I think it could work quite well with 4 main bits: Ancestry (physical origins), Origin (background/culture of growing up), Theme (profession/other things theme was used for), and Class. Both Origin and Theme would have a description and would/could act like a trained skill in the situations (some of which are detailed in the description) where a DM wants a roll for something where it could apply.
Now, here I'm a bit different. I see the skills more as 'approaches' to how you typically solve problems. So the guy who uses moves based primarily on strength, in a loose sense, is solving problems with athletic means. The guy who relies on sheer quickness and agility is doing 'acrobatic' stuff. I admit, these two are somewhat closely related, but it still feels like there's a decent flavor difference (and I'm not looking for realism, but more for portrayal). In the case of Diplomacy and Intimidate, they are just DIFFERENT approaches! I wouldn't combine them. And I don't see what Bluff and Thievery have in common at all. Someone MIGHT be a 'scoundrel' and rely on a mix of the two, but its equally possible I'm all bluff and I have no thieving skills at all. Or conversely my thieving is right out there in the open and no deception is required. I wouldn't consider tricking someone with sleight-of-hand 'bluff' either, really. The more I thought about it when I wrote up the HoML skill list the less I wanted to change the 4e one.
Oh, if we're going approaches... I'm all in, a la FATE Accelerated! (Also been using Approaches + Roles + Distinctions in a game we're running in Cortex Prime and it's been awesome.) Hmmm, it's interesting that you see the skills as the approaches, and not the attributes, which I think is how I had it in my mind. Plus the skills are kind of all over the place, like how would the knowledge skills be an approach? But also the attributes themselves don't all line up well with approaches. (Though that brings up an interesting idea to get rid of skills and go with a d20 Modern-ish approach where you get trained in a particular attribute and forgo skills entirely -- doubt that would ever fly with most players but its an interesting thought).
I prefer broad skills that can be applied in different ways, and I have no problem with them being broad as a player can always say "my character is no good at this" if they want to limit it. We give you the keys to the kingdom; what's interesting is where you limit yourself to create character. Even if the attributes in D&D are not that great as a bunch of distinctions, under this model the approach is the attribute, and the knowledge/training/area of expertise are the skills.
If going with the reverse, I'd say that firstly everyone should get enough skill picks to allow them to make an interesting set of choices and mix (allowing a flat pick of 4-5 skills per character seems to be a popular 4e house rule), and secondly there needs to be some crossover between Acrobatics and Athletics given the artificial way D&D handles the STR/DEX divide. (From my experience as a rock climber, martial artist, and etc I would assert they are much more closely related -- you may use more power or more finesse to do something, but the somethings you do are quite similar. Plus, it makes for the funny reversal situation that many rogues end up being poor at climbing walls, despite that under 1e they were the only class that could do it!)
MCing is MUCH MUCH BETTER than most 'charops' and casual players seem to think. Giving the ability to just swap without any cost is actually pretty OP. I know MOST people here will probably not agree, but I know
@MwaO has stated this same opinion. I would agree though that PMC sucks, though there might be a very few specific ones that are OK. Certainly the hybrid rules killed PMC stone cold dead, and its easy to see why.
Perhaps; I didn't dig too deep into the MC feats after the PHB came out, so there may be more stuff in future books that are serious imbalances. At the time (prior to deep system exploration) it seemed like it could create some fun distinctions, but since it didn't super mesh with the rest of your class abilities it mostly provided some flexibility rather than power.
As with MCing though, Hybrid characters can be quite 'gifted', and there are some fairly obvious build patterns that are almost too good to pass up if hybrid rules are being used. Such as taking a hybrid in Shielding Swordmage if you have INT as your primary. Warlock can be pretty potent as well, as can Paladin. I wouldn't call these characters 'broken' exactly, but clever builds can be pretty interesting...
Absolutely. More than once when I was DMing I'd casually suggested a hybrid idea to a player who ran with it and who then, later, would foil my plans or current action, and I'd jokingly say "Who told you to play that character? Oh, right, I did...." Loved it every time.
