Ok. First off, if you insist on fisking fairly short posts, breaking them up sentence by sentence, this conversation is finished. I refuse to carry out this sort of thing. It's nearly impossible to track what you're trying to say. Look at what I've quoted above. None of that makes any sense.
Ok. You are right.
The quotes indeed do not make sense. Wothout your posts in between.
So in short: you complain that people are not satisfied with 5e powers and only cite one argument when there are many. You bemoan that people always take CAGI as an example. As if there are not several reasons not to like 4e.
Then in 5e we have background abilities that make no sense at times, you seem to like.
So it seems you have no problem with mundane abilities that make no sense in fiction or which need work to make sense of it.
Which we tried to do in 4e as well as in 5e with backgrounds.
So what I said was that I am glad those background abilities are gone, and wish them to be replaced with feats/features that are more usable. Less absolute. Advantage to rolls instead of auto successes.
So now we are getting back to CAGI, I or someone else cited, because this is the same kind of ability. You do something with an effect that does not always make sense within the story. Or the encounter. It just works.
I show off and the gelatineous cube runs at me. Or something like that.
I really don't like such abilities. Why no saving throw? Why are some enemies not immune? 4e had foremost player empowerment in mind. Abilities should generally work. Not like 3e sneak attack, which often did not...
this is not a bad idea, but 4e went overboard with that.
4e could easily be changed to remove those few heavy offenders.
Back to spells in 5e. Of course there are spells that make mundane abilities redundand. Usually they are a few times per day abilities that help the whole group. Sometimes they are still too powerful or convenient and should be changed (tiny hut I look at you).
I don't know if that all makes sense to you. Probably not. So be it.