I did notice, actually. But... what's your point here? Is this an agreement with me, or an argument. Because, as an argument, it's really not saying anything.
You're years out of date. See the Slayer for details.
Hmm, I started playing Pathfinder right a round Essentials, so I didn't see much of it. That's actually pretty cool. It's also making my point for me; you complain about lack of options for the Fighter, ignoring the fact that options will be included. And then point out that 4e does have a simple Fighter. So... what's your problem with Next, again? Since it's doing the same thing, really; allowing you to play a simple Fighter or a complex Fighter, your choice.
Did you follow the linked At Will skirmish? You at least can have two distinctly different options.
Ooh, aah... compare that to dozens of different options if you stop looking at your bloody character sheet to determine what you can do, and just
look around you. Improvise, do cool things. It's okay, it's allowed, there is no programming stopping you from doing something that's not explicitly outlined in your stats.
I know that this is
possible with 4e, but there are two problems. One, it's not nearly as easy or simple as it should be. The disparity in skill levels combined with scaling math means that if you're attempting something you're not specialized in, you shouldn't bother, because the DC is too high and your skill ranks are too low.
Two, and I have noticed this with dozens upon dozens of Encounters groups; having a list of Powers that you can use on your character sheet means that players will resort to that list to determine what they do, instead of trying to improvise. Especially when DM's seem so intent on making sure that no improvised action can match what a Power can do, so nobody's overshadowing Powers. Why bother improvising, when I have a ready-made list of things to do, all of which do more damage than the DM will let me do with an improvisation?
I'm not sure I did that per se? Context matters.
Ah, no, you're right... I looked again, and technically you said "...
escalated hit points", not "inflated".
and given the number of enemies in the Caves of Chaos and the escalated hit points, it’s grindy.
My point stands; you complained about escalated hit points in Caves of Chaos, which is simply not true.
Both played and DM'd. And speed of play is not the same as ease of play. It's the speed that's been praised, and it is faster. I stated specific reasons why ease wasn't so good. And why ease works in 4e - notably I have literally never needed to look something up that wasn't setting specific in over a year.
And you think Next is difficult? Or is it
just the separate spell lists you're talking about, rather than the entire thing? In which case, "ease of play" isn't an issue, "not wanting to prepare" is. First, the designers have stated that they plan to not include many spells on monsters, and rely more on special abilities that are written in the blocks. And second... if you're throwing a big, nasty monster with tons of abilities at the party... put in a little prep work. Print out its spells. You'd have the same issue in 4e if you used a monster without looking at it first, printing out a page of spells is about an extra five minutes of work.
In addition to that, it's an issue of familiarity. I'm playing level 12 Pathfinder, and we haven't had to look up more than two or three spells in months. Because we know the system, we've reviewed our characters and know what they can do. And y'know what? We damn well look up the spell we're using before our turn comes up.
Of course they do! However a push means you aren't attacking. It's also a glaring case of "Mother, May I?" And is literally something I tried in the playtest (pushing rats into the pit) and got no benefit out of.
So... just attacking every turn is a problem... but not attacking every turn is also a problem? You use a push when it will be better than an attack. Like shoving someone into a pit, or a firewall. Pushing doesn't replace attacks, it complements them. Also, if pushing rats into a pit had no effect, then you have a bad DM. There's no accounting for bad DM's.
I've seldom had trouble *shrug*
Oh, if that's a valid response, then
I've seldom had trouble keeping track of monster spell lists as a DM, therefore your argument against monsters with spell lists is invalid.
Once more I have to ask "Did you even read my post?" And "do you play 4e?" To stop the kobold skirmishers, knock them down or pin them in place with defender abilities. Melee the artillery. Immobilise or slow and kite the Brutes. Mark, mark, and Defender Aura anything. There are plenty of ways.
To stop skirmishers, use Hold the Line or Sleep (or one of several such abilities that aren't out yet, because you're still complaining about an alpha playtest). To stop brutes, use Defender or Ray of Frost (or one of several such abilities that aren't out yet, because you're still complaining about an alpha playtest). "Melee the artillery" isn't exactly edition specific.
The point was that there is no different in ability to prevent enemies from using their abilities, especially considering that you haven't even seen a fraction of the abilities that will come out for such things. It's one thing to suggest to the designers that they should remember to include these things. It's another thing entirely to complain that they haven't included every possible option in a bloody
alpha playtest.
Most skirmishers are built around the principle "Do low damage unless they have combat advantage when they do high damage". So stop them flanking. Artillery is based around the principle "Do high damage at range and low in melee". Modern lurkers are based round the "Attack and be vulnerable every other turn" principle. Brutes are "High damage in melee, none or low at range".
Again... how is this edition-specific? These statements, and the tactics that stop them, are not something you need 4e's power system to do.