Can't we all find a way to peacably co-exist?
You are a mean lady.
I honestly thought it meant the thread was targeted for termination. Shows what I know. :(
BTW, what's that little black dot mean?
What little black dot? I don't see one. I think the Men in Black are on to you. Did you read Treasure Island or what?
The little black dot marks a thread in which you have posted.
Is it okay to yell "Movie" in a crowded Fire Station? Aslo, would it be dangerous to yell "Doughnut" in a Police Station?Why not and yes the police may shoot you.
My uncle's a baker, and one of his colleagues knows everything about dough, from its history to the many ways you can create it, what you can do with it.
The guy's a real dough nut.
Is it okay to yell "Movie" in a crowded Fire Station? Aslo, would it be dangerous to yell "Doughnut" in a Police Station?Why not and yes the police may shoot you.My uncle's a baker, and one of his colleagues knows everything about dough, from its history to the many ways you can create it, what you can do with it.
The guy's a real dough nut.
ba-dump-tish!
So what you are saying is the guy is a Loafer? And he needs the dough to loaf?
Whereas if they just want to ad hominem slam 4e and folks who play it they get a free pass? Gratuitous insults are what they are no matter what game system you're going to pillory.
Someone who doesn't like Pathfinder has every right to come here and tell us they don't like it, however, they better be prepared to back up the statement with evidence, and be prepared that there will be alot of disagreement.
Nope, I don't support free passes any more than I support the self censorship you are peddling, he should have been made to back up his opinion with evidence, or had his opinion challenged with contrary evidence, or at least, simply been told that someone disagreed, but apparently, some posters thought gagging him was better than actually opening dialogue. I think I've been pretty clear on that point throughout this thread.
What game he was bashing was unimportant, just as it was unimportant which company's forum we happened to be on. If he had bashed Pathfinder instead of 4E, I would still be on the same side of this argument, even if I disagreed with his opinion. The right to disagree with someone's opinion and challenge it should be universal, just as the right to voice it in the first place should be. If I don't defend it when I disagree, then I'm a hypocrite if I change my tune when the shoe is on the other foot.
|
"you mean that stupid game where you dress up like fairies and run around in the woods?"Now THAT sounds like a fun game. Right, Daigle?We played that once, I think. Or some of us. It was at a party we had in/near a cottage. We had a barbecue, and of course we had alcohol.
I don't remember much of the latter parts of the night. I do remember that at least one of the girls put tinfoil on her head, shouted something about her being the fairy of the woods, and started prancing through the wood.
I had a friend who would sit in puddles and scream how she was the Lady of the Lake every time she got drunk.
|
I had a friend who would sit in puddles and scream how she was the Lady of the Lake every time she got drunk."you mean that stupid game where you dress up like fairies and run around in the woods?"Now THAT sounds like a fun game. Right, Daigle?We played that once, I think. Or some of us. It was at a party we had in/near a cottage. We had a barbecue, and of course we had alcohol.
I don't remember much of the latter parts of the night. I do remember that at least one of the girls put tinfoil on her head, shouted something about her being the fairy of the woods, and started prancing through the wood.
This "friend" has no reason to embarassed about it. It's a perfectly normal thing for you to do, alleynbard.
I mean, for your "friend" to do.
|
|
I had a friend who would sit in puddles and scream how she was the Lady of the Lake every time she got drunk.
This "friend" has no reason to embarassed about it. It's a perfectly normal thing for you to do, alleynbard.
I mean, for your "friend" to do.
Actually, I did something much worse. My friends would play Abba's Dancing Queen just to watch me jump up and do my little interpretive dance of the song. Talk about embarrassing. :)
|
I think 4th edition has done a few things for the hobby. First and foremost, it's got a lot of new, younger players hooked. That is never a bad thing; the more players there are out there, the better for all gamers. Period.
It also had some decent ideas mechanically. I like the Second Wind mechanic, I like their management of action types, and I definitely like the idea of having more classes that are competitive with the Cleric as far as healing goes.
I definitely dislike their treatment of magic, and how mechanically there are next to zero differences between divine magic, arcane magic, and martial powers. Dividing all magic into either Rituals (largely ignored and easily acquired by any class at the cost of a single feat) and powers (only different from most non-magical powers in the fluff and in the type of damage the do) really irritated me.
In 3.X I'm drawn to the caster classes, especially Wizard types. The thought that goes into playing one, and the power gained by doing it well, is a huge rush for me. In 4th, I stick with martial type classes, because of the challenge of trying to be the 'tank' and control the battlefield effectively and because magic is such a pale reflection of the 3.X version.
I still intend to keep my 4th edition books, and will join if invited to a game. It's just much more casual and that takes some of the fun out of it.
A lot of the fun is really getting into it, busting out the stereotypical Cheeto's and Mountain Dew and holing ourselves up acting like total nerds and being proud of that. I can do that and have a blast with any gaming system.
I had a friend who would sit in puddles and scream how she was the Lady of the Lake every time she got drunk."you mean that stupid game where you dress up like fairies and run around in the woods?"Now THAT sounds like a fun game. Right, Daigle?We played that once, I think. Or some of us. It was at a party we had in/near a cottage. We had a barbecue, and of course we had alcohol.
I don't remember much of the latter parts of the night. I do remember that at least one of the girls put tinfoil on her head, shouted something about her being the fairy of the woods, and started prancing through the wood.
We have a couple of sayings about fairies of the wood around here. I will not repeat them because they contain strong language. I do remember that they came up a lot that evening.
One thing 4e gave us...
was the screaming runs and bleeding eyeballs.
But your mileage may vary.
One thing 4e gave us...
was the screaming runs and bleeding eyeballs.
But your mileage may vary.
One thing 4e gave us...
was the screaming runs and bleeding eyeballs.
But your mileage may vary.
4E did hurt my mind, but I have friends who play it and more importantly they are teaching it to some younger players (some who now also want to check out Pathfinder).
That being said, I spent over $100 on D&D 4E nd gave away a few months of my life to it that I can't get back. So I may have to make fun of 4E every once in a while.
|
You know what 4E gave us?
Remember when you were young and you had a can/bottle of Schmidt beer, or maybe Mickey's ale, or maybe a Heidleberg stubbie? And then later you discovered Guinness and the hand-crafted Micro-brews of the Great Pacific Northwest?
You see, you cannot appreciate the craftsmanship, the detail, the passion, the entrepreneurial spirit of Paizo, without the stark contrast of our dear mass marketers at Hasboro.
Yes, 4E, much like too many Rainier Ales, gives me a hangover. Which reminds me how easy Pathfinder is on my stomach.
4E had a number of aspects that I thought were good ideas.
One that comes to mind right away was the healing ability of the "Marshal" class.
It reminded me of a drill instructor:
"Get up you baby! Why you're barely even hurt! You have a job to do! On your feet soldier!"
Personally, I thought it was a refreshing change from the "faith healer" which had been the only healing source through all the other editions.
What ruined 4E for me I think was the death of character flexibility. Everything is completely pigeonholed.
Hard to say though. In the end, it just didn't feel like D&D anymore. Not the worst RPG I've ever played, but certainly a step in the wrong direction.
Not sure who said it... or where I read it...
...but 4.0 is like a gateway drug. Bring some new players to the game... then convert them to the hard stuff like Pathfinder! :)
Me like sniff salt through straw sometimes...
|
|
And I'd also stand by a comment I share with others, that 4e does echo some old traditions, it's the one game system, outside of MERP that best respresents a recreation of Gandalf. :)
What would Gandalf be? The Wizard class of 4th Edition is IMO the worst representation of Gandalf. Spells at-will is the only reason I feel I really need. Gandalf as a human wizard would get 3 at-will spells, all of which are much more direct and flashy than the magic Gandalf typically uses. I'd say the 2ed AD&D Mage does a much better job.
Pigeonholed classes were my biggest beef. The Warden, Druid, and Shaman combined into one would have about the same powers that a 3.X Druid has. The 3.5 Fighter can cover 2 out of 3 Ranger builds now that ranger essentially has no divine magic, on top of all of the Fighter builds.
That trend of taking an existing class and splitting it's features over a few very narrow classes covers most of the 16+ that they're got in the character builder.
The de-emphasis of having each ability score be important for just about any character bugged me too.
I try not to complain about it too much, because I come off as being much more critical of it than I am. I tend to be really long winded too, which doesn't help. It's a good system, and it's the other players that make any given game fun more so than the rules. I have to say that I simply prefer in-depth rules and don't mind if they're complicated, if that complication makes them more interesting and entertaining.
|
|
And I'd also stand by a comment I share with others, that 4e does echo some old traditions, it's the one game system, outside of MERP that best respresents a recreation of Gandalf. :)What would Gandalf be? The Wizard class of 4th Edition is IMO the worst representation of Gandalf. Spells at-will is the only reason I feel I really need. Gandalf as a human wizard would get 3 at-will spells, all of which are much more direct and flashy than the magic Gandalf typically uses. I'd say the 2ed AD&D Mage does a much better job.
He was probably referring to the invoker class. Gandalf has very little resemblance to the wizard class in any edition, because Gandalf is actually an immortal, semi-divine being, who is granted his powers by a set a divine entities.
What would Gandalf be? The Wizard class of 4th Edition is IMO the worst representation of Gandalf. Spells at-will is the only reason I feel I really need. Gandalf as a human wizard would get 3 at-will spells, all of which are much more direct and flashy than the magic Gandalf typically uses. I'd say the 2ed AD&D Mage does a much better job.
The Invoker class is how you create Gandalf.
In fact, Gandalf was specifically one of the inspirations for the Invoker class, as stated by the designers.
....Gandalf is actually an immortal, semi-divine being, who is granted his powers by a set a divine entities.
Kind of like me boss!
What ruined 4E for me I think was the death of character flexibility. Everything is completely pigeonholed.
It's interesting that where you see the death of character flexibility I see a truly crazy amount of character flexibility. We've both played 3.X, so why does one of us see restriction and the other freedom?
|
|
Actually, I did something much worse. My friends would play Abba's Dancing Queen just to watch me jump up and do my little interpretive dance of the song. Talk about embarrassing. :)I had a friend who would sit in puddles and scream how she was the Lady of the Lake every time she got drunk.
This "friend" has no reason to embarassed about it. It's a perfectly normal thing for you to do, alleynbard.
I mean, for your "friend" to do.
I was quite popular for interpretive dances I used to do around bonfires....usually to grunge or metal. I was like Flea, from The Chile Peppers, on crack.
I miss the late 80's and the fun I used to have.....A 39 year old out of shape dude just can't pull off some of the crap that the 19 year old, 155lb version of himself could. Ah youth, I miss thee.
|
4E is a word that triggers a knee-jerk reaction from me. Which sucks, because I really want to support the descendant of the game that started it all.
Why does it provoke such a reaction? Because they didn't do what Paizo did. They didn't find out what the fans wanted. They built to the lowest common denominator to capitalize (literal meaning of the word) on the hobby.
I'd LOVE to play 4E if it wasn't 4E. If it was "Joe and Sue's Tactical Balanced RPG", I probably would have bought in long ago.
Balance is all well and good, but it has a place. That place is AFTER fun, before Munchkinism.
That said, I still listen politely when people talk about 4E. And I agree with upthread comments stating the 4E gives us something to contrast to PFRPG.
Love it, hate it, but accept that 4E is here (if you wish). It isn't going away. And people will flame over it from here to eternity. Because they have an opinion and they're willing to shove it undefended down the throats of the masses that will listen because they are tuning into the vitriol.
Long live PFRPG! Long live D&D! Long live the best danged hobby that ever graced a hard cover book!
This 2cp represents my opinion, which is no better, worse, more or less valid than anyone else's.
Why does it provoke such a reaction? Because they didn't do what Paizo did. They didn't find out what the fans wanted. They built to the lowest common denominator to capitalize (literal meaning of the word) on the hobby.
They did listen to what some of the fans wanted, and those fans are quite satisfied with the result. Why you are having this reaction is they didn't listen to fans like yourself, and thus you are disappointed. But let's not decieve ourselves and think that WotC is so creative they came up with the concepts for their game out of the blue. The changes they made were a direct result to many of the comments they had heard during the life of 3.x. They made changes to address those comments. Likewise, from the recent firestorm around the Bestiary on these boards it should be obvious that Paizo didn't find out what all of their fans wanted either. Obvious you can't satisfy everyone, so let's not start running around and acting like just because a game wasn't designed from a perspective we ourselves would wish, that doesn't mean that no fan consideration was used.
|
What ruined 4E for me I think was the death of character flexibility. Everything is completely pigeonholed.Hard to say though. In the end, it just didn't feel like D&D anymore. Not the worst RPG I've ever played, but certainly a step in the wrong direction.
Almost one year of playing 4ED my big group played just about every class and build. So then PHB2 came out and it gave us more, although totally overpowered...(see barbarian). I have run/played basic, 1st, 2nd, 2.5 combat and tactics, 3rd, 3.5 and now 4th over a span of 20 years. By far 4th edition for some reason did not feel like dnd ast all. Good game, but not dnd feel for me, but again who am I? Pathfinder from day one felt like dnd again, plus the back compatable stuff is fantastic. My trunks and 100's of PDF's are safe. 4ED was great for combat, everything had differnet names, titles and stuff. My players used to say creative combat kills us, but 4th ed gave more description to combat rather than "I swing with my sword", but it gave problems with the role playing aspect. I agree with monk. It is a great game...but...
Why does it provoke such a reaction? Because they didn't do what Paizo did. They didn't find out what the fans wanted. They built to the lowest common denominator to capitalize (literal meaning of the word) on the hobby.They did listen to what some of the fans wanted, and those fans are quite satisfied with the result. Why you are having this reaction is they didn't listen to fans like yourself, and thus you are disappointed. But let's not decieve ourselves and think that WotC is so creative they came up with the concepts for their game out of the blue. The changes they made were a direct result to many of the comments they had heard during the life of 3.x. They made changes to address those comments. Likewise, from the recent firestorm around the Bestiary on these boards it should be obvious that Paizo didn't find out what all of their fans wanted either. Obvious you can't satisfy everyone, so let's not start running around and acting like just because a game wasn't designed from a perspective we ourselves would wish, that doesn't mean that no fan consideration was used.
Comments were made about every aspect of the game. The comments they chose to listen to were a very small subset of the whole. Choosing the right comments to listen to was their failure. They also ignored the wishes of the silent majority who actually liked what we had with 3.5.
The "firestorm" was a very small, but vocal minority who came across as idiotic for making accusations that were not based in reality. They were hardly representative of the community of gamers at large. If paizo listened to them, they would be making the same mistake wotc allegedly had done.
Anyway, 4e gave us the immediate action terminology. I noticed its use in PF, and it made me think of 4e. I sold my 4e books (after wasting months of "I don't understand why the game isn't fun; I need to learn the rules better!"). So even though I know the rules really well, I cannot go back and read through them to find the good stuff. And why bother? PF is better.
Why does it provoke such a reaction? Because they didn't do what Paizo did. They didn't find out what the fans wanted. They built to the lowest common denominator to capitalize (literal meaning of the word) on the hobby.They did listen to what some of the fans wanted, and those fans are quite satisfied with the result. Why you are having this reaction is they didn't listen to fans like yourself, and thus you are disappointed. But let's not decieve ourselves and think that WotC is so creative they came up with the concepts for their game out of the blue. The changes they made were a direct result to many of the comments they had heard during the life of 3.x. They made changes to address those comments. Likewise, from the recent firestorm around the Bestiary on these boards it should be obvious that Paizo didn't find out what all of their fans wanted either. Obvious you can't satisfy everyone, so let's not start running around and acting like just because a game wasn't designed from a perspective we ourselves would wish, that doesn't mean that no fan consideration was used.Comments were made about every aspect of the game. The comments they chose to listen to were a very small subset of the whole. Choosing the right comments to listen to was their failure. They also ignored the wishes of the silent majority who actually liked what we had with 3.5.
The "firestorm" was a very small, but vocal minority who came across as idiotic for making accusations that were not based in reality. They were hardly representative of the community of gamers at large. If paizo listened to them, they would be making the same mistake wotc allegedly had done.
Anyway, 4e gave us the immediate action terminology. I noticed its use in PF, and it made me think of 4e. I sold my 4e books (after wasting months of "I don't understand why the game isn't fun; I need to learn the rules better!"). So even though I know the rules really well, I cannot go...
lol, I image there are 4vengers out that are saying very similar things. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you sleep well.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Comments were made about every aspect of the game. The comments they chose to listen to were a very small subset of the whole. Choosing the right comments to listen to was their failure. They also ignored the wishes of the silent majority who actually liked what we had with 3.5.
Ahhhh. And you know how many comments were made and what they were about because you were one of their market researchers? A customer rep? Somebody with actual inside knowledge? And you know the majority is silent and their opinions through some other readily available cache of data? Or is this a superpower that lets you know what everyone thinks?
Your omniscience is surely wasted on this topic and in this forum. If I had your amazing gift to know the unspoken dreams and desires of the multitude, I would create the perfect game (or better yet, government) to satisfy all constitutiencies. You should stop wasting your time here and use your powers for the good of all mankind! Remember what Uncle Ben said: "With great power comes great responsibility."
The "firestorm" was a very small, but vocal minority who came across as idiotic for making accusations that were not based in reality. They were hardly representative of the community of gamers at large. If paizo listened to them, they would be making the same mistake wotc allegedly had done.
Some would assert the exact same regarding those who objected to 4e. Lacking your ability to absolutely judge the merits of those objections, much less identify which game mechanics/comments are objectively the "right" ones, I must defer to your conclusions that the group that made accusations against the Pathfinder were idiotic, whereas those who made accusations against 4e were actually the few vocal proponents of the alleged silent majority you have identified, and not idiots themselves. I'm also confused in that WotC's apparent failure was in not listening to the vocal minority (of the silent majority), but Paizo's success was not listening to a vocal minority (who may or may not be part of a separate silent majority). I suppose you're the expert on silent majorities, so it must be that the the vocal minority in the case of Pathfinder was only a minority, and not part of a larger silent majority.
Personally, I thought it was a refreshing change from the "faith healer" which had been the only healing source through all the other editions.
There's a 3e bard with his arcane healing magic on your door, who wants to call you a liar to your face ;-P
Comments were made about every aspect of the game. The comments they chose to listen to were a very small subset of the whole. Choosing the right comments to listen to was their failure. They also ignored the wishes of the silent majority who actually liked what we had with 3.5.Ahhhh. And you know how many comments were made and what they were about because you were one of their market researchers? A customer rep? Somebody with actual inside knowledge? And you know the majority is silent and their opinions through some other readily available cache of data? Or is this a superpower that lets you know what everyone thinks?
Your omniscience is surely wasted on this topic and in this forum. If I had your amazing gift to know the unspoken dreams and desires of the multitude, I would create the perfect game (or better yet, government) to satisfy all constitutiencies. You should stop wasting your time here and use your gift for the good of all mankind!
The "firestorm" was a very small, but vocal minority who came across as idiotic for making accusations that were not based in reality. They were hardly representative of the community of gamers at large. If paizo listened to them, they would be making the same mistake wotc allegedly had done.Some would assert the exact same regarding those who objected to 4e. Lacking your ability to absolutely judge the merits of those objections, much less identify which game mechanics are objectively the "right" ones, I must defer to your conclusions that the group that made accusations against the Pathfinder were idiotic, whereas those who made accusations against 4e were actually the few vocal proponents of the alleged silent majority you have identified, and not idiots themselves.
I was an avid reader on the wotc message boards and saw the comments. I didn't have to be a sales rep, but I did have to use my brain.
I knew there was a silent majority because an industry that it was fair to say consisted of only wotc before 4e (at least in market share) became an industry that now has allowed an upstart to capture a relatively large market share using the 3.5e rules. Actually, there are some other games that seem to have gained traction with the stumble that was 4e, further ceding wotc dominance in the space. Again, you have to use your brain, but data is available.
Usually it is pretty easy to belittle at least some part of someone's post because we tend to type stream of consciousness. So if you focused on one part of my first paragraph, you should have zoned in on the second sentence because that includes some dubious statements. However, your arrogance has caused you to dismiss the entire post.
I won't be replying to any more of your posts because you are a jerk, but feel free to have the last word.
Anyway, 4e gave us the immediate action terminology.
Uh, no. The Expanded Psionics Handbook had swift and immediate actions first, I think. Could be something else from the same era, but it was definitely shortly after the 3.5e core books that they came up with it.
I do think it was the XPH, because the concepts found their way into the SRD.
Actually it feels VERY much like OLD school D+D and AD+D in that respect.
I don't get that at all. Maybe Basic, but come AD&D 1st edition you had a slew of spells to choose from for your caster every level. That number nearly doubled when Unearthed Arcana came out.
You could also "Dual-Class" a human to be an illusionist/Wizard/Cleric/Druid to get lots of spells without needing lots of xp (since the "XP cost" for increasing levels reset with every dual class)
In 2e my favorite "go-to" character was a 1/2 elf Wizard/Cleric. Lots of spells and spellcasting at even low levels. No staff swinging for me (though the occassional spiritual hammer).
The flexibility of earlier editions was with the selection of spells - which still could perform a great variety of things. Unlike 4e where you get to decide whether your new spell will do cold damage and slow opponents or whether it will do fire damage and hinder terrain (thus slowing opponents). Add that spell to your list of...well 2 or 3, which are VERY different - because they do LESS cold or fire damage. :P
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I was an avid reader on the wotc message boards and saw the comments. I didn't have to be a sales rep, but I did have to use my brain.
Ahhhh... You have ANECDOTAL data! The most important and rigorously tested type of data! And you self-selected it too for added credibility! My bad.
I knew there was a silent majority because an industry that it was fair to say consisted of only wotc before 4e (at least in market share) became an industry that now has allowed an upstart to capture a relatively large market share using the 3.5e rules.
I'd be interested in learning more about these pre-4e/post-4e market share stats that you have access to. Or, I can just make up my own if that's the way this game is played! Watch this!
"Many assert that the WotC market share has fallen, but that's not taking into account that the entire tabletop rpg market has grown significantly since 4e was released. I know this because there were some people at ENWorld who posted about how easy it was to recruit new gamers and because WotC said new player recruitment was going well."
I even backed it up with an anecdote! Surely that must count as counter-data.
Actually, there are some other games that seem to have gained traction with the stumble that was 4e, further ceding wotc dominance in the space. Again, you have to use your brain, but data is available.
Is it available in the real world, and, if so, could you be so kind as to point me to it.
So if you focused on one part of my first paragraph, you should have zoned in on the second sentence because that includes some dubious statements.
Naw. The whole thing was basically a bunch of unsupported assertions about the market without any indication that there was data backing it up.
However, your arrogance has caused you to dismiss the entire post.
I thought it was the arrogance of the post that made me arrogantly dismiss it. I wasn't the one speaking on behalf of a legion of gamers without evidence.
I won't be replying to any more of your posts because you are a jerk, but feel free to have the last word.
VICTORY!!!
Oh wait, personal insult!!!! I'm going to flag your post! My skin is thin and easily bruised. :-(
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Methinks this thread has served its purpose.
Stop calling each other jerks and acting like jerks, people.
Some of you don't like 4e.
WE GET IT.
In fact, we made a game we think you WILL like.
I don't think retreading how 4e shot our dogs in the street (or whatever) is really much of a productive discussion at this point. It brings the same angry people out on both sides, and cheapens the friendly atmosphere of these boards.
So enough of this.
Anyway, 4e gave us the immediate action terminology.Uh, no. The Expanded Psionics Handbook had swift and immediate actions first, I think. Could be something else from the same era, but it was definitely shortly after the 3.5e core books that they came up with it.
I do think it was the XPH, because the concepts found their way into the SRD.
D'oh. OK, paging through the 4e PHB it doesn't look like 4e gave us anything...
Oh! 4e gave us that picture of the dwarf cleric on pg. 70, the diplomacy skill-related picture on pg. 184, flaming dagger babe on pg. 234, and the picture by Lee Moye (is the name cut off in part?) on pg. 258, and the elf with the bow on pg. 273 of the 4e PHB. I'm probably missing some of the other good artwork. The only problem is the number of pages of boring stuff you have to turn to get to the next picture.
Now, SWSE did give us some good stuff. That's a game I can still play.
What ruined 4E for me I think was the death of character flexibility. Everything is completely pigeonholed.It's interesting that where you see the death of character flexibility I see a truly crazy amount of character flexibility. We've both played 3.X, so why does one of us see restriction and the other freedom?
I find that interesting too. Care to elaborate?
My 3.5 Wizard (in a LOOOOOONG running campaign) gained a level relatively recently and gained his first 2 8th level spells.
It was quite interesting making my choice as to what those spells would be. Summoning, Blasting, Controlling the Battlefield, Form Changing, Transport, Debuffing, and more. This is for a wizard that is a focused specialist (with 3 banned schools of magic), and I not only had hundreds of spells to choose from - I had hundreds of spells to choose from that did a huge variety of different things.
I found a similar experience selecting my feat the level before.
I would be interested to hear how 4e even compares to this flexibility, nevermind exceeds it. Your elaboration on your point would be appreciated, because I did try 4e (even wrote a wizard handbook), but just never found the flexibility the same, or even close.