4) How it treats perma-death. In games like X-Com and Fire Emblem, if your character dies, they're just dead. If you're okay with this, then great: you just keep playing and try to do better next time. But if you're like most players and you restart if you lose a character, you restart the mission until you can win it perfectly, often spending hours redoing the same things again and again because of bad dice rolls. In FFT, permadeath is still a thing, but it's a much bigger part of the gameplay. When a character hits 0 HP, they go down with a 3 turn timer over them. Every time it's their turn to go after that, the timer ticks down until it reaches 0, and if you don't beat the mission before it does or revive them with a spell or item or ability, they're gone for good (and leave behind a chest with an item in it or a crystal that can pass on some of their abilities to anyone that picks it up). This means that for people who don't want to lose characters, they don't have to reset a mission every time someone gets knocked out: instead the battle just gets harder, which is a level of challenge between "lose no one" and "lose people permanently" that I think is better than the former for people who don't want to lose characters permanently. And the best part is, if you still want to treat the game like it has harsher permadeath, you can! Reset every time someone gets knocked out or just don't revive anyone who dies.

This is actually the thing that prevents me from completely enjoying the game. Having 3 turns until perma-death is worse than just perma-death at all. So now instead of losing one character, I have to dedicate at least one of my players to reviving the dead character so it's like I am losing 2.

I don't think I'll change your mind, I just wanted to point of one of my gripes, and honestly, I hate that the perma-death has become a 'feature' of tactics games. I hate building up my characters only to worry about losing them. I have never played all the way through tactics and that is the reason why.