1) characters, or pieces representing your place, move from square to square on a board
2) all players take equally significant turns
3) there are clear objectives
Some of my observations have been the "Dungeon Tiles", for example, which are like a changing board. You reconfigure the pieces for each room where an encounter takes place. It's very different than imagining your way through the dungeon, and keeping a map, but of course there could be outdoor encounters.
Thanks for the explanation; I've never seen anyone describe 4E as a board game and was interested in what made it seem that way to you. I can't say I agree with your definition since at least points 2 and 3 just seem like good game design to me (in my opinion the only other edition with a clear objective is Basic for instance, and it was great) and point 1 has been in every edition of D&D since it was Chainmail, but I don't think there's anything more to say there. I have no idea what "Dungeon Tiles" are, but there's nothing in the 4E DMG to prevent a DM from making whatever map or dungeon they want. Also no idea what you mean by "they aren't too powerufl as individuals in their world" since that seems like a narrative thing, not mechanical thing.
Oooh! There is also more to follow on your turns. You get to read and see what you do with the powers like you were playing a board game.
I don't understand how this is different from a player with a spell casting character looking over their spellbook between rounds or someone using a class with special abilities or looking up the rules on grappling or backstab or whatever, but... Okay.
---
I'm curious... wimpy compared to what?
Now granted the maneuvers require a failed Will save but all things considered the 5e abilities around locking down targets don't seem "wimpy" to me (actually since the fighter is attacking numerous times and can spend superiority dice on each attack I think the 5e abilities are more flexible but 4e has powers so...) , why exactly do you consider it "wimpy"? Also what options were there in PHB 1 to increase the fighter's actual stickiness?
Without powers any 4E class is gonna suck. That would be like a wizard without spells or a rogue without thievery skills. They have powers that force enemies to stay near the fighter or push them back from allies as well as provide deterrents for targeting other players (like attacks back, status effects, etc.) . Besides using their Dailies, fighters will always have access to their At-Will and Encounter powers so they won't run out of resources like superiority dice. If I recall correctly, they don't have to fight over whether to use their single reaction for an attack of opportunity (which doesn't scale well as the game increases in level), or provide disadvantage. I don't want to say 5E fighters suck at protecting allies since I don't have much experience with them yet, but they seem incredibly underwhelming.
---
There was a post asking why I thought Wizards should go to a new audience, but I can't find it now...
Personally, I think they should find one because if they try to persue the 3E/Pathfinder crowd, they're fighting an uphill battle. 5E's attempt to be a one-size-fits-all edition doesn't seem to please many people (AD&D fans seem to think it's too modern, 3E fans dislike the multiclassing, 4E fans dislike solved problems being reintroduced to make sweeping generlizations). I believe they should focus on making a well-designed game that is easy to learn and play under the D&D brand rather than force themselves to make a game that competes against their earlier products.
