there are some skills i consider as do or don't, especially among the weapon skills. what's the point in having melee 40 or unarmed 50?
i'd never try to capitalize on that when my gun or energy weapon skills are way above.
so, i'll save these points (it's pretty much decided already, that i'm going to sacrifice barter, melee, and unarmed) to get some of these 75-80 skills to a higher level

If Tagged skills act like they used to, you will have a bit more skill points for other things. In FO1&2 some skills were just fine leaving them at 100 while increasing others for an optional specific purpose that needed a higher skill check (like needing a 121 in science to get the best brain for Skynet)

I'm quite sure you can build a character moderately capable in every skill, but that should of course result in the lack of higher proficiency in all those areas. And afterall, all characterbuilds should be viable to get through the game (barring some senslessly gimped jokecharacters).

I see the leveling up more as an abstract of mere human learning, which has its limits (and from skill perspective, a 100 means that noone in the world can be better - you are the absolute master of it). You can not learn to be a "master" of several areas in mere months (or how much ever the events of a runthrough are meant to last) and at the same time hone all your other skills to the point of a general handyman. Sure, you can learn some basics in every, or a bit beyond in some, but being proficient requires specialization, which requires dedication to the matter at hand, which results in lack of training in other abilities. You choose what you specialize in, or if you create a generalist - and both should come at a cost. The reason of the levelcap and not being able to "jack" all the trades lies (imo) solely on gameplaybalance (which I regard as a higher importance than not needing to think about the realism of stopping to learn). Specialist and generalist both have their strengths and weaknesses over the other (or at least should have) - they support the different paths that the game claims to offer. Everyone is capable of something, but no-one is capable of everything. So by that, I see characters that have weaknesses (even severe ones) only adding to the game, rather than robbing the player of an experience. ...got a bit carried away here, but nonetheless....

There are also certain questions involved: How much do you think is "capable enough" for this lvl-capped 'everythingman', and if this "capable enough" leads to almost all doors being open for everyone all the time, what is the point of having different skills in the first place?

E - I'm not really arguing against your points here, just giving my general view on the subject...

Damn i was hoping on another playthrough i could max my PC and become a wasteland god again.

Role-playing a concept character is all nice and crisp with the "learning while doing"-system of the Elder Scrolls series. A headhunter system that only sheds EXP for killing (not for sneaking around, outrunning, or diverting) an opponent contradicts concept-playing, especially in a world as hostile as Fallout. When someone 'round here complained about not being able to unlock a door by means of a mini-nuke or explosive - that's real concept playing: not only a safecracker, not only a hacker, but also an explosive expert should be able to find a way in (even if that may damage some of the goodies on the other side).

Fallout is a great game but it simply does not provide enough diversity to challenge more than two or three different character-sets.