I think the turning point in my attitude towards 4th Edition came about 1 am this morning. I was working on a Barbarian class for a new 4E campaign. I
noticed what time it was, and said to myself "Okay, maybe I'll do just one more page." I was already on page 10, of which pages 3-10 were the
Barbarian Powers, and pages 1-3 were basically boilerplate with helpful information like "Barbarians live in the wilderness" and "Strong
barbarians should have a high Strength score."
Then I asked myself "What are you doing?"
"I am going through the Fighter's exploits, and deciding what a Barbarian can and can not do."
"Why can't a Barbarian do that?" (thinking about one of the Fighter's exploits I didn't put on the Barbarian's list)
"Because if I allow a Barbarian to do everything a Fighter can do, the class will be unbalanced."
"Is that what you are going to tell your players?"
"Well, yes. Also, I guess, Barbarians don't get the opportunity to formally train in military techniques, so they might not learn certain of the Fighter exploits."
"Uh huh. That sounds so First Edition."
Then I went to bed. But in bed I was thinking, in 3rd Edition when I needed a class to fill a role, I just wrote down the numbers 1-10 or 1-20 on a sheet of notebook paper, and came up with a list of things the class could do. This formed the core of the class concept, to which a player or NPC could add things from feat lists, prestige classes, multiclassing, etc. The point was to decide what the class could do, not what the class could not do.
In 4th Edition, I am told that designing a class doesn't have to be any harder than in 3rd Edition, but it seems that having to come up with three class features, at least two class builds, at least two paragon paths, and at least 50 or 80 class powers is a lot of work. And most of it is to define what does not go in the class, because anything that is outside the class's box is only accessible through multiclassing feats, which are limited.
I was also thinking about how much time I was spending designing classes to fill roles needed in my campaign. In 3E, I'd be spending the time designing interesting things for the PCs to do, rather than designing interesting ways for PCs to do things. And what advantage do I get running a 4E game vs running a 3E game?
In 3E, I spent most of my time thinking of things for the PCs to do. In 4E, I am spending most of my time thinking of how PCs and NPCs are going to do things.
Then I asked myself "What are you doing?"
"I am going through the Fighter's exploits, and deciding what a Barbarian can and can not do."
"Why can't a Barbarian do that?" (thinking about one of the Fighter's exploits I didn't put on the Barbarian's list)
"Because if I allow a Barbarian to do everything a Fighter can do, the class will be unbalanced."
"Is that what you are going to tell your players?"
"Well, yes. Also, I guess, Barbarians don't get the opportunity to formally train in military techniques, so they might not learn certain of the Fighter exploits."
"Uh huh. That sounds so First Edition."
Then I went to bed. But in bed I was thinking, in 3rd Edition when I needed a class to fill a role, I just wrote down the numbers 1-10 or 1-20 on a sheet of notebook paper, and came up with a list of things the class could do. This formed the core of the class concept, to which a player or NPC could add things from feat lists, prestige classes, multiclassing, etc. The point was to decide what the class could do, not what the class could not do.
In 4th Edition, I am told that designing a class doesn't have to be any harder than in 3rd Edition, but it seems that having to come up with three class features, at least two class builds, at least two paragon paths, and at least 50 or 80 class powers is a lot of work. And most of it is to define what does not go in the class, because anything that is outside the class's box is only accessible through multiclassing feats, which are limited.
I was also thinking about how much time I was spending designing classes to fill roles needed in my campaign. In 3E, I'd be spending the time designing interesting things for the PCs to do, rather than designing interesting ways for PCs to do things. And what advantage do I get running a 4E game vs running a 3E game?
In 3E, I spent most of my time thinking of things for the PCs to do. In 4E, I am spending most of my time thinking of how PCs and NPCs are going to do things.
) then 4e has been a breath of fresh air. They dont have to
worry about the rules for forbiddance spells, or when the optimum time to throw their buffs are. Simple elegance. One is not better, only different. I would
almost say, 3.x is Expert D&D 
which I also enjoy.
Well, if I were in any sort of position to
want a kiddy at the table, I'd hand him/her a human Rogue, Fighter, or Wizard. Granted, I'd only give him/her one At-Will power to play with, if any.
