WoD not having levels or classes is a point in its favor, but compared to the DH engine, I'm less fond of how anything and everything can be had if you simply wait and bank enough XP. It encourages hoarding XP until you can afford that awesome top-end supernatural power you were saving for or expensive merit. While DH is constrained by careers/classes, its system of gaining levels based on XP spent encourages you to spend it, sometimes on things that aren't directly optimal or contributing towards your current skillset, because even 'wasted' XP is still pushing you incrementally towards the higher-level talents. In D&D, a 'wasted' level is gone forever, draining 5% or more of the power you'll ever earn in your existence, or in WoD, you've 'wasted' the fruits of a session or two.
So here's another topic that's sure to get folks' opinions going one way or the other. Should a system based RPG implement bonuses and penalties based on a character's gender? Example: In older D&D editions, female characters were limited to a 17 Strength and thus could not achieve any of the 18 xx/100 levels. The reasoning was that while woman are capable of being strong in real life, men are capable of greater physical strength maximums than women are. A lot of female gamers didn't like this, though... calling it sexist. I'm personally divided on the matter. On the one hand, they should have given men a restriction as well to make things fair (perhaps men could only get a 17 Dexterity since women tend to be more agile?)... however, I do not consider the portrayal of the limitations of the female body to be "sexist". That's probably not the right word.
Personally? I have no issue with a female character having an 18, 20, even 22 Strength. What I don't like is when said female character is portrayed as looking like a bikini model. I wouldn't accept a male character with a Strength that high being skinny either, but I'm sure some people would call my particular point of view there "unfair" or even "sexist". I go for a certain amount of... I won't say realism, but I will say "common sense". There's only so far my belief will suspend itself in the name of "fantasy". Things have to generally make sense to me.
Not sexist in the general sense that men are, on average stronger, but I would call it sexist to say that a woman, or man, could never
achieve that level of strength/dexterity. Despite the flaws of the Alexandrian essay, it does highlight well that D&D adventurers are unrealistically exceptional individuals; by level 5 or 6, the average adventurer is equalling or smashing Olympic sports records - and that's only 25% of the way through a 'complete' career. PCs are defined, mechanically and socially, by being above-average, so there's no reason to constrain them physically to the limitations of average people any more than it would to prohibit female adventurers entirely based on the average social attitudes of the time.
The "Olympic weightlifter who looks like an underwear model" is an entirely different issue, though - that's a matter of personal taste. Some people like the 'Waif Fu" archetype...some might think overmuscled bodybuilders are hot.