I think there's some nuance here that you're missing. 4e shoved nearly everything into a spells (er, POWERS) category. Much more than 5e does!
Well, yes, but that's because "power" literally meant "anything that can be done." To call something a "power" is simply to make a formalized action of it. "Powers" are actually a generic framework, which 5e spellcasting
emphatically is not and never was.
There is a significant difference between "force every mechanic to be saddled with the ultra-specific faults and foibles and quirks of spellcasting" and "create a generic framework which can actually describe
any action or effect." Had 5e actually done this--actually turned "spell" into a truly open, generic framework with zero implied characteristics--then you wouldn't be hearing a
peep out of me, unless they had executed that goal poorly, of course.
There's a case for spell-ifying mechanics that needs to be evaluated more on a case by case basis than on a blanket condemnation of turning things into spells. If you're close to being a spell already, maybe we gain a lot of efficiency and understanding by making you into a spell.
If that were actually their policy, then yes, I would completely agree. But that moderate policy--"evaluate mechanics
to see if it would be helpful to make them spells"--absolutely must have a complementary policy.
Evaluate spells to see if it would be helpful to make them NOT spells. This is something 5e has never done, and I don't expect it to ever do. They will continue the crusade of spell-ifying nearly everything supernatural that PCs do.
The "blanket condemnation" you refer to is only because we've suffered under a yoke of turning things from class features into spells for, quite literally, over a decade now. If I speak strongly, it is only because the flawed behavior has been stronger still. Unfortunately, at this point, the "spells for EVERYONE" policy has gone on so long, and been doubled down upon in 5.5e, that there's really nothing that can be done about it. The ills have been baked so deeply into the game, you'd need to do a full rewrite to flush them out. Again,
this does not mean spells can't replace class features EVER. It just means that, like with Ad/Dis, they've been incredibly profligate with it, taking it to numerous places it never should have been.
I don't think the quantity of spells is much of a damning thing, any more than 4e's profound mass of powers was much of a damning thing. I do like that 5e tends to not make a unique spell or ability for EVERYTHING, which enables some degree of knowledge to cross between game functions. If I have access to fireball as a sorcerer or as a wizard or from a necklace of fireballs, I don't need to learn a new slightly different version of fireball for each. But spell-ifying things that are not spells eats away at that.
I mean, your last eleven words essentially concede the point as far as I'm concerned. But to address the rest: again, a 4e "power" literally means "a thing you can do." Basic attacks are powers. Item with uses are powers. Skills have powers associated with them--some you just have, others you opt into. "Power" is literally just a word for "an action or effect that can happen." It has zero further hangups or characteristics to it. "Spell" could hardly be less like that if it tried. It has numerous specific hangups and "quirks" (IMO, mostly foibles and flaws, but hey, I'm not the one who set D&D on this course so many years ago). I certainly grant that keeping things more consistent has its uses--but that has essentially nothing to do with spell-ifying class features...and feats...and racial abilities...and...and...and...
I am deeply skeptical of this kind of critique of 5e as a hot mess or as bad design, a critique of technique. Design has a goal and a reason, and understanding it in context is so much more valuable than dismissing it as bad. Even most of the deep jank of some 1e and 2e choices have a way they make sense, a way to appreciate what people were thinking at the time, and a way to realize that "improvements" can also leave behind some valuable design elements. Dismissing the work of dozens of very good and very thoughtful professional game designers working in one of the most demanding environments possible in this little industry on the TTRPG played by the most people in the world as "bad design" feels exceptionally shallow and not a little elitist. There absolutely can be bad design, even in 5e, but most of the time the reality is more complex than this simple dismissive label.
I'm aware of the need for Chesterton's Fence. I have put it into practice, and I find the reasons behind the design deeply,
deeply wanting.
Even still: You cannot tell me that the Hexblade patron was elegant design. You cannot tell me that the Berserker and Champion were efficient tools. You cannot seriously believe that the expectation of 6-8 actual combats per day (which is, in fact, what the math reflects, I've run it many times) plus 2 (or preferably 3) short rests, was a wise and fitting basis, given...y'know...the vast majority of people don't want to run D&D that way and don't find it fun to do so when they try.
At the level of technique, 5e has all sorts of stuff like this. Or, y'know, I could bring up the DMG, where you can summarize
easily 2/3 of it with the following passage: "Some DMs do X. Other DMs don't do X at all! It's up to you to decide whether to do X, or not." I still absolutely cannot get over the sheer comedy of the part where it talks about giving XP for non-combat stuff. Not only does it do exactly what I just said, it then goes
further by saying, lightly paraphrased, "If you do decide to give XP for non-combat encounters, pretend that it was a combat encounter, and decide how much XP it should be worth." Like...for real, it literally tells you to just...pretend it
isn't a non-combat encounter. With zero actual advice about
how to translate a non-combat encounter into combat encounter design.
So yeah. I'm not backing down. 5e is a hot mess.
