My take.

[I'm A Banana]

...So now, you may be better at dealmaking, but you still have a decent ability to bluff or sense motive, which makes a lot more sense.

Yeah, that's cool. That's a good thing.

I would say the best solution would be to simply allow the player to opt out of his abilities that he doesn't want until a suitable training time is given.

Bah. It shouldn't come with baggage we don't want. There's a happy medium between 3e's preponderance of skills and allowing barbarians to ballroom dance because they have a high Dex.

It will be great to have an aristocratic PC fighter who can dance, knows how to eat politely, has a passing familiarity with the noble families of the region, and can seduce the blonde haired daughter of the Viceroy without nerfing his dungeon and athletic skills that he needs out in the field. As well, I also approve of moving unlikely skills that a player will not need or use to a general proficiency so that he doesn't waste it in preparation for a situation that never arises.

And I agree.

My issue lies mainly with the fact that we can see how Achilles and Odysseus are different in the fray, but once the war is over, they begin to look boringly similar.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

True. Everyone seems to forget that movement rates in 1st edition were given in inches, for crying out loud.

Were they also that way in OD&D? I was under the impression they used feet or yards, and that AD&D 1st was actually a change from that.

 

[DamnedChoir]

I sort of have to agree with the OP on this, more or less.

It feels to me the game is becoming more of a battle mat tactics and skirmish game than anything else, and I've never used miniatures or battle mats for roleplaying games before, Not even in 3E, but none of my friends were munchkins or grognards, either.

It feels like keeping track of every ability, most of which are hard to even explain in non-gamist terms, is going to be a hassle, and that combat in general will be it's own game.

Yes, yes, for all of you who are violently and vehemently attacking the OP and defending 4E, /you/ certainly like 4E, but your methods for convincing others otherwise aren't really doing much.

It just doesn't seem like it's for me and my group for a RPG, but we might end up playing it off and on with a beer or something, like Munchkin, from time to time. Still, we've already begun to move away from D&D 3.5 in the first place and look for other systems like Shadowrun or Storyteller which are much less hard to explain in simulationist terms and are more flexible.

Anyways, I'm still liking alot of what I see about D&D...but it doesn't seem like a Role-Playing Game anymore.

 

[Imp]

What annoys me a lot about this new edition is that it seems to be run by theoryheads who believe that ideological purity on, for example, the gamist vs. simulationist axis or class/level vs. point-buy is so important it overrides other concerns. Not really giving a crap about either of these dichotomies, but just wanting a reasonably convenient and fun system that's not completely risible in too many places, I feel left out in the cold. It's a shame, because there seem to be a lot of good things about the system: more varied combat, at least a few well-conceived classes, and shorter stat blocks for easier prep, among other things.

I've seen little to suggest that the new edition would get in the way of role-playing as such.

 

[Delta]

3e did a very bad job as a simulism RPG, if you want that play rolemaster.

Really, at higher levels... 5 shots with a (cross)bow in 6 seconds (with rapid reload)?
no facing...

I'll pitch in with this -- this is at least the third time in this thread that someone has said "3E also did a very bad job" and offered as an example something specifically from the 3.5 Edition.

Rapid Reload, Multishot, 10x10' Face horses... none of those existed in the 3.0 core rules. Personally, I was pretty happy with the level of granularity & fantasy in 3.0, and I got off the ride when 3.5 came out, over a host of issues like Rapid Reload. It's not too surprising that 4E is continuing the larger trajectory of 3.5, and therefore it's even less appealing to some players such as myself.

 

[Henry]

Rapid Reload, Multishot, 10x10' Face horses... none of those existed in the 3.0 core rules. Personally, I was pretty happy with the level of granularity & fantasy in 3.0, and I got off the ride when 3.5 came out, over a host of issues like Rapid Reload. It's not too surprising that 4E is continuing the larger trajectory of 3.5, and therefore it's even less appealing to some players such as myself.

The first two were from splatbooks (I think Song and Silence, and Epic Handbook, in particular) in 3e, before 3.5 came along.

 

[Delta]

True. Everyone seems to forget that movement rates in 1st edition were given in inches, for crying out loud.

Actually, what I find more commonly forgotten is that the inch-scale ranges could not be used as ground scale for maps in 1E AD&D. You can debate about that indicates for how closely miniatures were actually tied to the game.

1E DMG, "Use of Miniature Figures With the Game", p. 10:

Figure bases are necessarily broad in order to assure that the figures will stand in the proper position and not constantly be falling over. Because of this, it is usually necessary to use a ground scale twice that of the actual scale for HO, and squares of about 1 actual inch per side are suggested. Each ground scale inch can then be used to equal 3-1/3 linear feet, so a 10’ wide scale corridor is 3 actual inches in width and shown as 3 separate squares... If you do so, be certain to remember that ground scale differs from figure scale, and when dealing with length, two man-sized figures per square is quite possible, as the space is actually 6 scale feet with respect to length.

 

[Delta]

The first two were from splatbooks (I think Song and Silence, and Epic Handbook, in particular) in 3e, before 3.5 came along.

Right, that's why I said "none of those existed in the 3.0 core rules" above. Those supplement options were, likewise, not allowed in my group's 3.0 game.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Rapid Reload (3E version from Sword & Fist)
"You can reload a hand crossbow or light crossbow as a free action that provokes an attack of opportunity. You may reload a heavy crossbow as a move equivalent action that provokes an
attack of opportunity. You can use this feat once per round."

I don't see five shots with a crossbow in 6 seconds. At least not with this feat. What am I missing?

 

[Simplicity]

I'm sorry, but I find this to be a terrible argument. The OP suggests that 4e is such a good tactical game that it can't be a good roleplaying game because everything will tend to devolve into tactics. You're basically calling 4e bad because the game designers did a good job with combat. Looking at the converse of your argument, if this were true, it would imply that all good roleplaying games then must have annoying combat mechanics in order to avoid encouraging players from fighting. Ummmm... no.