This thread has 4e in the title.
That is what I was referring to, yes.
A 3e barbarian's non-magical rage ability has daily usage, and is limited to once per encounter too. A 3e rogue can use the non-magical defensive roll ability once a day. A swashbuckler can use the non-magical lucky ability once a day. The 3e prestige class cavalier has a special charge ability -- non-magical -- whose usage is daily. Other examples can be found everywhere in 3e source books.
4e did not pioneer non-magical daily or even encounter abilities. As far as I know, 3e was the first edition to do that extensively.
Another example from 3e was Stunning Fist, which could be chosen with a Fighter bonus feat. The classic game was full of n/day and n/turn (which, back in 1e, meant a 10-minute exploration turn, not your initiative count on a round) among other things, not always linked to something that was explicitly magical.
It's not a lie, it's an opinion. An opinion I can understand. When a warrior is only able to do a manoeuvre once a day, it feels like they are casting a one off spell instead of using a skill that they've practised in the training yard.
If you state it very carefully, maybe, you can present it as an honest opinion. You have to be clear that its your personal subjective experience of 'feel' that at issue, and that the mechanics do, in fact, present separate & different casting and non-casting options. Once it's clear that the objection is not that 'fighters cast spells,' but that fighters & spells casters are not differentiated by the former being mechanically inferior, and that changes the feel of a game where traditionally such was the case.
Gradine had the complaint that when they saw a monster with the Spellcasting ability, they knew they were going to have to stop and read the spell descriptions. Since that's exactly my complaint with 4e's monsters -- all of them, more or less -- my complaint is that all 4e monsters have the same problem.
You're missing two important differences. 1) the 4e monster's power was right there in its stat block, while the description of a spell is in another book and 2) 4e powers are mostly pretty terse and clear and can be parsed easily, while more traditional spells are less consistent and more ambiguous. So there's the extra step of looking up the spell, and the likelihood that it will take longer to resolve the spell.
Those differences become moot when you've already memorized (in the natural-language, not Vancian, sense) the available spells.
Here and now I am arguing against the notion "it's fine and any change risks alienating customers".
That's WAY overblown.
It's also a meaningless argument, because it always applies. For any given state a game is in, some folks will find it too much, some wanting, and some just right. Like a bunch of bickering Goldilocks.
The right answer is 5e's answer: let people choose how much they want. Had enough? Enjoy.
If they keep coming back for more, give 'em more.