Can you not take any skill, with but a single feat?
Sorry, I frustrated folks with my earlier posts. Let me start over.
Say I've been hearing about Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms and I'm excited to create a Sentinel druid. I love the kind of "nature's warrior" type of concept. I'm thinking a "leopard man" someone who can hang out in trees and pounce upon enemies. He slashes at enemies with dual claw weapons on both hands. He can also draw upon his leopard kinship to camoflage himself in natural terrain.
I rush out to FLGS and buy the book and start reading.
Heartbreak #1: I have to have Wis and Con not Str and Dex. If I want to be a great pouncer I need Strength for Athletics (climbing) and melee. I also want Dexterity because it fits the "leopard" concept. I want to dodge blows with agility. Instead I have to boost my Con to increase my AC. Disappointing.
Heartbreak #2: I'm not allowed to be trained in the Acrobatics or Stealth (for hanging out in trees and hiding from foes) without spending two of my precious feats.
Heartbreak #3: I have to have an animal companion. I don't want one. I want to be the leopard man not the leopard's buddy. Then it gets worse, my only animal companion choices: wolf or bear. What a disaster! If I don't use the animal companion ability it'll make my powers less effective. I guess I can take wolf and pretend it's a leopard...a leopard that can't climb or pounce or hide.
Heartbreak #4: Healing Word. Healing isn't part of my character concept at all. Why do I have to be a healer? I don't want that.
Heartbreak #5: No at will power that really feels like a "pounce" attack. I guess I'll settle for Dyanamic Assault with my "leopard" wolf.
Heartbreak #6: No knacks fit my character. I'd love to have something that lets me climb trees easily or become concealed in natural terrain.
Heartbreaks #7+: I keep finding that there are no powers that fit my character. No support for dual wielding. Nothing "pounce-like." Cat's Grace is nice but it's a minor consolation. Thousand Faces is neat since I can actually be a leopard man...until I realize it has no mechanical benefit or play with a DM who will only let me assume humanoid forms that are in the rulebooks.
--------
Now before you run out and say "You've chosen the wrong class for you concept!" let me promise you that I can give you a list of heartbreaks for the ranger, barbarian the original druid etc. in the same way. Also, remember my OP, I'm a newb player with a brand new book that I just bought at the FLGS. I'm not aware of the other options. I'm certainly not ready for multiclassing or hybrid characters.
---------
Now let's create the same character in 3.5e using its druid class (again, no multiclassing). Most of the heartbreaks are missing:
#1: I can safely have Dex and Str and forsake Wis and Con. Sure, my offensive spells will have low saving throws but I won't be casting offensive spells. I'll be casting spells on myself that make me a leopard man like the Jump spell for leaping onto foes or into trees.
#2: Alas, 3.5e does little better here with the cross-class requirement: I can have the skill but I can't be as good at it as I would like.
#3: I still have to have an animal companion, but my choices are much richer. Look! At 4th level I can have a leopard.
#4: No need to ever memorize a heal spell.
#5/6/7+: Well, there are no "powers" in 3.5e but there are feats that let me attack as part of jump or wield dual claw weapons effectively. There are also spells that give me Cat's Grace and the ability to Camouflage myself. Finally, at 5th level I actually get to turn into a leopard. Woot!
Is 3.5e perfect? No. It has other flaws that also make it prohibitive to new players. In particular, I'm sure you'll agree that the 4e leopard-man is going to be more "optimal" than the 3.5e one. But I contend that the 3.5e did a demonstrably better job at modeling the concept. As others in this thread have pointed out, there are other systems that do this even better than 3.5e.
I believe this lack of flexibility in 4e is the reason that new players lose interest much sooner. They want a game that supports their imagination and 4e is not doing it well.
Does this illustrate my point better?
:AMN:
I just think that it has not been as successful as hoped at luring and keeping new players. Have others observed this as well?
Now before you run out and say "You've chosen the wrong class for you concept!" let me promise you that I can give you a list of heartbreaks for the ranger, barbarian the original druid etc. in the same way. Also, remember my OP, I'm a newb player with a brand new book that I just bought at the FLGS. I'm not aware of the other options. I'm certainly not ready for multiclassing or hybrid characters.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.