A/E/D/U and the general way powers work (and feats too really), plus the very spelled out structure of keywords and how things can build off that, is 4e's great strength here. Lets be clear, I am all in favor of the way 4e does it in the sense that it WORKS. It is just putting a large burden on a lot of casual players to engage with that. Excepting, partially, things like the Slayer there's no getting around working on your build.
I've run for a lot of casual players at Encounters and for a while, AL. There's /nothing/ about 4e AEDU & Keywords that's off-putting to the casual player, they provide a structure that is simple and easy to work with for them, they only concern themselves with the keywords they encounter on their character, and level-up was always a breeze, because the explanation of what you got that level was simple (oh, hey, it's 7th level, everyone pick an encounter power), you pick your encounter power from a small list, that's "engaging with your build."
Heck, I would argue that the simplified e-classes actually made it HARDER in the long run (sure, creating a level 1 Slayer is easy, but just try to make an EFFECTIVE level 15 Slayer, not so easy...).
TBH, the point of the lobotomized martial classes in HotFK/L was never to make them easier for new players, it was to make them acceptable to old players.
I wasn't really trying to engage with any discussion of the 'simple fighters, complex wizards' thing. I would argue that every PC in 4e was 'complex' in that sense, from a build standpoint, and requiring attention at every decision point to insure you got what you wanted.
Not really, no. Every class had meaningful choices at chargen/level-up, and in play, but /nothing/ like the complexity and criticality that faces casters in 3.5 or 5e or even the classic game, no even the build-criticality faced by an elegant (but deep) 3.0 fighter.
But they were relatively simple choices, from a small number of alternatives. As you leveled up, you prettymuch got one new choice at each level, then a whole level to get used to when & how to best use it. It was easily digestible in small bites, from 1st level on, that way. And, if you did regret a choice, you could retrain one each level, too. Ideal for new players. But, for a 30-level build, yeah, a lot of work and consternation for relatively little reward.
OTOH 5e wizard is in my sense 'simple', you ARE a wizard, and you're gonna be pretty effective as such. I certainly concede that there ARE more choices involved in casters, and probably more ways to not make your caster be 'up to snuff' than with 5e non-casters. Still, both are more 'direct' in their build strategies than 4e.
Don't buy it. 4e classes were quite focused and direct. Once you chose Greatweapon vs Protector for instance, your choice of Fighter powers out of the PH was often blindingly simple. Tide of Iron was /right there/, calling out to the Protector, and not an option for the greatsworder, for the most obvious instance. You wouldn't go far wrong playing a tiefling wizard and picking a lot of fire spells. It was never rocket science, the level of 'system mastery' needed to make an OK-to-cool character was minimal and readily acquired - the amount of CharOp style mastery to eke out a meaningful advantage over the obvious choices was profound. Simplicity & depth, in a game just being judged by how good a game it is, pretty positive - in a game being judged on how much like the version of D&D one started with, disastrous.
I mean, you really need to know that in 4e there are going to be certain 'anti-suck' feats (could be weapon expertise for a fighter, implement expertise for a wizard) for instance.
Some of us outright banned those feats because they were unnecessary. (and, yeah, feats /were/ screwed up very rapidly in 4e, but class designs weren't screwed up until Essentials).
This kind of awareness is simply not required in 5e, not even from a wizard. You might be less effective in some sense if you pick the wrong spells, but even that is mitigated a lot by the slot system.
There's no question that neo-Vancian is super-versatile and casting carefree in the in-game sense. But, really, all that means is that the gain from identifying the best spells is huge.
In 4e multiclassing badly means the classes had highly divergent base attributes. otherwise it pretty much works.
For instance, Wizard McFighter is bad in that sense: STR is of no use to a Wizard, INTZ of no value to a Fighter. But, I played an effective enough wizard that way, because, really it was a wasted feat 4 pts of STR that, in point buy, would've paid for only one or two of a stat I should have been prioritizing, instead.
You could go nuts with a 30 level optimized build, or feel your way through a level at a time, the gap between would be nothing like in 3e.
4e did invite you to customize and think about your character choices, but just at a small bite per level. It wasn't lock in and hold on, you didn't need to plan in advance. It was neither extreme, not 1e straightjacket, nor 3e obligatory optimization.
