Biodude's page

...

A Prepared caster, whether Wizard, Cleric or Bard, would have a spellbook, be able to learn all possible spells of their class given time and cash, and have a small number of spells they can prepare and cast in any given day.

A Spontaneous caster, whether Paladin, Druid or Wizard, would have no spellbook, and be limited to a very small selection of spell known, but be able to cast flexibly from that Spell Known list and have more overall 'castings' a day than a Prepared caster of the same class.

Advantage of the Prepared caster; potentially any spell on the class list, similar to what the Wizard has. This would be a big downgrade for the Prepared Cleric or Druid, who already have all the spells on their spell-lists!

Advantage of the Spontaneous caster; more spells per day, flexible use of spells known.
...

I like this sort of flexibility and player-options. It would be nice if there was a simple conversion between prepared and spontaneous casters. I've toyed around with the idea that any prepared caster would have a spellbook, and never liked the idea that Clerics "download" spells from their deity while Wizards have to read a book.

I haven't had time to read all the posts in this thread, but I like the idea and discussion I have seen, so forgive me if any of this is not new. I would love to see an alternative to the Vancian system, but I'd be amazed if you can fulfill all the requirements in the original post.

My preference is for a spell-point system for various reasons, mostly to do with psioncs. AD&D2e had a skill-based system for psionics, and it was annoying: powers are unreliable and, as any paladin can attest to, it sucks to burn an ability when you miss that roll at a crucial moment. Something like this might work for "new abilities" that your character is learning to use, but only adds more rolls and complexity to adjudicating game effects overall.

A point-based system also could, and I believe should, be more compatible with psionics in the 3.5 SRD. Whether or not it plays well alongside the Vancian system remains debateable, but at least it would be easier to adapt the psionics system to a point-based magic system.

Personally, I don't see the need for a point-based system to play nice with a Vancian system. It can be too fundamental a shift and represents how all magic works, rather than one character vs. another. Every system is going to have it's quirks and it's much easier to balance within a system than between systems.

My thoughts on a point-based system:
The distinction between prepared and spontaneous casters can still be maintained in that spontaneous casters have a fixed repertoire, while prepared casters can change it (by preparing new spells), but require a source of new spells (spellbook, deity, etc.). In a point-based system, casters have much more flexibility within a 'day' than under a Vancian system, so the added flexibility in repertoire that prepared casters have can be extremely powerful. This requires some trade-off for balance, some ideas for which were already mentioned, and could also include one or more of the following:
- Prepared casters have fewer points than spontaneous casters. More intellectual approach, but less raw power.
- Prepared casters have a smaller repertoire than spontaneous casters. They have access to fewer spells within a day but can change as necessary. This works well with a mechanic to allow swapping slots during a day (but not during combat!).
- added costs of a "Spell Anchor" for Prepared casters.

Metamagic feats: Spontaneous metamagic all the way, works the same for all casters. Flavourful, avoids the complexities of preparing augmented or altered spells, etc. The trade-off is that is increases your decisions at each action, but that's more of a player issue.

Scaling price for caster level: Psionics already does this, both for damage and DCs. I don't see the problem with this, except that it hasn't been worked out for some spells, but it could be pretty simple: for 1st and 2nd-level spells, the rate is +1(damage die / save DC) / 2 points spent, for higher-level spells, the cost is 1 point. There are also other alternative systems for augmenting and manipulating spells (see Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, for example).
Also, I feel like this helps with the "too many low-level / too few high-level spells" issue. since damage (and possibly DC) effects cost essentially the same, the only effect of spell level is at what level your character has access, and other effects such as area (ray, line, cone, burst, etc.). Your point pool represents your total amount of "battery life", but the spell levels represent how much you can drain in each use, and how much experience you need to be able to use certain tricks.

Point Progressions: I never like the point progressions in UA / 3.5 SRD, especially given that the ones for spells don't seem to have any relation to the ones for 3.5 psionics. I've been toying with alternative progressions, based more on formulas than arbitrary increases. I suggest having 4 standard progressions, from highest to lowest:
- Spontaneous casters. Includes Sorcerer, Psion, Wilder, etc.
- Prepared casters (with a similar repertoire size as spontaneous casters). Includes Wizards, standard Clerics and Druids (and possibly psion alternatives like the Erudite psion).
- Partial casters. Bard & Psychic Warrior, where these abilities are not the core of the class, but at least half of the concept and complementary to other abilities..
- Minor casters. Where casting is an add-on at later levels, such as the Paladin and Ranger.

If others really want to see a wide range of alternative point progressions, let me know and I can put them on Google docs and publish them or something.

First off, I like the new races and associated rules overall. I just want to make one small comment:
I find it a bit odd that Humans get an ability called "Skilled", which gives them more skill points, and Half-Elves get an ability called "Adaptability", which grants the Skill Focus feat.

More skill points means having ranks in more skills (since you can't exceed your level in ranks), which makes you more adaptable and flexible. Skill focus makes you better at a single skill, not adaptable. I'm not disagreeing with the mechanics, but I've always felt the names should be switched.

Cheers

Huh? How does that math compute.

I was confused about the PrC skill requirements at first, but as others have pointed out, I think this was done to keep the minimum level the same in Pathfinder RPG as in 3.5, considering the next point...

Also, was skill points x 4 at 1st broken, that it needed to be changed?
My players would be seriously non-plussed if I told them they'd lose 16-32 skill points.

Why was this done?

I can't speak on behalf of the designers, but the new point system is certainly more streamlined, eliminating a lot of messy calculations, which I think was mostly the point. You get the same number of skill points every level, and all ranks cost 1 point. Simpler than the x4 multiplier at first level and double cost for cross-class skills. Cmbined with the consolidation of skills, this makes cross-class skills a lot cheaper and more feasible.

Also, with the class-skill bonus, you don't really "lose" skill points. Your characters will actually get more bonuses: having one rank in a class skill automatically grants +3 bonus to that skill, which you will get more often than the extra points you got at 1st level in 3.5. As I've converted characters, I invariably end up with a few extra skill points to spread around, or you actually get a bit of a higher bonus in your class skills that were not maxed out in 3.5

Hope that helps.

Robert Miller 55 wrote:

Spellcraft now covers "concentration checks"...

Yes, that argument has been made. But a lot more people have argued that Concentration, which is necessary for Psionic Focus, Diamond Mind, and using skills while avoiding attacks of opportunity, should be kept, less have made a compelling case for keeping Spellcraft a separate skill from the Knowledges.

...
Seriously, there were at least three threads on the subject during the Alpha 3 playtest when I joined the forum. And it was frequently raised or supported in the "what one thing would you change in the Alpha?" thread.

Yeah, I'm also disappointed that this was never really acknowledged or addressed in the Beta, or by most designers on the forums (although I can see you guys have been busy!). Most comments I read argued for either keeping Concentration as a skill, for more applications than just spellcasting, or using some sort of modified Will save in its place; very few in favour of the current Spellcraft awkwardness. Fortunately, these and other inconsistencies with psionics aren't too difficult to modify with houserules ("Spellcraft skill? what Spellcraft skill?").

Otherwise, I'm really excited about the new races & classes, and simplified rules in other areas. Thanks for all the hard work, and please keep participating in the discussions, even the topics you're not interested in, like Concentration ;-)

Pneumonica wrote:

Herald wrote:

Focus does work well though for Psionics. The idea that you have mystical power, but it's locked away deep in your mind and you are trained to unlock that power, is thematicly popular. Focusing really works. And it rolls together nicely into Psicraft.

"Oh, my God, there's an axe in my head!"

"Improvise! Adapt!"

I don't buy it. If you've been run through by a rapier, you're not "adapting" to anything. You're gritting your teeth. How the skill to help you bite the bullet is INT based makes no sense and means that the Wizard is better at casting in melee than a Cleric. Isn't it one of the points of a Cleric that he can cast spells in melee?

I don't buy your counterpoint. If you continue to focus your going to get another axe to the head.

And If I hit you with a rapier, (And I happen to own one, have been trained with one, not that I'm implying a threat) you better adapt or I'm going to play you like a fiddle. There is no way your going to get away with continue with what your doing.

I can't help but notice some confusion over what "concentration" means, and this seems to be the source of much of the disagreement.

"Focus" may be synonymous with "keeping your concentration", which 'Herald', above, seems to interpret as "keep doing what you are doing".
I feel that there is another side to Concentration, which is exactly what is being described above by others. When I "lose myself in a performance", that is a kind of focus to me: distractions are blocked out because they are irrelevant, I am so focused on, and mentally engaged in the performance.

My best performances (athletic, combative or otherwise) occur during moments of mental clarity, which can also be called "focus". This does not mean being stubborn, boneheaded and acting without thought to the consequences, it is a state in which you don't distract yourself by thinking too much: you allow your potential to be achieved, and can adapt to the situation much more effectively than if you are over-thinking a situation. This is a skill to me, and can be trained, regardless of the context in which you practiced and learned it. It can also be transferred to other experiences and helps you learn other skills faster, or make up for lack of training in difficult situations.

I don't know how making this distinction will help, but there it is. Personally, I think Concentration applies to both. Con-based Constitution could be "gritting your teeth" and pushing through an action while blocking distractions. Will-based could be "staying in the moment" in a zen-like state, adapting to the situation, and ultimately still achieving your goal without letting distracting thoughts lead you astray.

The idea of substituting a DC modifier to increase difficulty in lieu of a Concentration makes some sense to me. OTOH, I can see how being well-trained in Concentration could also negate this DC penalty, for the same overall effect. That might be too complex rules-wise, so all the ideas presented are attempts at a compromised abstraction for rules simplicity. The more I think about it, however, the more I like having Concentration as a separate skill.

I agree with

I'd really like to get a full explanation for what you [the designers] think the advantage of this is, because I'm just not seeing it.

If Concentration is ultimately dropped from Pathfinder :(, this still leaves a bit of a "rules hole" for resolving non-spellcasting actions in the face of distraction, which needs to be addressed explicitly.

Biodude wrote:

If you need to roll skills together, this is why I say Concentration should be on it's own, and roll Spellcraft into Knowledge (Arcane) or something similar. In the original SRD, Spellcraft was only useful for identifying things, which seems like an equally good use of Knowledge skills.

Quoted as that's how I feel with one Caveat. I'm rolling Autohypnmosis into Concentration as well. It will make it more attractive to monk/mystic types

I also agree with combining Autohypnosis into Concentration :D

Removing concentration kinda stretches backwards compatibility with certain closed content products (most notably the Tome of Battle). My wife's character has some swordsage levels in our current game, and I must admit it's a bit odd for her to have spellcraft in order to concentrate on her Diamond Mind maneuvers. ...

Exactly. Concentration has applications far beyond spellcasting. It makes little sense to roll it into "Spellcraft", which is only relevant to spellcasting. Some games may use Concentration primarily for spellcasting, but it has much broader potential role-playing and flavor applications.

If you need to roll skills together, this is why I say Concentration should be on it's own, and roll Spellcraft into Knowledge (Arcane) or something similar. In the original SRD, Spellcraft was only useful for identifying things, which seems like an equally good use of Knowledge skills.

That's how I intend to play regardless of what Pathfinder includes in the final release. Pathfinder has done an excellent job of demonstrating the benefits of streamlining the skill system, but some of these choices may just come down to personal preference.

This is why I believe the mechanics of 4e actually enhance the idea of roleplay more than 3.5 does. Basically, the system proposes the idea of everyone getting a shot, and not just the one who dedicated his limited character resources to it.

"Everyone is special, which is another way of saying no one is." (The Incredibles)

Good explanation and points in your post, thank you. 4e is certainly a different take on the idea of "balance" and "roles", and this thread is clarifying a lot of that. But the more it does so, the less I think I'm comfortable with 4e. For someone with my age and experience, perhaps it's just too much effort to shift, especially with more appealing alternatives like Pathfinder, but it may happen eventually.

Happy Adventuring.

So far the only good examples of why to keep Concentration as a skill relate to Bo9S (The D&D 4e testbed) and psionics.... neither of which exist in Pathfinder, and neither of which are used by a whole lot of people I would bet. Bo9S was liked by some, but I think it generally was met with "what the hell is this?" reactions more commonly. As for psionics, there is definitely a devoted group of folks who use it regularly, but...

Psionics and B09S aside, I think there are enough applications of the Concentration skill outside of spellcasting / spellcraft. You could replace many of these with Will saves, which as you point out is probably easier than the reverse, and prefferable to me than using spellcraft checks.

My main objection to doing this is that it doesn't necessarily reflect the kind of training than can improve a person's concentration "in real life". Saving throws are a product of class, which reflects training, so that might make sense. Most classes that have Concentration as a class skill in the 3.5 SRD also have high Will saves (spellcasters, Monks, etc. but not Paladins or Rangers), which helps makes this idea more palatable.

In the end, I would prefer either option (keeping Concentration, or using Will saves instead) to using spellcraft checks for these and other applications. That feels way too artificial. My friend's homegame has rolled spellcraft into knowledge (arcana), which I must say I much prefer.

The word concentration and the skill Concentration are not really compatible in this context. I suspect that anything that the Concentration skill can be used for could use, as a substitution, your Fortitude or Will save values. They make much more sense than a health-based skill for all of the above, excellent, examples you gave. There are instances where it is a physical force that helps you push through something, but many of the situations you describe would be much better geared to Wisdom (the basis of the Will save).

I also lament the omission of Constitution from the Pathfinder rules. Personally, I'd rather see Spellcraft rolled into Knowledge (Arcana), and keep Constitution separate.

A counter-proposal basedd on your intriguing suggestion above concerning saves: conversely replace saving throws with skill checks:
Reflex = Acrobatics
Will = Perception? Will-based Concentration?
Fortitude = hm, not sure. Con-based Concentration?

Interesting idea

<Pause while I put on my tin-foil hat>

I think WotC is trying, in part, to compete with computer games -- that only works if you're selling computer games.

BTW, good post, and I agree with most of what you say :)

Thanks for actually reading it. I also agree with your comments. There is a definite emphasis in 4e that makes it easier to play in a certain way that is apparently different from 3e. Not bad, but not my bag, baby.

And you have alluded to my personal beef with WotC. There is a definite product cycle with RPGs, and D&D especially: the publisher puts out a new edition of the core rules, justifying a new line of adventures, accessories, and supplements for the fans to buy. Just like what happened with 3.5, 3e, AD&D2e (revised), AD&D2e, AD&D, and so on since J.R.R. Tolkein fans started rolling dice and pretending to be elves back in the 1970s. What concerns me is the increasing pace and turnover of this cycle. Editions went from lasting 10 to about 5 years. The same thing happened to consumer electronics, and the main result I've seen are more things at a lower price and lower quality that you have to replace (and pay for) more often. But that's an economic phenomenon and largely irrelevant of the merits of 4e on its own.

This is also why I plan on supporting (and hopefully playing) Pathfinder. Thank you Paizo.

But your point also highlights why 4e doesn't appeal to me: when I want instant visual gratification, I play video games. When I want "meat"-y fantasy, I settle into a long D&D session. I want to maintain that distinction.

I just found this thread, but my (verbose) thoughts on 4e or 3e (Pathfinder) is over here.

I chose Pathfinder, and I don't think I'll be picking up 4e anytime soon. Maybe I'm just getting too old to bother with the shiny & new, and I just don't want to change (again).

This is a long post, and for that I apologize. I admit that I have decided I don't like 4e enough (yet) to switch and will continue enjoying D&D 3.5. In what follows, I articulate why I came to this conclusion: I'm not trying to knock D&D4e or people who like it, but if I am operating under any false impressions of 4e, please correct me.

Most common issues and points of comparison, and my thoughts are as follows.

Emphasis: Combat or Role-Playing?
Like others, I initially got the impression that "D&D4e puts too much emphasis on combat, and not enough on the Role-Playing". But several have pointed out, I think correctly, that "you make your own role-playing", and the rules system is largely irrelevant. Nevertheless, I have noticed a significant decline in plot-focused products coming out of Wizards of the Coast, and a great deal more emphasis on action and combat. I think action in a fantasy game is great, even very important. But it can't be the most important thing. A good plot and story is what many of us veteran gamers hunger for. If I want visual action, I can play video games, which I do.
This comment has less to do with the intrinsic properties of 4e and more to do with the emphasis of the products being published and the tastes of a new generation of players/consumers. I don't think it's "wrong", since so many people seem to enjoy it so much. But that's not what I look for in an RPG. Personal preference, not absolute judgement.

Balance: Party or Character?
The concept of "character roles" is not new, and has been used in 3.5 games for years to aid in overall party balance by ensuring that the party, as a whole, had a characters with complementary skills and abilities, thus ensuring
1. most challenges could be overcome by someone having the appropriate skill / ability / tool, and that the party had no major weakness that would hamper their ability to overcome challenges, and consequently,
2. every character (and thus, player) can contribute without feeling redundant, superfluous, or unnecessary ;-) Everyone gets a "moment to shine"

The difference between 3e and 4e as I understand it, is that this is now absolutely central to a character and the class they choose: each class has an explicit role in 4e. One of the aspects of the 3.5 rules I like is that each character can be "built" to fit one of several roles. Having a role is useful from a strategy point of view, but can feel very constraining from a storytelling or playing point of view (see the next section for constraints on playing). While I do find the concept of party role useful, I resent it being so central: it feels like I'm being hit over the head with it. Balance is also really only important for a standard dungeon crawl. A good DM creates adventures and campaigns suitable to the players and characters, not the other way around. If all your players want to be sneaky rogues or ninjas, suitable adventures can be created (or even found if you look in the right places). Just don't expect them to fight hordes of undead. They will suck badly at that. But, if that's the party you have in front of you, they are obviously not interested in doing so. Players in such a party will probably tend to distinguish their characters in other, possibly subtle ways. If you do get two people wanting to play the same character and role, what you have is a personality issue, and "player balance" issue, not a problem with the rules.
This gets at what I ultimately do not like about the 4e system. I am one of those people who honestly spends a lot of time thinking of character concepts and building them. That's my approach to strategy in the game: the action is the fluff and realization of the possibilities I have imagined while creating a character. I like putting the emphasis on the character, rather than the party. Fortunately, I have varied enough tastes that I'm not likely to want to play the same character concept as someone else, but I don't want my role dictated so strictly by my class.
Party balance and character roles can be achieved in 3.5, but are not necessary, whereas it is central in 4e. Personal taste will determine your preference.

Versatility: Character-building vs. Character actions
It has been pointed out that although 3.5 gives you considerably more options in character-building, most 3.5 characters end up being specialized to the point of only being effective at so few skills and abilities, that in a game, there are few options for character's actions. The rogue spends all their time flanking & sneak attacking, the fighter runs to the front and swings his sword, etc. For some people, that's boring. For others, it greatly simplifies the process of playing, and they are satisfied with the creativity that went into making that character so good at whatever it is they are doing. It's annoying when another player can't decide what to do.
This issue is eloquently summarized in The Philosophy of Class Design.

Give it options in play. Using the same tactic over and over is boring. If you're a trip fighter with that one trick (trip, trip, trip) then your gameplay is going to become more monotonous. By contrast, the Warblade introduces more versatility and options into every battle.

This is notably distinct from versatility in build. Versatility in build refers to the ability of a Fighter to be built in many different ways, but versatility in play refers to have many options of actions available to you during play.

Does there have to be a trade-off betwen versatility in build and play? The above quote is referring to 3.5 character building, not necessarily 4e. To me, this suggests that versatility in play CAN be accomplished within the 3.5 ruleset, even if it isn't easily achieved with many of the core base classes. I see this is an issue of class design, not the 3.5 rules per se. Perhaps class design is easier in 4e, I don't know. I'd rather not have to give up versatility in build, to gain versatility in play, if I don't have to.

One area where versatility in play is lost in 3.5 is perhaps as a result of the skills system. Someone pointed out that there are so many skills in 3.5 that most characters either have to specialize in a few skills (reducing their play options) or try to generalize, which becomes problematic at higher levels when your skill bonuses are so low that the chance of success is effectively 0. 4e has taken the approach of greatly simplifying skills such that each skill covers applications that traditionally fall under separate skills in 3.5. This is always the challenge of any skill system: where do you draw the line between one skill and another, and how do you justify each skill being "separate" and deserving of another skill point. I like the versatility in build that the 3.5 skill system offers, which appears to be lacking in 4e (correct me if I'm wrong, however) but I also admit that I have been frustrated on many occasions in character building where I just did not have enough skill points to be good at all the skills I wanted.
So, this is one area where 4e represents a marked improvement, even for someone like me. However, I also see this as an issue that can be addressed within the 3.5 system without overly destroying compatibility with existing products and other games. A fine example is in the Pathfinder RPG: by subsuming many of the redundant skills into fewer skills with broader applications, each skill point goes much farther and allows versatility in play, as well as versatility in build.

Modularity: Rules vs. Bookkeeping
This is perhaps where I see 4e diverging significantly from D&D 3.5, and is perhaps the biggest reason why the two are not easily compatible. 3e is viewed to be much more "modular" than 4e, because rules are easily grouped into large compartments (skills, feats, class abilities, spells), that leave a lot of room for tinkering, house rules, and the like, but because the rules are largely separated, it makes it easier to tweak individual rules, while retaining much of the compatibility with the rest of the 3.5 system. And people are sharing a lot of neat ideas and approaches in this regard. Effects of rules and abilities, however, are not so easily compartmentalized.
Rambling Scribe had this point that I found very helpful:

Most class features, feats, spells, and even base ability scores in 3E interact with each other in a very complex way. They come together to create an overall effect, but if you make an adjustment in one place, it's repercussions trickle through the whole character. For example, if you cast Bull's Strength, your to hit, damage, carrying capacity and some skills are all affected, and this could have complex results. If you are a 2H weapon fighter, your damage increases differently. Not that anyone would use this, but if your increased carrying capacity put you in a lower load category, your move rate and max dex change. To go a step further, if you change size categories it increases your strength and adds a bunch of other effects, including changing the relative encumbrance of your equipment (again, most people ignore half of these effects).

The more bits you add on, the more complex these repercussions become, and every new feat, power, spell whatever needs to be assessed based on ever more complex combinations of results.

This makes game design incredibly difficult, but it also makes character design incredibly fun for those of us who like to sit and work out all of those complex combinations that will result in an unexpected benefit.

In 4E, almost all of the class features, powers and whatever are truly modular. They do something specific, that has little impact on any other part of your character. The effects are designed specifically to not trickle through to other parts of the character, at least not in any complex way. There are powers that let you increase the number of times you can use another power and things like that, but I think the most complex effects are the stat-ups when you go up levels (which don't happen on the fly).

I haven't decided if this means 4e is harder to tweak: only experience will tell, and I have none. However, it is clear to me that modularity refers to different things: 3e is more modular in terms of rules, whereas 4e appears to be more modular in terms of effects and bookkeeping. This helps speed up play in 4e, but might again feel constraining to people who like to simulate things in a way that's different from the rules as stated. One of the things I had trouble with when reading some of the previews of 4e is that I could see how many of the abilities were simple to use in game terms, but they lacked the "evocative" quality I hunger for in a fantasy RPG. I believe that the versatility in play is really up to your own imagination: the rules should really only serve to help you and the DM adjudicate the results of the actions you choose. 3e was complex, but so is imagination. I like the approach of ignoring the rules, picturing my character and the surroundings, come up with some creative action, and then represent it in game terms using the rules and tools available.

It's more fun for me to play this way, than pick one of my pre-determined game actions and play it like a Magic card. That just feels too artificial to me. The problems many people see with 3.5 is perhaps that rules supplements got overzealous and tried to represent far too much explicitly with rules. I want rules to be a guide and an aid, not a game mechanic unto themselves.

Freedom and simulation
I like the 3.5 rules because that kind of modularity in rules and versatility of build (and hopefully action) gives me a sense of freedom I seek in a fantasy game. Freedom to make a character that inspires me, freedom to use the rules I like and ignore the rest, and the freedom to simulate the fantasy however I choose. A lot of the combat rules in 3.5 were obviously designed with miniatures and a grid in mind, but they weren't necessary. In the old days, we just used our imaginations and narrative to describe the action. Miniatures can certainly make for helpful aids, but can also be constraining if you rely on them too much. They also require an investment in time, money, and space. I get the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that the combat system is increasingly reliant on the grid and minis in 4e. Even the powers and abilities are geared towards push / pull / slide -ing an entity a certain number of spaces / squares (unless I am misunderstanding the mechanics and rules). This is obviously an artefact of representing the action on a 2-dimensional field (even if the representations are 3D plastic, lead, or CG). And that's what I don't like: the rules have become an outgrowth and thus largely dependent on, the method of simulation. Perhaps they always were: such rules didn't exist before minis were being used more commonly for this purpose. Still, that type of action and combat feels too artificial for me. I want miniatures and a grid to be an optional aid: I don't want to have to rely on them to play D&D.

As a result of all these aspects, the 4e rules system feels too much like a strategy board game to me (i.e. the "World of Warcraft" influence, Board-game feel, etc. that others have mentioned). I can believe that combat is smoother and people feel there are more options in play. However, I feel like versatility in play can be created without constraints on versatility in build, or simulation that are built-in to D&D 4e. This makes the game more casual, smoother, but also more constraining in terms of mechanics, and possibly flavour. This is something I expect from a strategy or video game, not a pen & paper RPG like D&D. Maybe I'm just too old-fashioned?

Can we all play together? Nicely?
In the end, All of the aspects of 4e that I have seen lauded can largely be accomplished within the 3.5 ruleset. It's just a lot more streamlined and explicit in 4e. Maybe 4e is really more about emphasizing casual gaming than overly cumbersome rules. Either way, it's a matter of personal taste.
Therefore, 4e is going to be largely irrelevant for me and my D&D games. But, it does appear to be bringing a whole new cohort of players to pen & paper (& miniatures) tabletop role-playing games that are social, interactive, and rely a lot on imagination, learning and applying complex rule sets. The core elements of D&D have not changed, but the emphasis has shifted in many ways with various complex rule sets. At the end of the day, the DM is god, and the rules just help the players and DM tell the story, whether it be a social drama, comedy, or visual actiona.
Throughout the discussions comparing 4e and 3e, I have gained an even greater appreciation for the 3.5 system and its ability to be altered in custom ways, but still ensure compatibility according to the 'core SRD' standard. I just wish and hope that 3.5 and 4e players can play together, and that the community grows rather than fractures.
4e is here to stay and I will watch it with interest. But 3e is nowhere near dead yet, and I applaud groups like Paizo for giving it new life with products like Pathfinder RPG (and Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved). That's something for me to get excited about, and I hope you are excited about your D&D game, whatever rules you use.
I have also dug up my old AD&D (and even D&D) products to reminisce and re-discover my own RPG roots. Even after 20 years (!), it's inspiring again.