Ok now we're pretty close to agreement. I agree the adventure certainly had that problem, I went through H1-H3 (and kept going), foolishly thinking they were going to be great. So I know exactly what your talking about this. I would add that the presentation of the content in the PH are also a problem, it seems more like a rulebook then previous edtions. I know most will disagree, but I'm a big fan of fluff mixing INTO powers.
Lastly, and Im sure this is where we differ, I think some of the monotony and focus on balance in the classes is telling us "to play thrash metal" where thrash metal is the type of tactile combat play that H1-H3 was geared for. In my POV, more balance is required in a combat heavy tactical game, in my different type of rock (lets call it folk), I think it is much more valuable to have powers that are NOT siloed between the pillars, and an emphasis on fantastic powers that are mechanically different to give as much flavor to the players. I think the fact that in the PH all classes could only use the same amount of powers in the same format (will, encounter, daily) indicates a preference to thrash metal. I think both styles require balance, just thrash probably requires a bit more fine tuned balance then folk does. I see their move away from strict will, encounter, daily powers in Essential is an attempt to welcome other styles.
Oh, I think we are almost on the same page. I just disagree about the strength of the product underneath. I don't
entirely agree about the PHB, but do consider it a not terribly inspiring document.
To expand, there are several types of resource in 4e character design. Attack powers, Skills, Utility Powers, Feats, and Class. Attack powers are almost entirely silo'd towards combat unless you are a monk, but there are also a few decent mobility combat powers for other classes. (Seriously, some monk attacks come with the ability to fly short distances or teleport). Skills are silo'd to almost entirely out of combat uses with rare exceptions (notably stealth but also athletics and acrobatics are commonly used in combat). Some classes have almost pure combat features (Fighter) and some have mostly non-combat features (Bard). And feats and utility powers can be pure combat, pure non-combat, or anywhere in between.
This is not fundamentally different from 3.X where your skills were mostly non-combat, your BAB, HP, and saves were mostly combat, your class features were mostly fixed (sneak attack - pure combat, rage - pure combat), and your feats could vary but were mostly combat. Other than for casters (who are far too strong IMO in 3.X) this is actually more locked down than 4e characters in the PHB are.
I've had a quick look through the 3.5 SRD and other than metamagic and item creation feats, the only non-combat feats appear to be Run, Track, Skill Focus, and variations on skill focus that either give a limited +4 or give +2 to two separate skills. The 4e PHB on the other hand has for heroic tier characters Skill Training, Skill Focus (and number of variants giving +2 and another bonus), Jack of All Trades, Ritual Caster, Linguist, Mounted Combat (which has more non-combat use than the 3.X version as it allows the mount to use the PC's skills), and 8 multiclass feats (all providing skill training). Which means that by my count there are more distinct feats in the 4e PHB that are not about combat than in the 3.5 SRD. This silo is far more open.
However what mathematically was (the silos are generally more open in 4e for PCs that aren't primary spellcasters (counting the bard as a primary caster*)) was not what was presented. 3.X hid the silos but made them pretty tight. 4e drew more attention to these silos even though they are more porous. And especially with the mistake in the monster math, incidental combat takes too damn long (it's great for big setpieces and showdowns, but not for random patrol-bashing).
* The 3.5 bard is my favourite class in 3.5 and one of my favourites in any edition of D&D. Decently powerful without being overwhelming (other than the glibness spell), decently flexible, and a caster of the sort I see in low fantasy or mythology. He's decried as weak because he's normally compared to the tier 1 casters like the wizard or druid, or the tier 2 like the sorceror.
