You are absolutely right on the first point. I don't like their business model - it is designed around the idea of drip-feeding content to us, and milking as much money out of each piece as possible.

As for the second... eh. I can see where you're coming from. But it's less a matter of trying to turn it into a electronic game, and more a matter of trying to make it more readily accessible. Of course, doing that necessarily involves streamlining and or simplifying a number of things. It's a price I'm more than willing to pay if it means that I can have a larger pool of potential D&D players to choose from. Which is does, at least for me and my groups of friends.

The other major reason it might seem more like a game is because they come right out and explicitly identify the tank/dps/aoe/support class dynamics. The thing is, those roles were always there - they just weren't explicitly identified.


And that's where I'm done. I've gotten into far too many 3.5 vs 4th ed arguments to want to do it again. For the record, I think both systems are flawed in a number of ways, both are awesome despite it, and the one that's best for you and your group is entirely up to personal preference. I just think that 4th edition's flaws tend to detract from the hardcore simulation aspect of the game, whereas 3.5's detract from accessibility, and tend to add unnecessary restrictions that detract from roleplaying freedom by trying to enforce imperfect simulation rules (ie, stat minuses for old characters, skill points based on intelligence, rolling your ability scores and health points, etc.). I'd rather take 4th's flaws, at the end of the day.

Now I just need to get a chance to try Pathfinder. I hear it is a great middle-ground.