Verb, you're hedging your statements more and more. Before you were saying 4e had much better development in character power and terrain and tactical options, now you're down to saying that the character development is probably about the same as 3.5 and the terrain rules are comparable, and that the tactical options are hit and miss, which, unsurprisingly, is just about as good as 3.5. I'm also one who thinks that 4e had some good ideas, but they weren't implemented well. You are adept at 4e, which is great, and so you can get it to do all kinds of things for you and be fun, but while it's strengths and weaknesses are different than 3.5's, it is not a uniform step forward in any sense. There are mechanics that seem like good ideas in a vacuum, but all together they don't work as well as the designers, nor the players, were hoping.
You are making a strawman. I'm not hedging anything.
I said when it comes to tactics and cinematics 4e>3.5 after someone said it was the other way around.
They pointed to 3.5's terrain, saying 4e had no terrain, just powers.
I pointed out 4e has terrain that is at least just as good as 3.5.
And I have never, over, ever, ever said 4e's character development is as good as 3.5's. 4e has better character development, that is all I've said. And I've said the terrain rules are comparable, some good, some not.
Let me show you the fallacy of your post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
You can't ever get a uniform step forward, just try to get a majority step forward.
Errata Onslaught
Goal: Unlike in 3E where we had things like Pun-Pun and the peasant cannon get made fun of for years and not get fixed, we'll immediately issue a rules patch in order to fix broken stuff.
Unintended Result: Many. The biggest problem is that the errata is excessively. I don't know what it is right now, but last I checked it was 100 pages. That's fucking ridiculous. They can get away with it to an extent due to the character builder and online Dragon, but as long as they have a dead tree edition of the game this is seriously moving into ripping-off-the-customer territory.
The other problem is that the errata is not applied to A) genuinely game-derailing stuff that B) will probably be discovered by the group. Wizard saving throw penalty douchebaggery did need to be errata'd. Blade Cascade needed an errata. Pray For More + Vorpal Weapon + Demigod is an infinite damage loop but it seriously was not worth the space to close since it is a level 30 damage loop. It only needed a fix the same way that Pun Pun did, that is only to shut people up. Even if something was seriously 'broken' they went way overboard. Yeah, Come And Get It (Fighter 7) used a non-standard effect and had a couple of exploits to it, but the exploits were minor when viewed from the whole of combat. It's not worth the space to fix it. Making things significantly worse is that errata is almost (95% of the time) never done in a way to create equal-but-balanced functionality, it's always done just to snip the balls off like naughty poodles. I have seen people, including myself, ragequit over the game because it killed off builds. They've gotten 'better' at this such that only 10 builds were killed off this year, but seriously, getting your panties in a twist because someone is doing an extra 10 damage a round? Please.
At least you won't have to buy a 4.5 that is still messed up down the road. And personally, I find the way its organized to be easy enough to keep track of. Not like you need to care whats in it until it becomes relevant anyway.
I can't really give an opinion on the overnerfing, I have yet to have any of my builds killed off. But it could be a problem, I wouldn't doubt it.
Making every power do damage.
Thats really a matter of opinion. Personally, I absolutely loathe 100% save or die situations. 4e has managed to reduce mostly all similar situations, mostly through lengthened battles, and I think thats a good thing imo. Its especially good to strategy. Maintaining a flank is enough to reliably turn a battle even if you aren't a rogue.
No self-buffs.
Huh? There are a lot of abilities that buff only the user and nothing else. I don't understand.
Anyone who used the trap rules for this effect is either a moron, a Monty Hauler, or a Gygaxian asshat who doesn't intend to play fair because you get experience points for overcoming traps. Yes, seriously.
This is true, its a hazard not a trap I would think.
Well they're there. But they're relegation to an afterthought does tell us something about the system. 4E tactically is about building an effective character, choosing powers and feats and magic items to this effect and then finding the most effective ways to use these abilities. A good DM will vary monster tactics and terrain to increase the potential uses for the powers the PC has so fights are a bit more varied, but the game doesn't encourage or reward thinking outside the box. It's disappointing when you get a new player at the table who wants to try all kinds of cool and inventive (and cinematic things) and you have to tell them to use their At-Wills because their ineffectiveness is hurting the party.
I don't see why you think its an afterthought. All but the terrain powers was in the DMG. And the DMG2 mostly just expounded on principles laid out in the DMG.
It's a game that encourages and rewards system mastery and this is necessarily going to limit it's appeal. It's not really particularly cinematic. Pushing a statue over on a villian, or knocking over a cauldron full of boiling liquid on some mooks (Like in the Conan movie) are cinematic things. Sure you can do these things in 4E, but the times when they're actually the tactically most effective actions are vanishly rare. Instead you use 'Attacks on the Run' or 'Rain of Steel' or 'Twin Strike' but any cinematic aspect to these actions comes from the player's description, not the powers. Some powers are different enough that they invite a cinematic description (such as Come and Get It.) But I find they're repetition diminishes them over time. (If you use Come and Get It every combat then it's going to become predictable and less interesting - and even if you continue to describe how you use it every time, the chances are that everyone else will stop listening.)
The flavor text is an example description of how you could describe it, as stated in the DMG, thats one of the big reasons its more cinematic, especially from a player's point of view. You are free to describe your action however you want it and a damn rule lawyer can't complain. And the powers are varied enough that I generally don't get bored. But I suppose this is a matter of opinion, I just know I found myself unable to feel cinematic in 3.5.
Anyway unrelated point, Using the knock something big over over terrain power, you do 1d10+half level damage and knock the enemy prone. Half damage on a miss. Its better then most at wills. But this is just a quibble.
The immediate interrupt/reaction system is an unnecessary layer of complication. And it needs to go. Seriously, everything should be an opportunity action. Yes, that means that people will be able to do multiple Combat Challenge reprisals or whatever in a round. Either put a limit in that class ability or just fucken deal with it.
Thats a matter of opinion. Immediate interrupt/reaction is good for the tactical health of the game, and allows for a lot more variety in powers without hurting balance.
The health/damage assymmetry is just unacceptable. From a practicality standpoint. I am skeptical of any system that has hit points in the double digits, reaching four digits is simply madness. While players aren't exactly good at it, repeated single or low-double digit subtraction/addition is easier than a single high double-digit or triple-digit subtraction.
High HP is good for strategy though. You got two guys in single digits wailing away at each other, gaining a 10% increase in accuracy doesn't mean much when its going to just come down to 2-3 hits. Wins and losses become luck based.
When you got high hp, and things take a lot of turns, suddenly that +2 bonus looks, really, really good and creates a much bigger difference over the time, effectively reducing luck in the equation.
As for the immersion, I haven't noticed any problems like what you described. I mean, if I was a spectator watching a fight between PCs and NPCs, I wouldn't notice anything odd.
An unprecedented amount of gameplay/story segregation
Well the example you gave isn't true. According to the DMG2, if you used an encounter to push that dragon, then it gives you a bonus to pushing that pillar, if you used a daily, then you automatically succeed in pushing that pillar.
As for the warlord thing, thats just common sense. When something says "all allies" and you join a battle with hundreds of troops, it would seem really silly for the soldiers way across the battlefield to be motivated by their warlord when they can't even see him or hear him over the fight. SAme goes for Paladins, wizards and everything else that has powers that says "all allies".
The PC/NPC magical item separation
There are no/low magic item rules. You just get the bonuses as you level rather then from the items.
The vast shortening of effects.
The alternative is making effects able to insta win a fight. I like it like it is, but thats just me. I understand a lot of people prefer a greater level of uncertainty.
Too many status effects that don't make the enemy easier to kill.
I suppose this is a matter of opinion as well. I personally like a fight that when its done I look at the clock and go "Wow, did I really just spend an hour in the fight?"
But I suppose that is a matter of opinion.
One thing I'd considered is the possibility that you don't need much in the way of class abilities, you just need the ability to be able to do something cool. If for example a fighter simply has the ability "Feat of Strength", then you might be able to use that power in various ways. You could have the default action of using it to add damage to an attack, or you could use it more effectively to interact with the terrain - use "Feat of Strength to activate the "Knock a Statue over" terrain power. - So in effect the powers available to a Martial character may change each combat depending on the terrain. (Which immediately makes combats more cinematic - if the GM puts a statue on the battlefield it's going to be pushed over by the Barbarian, if there's a tapestry hanging from the wall, it will end up being thrown over someone's head by the rogue.)
It seems to me that if you're going to have phyiscal representations of the battlefield. then you want to get the most out of them. If there's a table on a battlemat, then it ought to be turned over or pushed into someone. If it's actually visibly there, it feels unsatisfactory just to treat it as difficult terrain.
I'm just imagining all the fights that take place in rather dull terrains. Or when the terrain manipulation has been exhausted. Sometimes you get attacked by bandits on a road.
4E status effects suck.
They have a huge tactical impact. What more could you want?
Mobile combat only matters if it changes the tactical situation.
I suppose thats a matter of skill. I've got a reputation for killing off the parties I DM in 4e. And he deaths almost wholly come from me moving the monsters around in the most tactically advantageous ways.
Actually I wasn't thinking of immediate actions that are part of defenders doing their jobs. They're really not the problem. The problem with immediates is all the extra interrupts that can be reliably triggered from items and powers.
They aren't supposed to stack either.
