You do realize that there is a massive difference between the scale and scope of charms in 3E vs. 2E, right?
That's design ideology again, not mechanics rigor, and the fact you keep conflating the two isn't helping your case any.
Like, what are these "synergies" that you claim Evocations are supposed to be in the first place? Mechanical gap-filling? Covering weaknesses? Attaching options to existing things? All of these? If its mechanical gap-filling then its worthless because it is simply outsourcing Ability-tree capability out into a trinket and therefore worse than a standard Charm, in bold contradiction to what you're saying. If its covering weaknesses, then it risks creating "all comers" tactics where someone can make themselves fully rules-legal invincible rather than subject to some kind of mechanical give-and-take. Attaching options is a nightmare because you're adding to a pool of interlocking Charms which can be used without very strongly defined limits and rapidly approaches "combitorial hell" that people like to sling around here. If its ALL of these, then Evocations exist solely to create a fault in the system even if it Did work the way you claim it does.
How is the player supposed to know what these synergies even
are? How do they know what the mechanical gaps exist in the character, what weaknesses they have or what options are permissible to use together effectively? The game certainly isn't telling them this up front, they have to slog through it manually and learn by experience what works and what doesn't, a process which inevitably divides the good, useful and worthwhile Charms from the ones which don't actually allow for meaningful choices to be made. Therefore, we get Best Options. In a system demanding
mastery of it like that to understand what works, THAT is
player preference, not "I want to throw fireballs." Its "does the fireball throwing power actually do something game-impactful when I use it." Because if its a wet fart of a power no one will bother anymore, aesthetics be-damned, and actively push starting players away from it and into reskinning existing, better things to do its special effects instead.
Meanwhile, those "synergies" you keep touting will be stumbled upon by those fumbling, inexperienced players and STs in ways that ruin games because they don't know how all these moving parts collide with eachother until something breaks, and do you know why? Because there
is no overarching structure to determine "how battles are handled in the current combat system than smacking your opponent until they lose all their health and/or their motes." What are you talking about here? Initiative management? Battle groups? Use of "Quick characters" with eyeballed Charms and abilities? Because the game doesn't actually
tell you how to use any of those things as a Storyteller, let alone tell you what 'approach' by a player is meaningful from a mechanical standpoint. Its all 100% trial and error, and you have to make your way blindly through it until something happens and trivializes the entire affair.
Subdividing Charms downward doesn't remove any of these issues, and insisting that the design ideology is itself self-evident and conclusively true doesn't hash out in the gameplay or the pie-in-the-sky method you seem to be describing it.
