I don't have much if any 4th experience, but I do know Pathfinder, so I'll throw my 2 bits in.
It takes me longer to build my charcters in Pathfinder. This may have to do with my familiarity and rules mastery of 4e however. But some of this stems from my next observation.
The biggest time factor I've seen is the "planning for the future" element. Many feats have prerequisites, so to prevent any long delays in getting some feats, you have to plan ahead.
Character stats are 'harder' to dump. Well not really. In PF you can drop more than one stat below 10 if you choose in order to pump up other stats using the point buy system.
But it hurts more to do so because each stat is fairly important in its own right to every character. In 4e its a no brainer for a fighter to dump INT as it only affects skills that the fighter has no business being good at in any case (religion, history, arcana). No sacrifice at all. But in PF skill points, which are very important (no scaling level bonus like 4e) are generated based on INT. So if you dump INT your fighter will gain very very few skill poinnts to distrinute each level, which really hurts. Same for Strength. Your cleric if planning to be involved in melee whatsoever can't dump strength and build a purely wisdom based character. For a start they won't be able to carry the weight of the armor due to encumberance issues. Second all attacks are based off strength for all characters. No using wisdom for your attacks. Even a rogue has to think twice about dumping strength. Even with weapon finesse feat to use DEX to attack, dmg remains based on STR.
All true and by design. However, Handy Haversacks/Bags of Holding/Muleback Cords come early and cheaply, so dumping strength isn't a lifelong mistake.
Battles are far less tactical. At least in the games I have played in here on EnWorld (pbp) I have seen no use of interesting terrain whatsoever for example.
<snip>
As a melee character you just attack. There are combat manuevers like trip, but you draw an OAtk to use them.
This I disagree with. Perhaps play-by-post isn't the best forum to make a judgement on this, but I have seen lots of tactical environments and maneuvering. Without training (i.e. feats) yes, you do draw attacks of opportunity for trying most of them, but that only limits you if you choose to let it. True, grappling monsters are
very good at it, but they should be. Likewise, it is hard to push around a 2-ton behemoth, but shouldn't it be hard? In PF, you can push, drag, slide, sunder, steal from, disarm, trip, grapple, overrun and even inflict temporary status conditions (with the Dirty Trick maneuver) on your foes, so there are a lot of options. Yes it's opposed by Combat Maneuver check, but that's a good thing imo. As for tactical environments, I've seen tons in both APs and organized play scenarios. In one of the last sessions I ran, the dwarven ranger shield-bashed an ogre over the side of a dam to the rocks 200+ feet below, for example.
As a spell caster you have far more limited resources and so you have to be careful with them, however cantrips and orisons are at will so you should always have something to do. You are not forced to fall back on drawing a crossbow. Spells are far more powerful, many of them can end a battle instantly.
Unlimited cantrips and channel positive energy healing (freeing up spell slots for clerics) both give you more effective spells and a power boost at low levels, but IMO spells are only really limiting at lower levels. At higher levels, you'll have so many spell slots that you'll be limited more by the actions you have than spells to cast.
I'm not sure how I feel about skills. Each style has its charm. PF, more rigid but more extensive, 4e, simple but more free. In PF there are things you simply can't do if you don't have training. Your dumb orc fighter can't remember an old legend that his mother use to tell him unless he has invested a skill point. In 4e anyone can have a shot at something like that even with 8 intelligence. Who knows, you could roll a 20. In PF, you can't roll. Which makes having knowledge of History more important/special in a way ... but ... I'm not sure which I prefer.
Only partially true. Anyone can make an untrained knowledge check if the DC is only 10. Some classes can always make untrained skill checks. Everyone can choose an extra skill point as a favored class bonus. But yes, your all-thumbs cleric isn't going to pick a lock just because he's 15th level.
On the other hand, multiclassing really lets you make a character than can do most anything you want to do, so if no one class lets you make the character you want, you can come close with feat selection and multiclassing.
Regarding prepwork: this can be a factor most definately. It becomes less of a factor with time and mastery of the system, but two things
really take the sting out of this: using prepublished adventures and HeroLab. Some people think HeroLab is of the devil, but with it you can advance monsters with templates or character levels (easing preptime), and in play add buffs/debuffs/conditions with a couple of mouse clicks (speeding in-play time). You get two licenses with the base program, and can buy a 3rd for $10. You don't need all of the add-ons unless you want something specifically from one of them, and even then, they bundle them at a discount. It's made a huge difference, and you can export the Herolab files into d20 Pro for VTT use.
