My One Big Beef with 4th Ed D&D

All right, I know I said in a previous post that I disliked the apparent lack of benefits for dual-wielding. My main problem is that, in 3e, any class could dual-wield, with the right feats. It was even possible to dual-wield crossbows, though you couldn't reload them without a free hand. In 4e, only certain classes benefit from it. Namely, the Fighter (if he takes Tempest Technique, and really only with light weapons) and the Ranger. You don't see Rogues with two daggers, or Swordmages running around with two enchanted swords. They also frown upon dual-wielding anything that isn't a light weapon, in general. One of the few things about WoW that I find rather clever, is that Warriors, (by taking the very final Talent, Titan Grip, in the Fury spec tree), can wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. This allows them to grab a shield as well, or wield two two-handed weapons. Imagine dual-wielding Greataxes! I think it would be fun, in D&D, if there were level 30 Fighters who could do the same thing, or if anybody could, with the right feat.
I honestly find this all a limiting factor in 4th Ed, and wish dual-wielding was a bit more flexible so that any class using a melee weapon could have the option. And so you weren't so limited in weapon options, either.

But that's not the thing that really annoys me. I can work past that, and just list it as a minor complaint. The game works perfectly fine as is.
What really annoys me is the skills system. Now, I want to get this straight: I really do like 4th Edition, and if it's up to me, I will always pick it over 3rd. I love the combat system, and I always focused on combat in 3rd anyways.
The skill system of 4th Edition, however, feels totally wrong to me. Let me explain the differences, for skills, between the two editions.

In 3rd, you would get skill points based on your Intelligence, and you could spend those points into any skill you wished. Class skills cost 1 point to rank up, whereas cross-class skills would cost 2, thus causing you to need to choose your skills wisely. Whether it was in a Knowledge skill, or a Craft skill, or the stealthy skills, or Bluff, even Jump, you could become quite...well...skilled, in any skill you wanted to fit to your character. Every class was even more customizable than their combat skills, feats, or spells, allowed. For example, one Rogue might be a master of Bluff, Disguise, and Diplomacy, beguiling their way through fights that could otherwise prove certain death. Another rogue might instead choose to be a master of traps and picking locks, as well as stealth, so that they can scout ahead in the dungeons and clear the way for the rest of the group. There are many such examples among the other classes, and some classes had more skill points than others. Sorcerers would often be skilled in Diplomacy and Bluff because of high Charisma, but they could just as easily choose other skills, (Spellcraft and Concentration were certainly quite important to spellcasters).

In 4th, there are no skill points. Instead, every class starts with a number of skills they are "trained" in from among their class skills. Class skills only limit your choice at this first level, so beyond character creation, you can forget about it. You can grab the feat Skill Training to further increase your skills, but you can only get trained in a skill once, (that is, you can't take it twice for Thievery. You can get the feat for ALL your skills if you want, one skill at a time). All this skill training does is give you a +5 on your skill. So throughout all 30 of your levels, you only get to add +5 to any skill, if you choose to take the feat, (or if you chose that as a trained skill at 1st level).
After that, there are only two factors that increase your skill check bonus: your level, and your ability modifiers. Oh yes, it's been simplified like crazy. To determine your skill check bonus you add the ability modifier for that skill, 1/2 your level, and then +5 if you have training in it.
This seems like a good thing at first. Everything is simplified. You don't need to spend a long time choosing your skills when you gain levels, and your party isn't screwed when you don't have a Rogue. Wonderful concept.
So why do I hate this system? It's quite simple. At 30th level, a Fighter will have at least 15 ranks in Thievery, without ever having to specifically train in it. Then you can add the Dex modifier. I should point out that some Fighters will actually have a nice Dex modifier, especially if they're a Tempest Fighter, (because they typically wear light armor or chainmail). This means that, not counting the Dex modifier, (which is never going to be an insanely large gap by itself), a Rogue will only be better at Thievery than any other class by 5 ranks.
So then what is the point of bringing a Rogue? In 4th Ed, the entire choice between classes is now their abilities in combat. No longer is a Rogue's trap-handling skills a major factor in class selection and party make-up. You can have the Fighter do his job!
You can say the same thing for the Arcana skill, or the Bluff skill, the Nature skill...etc.

Some people will argue, "Well the Thievery skill is a broad term. Whereas the Rogue would pick at the lock with his tools, a Fighter will just smash it, or a Wizard would cast a spell to open it." Yes, your logic is clever, and it sounds nice. But the skill is called Thievery for a reason folks! It's not just disabling traps and opening locks in the dungeons. It's all about being an expert thief. Sleight of Hand and Pick Pocket are included in the general skill of Thievery. That line of logic, presented in the quotes above, just sounds like a cheap excuse to make it work, rather than working to find a better way.
"Oh, but with the Fighter watching the Rogue work through so many adventures, he must have picked up a few tricks!" No. This assumes that there is a Rogue in the party to begin with, for starters. Second: Your TV repair man, the cable guy, the computer repair guy, the plumber, the electrician...and any other such professional you hire? You don't pick up their trade by watching them work. Most of the time, you may not even be able to reproduce their solution for your specific problem, if it pops up again, because it would require a higher level of understanding and training. Sometimes people will attempt to pick up their trade like this, and it only leads to accidents about the home, shoddy jobs, and similar results.
A Fighter deciding to try his hand at disabling a trap is like you deciding to rewire your TV to pick up better reception because you saw the TV repair guy fix it the other day. The Fighter is just as likely to set off the trap and kill himself (and his companions) as you are to electrocute yourself.

I'm hoping that WotC will realize this flaw with their skill system in 4th Ed, but it's rather unlikely. Either I'm going to have to live with this, or I'm going to have to try and get my D&D groups to homebrew it so that we use the old 3rd Ed skills setup. Of course, I want to keep the streamlining of the skills in 4th Ed, (Thievery including disable trap, open lock, pick pocket, and sleight of hand, for example), so it would need fine-tuning and perhaps mean that we get less skill points. But I think it would be worth it.

I couldn't care less about Craft and Profession being removed. Item creation seems a little too easy to me, as well, but it's not an aspect of the game I ever became particularly enchanted with. I always found better items by going through the adventures and the dungeons, so item creation felt pointless. Plus, you feel a sense of pride in retelling the story of how you acquired your fancy magical sword by killing a drow weapon-master in single combat, rather than telling somebody that you made it yourself. Or that you bought it.