[SteelCaress]

Sounds like a lot of people took issue to the dread about exception-based rules. So, to continue beating a dead horse -- 3.0 and 3.5 were all about exceptions. Quite a few feats and class abilities went like this: "normally, you can do X, but now, you can do Y." It was a lot like Magic: The Gathering (which I didn't like). And for the first few sessions of Magic, we had a DM - me. I called interpretations of what we found ambiguous in the rules.

Combat -- well, D&D has always been about combat, my problem is that it's always treated combat like Battle's red-headed stepchild...there are far better rules for what it's like to swing a sword or pulp someone with a mace.

Powers -- Jury's still out, but I wish they'd given you a skeleton to make your own powers with and gave copious examples, rather than a "you can do this, this, and only this" approach.

For the record, I'm on the fence. I played 1st Ed, came to loathe the mess that was 2nd, despised the domination of 3.0 (it didn't fix enough, and everyone played some version of it), and 4th seems like it changes everything.

For the record, I think the 4th ed DM's Guide beats just about every other iteration of it. The best guide for actually *running* the game I've seen yet.