NPCs and PCs don't use the same rules, so I don't really see the problem. The system for NPCs is built for you to adjust them above and beyond the base design characteristics.
The system, as used in the MM, results in lvl 30 PCs treating lvl 30 NPCs about the same as lvl 1 PCs treated lvl 5 NPCs as far as AC/to-hits go. Enjoy bad scaling. (the hp scaling is also bad, because various mechanisms designed to influence behavior, such as divine challenge, simply stop working due to hp inflation)
Theorycraft is often wrong. It's funny you bring up WoW, since it's community has one of the worst records for being correct when it comes to theorycraft (especially since they lack a lot of the fundamental math, since Blizzard doesn't reveal all).
Inept people whining on the blizzard forums =/= the Elitest Jerks forums, say. Take a trip there and study the analysis of the Hunter class. WoW has raised theorycrafting to an artform.
4e: "Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation."
3e: "Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one."
I fail to see a fundamental difference.
Because you weren't paying attention to what I wrote: *mechanically* there are differences. I don't care about fluff (because hp fluff has never made any sense, regardless of edition). Mechanically, 4e fits better with the superhero genre than the fantasy genre.
Two attacks that miss are not better than one attack that hits. My group's ranger thought much as you do, until her damage output dropped due to lack of successful attacks.
Twin attacks *can* be worse than a basic attack. There is a range of ACs (around needing a natural 20 to hit, i.e. when you should be fleeing) where Careful Strike is better than Twin. Otherwise, TA is better than CS. The math has been done SO many times on these boards that the above statement is... very unflattering to you. Please brush up on the math.
I'll agree there. That was a WTF moment for me. However, it's something more easily fixed (just a change or two would do it) than, say, Polymorph (which has had complete rewrites multiple times).
Yes and no. 4e has the problem that there is a distinct lack of redundancy. In 3e, you could fix problematic spells by removing them without leaving massive gaps. In 4e (with, at best, 4 choices/level category, and frequently less based on build and needed tactical niche) ANY flat out removal is a serious problem because there won't be other, similar but balanced, options. 3e was more resilient because it was designed with fewer, deeper silos. Basically, the underlying design of 4e requires more precision in the design work. Unfortunately, 4e didn't get that precision.
Remember, read-through theorycraft is meaningless in the face of actual play.
Bull. Broken math stays broken math without house-ruling/errata.