I have to disagree.
First of all, the "D&D is taking power away from the DM!" line is an old one. I usually hear it from a few 2e aficionados in my area, who are convinced that things like standardized DCs for skill checks like "Climb" is something that sucks the "creativity" out of the game. I have to disagree with the entire premise. While in a strict sense one could argue that any rule at all reduces the power of the DM by restricting him from making rules up, I think that's a bit facile. Sure, we could argue that giving goblins a penalty when fighting in sunlight has "taken away" the DM's power to not give goblins a penalty while fighting in sunlight, but is that really a worthwhile position?
I'd argue that the only rules which meaningfully restrict DM freedom are rules which 1) affect material aspects of the DM's role in the game, like storyline creation or setting design, and 2) are deeply coded into the game in such a way that homebrewing them out is difficult.
So, take our goblins who are penalized in the sunlight. This barely affects a DM's ability to narrate the game, and it is easy to ignore. It is therefore not a meaningful restriction on DM freedom.
Or take my friend who thinks that the skill system is a problem. Standardized climb DCs? They don't affect the storyline much at all, nor do they affect any other traditional DM area of the game. They do affect the player aspect, by codifying the chances of success on a type of task, and creating predictability in the game world. They ARE difficult to remove from the game though, as doing so involves restricting a character's class abilities- his skill points. I'd go with this not being a meaningful restriction on DM freedom. While a DM intending to write a plotline involving a brick wall that cannot be climbed is stymied by the presence of a skilled rogue with a maxed climb skill and good climbing equipment, I, personally, feel that a desire to screw such a character out of being able to climb a brick wall is, by definition, poor DMing practice, and a DM overstepping his or her bounds.
For an example of something that I think IS a meaningful restriction on DM freedom, look at assumed magical weapons and abilities by level. Whether the characters find magical weapons, or whether they fight with whatever is on hand, is a big part of a setting's style. It is also difficult to remove. First, removing it affects the balance between PCs and monsters in a way that is not automatically easy to accommodate (although it looks to be easier than previous editions). Second, if the game is set so that at a certain point invisible attackers, or flying attackers, become more common, abilities that let a character see invisibility or fly will become more necessary. A skilled DM can work around their absence, but it isn't the easiest thing in the world to do.
Get the idea?
As for the items you mention.
Level/Tier Based Encounter Design. When you say that the goal is to "reduce" DM influence over the game, I am uncertain from what starting point you mean for the reduction to progress. After all, these things are present in detail in 3e. But, lets apply my criteria. Does this affect storyline? Yes. What monsters you meet and fight is a big part of the storyline, and this rule does tell you that certain monsters are inappropriate enemies for certain parties. Now, whether that's a big deal is an open question- the whole idea is that the reason that certain monsters are inappropriate encounters is because they'll kill the party very quickly. But it is still a restriction. So is it a difficult restriction to ignore? Not really. If your goal is an unbalanced encounter, it shouldn't take more than a moment to create one. The fact that the rulebook informs the DM that certain encounters are likely to kill their characters isn't going to stop the DM from doing it if that's what the DM wants to do.
Quests. This is one of the recurring debates on the EN World forum that infuriates me, because it seems as if those freaking out about quest cards and quests are being willfully obstreperous. Quest cards are just a variant on the age old system of having one player keep notes, and as for how the game will encourage or require quests, it is beyond me. The absolute best I can come up with to justify my debate opponent's side in this fight is the possibility that the game will recommend coming up with goals, assigning them XP values, and awarding those values upon completion of the goals. If this is the case, it will be just as restrictive to DMs as was previous advice on assigning XP values- namely, not very restrictive at all, with lots of little notes about adjusting things to fit your judgment. It seems the greatest likelihood, though, that this entire issue is a mere bugaboo of the imagination. As I cannot analyze the possibility of a reduction in DM control of the game as a result of an inchoate wraith of an idea, I must pass this point by. If or when someone other than me decides to develop this fear into an actual idea, I will consider it.
Roles: I don't understand how this is expected to reduce DM control. I understand what you appear to be saying, that a party covering all the roles is unlikely in the regular course of adventuring to encounter fights in which they are simply unequipped to compete, but I don't see how that is relevant to DM control at all. Certainly, a well balanced party is indeed well balanced. What conclusion does that yield? That a DM will have a harder time creating unbalanced encounters if the party is well prepared? That's treacherous reasoning. It suggests that any PC strength is a restriction on the DMs power to capitalize on that PC's weakness. True in a strict sense, but meaningful? I'm not so sure. Of course, if this is not your intended point I apologize, but I cannot tell your intended point so I am trying to surmise.
Rings: Yes, a rule that rings cannot be used beneath certain levels restricts the DM's ability to create plotlines involving rings below certain levels. No, this is not hard to remove. This is a "goblin light blindness" situation at best. Further, I don't think this was done as a means if managing character power and stopping monte haul campaigns from breaking the game. Monte haul campaigns will proceed just fine without the availability of rings below certain levels. I think this was done as part of a system of making rings more distinct from other magical items. There is no way to know for certain, but my interpretation is logically consistent and fits the available data. Assuming that this was done to stop monte haul campaigns does not fit the available data, as no restrictions on other high level items exists.
