I find it funny how many people say "its like 3e mixed with 4e" and how many are also saying "This is a lot like 2e...". Just kind of fun, and I guess that means that they did some of their job correctly?

(For the record, it feels like 2e to me).
I'm in favor of the simplification to a lot of things, but I have several greivences.
The biggest thing that stands out to me is the lack of defenses. We are now back to AC only (yes yes, with the saving throws, i get it). I happened to like the flavor and variety the different defenses added. This skill has a lower to hit, but it hits will... so that means it will work more often on most opponents! Just felt like a more diverse system that way.
Regarding the saving throw gripe: This sounds like a lot more DM dice rolling. Before, if my creature was attacked I looked up a number. Now I have to roll dice and compare. Not a fan. Maybe houserule a static defense based on stats?
Rolling for HP? Really? I can't count how many times I've lied about my roll regarding that...
*4e Flag-Waving* I think new players will have a harder time with this system. I play a game with a bunch of our wives / girlfriends who have hardly played any D&D before, and 4e is complicated to them in a lot of respects. While I tip my hat to the "classic" feel, i'm worries its not newbie friendly enough.
If trivial checks are "checks the players shouldn't have to roll" then why are they listed with a DC? I like the idea of less checks, and am going to incorporate the idea into my 4e game.
I both love and am fearful about Advantage / Disadvantage. It seems pretty awesome out the gate, but as someone pointed out, could be a bit swingy for a d20's worth of chance. HOWEVER! My Inner-DM cannot wait for a social encounter where my players have just presented their best case to an important person trying to persuade them, and all I say is "Roll 2 twenties, and give me both the results". I think I can see the sweat dripping now...
