delericho
Legend
The biggest problem I have had with 3.x (and Pathfinder) is the abuse of the Feat concept. 2.x had weapon and non-weapon proficiencies, which I think is better and less intimidating for newer characters.
Feats are most definitely a problem area of 3e (and later 4e and PF both). The problem, as far as I can see, is that they became a dumping ground for anything that didn't fit elsewhere, and so try to cover far too much ground.
Does anyone else find the WP/NWP concept better than the 3.x Feat system? Or is there something out there that's better than either? I haven't been enamored with the C&C Siege engine.
To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of NWPs, either. Indeed, I'm starting to think that even the introduction of the Thief class was a mistake - by making stealth a specific power available to a single dedicated class, they remove it as a problem solving option for all other classes.
(Suppose you write an adventure where the PCs have to rescue some prisoners from some gnolls. Now, they could fight the gnolls, but they could equally sneak past them, or negotiate with them, or encourage the nearby orcs to wage war on them, or... Problem is, if only the Thief can sneak, that option is out. And if the Barbarian has dumped Cha and has no ranks in Diplomacy, then there goes that option. Pretty soon, fighting becomes the only solution on which the group has common ground, and so that has to be solution to every challenge.)
So I'm inclined to think that 5e may well have the right of it, where skills are concerned - anyone can try anything, but those with specific training (the skill) get a small bonus to reflect their superior skill. Of course, they still haven't realised that under that model a "Rogue" is just a Fighter who has taken off his armour...