What's GOOD about 4E?

[kesher]

I've read all sorts of stuff about why 4E sucks. However, there are a number of people, even on this forum, whose opinions I respect, who seem to really be enjoying 4E.

So, what's GOOD about it? Meaning, of course, why's it FUN?

On a personal level, I'm mostly interested in the Essentials stuff, but comments about any iteration are welcome.

[18 Spears]

I've nothing against the rules-set, but I've never played and therefore can't help.

[vito]

I don't love every aspect of 4E, but there are a few fiddly bits I like.

What I find fascinating is that the older versions of D&D placed a lot of emphasis on managing simulation-driven character resources (torches, arrows, spells) while in 4E the focus is on managing narrative-driven player resources (action points, healing surges, encounter powers). There's sort of a shift from the representational to the abstract. This isn't a bad thing. Some people are into that sort of thing.
The resources themselves are actually kind of interesting.
Action points can be spent to perform extra actions during your turn at a bonus. They make great rewards for clever role-playing or for players that bring snacks to the table. I used to use experience points for the same behaviors. Experience points are a permanent and long term reward though, whereas action points are a disposable and short term reward. Handing out experience points can have a huge effect on game balance, whereas action points don't.
Healing surges have a very cinematic feel. I can easily imagine a Fighter popping his dislocated shoulder back into place or cauterizing a wound with lamp oil whenever he spends a HS. I find that surges are also good for modelling a character's stamina over the long term while hit points model short term stamina. Hit points represent how long you can stay in the fight, but healing surges represent how long you can stay in the war.
Encounter powers are a nice compromise between the people who love Vancian magic and the people who hate it. They allow wizards to stay useful even after their allotment of daily spells is expended, but they do so without overpowering wizards.

I'm tempted to incorporate some of these elements into OD&D. Why not? I incorporate plenty of materials from AD&D into 4E, especially during skill challenges.
The rules for skill challenges are so loose, that you pretty much have to make up your own rules to make them work. They are a stark contrast against the tight and often restrictive combat rules.

[tavis]

vito, I agree that 4E mechanics are narrative-driven in the sense that you can often be like "let's not spend our daily powers now, this story has a Big Bad at the end and we should save it for then". But I don't find that these 4E design elements drive narrative - you can't tell stories about them the way you can about simulation-driven elements like henchmen, because those simulate things people care about in the real world.

What I do like in 4E is that it fulfills my taste for gratuitous difficulty - when you do something like mark off the powers you use to push an enemy towards a cliff, one square at a time, when he goes over you feel like you achieved something in a way that the simpler and more ad-hoc mechanics I tend to use for cliff-pushing in OD&D doesn't satisfy.

[Deleted]

1) The starter set comes in a nice looking box.
2)

[Achán hiNidráne]

Ab-so-lutely NUTHIN'!

Say it again!

(I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.)

[oldgamergeek]

While I favor old school type stuff my problem is not the game itself but the company that makes it. I have played 4e and enjoyed it the pdf scandal has put me off it.

[Finarvyn]

We've played several sessions of 4E. Somewhat limited experience with the game, but a few observations so far.

1. My group like the fact that they can "do stuff" at first level. Magic users get more than one spell. Fighters have more options than "I attack."

2. They enjoy the hit point boosts and healing surges, but are starting to realize that if the critters are boosted the same way they aren't really any better off than they used to be.

3. They like the concept of characters, monsters, and magic items all being rated 1-30. Not sure if we'll ever go that high, but they like the idea that the upper end is higher than earlier editions.

4. They like the fact that any race can be any class. I'm not sure why that matters to them much, but it seems to be important to some of them.

5. They seem to like the concept of power cards. When you do something, turn the card over. They like having a card for their Action Point. Very visual, and to me it doesn't seem like a big deal but they like them.

None of these "make or break" 4E and I may bring some of the 4E concepts into my OD&D or C&C rather than the other way around. I've started PC's off at 3rd level quite often, and this tends to address somewhat point #1.

None of these features are "4E only" and clearly any edition could be tweaked to address these things. I think they are mostly fans of the new races (at least, they haven't been exposed to them before) and options.

[Finarvyn]

Jan 18, 2011 12:12:08 GMT -6 kesher said:

I'm mostly interested in the Essentials stuff, but comments about any iteration are welcome.

I have a bunch of the Essentials stuff, so here's a mini-review of
(1) The "Rules Compendium" book
(2) The "Heroes of the Fallen Lands" book
(3) The "Monster Vault" boxed set
(4) The "Dungeon Master's Kit" boxed set

Overall, seems like they've organized Essentials better than the older hardbacks. A few tweaks, I gather from the WotC boards, but although I own both sets I haven't really looked closely enough at the two sets to compare. The smaller sized booklets are cool. They're still full of examples and color art. I would have cut the page count down a lot, but they seem to contain all of the key rules you need.

Rules Compendium - This is almost like a player's version of a DMG for 4E, with lots of space used with information about the gods, skills, combat options, etc. Naturally, most of the combat option stuff deals with moving miniatures around on a battleboard. I guess it's aimed at players but is sort of an "everyone needs this" book since the DM needs to be able to run this stuff, too. At 320 pages, I'd like to see an "Essentials Lite" book for this.

Heroes of the Fallen Lands - This is the Player's Handbook for Essentials. Contains class rules for fighters, magic users, clerics, and thieves. The fact that they only have the "big four" is both a plus and a minus. I like the idea of only four classes, but my players are interested in more options so I may have to invest in the one for Druids/Rangers/Paladins/whatever. I like the fact that they have limited the Powers list a little, because it makes the list easlier to follow for a newbie. 364 pages, and full of goodness. I perhaps would have thinned out the Powers even more if I had written the book, providing one key Power per level or something like that.

Monster Vault (Boxed Set) - Lots of monster disks. This boxed set seems to be the only way to get the Essentials-sized Monster Vault rulebook. I kind of like the rulebook, which is the Monster Manual for Essenials. The booklet didn't simplify monsters as much as I hoped; I kind of wanted to see tiny stat blocks but instead they seem to have chosen select monsters. At least the monsters on the disks matched the monsters in the book! The box isn't as full as you might think, however, as they have built in a cardboard "filler" to hold the book and this takes up a lot of the space in the box. 324 pages.

Dungeon Master's Kit (Boxed Set) - The box isn't as full as the Monster Vault, however, as they have again built in a cardboard "filler" to hold the book and this takes up even more of the space in the box and this set has a lot less "stuff" in it than the Monster Vault set has. On the other hand, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed reading the DM book. Nothing "earth shattering", I suppose, but some neat advice on setting up adventures, giving approprite rewards for adventures, and so on. 272 pages.

Bottom line is that Essentials seems like a good product line to me, if you are interested in playing 4E. If you don't like 4E it won't matter how they present it so you won't like Essentials, either. I think that "Essentials" is still misleading because they are still writing these heavy books that totally dwarf the "rules lite" goodness of OD&D. All of the OD&D books plus supplements could probably fit into one of the Essentials volumes, so be prepared to read a lot no matter which 4E product you buy.

I should also note that I've looked at some of the tiles sets but haven't bought any yet. Part of my reasoning here is that I've been trying to remove the minis and battle board from my game, so buying a bunch of tiles seemed counterproductive at the moment. If I go back to minis I may reverse this thinking....

[kesher]

Thanks for the input!

I've picked up the Essentials Compendium and the two player books, and have been reading through them. I'm surprised at how much I'm enjoying it, actually. I don't think I could run combat with the crunch they seem to assume will be desired, but then again I read somewhere an excellent post by someone who ran the new ed. of GammaWorld without using miniatures or tiles or anything, and it didn't seem to cause any issues.

I think, in many ways, my seven year-old would really like it...

[jeffb]

I'm a 4E fan- and a grog type as well. The only editin I've never gel'ed with is 3E. Here is what I dig about 4E

1) It provides rules and options for the fiddly bits that players seem to like to have, without getting so intertwined like 3E. It's a good balance between "no charcater customization", and 3Es insane rules intensity.

2) I like that the game also only gives rules for the things where many players feel the need for rules- Combat, Character creation, skills, powers. Much of the game is then left open for the Dm to do his thing- its far less restrictive a game than it's predecessor, and once again the DM is not seen as the "bad guy who has to be reigned in by his players" like it was in 3E where player power ruled supreme.

3) re-skinning- powers, magic items, monsters, etc. very easy to separate fluff form mechanics and customize with very little work-most can be done on the fly.

4) The "world" of D&D. since the late days of the LBBS and especially since AD&D we have seen the tropes of the D&D world clarified, codified, and built into the game system. since AD&D1, these things have also been re-hashed in book after book over and over again. The Planes for example. Or the GH named magic items. The way alignment works- and how the Gods/Planes/Clerics, are intertwined. The monsters history and fluff. Over the years everything had had to conform to the "AD&D fomula"- even 3E went this way. 4E however is much closer to the wild & wooly OD&D/Moldvay type game- here' are the rules you need, the DM provides the details of the world and how it works- Here's a few frameworks to use, or you can throw them out. I think for me this has been the most liberating aspect as a DM. I am no longer tied to 30 years of rehashed D&D-isms/cannon. I feel like a kid again with his Moldvay set- I can throw in whatever I like, because the game was designed for the DM to create that playground- not pre-created and fully integrated into the game like the last 3 editions.

5) because of the way some classes work, and "healing" now works- I can run a world without Clerics and Divine Magic. And it works. I can run a game with all martial characters and very little magic, like say Hyperborea, and it works. I can completely take away magic items, and the game works (because you simply give characters certain bonuses to attacks/saves at certain level tiers to make sure they can "keep up" with the Monsters). I can now use 4E to run a Glorantha-esque type game of big mythology and wonderous magic because the powers/classes are easily re-skinned.

6) Classes are once again focused. Multi-classing is not seen as necc by players. There are no "dead" levels, and classes are very different in play (even though the mechanics of powers work the same for everyone). I especially love Druids & Barbarians- 2 classes I have not been a fan of in any previous edition.

7) I don't need to reference 2 -3 different books to run a Monster- EVERYTHING I need is in the stat block or in the MM glossary itself. I don't need to look into the glossary of special abilities in the DMG, Monster immunities in the back of the MM, and reference a spell description in the PHB, to run a Vrock. This is a BIG positive for me. The amount of combat rules I need to reference is drastically reduced from the previous edition. 99% of what I need is on the DM screen.

I do wish the combat was not so tactically oriented, however I find many players enjoy that, and admit it can be alot more fun than "I attack" every round. I find myself, as well as players have a difficult time coming up with new ways to fluff up combat every single session, and you fall into that "I hit, I miss" trap. The Varied powers and tactical options help. Since I'm not a fan of minis (and the prices) the plethora of high quality and reasonably priced counters and battlemaps/tiles WOTC has provided has been a godsend.
I also wish Character creation was a bit less math intense- of course the digital tools help in this respect, but I still would prefer not feeling the need for it. This is where I remain firmly old school- if I need a computer to run the game, there's an issue. Games shouldn't be that much work.

Bottom line- I still run the game as I have since my LBB days- mostly exploration of the unknown, solving mysteries, etc and only relatively few big combats. IOW- Call of Cthulhu meets Conan, without the high PC death toll, and only a fraction of the insanity

It's not perfect by any means, but I like 4E a lot- I've had more fun as a DM with 4E (as it really got me to be creative again) than I have since I was a youngster.

[Harbinger]

- There's lots of great player options, and combat is never dull.

- The core rules are nice and tight without being overbearing like they were in 3rd.

- It broke us free from the 3.5 monopoly! For various reasons that have been mentioned all over the internet, we abandoned it after 10 sessions and went to LL.

I'd be willing to be a player in a 4e game any day, but I'd have to think long and hard before running a campaign world using it.

[tombowings]

Feb 2, 2011 13:10:15 GMT -6 Harbinger said:

I'd be willing to be a player in a 4e game any day, but I'd have to think long and hard before running a campaign world using it.

See I'm the other way. I'd have no problem running 4E, but not much of a fan on the player's side of things. Combat is just too tedious unless I'm taking five turns per round.

[eris]

Jan 29, 2011 8:53:08 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

We've played several sessions of 4E. Somewhat limited experience with the game, but a few observations so far.

1. My group like the fact that they can "do stuff" at first level. Magic users get more than one spell. Fighters have more options than "I attack."

That's easily do-able in OS (ODD, C&C, S&W, etc).

I've always let fighters that want to describe their attack...and give them a chance for it to be more interesting than just "I attack!" However, some players want to play Fighters very, very, simply, for them "I attack!" is what they want. They do not want "I use a Whirlwind attack...ur, no, I already used that one, um, what do I have left?" Some players don't want to manage powers, they just want to whack monsters.

As for MU's, go ahead and give them more low level spells if you want too. It makes MU's stronger, but that's okay, you can deal with that by making the player roll for success to get a spell to work, give few spells later, or just make the monsters tougher (Marvin the 1st level Mage has 3 spells, but so does the Goblin MU he's just run into).

2. They enjoy the hit point boosts and healing surges, but are starting to realize that if the critters are boosted the same way they aren't really any better off than they used to be.

I don't have a bit of problem with slightly higher starting HP, nor with Healing Surges, out of combat, but I still want some sort of PC with healing as part of their shtick. And, as you say, what the PC's get, so do the monsters.

3. They like the concept of characters, monsters, and magic items all being rated 1-30. Not sure if we'll ever go that high, but they like the idea that the upper end is higher than earlier editions.

I've never had a player get a PC above Level 10, so that's not really a concern for me. Levels 1 to 20 for everybody works just fine for me, and spells going from level 1 to 20, too!

4. They like the fact that any race can be any class. I'm not sure why that matters to them much, but it seems to be important to some of them.

Personally, I've always hated the Race as Class idea anyway. I have no problem with any race can be any class. Maybe there are some racial advantages/disadvantages with some classes, but sure, Elves, Hobbits, and Dwarves can play, Fighters, MU, Thief, or Clerics...no problem.

5. They seem to like the concept of power cards. When you do something, turn the card over. They like having a card for their Action Point. Very visual, and to me it doesn't seem like a big deal but they like them.

Me too! But I've been using Spell Cards, Weapon Cards, Item Cards, etc. for years and years, so those are less 4e to me than just normal. Yes, I like Action Points, but those aren't a new idea either.

None of these "make or break" 4E and I may bring some of the 4E concepts into my OD&D or C&C rather than the other way around. I've started PC's off at 3rd level quite often, and this tends to address somewhat point #1.

None of these features are "4E only" and clearly any edition could be tweaked to address these things. I think they are mostly fans of the new races (at least, they haven't been exposed to them before) and options.

Bingo! The good things you see in 4e are things you can put into 3e, 2e, 1e, ODD, etc.

OTOH, there are things about 4e that I really don't like, and it is those things that keep me from playing/running it.

[kesher]

Wow, this thread started out slow, but this is great!

jeffb and Fin in particular, thanks for the details. I picked up the Monster Vault today, and I have to say there's TONS of great adventure hooks in every monster description---it's really enjoyable to read.

[Finarvyn]

I picked up Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms the other day (the "Essentials" book for Druids, Paladins, Rangers, and Warlocks). I had thought at first that I wanted to stick to the "big four" (fighter, cleric, thief, magic-user) so I passed on this the first time around, but decided to "complete" the set a bit and buy it.

I think overall they've done a good job of organizing, etc, but all of the 4E books are too wordy. I think they will be a good start, however, if I can slim it down for a home game. (Or, hopefully we'll see Legends & Labyrinths get developed faster so I won't have to do the work myself. )

[rabindranath72]

I liked most of the aspects of 4e, except the fact that the game mechanics and PC abilities are heavily, strongly biased towards combat; and a grid of some sort is practically mandatory.
4e must be one of the greatest RPG heartbreaker for me

[BLBlake]

I've not yet played 4E, but I did purchase the 3 core books in a slipcase when they were released. Reading through the books, I will say that the production values are top notch. The books were colorful, and easy to read.

It looks like character creation could possibly be quicker than with 3.0/3.5.

As a DM it looks like it would be easier to manage, and run compared to 3.5.

One of these days I'll hopefully get to play (not run) it. Then I will be able to make a more informed opinion about the game.

[kesher]

I've been reading the Essentials books and I have to say, if you go back to the previous page and look at jeffb's post, I'm feeling a lot like that.

I'm a little ashamed that I just went along with the "It's just WoW the RPG!" rhetoric initially. It's really, really NOT that. One of the more fascinating documents I've "found" is the Races and Classes preview book. It's stuffed with designer's notes, including text from staff emails and blogs, etc. Also, the DMG2 has crazy good rules on collaborative story-telling that are obviously (imo) influenced by the flourishing indie rpg movement.

Cool stuff.

[leon]

I'm not interested in playing 4E since it is completely alien to me, so I can't comment on its quality.

BUT I took a brief look at its cosmology (the non rules bits which I could understand) and it seems like a good basis for OD&D cosmology.

It has the plane above which is the plane of law (with the astral plane) and the plane below which is is the plane of elemental chaos (the four elements) which has at its bottom the abyss where demons and primordial gods dwell. It has a feywild where elves could come from and even druids could gain their powers from there. It has the shadowfell which is a dark place (like the land of the dead) where the undead can come from and even illusionists might tap their power from there. Add an ethereal plane and which can be a parallel plane which connects to all others (enter the ethereal plane and from there you can move on to the other planes) and you are pretty much set for D&D planar travel.

[vladtolenkov]

Kesher--

Robin Laws wrote those sections on collaborative play in the DMG2 if that provides any insight.

We played 4E through most of last year, and we had fun. I dig the monsters quite a bit in 4E. They're doing an increasingly good job of the monsters having a certain "feel" that makes them distinct. Combat with Kobolds doesn't feel like combat with Orcs.

My favorite moment of the campaign was when they stumbled into the lair of a Gelatinous Cube which was a total classic D&D moment.

[kesher]

Feb 16, 2011 7:22:46 GMT -6 leon said:

I'm not interested in playing 4E since it is completely alien to me, so I can't comment on its quality.

BUT I took a brief look at its cosmology (the non rules bits which I could understand) and it seems like a good basis for OD&D cosmology.

It has the plane above which is the plane of law (with the astral plane) and the plane below which is is the plane of elemental chaos (the four elements) which has at its bottom the abyss where demons and primordial gods dwell. It has a feywild where elves could come from and even druids could gain their powers from there. It has the shadowfell which is a dark place (like the land of the dead) where the undead can come from and even illusionists might tap their power from there. Add an ethereal plane and which can be a parallel plane which connects to all others (enter the ethereal plane and from there you can move on to the other planes) and you are pretty much set for D&D planar travel.

I agree about that---it's an actual milieu!

Kesher--

Robin Laws wrote those sections on collaborative play in the DMG2 if that provides any insight.

We played 4E through most of last year, and we had fun. I dig the monsters quite a bit in 4E. They're doing an increasingly good job of the monsters having a certain "feel" that makes them distinct. Combat with Kobolds doesn't feel like combat with Orcs.

My favorite moment of the campaign was when they stumbled into the lair of a Gelatinous Cube which was a total classic D&D moment.

That's funny you mention that about RL---I just saw that mentioned in something else I was reading. Makes sense!

So, is the lair of a gelatinous cube something akin to a mad wizard's janitorial closet?

[kesher]

Feb 4, 2011 13:22:04 GMT -6 BLBlake said:

I've not yet played 4E, but I did purchase the 3 core books in a slipcase when they were released. Reading through the books, I will say that the production values are top notch. The books were colorful, and easy to read.

It looks like character creation could possibly be quicker than with 3.0/3.5.

As a DM it looks like it would be easier to manage, and run compared to 3.5.

One of these days I'll hopefully get to play (not run) it. Then I will be able to make a more informed opinion about the game.

I have to imagine, especially with Essentials, that character creation is pretty quick---there aren't many choices to make (not unlike ODD!) It does seem in all ways quicker and easier to run than 3.5.

I really need to just sit down and make a character...

[vladtolenkov]

So, is the lair of a gelatinous cube something akin to a mad wizard's janitorial closet?

Well. . . it was hiding out in the tomb of a dead Orc King. I have no idea what it was doing there other than it felt right to stick it in this room that was otherwise a total dead end (no pun intended).

I really need to just sit down and make a character...

We made characters when 4E first came out and it took us a good 2+ hours but we weren't familiar with the rules as the none of us had owned the books very long. I'm hoping that essentials streamlines the process. Keep us posted if you do this as I'd like to hear how easy it was.

(Of course, you can always use the character builder which only takes about fifteen minutes or so--which means you have to buy a subscription to DDI ).

[Finarvyn]

Feb 17, 2011 10:29:59 GMT -6 vladtolenkov said:

Of course, you can always use the character builder which only takes about fifteen minutes or so--which means you have to buy a subscription to DDI ).

There are copies of the free character builder out there. It's only a trial copy (levels 1-3) and is no longer updated, but it's a neat way to get into 4E.


EDIT: Fixed the quote.

[rabindranath72]

Feb 16, 2011 16:43:57 GMT -6 kesher said:

Feb 4, 2011 13:22:04 GMT -6 BLBlake said:

I've not yet played 4E, but I did purchase the 3 core books in a slipcase when they were released. Reading through the books, I will say that the production values are top notch. The books were colorful, and easy to read.

It looks like character creation could possibly be quicker than with 3.0/3.5.

As a DM it looks like it would be easier to manage, and run compared to 3.5.

One of these days I'll hopefully get to play (not run) it. Then I will be able to make a more informed opinion about the game.

I have to imagine, especially with Essentials, that character creation is pretty quick---there aren't many choices to make (not unlike ODD!) It does seem in all ways quicker and easier to run than 3.5.

I really need to just sit down and make a character...

To be honest 3e (at least 3.0; not sure for 3.5) is not that bad if you choose the templates suggested for each class. You have only to pick a number of skills among the lists offered, and you are set (including equipment!) It takes no more than 10 minutes.

[leon]

Feb 18, 2011 7:05:14 GMT -6 rabindranath72 said:

To be honest 3e (at least 3.0; not sure for 3.5) is not that bad if you choose the templates suggested for each class. You have only to pick a number of skills among the lists offered, and you are set (including equipment!) It takes no more than 10 minutes.

Well, one of the very big problems (at least for me, others like it) of 3e is that they turned it into Magic the Gathering.

Basically you have a set of pretty straightforward rules and then you have special powers which overrule them (feats, class abilities, etc). The whole point of the game (exactly like Magic the Gathering) is to combine these powers (by taking feats, spells, special abilities, combining various classes and prestige classes) to create the "killer combo" with your deck...eh I mean character.

You spend more time researching, building and optimising your "character" than actually playing the game. This is more than half of the fun in Magic the Gathering, but for an RPG...eh I don't think so.

[rabindranath72]

Feb 18, 2011 20:21:06 GMT -6 leon said:

Feb 18, 2011 7:05:14 GMT -6 rabindranath72 said:

To be honest 3e (at least 3.0; not sure for 3.5) is not that bad if you choose the templates suggested for each class. You have only to pick a number of skills among the lists offered, and you are set (including equipment!) It takes no more than 10 minutes.

Well, one of the very big problems (at least for me, others like it) of 3e is that they turned it into Magic the Gathering.

Basically you have a set of pretty straightforward rules and then you have special powers which overrule them (feats, class abilities, etc). The whole point of the game (exactly like Magic the Gathering) is to combine these powers (by taking feats, spells, special abilities, combining various classes and prestige classes) to create the "killer combo" with your deck...eh I mean character.

You spend more time researching, building and optimising your "character" than actually playing the game. This is more than half of the fun in Magic the Gathering, but for an RPG...eh I don't think so.

Well, I have DMed 4e for about one year, so I could see first hand that if the "magic syndrome" was a problem of 3e, it definitely wasn't solved in 4e. Actually, it was made even worse, given the higher number of feats a character typically gets (one every two levels instead of three), and the higher number of special abilities/powers (all classes now essentially behave as spellcasters). Add retraining to the mix, and you get a system with a number of degrees of freedom which approaches numbers with 5 digits. Talk about "fine tuning."
Personally, I don't even play/DM 3.5; I think they already went overboard with it, what with the obsession with the grid (diagonal movement different from horiz/vertical; WTF?!); triplicating the number of feats; nerfing spells etc.
To me, D&D 3.0 "core" is a good game when I want a crunchy enough game which still resembles (and more fundamentally, plays as) D&D.

[kesher]

So, rabindranath, what's your experience been like DMing 4e?

[rabindranath72]

Feb 21, 2011 20:34:17 GMT -6 kesher said:

So, rabindranath, what's your experience been like DMing 4e?

A mixed bag, really. I liked the many "metagaming" aspects, and the fact that the game does not attempt to create a "rule for everything" like 3e (though obviously in the latter case no one is forcing the DM to use everything!)
Also, the game is quite easy to prep, and the monster and NPC stats do not follow the same rules as the PCs, so you can have everything at your fingertip. Unfortunately, having the stats ready does not imply that their actual use is easy.

What I did not like at all was the strong bias towards (gridded) combat. Every edition of D&D has had combat as a rather important aspect, but no previous edition has a ratio of combat vs. noncombat stuff (in terms of rules, class abilities, game options etc.) which literally tends to infinity.
The classes who suffered most from this are the thief (rogue) and the magic-user.
The thief now is simply characterised by the ability to dish out large amounts of damage; sure, it has the "usual thief abilities" but they are relegated to a much secondary role; and since they have been "condensed" into just two skills (stealth and thievery) they can be easily picked up by other classes.
The wizard too is heavily focused on combat. Gone are spells like charm, which could have applications outside of combat. 95% of the powers have only applications in combat. And "utility" powers/spells and rituals are relegated to a secondary role and cannot be used in combat, which makes for a very single-dimensional experience.

Combats last far too long. A kobold can have 20 hit points; and since 1st level characters have around the same amount, it means that combat only drags for longer.

Also, the amount of information which the DM needs to keep track of is staggering, and what's worse, it's so embedded in the structure of the game (the powers themselves) that it's really impossible to remove the offending parts.

The game is not easily houseruled. Good luck trying to create a new class: you need to define tens and tens of powers to keep it in line with the others. Furthermore, all classes tend to play similarly within the same role, with very close "effects." It seems the designers tried to go for an "effect based" game, but did not push the idea to its logical conclusions: you need only four "meta classes," thematically speaking (what they call "roles"): leader, defender, striker and controller. The "power sources" are little more than syntactic sugar.

The definition of "role" itself is totally aimed at combat, which cheapens the word itself in relation to what the game is supposed to be (role playing game, i.e. combat playing game.)

Overall, it was not a nice experience. I wanted to like it, but its single-dimensional focus on the grid and on combat, makes it much less flexible than 3e (and perhaps surprisingly, AD&D and classic D&D.)
I have not DMed 3e for very long, so I am not speaking with the benefit of experience in a supposedly more complex game, but I can tell you the DMing experience is incomparably more satisfying in the latter.