Your problems in the above passage seemed to be based around general problems of pure class systems. IMO, it seems that you really aren't a fan of class systems and thus don't enjoy the benefits along with the disadvantages of more rigid class systems.
I'm perfectly happy with class based systems, but there is no real reason to make them less capable than they can be. 4e has a decent middle ground. Using different stat allocations, feats, build choices, weapons, and power selection, plus MCing if you need to, you can do a LOT. Power swap features are easy to integrate because the classes all have interchangeable powers, etc. It is a LOT more flexible than AD&D/OD&D/BECMI was because of that. As soon as you take that away you are right back to 2e level flexibility.
But 4e has it's own limitations that are annoying to some people... Like how my PHB 1 fighter is crap if he has to use a bow (though this was never the case in previous editions)... I guess I have the choice to use the bow, but is it a good choice when all my powers don't work with it and my abilities are sub-optimal for it. We no longer have that problem with the Slayer (though far from an expert archer he's at least feasible as an archer in a pinch)...
But the 4e fighter isn't actually crap with a bow. He's also no less crap with a bow than an AD&D fighter was. He can make a perfectly reasonable bow attack modified by DEX. His basic attack still works. The AD&D fighter had the same setup. Either one, sans a high dex, had a basic vanilla bow attack. Either one of them COULD in theory have a magic bow and it will do exactly as much for either one of them. Notice that at low levels both versions of fighter will do reasonably well with bow attacks. In either system at high levels making bow attacks becomes rather pointless unless you have a monster good magic bow. Fighters were NEVER envisaged as primarily ranged attackers. The differences are small and really almost insignificant there.
I guess what I am saying is that a class system by it's very nature will be limited, and I think the issue is really one of first accepting the benefits and diadvantages that come with a class system and then deciding what limitations best fit your style. As an example, I felt 4e tried to codify and restrict one's role in a way more narrow way than the past editions did and it felt stiffling and limiting to me. YMMV of course
Whatever level of limitations may or may not exist in 4e they are LESS than the limitations that exist in Essentials. In fact Essentials by itself is exceedingly limited. Characters do have utility powers and feats, which is a bit better than base level AD&D at least, but there are a LOT less character concepts you can cover, even on a class-by-class comparison basis with 4e. That is a step backwards.
I think it's the fault of presenting the powers and not presenting the improvising rules to the players in the PHB. I also think that the tactical nature of the game and the dependency on teamwork to survive tends to mean you are usually in a much better position using powers (especially as they are a known quantity)... than you are trying to do stuff with rules you don't know. I guess I think it is both a function of 4e's presentation and an emergent property of play that many players rely more on their powers than anything else... especially players who may not be the most tactically adept and thus are struggling with deciding what and how to do stuff with just their main options... let alone whatever else they can think up...without messing their team up.
I think we can also question what the DM is doing in terms of presentation. I know from my experience as a DM that how I present the options provided by the system to the players makes a huge difference. My players now ALWAYS look for ways to use terrain powers for instance. They also simply go right ahead and describe stunts they want to do. Sure, in the beginning they were figuring things out, and I was also figuring out the system, so there was a tendency to stick with the simplest approach. After a couple months though I introduced a bunch of added things into each encounter and encouraged the players to mess around. "You can see that the ballista is aimed in the general direction of the enemy and you could probably fire it." or "It looks like you could swing across the chasm on those vines."
There are other things that you have to consider too. MANY DMs in my experience with 4e set DCs FAR too high. They go on some theory that something would be insanely difficult for people in the real world and crank up the DC to the stratosphere. Then they justify it by saying "it should be risky to do dangerous things". Bunk. No sane player will stunt when the chance of success is 50/50 at best and the results of success are not much different from what they can attain without taking that risk. Failure consequences are also usually pretty dire for really cool stunts. Make sure that when the players use stunts they get a reward and not a mechanical punishment. Notice how the DCs were quickly errated way down in the DMG? I think that was the reason. They are a bit higher now and the range of DCs is better with the newest chart, but it still preserves the idea of heroes doing crazy stuff and usually pulling it off.
And see for me I feel very much like 4e classic is D&D made for people who never particulaly enjoyed playing D&D... which your posts above kinda, sorta support. I've seen people talk about many of the things 4e "fixed" that were purely subjective things and I think for many part of what gave D&D a D&D "feel".
IMO, Essentials is moving back towards a D&D made for people who enjoyed playing D&D with all it's tropes, idiosyncracies, etc. Do I like all of those things? No, but what I do like about the D&D genre far outweighs what I don't (and I can always houserule stuff in or out.). What I didn't want was the designers deciding that D&D should loose a bunch of things tied to it's history for me. I think many of these tropes give the fanbase a sense of commonality when discussing "D&D" but also tend to define what makes playing D&D different than say playing Runequest, Earthdawn, Dragon Age or Stormbringer. YMMV of course.
Well, I've played D&D since 1975, so I figure I must be enjoying something. IMHO the D&D feel is there in 4e. Honestly, for me at least, it didn't come from magic missile automagically hitting, nor any other single specific feature of any class. It comes from the meme, a party of sturdy adventurers striking into the unknown depths of the earth to seek treasure, glory, and death! I think 4e has a lot more focus on doing that well than 3.x ever did. I feel like 4e gives me the ability to run pretty much the type of adventures that we ran way back in the dim dark early days of OD&D. Sure, you roll a different die here and there and add things up a bit different, but it wasn't THAT which made it D&D.
RQ, Earthdawn, DA, and Stormbringer as examples ALL are designed with a specific world and mode of play in mind. You don't play Stormbringer in order to run kitchen sink fantasy. You run it to be the companion of the Eternal Champion, fight for the balance, and quest for Tanelorn. It isn't a very good system for doing other things really, as the mechanics are suited to recreating Moorcock's fiction specifically. RQ is a fun game but only really works in the context of Glorantha. You could extend and adapt those games to other settings and styles of fantasy, but D&D already does most of the other stuff fairly well for the most part. Heck, 4e will do a pretty decent job of being Stormbringer or RQ, but it also does a pretty darn good job of being itself. Pretty flexible really.
