Like you obviously, which is why you weren't even able to explain yourself. You do not seem to be aware of the primary criticism from PnP players that lead to D&D 3.5 and later 4.0. Compared to other systems at the time, D&D offered boxed in classes and lack of customization, despite the feats system (issues explained below). The talent system in Modern d20 which was later implemented in 4.0 was meant to adress this problem.
4E is a streamlined simplification of the system, to make it more accessible and introduce the same boring and moronic notions so popular in MMOs, with strict and rigid class roles.
3.5 is full of customisation.
I call diversity diversity. The more optional stuff that overlap eachother, the more diversity you have.
Yes, even the slightest bit of diversity is what you call diversity. That's not my approach, as I tend to use words so they have a meaning. You could call chess diverse, because there are two colors I suppose. Great.
Feats was a 3.0 addition meant to fix the lack of customization in AD&D where the only way to change a class was by having different ability scores and picking other equipment. Feats only shines with Fighters and Wizards, as mentioned, since they get bonus feats instead of class abilities. The others were limited to just a few feats, too few to make a character feel different from another character within the same class. In 3.0 Rangers were locked to 2 handed fighting and archery. In 3.5 you could pick. It wasn't until the talent systems in 4.0 you got any real customization that matches other popular systems like WoD or BRP.
No, the feat system shines for all classes - as it's the system itself.
4.0 and real customization? Have you been drinking?
Multiclassing is unique to D&D, but it is made neccessary due to a flaw with the system. Paladin and Barbarian are uneccessary classes as they could have been fighter talents.
Yeah, I guess the real solution is to remove multiclassing and boil it down to 3 classes with almost no diversity, as per Dragon Age?
Maybe for DA2 they'll have just 2 classes - because a Rogue could have been a Warrior
Ehm, no.
Multiclassing is a flaw in the system.
Less is more when it comes to classes.
The feat system was only fully utilized by fighters and wizards in 3.5.
Interesting claims, but you're not backing it up with anything.
What is it with you and focusing until the point of blindness? Yeah, fighters and wizards got more feats - but the other classes each get at least 7 - and feats can be pretty decisive. Besides - and this is the key point:
Each class can be a multiclass.
You could argue that there should never have been classes in the first place, and just a larger set of feats. But I really enjoy the idea of a core class with some innate powers and features - it adds flavor. Yeah, that goes for the Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger too. Those classes each contribute greatly in several builds.
Not a lot of classes are too interesting standing alone, but that's the point - they shouldn't be.
That's what makes D&D 3.5 so rich in flavor, and Dragon Age so poor. 4E suffered from similar streamlining mistakes where you have much fewer interesting choices and the moronic concept of "aggro" and "tanks"… Something that should never have been invented for a decent CRPG.
Yes, the talent trees was missing in 3.5. It was fixed in 4.0.
4.0 is fixing what wasn't broken in the first place. A significant step down.
25 specializations per class in the first edition of a new computer game is pretty nice.
Ehm, what?
There are 4 specialisatons pr. class and they make only a limited impact on playstyle, except in a few rare cases - like the Blood Mage or the Arcane Warrior.
Do you have other imaginary "facts"?
Nah, I'm out.
I have zero interest in a "yes" - "no" endless cyclical debate.
You think Dragon Age has as much diversity as D&D 3.5 - and I think you should remember that for future reference and talk about it with your friends. Eventually, it will become clear - because it's SO far removed from reality that I really don't need to argue my case - which would only fall on deaf ears, obviously