Yes but i dont think 4e players will think its much like 4e. From reading between the lines this is what I'm seeing.
1/2 level increase = gone
powers = optional
skills = optional
feats = TBD
stat increases = gone
lots of magic items = gone
rituals = optional
minis = optional
Did I miss anything?
What's interesting about this list, for me, is that while it describes a lot of characteristics of 4e, none of them really define what I like about it. I like 4e. For the record, I also liked basic, 1e, and 3e (meh on 2nd, but that's just me).
What brought me into 4e was that by and large they got the math right. Sure, there were some bumpy bits that required updating, but I really liked that I understood how things scaled and that I wasn't that concerned about power creep or radical disbalances between the classes. I also felt that I got a lot more control back as a DM. I had come from DM'ing a high level 3e game that was just wearing me out, as much as I loved the game.
The specific implementation of 4e wasn't so much the issue. It was pretty clear to me from the outset that once they had that underlying math worked out they could start playing with it in a way that would start bringing stronger differentiation among the classes-- as began to happen with subsequent books. It was also clear to me that they could start hiding that math better-- as started to happen with essentials-- and bury it a bit better in flavor.
I completely understand some folks problems with 4e implementation in terms of the 'feel' of the game. I didn't have a problem with it, as I sort of felt as DM that I had a lot of control over the feel that mattered to me. And I'll admit there were some things-- flat increasing skill bonuses and attack bonuses that were a little too mathy.
So my hope for 5e or next or whatever is that they can successfully bury the math and make it a servant to the flavor rather than the reverse (as I think 4e was). With smart implementation, you can have Vancian magic and 3e multiclassing and 1e style classes and pretty much anything else while still maintaining the underlying numerical balance and structure that allows the game to flow across tiers, gives the DMs the power to understand how encounters at various levels will play out and how to adjudicate random spontaneous occurrences (pg. 42, I loved it).
So, the more I think on it, the more encouraged I am that they really can bring the feel of every edition into the game (not of course the specific implementation-- that would be silly). It's simply a matter of understanding the math and mechanics well enough to see how those pieces interact.
I really like 4e. But no, I don't want a reflavored 4e. Not at all. I want 5e to carry the basic lessons and tools learned from 4e-- 'getting the math right'-- and use those tools and lessons to create the most inclusive D&D yet.
In short: Make the mechanics a slave to the flavor. But make those mechanics consistent enough that they hold together. I think 4e gave us the path toward that goal. It was an intermediate step. And from what I'm reading the designers get that. They aren't going to lose what was important from 4e. They're going to lose the parts of the implementation that pissed so many people off.
I think there is the potential here for an awesome and flexible game. Let's see if they pull it off.
I sure hope they do.
AD
PS: Sorry if I'm not totally coherent. You've all just inspired me to ramble.