Pretty much all of them, because they're all combatants. You find enough flexibility in them for you. That doesn't make those of us who don't wrongbad people.
No. The problem is that you make claims that are
wrong. That you don't want to play a game as fiddly as 4e isn't a problem in the slightest. That you claim that some things are impossible when they are in fact pretty easy if you know what you are doing (or in some cases complex but possible) means that you should be rethinking your criticisms.
Ah, tautology. Because this is D&D you must go into dungeons and fight dragons.
No. Because it's D&D you must be able to support the playstyle where people want to go into dungeons and fight dragons. And support it without any newbie traps such as near non-combatant characters who are effectively The Load in dungeon crawling expeditions.
To have classes that would be as much use as a chocolate teapot in such games would be offering a really sucky play experience to newbies and the overwhelming majority of D&D players. On the other hand to have ways of playing people who contribute to combat while in character hiding and screaming (as 4e has) but that take some skill and finesse to build means you get the best of both worlds.
If you want to do otherwise, you're playing the game wrong and a bad person who ruins everyone else's fun.
Given I'm about to start running War of the Burning Sky - and I don't recall seeing a single dungeon or dragon - that isn't my point.
Why exactly is a non-combatant a drag on the other characters if he's valuable and contributes in other ways?
Because combat is a matter of life and death for the party. And you are tying a large chunk of the party down to defend you. They are worse off in combat with you there than they would be if you didn't exist. And there are few times where every last extra inch helps than in fighting for your life against an overwhelming foe.
There's more to a game then combat.
Yes. But combat's a big one in 4e.
And if you do not survive the combats you will not get to do anything else because you will be dead.
Why vilify or belittle those who think balance should extend beyond the combat encounter and be done in a different way then 4e did so?
Because your criticisms of thingks you can't do are
wrong. I've demonstrated how to do them. Including people who do not swing a weapon or otherwise attack themselves (Warlord) or just rain abuse and encouragement (bard). And you haven't yet shut up, listened, and apologised.
Actually, I dislike this aspect of 4e because, to me, the classes are too homogenius. Everyone's a full up combatant.
Tell that to my changeling bard. Lowest AC in the party, lowest damage. Also the face man (and man of many faces), the utility caster (whatever the wizard may have thought), and the person inspiring the party onwards. Comfortably the weakest combatant in the group. But there's a massive difference between that and non-combatant.
Seriously, all the leaders are weak in direct combat (but get the healing to make up for it). And it's pretty easy to make a bard or a shaman who doesn't know one end of a sword from another.
I want a system that balances based on the team and adventure using spotlight sharing, not on the individual and combat round using homogenization. And a Donkeyhorse.
Meaning that the specific adventure needs to be written for the party.
I never said it was a bad game. Just that I don't like it partially because it's balance philosophy puts me off. I own and play several class-level systems with more flexibility and with balance philosophies that better ft my preferences.
FantasyCraft and M&M?
Shenanigans. Pre 3e. Cats do less then 1 point of damage in 3e.
Cats do 1 point of damage in 3e per attack. Attacks reduced to less than 1 point of damage always do a minimum of 1 point. And their full-round attack has a claw-claw-bite with all three being significantly more likely to hit than the wizard's dagger. Next objecion?
I already have the game I want. It's not classless. I have no idea where you get the gameworld thing.
Because feats to have groups on your side are significantly different per gameworld.
Oh, and you may find 4e flexible, I do not. Again, that doesn't make me a bad person, or a fool.
No. It does however make you ignorant when you claim that certain things are impossible when they are pretty easy to pull off in 4e.
How large a dragon, and to what narrative end?
A young one to piss off its mother? Seriously, there are half a dozen reasons I can think of.
My objection to 4e is that I find it boring, fiddly, miniature and combat centric,too expensive, and because of it's design descisions regarding balance and class structure that it doesn't handle the sort of games I and my friends want to play. Purely subjective, I know. Don't try and convert me, that's not the topic.
I'm not. And those are legitimate reasons to want to play something else. What I'm objecting to are that your criticisms of 4e appear to indicate that you have not understood a damn thing about it that wasn't in the PHB1 or DMG1. And if you only had those two books (and possibly the MM1) and they comprised the whole of 4e then you would have a point. But the PHB 2 seriously and both obviously and subtly expanded the range of what was possible in 4e to heights not seen in any previous mainline edition of D&D (FantasyCraft and M&M don't count). The DMG2 is the best damn book on running an RPG it has ever been my pleasure to read (the second being Robin's Laws of good GMing - Robin Laws being the common factor here).
The topic I haven't seen answered is why do the OP and his supporters feel I'm a bad person for not liking the design philosophy of 4e?
I don't. On the other hand you produced a list of criticisms of 4e that haven't been true since the PHB II was published. And then refused to acknowledge that you are ignorant when it's pointed out that much of what you want and claim to be impossible is easy to do.
You do not like 4e. Fine. You do not play 4e *shrug* You do not understand 4e. Not a problem. Most people don't. You do not understand 4e then castigate it based on your lack of understanding? Now we have a problem.
