Yeah, exactly. I still hate the Skillsystem in the Gothic games. It might be more realistic, but it makes levelling up your skills a chore.

And they're mechanics I don't like.

ZoC are not intuitive, making it a pain for new players. Also, they slow down combat.
AoO I really dislike; I don't like others getting a turn based off my actions, except when it's due to a special ability. Also, they, again, slow down combat.

(Note that Japanese SRPGs don't use either of these mechanics. They do use counter-attacks, though Final Fantasy Tactics took the approach of making them a special ability, and added an ability slot just for counters and other reaction abilities, but a unit can only equip one at a time, so only some will counter melee attacks (and I believe you can check before you confirm the action).)

There's also the fact that I prefer non-tactical combat, and ZoC and AoO only make sense with tactical combat.

I've come to the conclusion that a penalty for being at low heath is the wrong mechanic, at least for single player games, as it makes it far harder for a player to recover from a bad situation. In fact, I prefer the reverse mechanic, where there's a *bonus* for being at low health; that way, the player has an opportunity for a miraculous recovery, and speedrunners can take the risky strategy of staying at low health; you can win battles easily, but one mistake and you're dead. Also, making enemies more dangerous at low health keeps the player on their toes in longer boss fights, keeps the fight from getting boring later on, and when applied to regular enemies can lead to some interesting strategic considerations. (As an extreme example, Dragon Quest 2 has a couple enemies (one a boss, one not) that has a spell that will wipe out your party, but it's only used at low health. It's quite interesting on the normal enemy (especially since that enemy is not immune to StopSpell/Fizzle), but I think it was a mistake to give it to a boss.)

Incidentally, the game I'm playing now, Hollow Knight, does something like this. There's a charm you have an opportunity to get before the game really starts, and when equipped, you'll deal increased damage at 1 HP. (Note that Hollow Knight is an action game, so skilled players can dodge enemy attacks, and HP is low so enemies do only 1 or 2 damage (with 2 not being that common), so it's not too hard to end up at exactly 1 HP, unlike something like Final Fantasy 9.)

(The reason I mention Final Fantasy 9 is Limit Glove, a Blue Magic spell that's obtainable early, and if the user has 1 HP remaining, will do 9999 damage.)

What's the skill system in the Gothic games like, and what's the problem with it, exactly?

I didn't have any problems with the attacks of opportunity in E:C, and I'm far from an elite gamer. The system makes sense and works, it's just an extra thing to consider when positioning and moving around your soldiers.

When you level up, you can`t simply distribute your skillpoints, but you have to find a trainer instead, wo trains you for a good amount of money.
Thing is, for nearly each skill you need a different trainer and they are scattered around the gameworld. So often it happens that you`ll level up and then have to voyage to the other side of the gameworld just to use your skillpoint.
Oh, did I mention, that the skills are not cheap? And that you have to go to a trainer for each and every skillpoint you want to invest?
The worst skillsystem, at least in my opinion.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, that some trainers are in locations, where you might not can go, based on your choices. But that is, as far as I know, only true for the first game.

the whole reason i'm pretty much out of pure rpg's ( though i'm willing to give the new dnd 5e game a chance )

basically games such as age of wonders : planetfall or Phoenix Point offer about the same level of interaction,.. stellaris as another example

the only reason left for a rpg is to wonder of in some sandbox imagination

Sounds like this system would not have been a problem if it weren't for the "when you level up" crtierion and the cost. Basicaly, make it so that you have to find the trainer to improve your skills, and each trainer could only be used once. This way, exploration gets rewarded, but you don't have to to keep returning to the same one over and over again.

No, there's plenty of combat and character building tasks in RPGs.

Try the Might and Magic series. Currently playing M&M1 for the NES and having a blast. The old Gold Box D&D games might be a good fit.

P.S. If you have played through Fallout 3, I would recommend skipping #1. They are very much alike.

Exactly.

I still play Civilization on the harder settings which I mostly lose.
I want a challenge and I have to adapt my normal playstyle to overcome.
When I hear gamers say a game is no fun because of realism, what they are saying is they want easy mode.
It's the same mentality that ruined most MMOGs by dummying them down and allowing cash shops to be acceptable.

Watch out for Locust Plagues. In the NES version, if one of them is allowed to attack even once, you can expect your entire party to be wiped out before you get to enter any more commands.

(This appears to be the result of 2 bugs. In other versions, they're not that bad, only doing up to 10 damage, which is manageable, but on the NES version they do 255 and get free turns when they kill your characters.)