Yeah, I know. You are not going to suddenly start getting it now.
part of the problem is that we don't understand each other... people who like something wont suddenly understand why someone doen't... especially if they are using vauge terms. It gets harder when people act like EVERYTHING is worse about something.
Right, cause I said that rogue's sneak attack was different......
see the main part that makes a rogue in 4e a striker is that he can add 2d6, 3d6, or 5d6 damage in the right situation... it is a focus the creator of the class decided to give them a skimisher ability that way... 4e called it a striker. 3e and 5e both have the same feature only MORE of it 1d6 per 2 levels up to a max of 10d6.
If you don't see any mechanical differences, then I'm amused that you feel so vastly dedicated to arguing in defense of a game with no differences.
Of course, you DO see differences. But we get back to words games and topic Whack-A-Mole.
there are a lot of mechanical diffrences, but people pretend that things that didn't change the basics are the same just built around a balanced chassie where things were more upfront instead of hidden.
The past few years could be summed up as:
Two 4E fans talking: Man it is so awesome that they got rid of A and replaced it with B. A was a real problem in 3E. I always hated/was frustrated by/ignored A. Now they have B and it is awesome. 4E is for the first time and finally the game D&D could always be.
3E fan walks up. 4E fans: We were just talking about how great B is. 3E fan: I don't like B . I prefer A.
4E Fan 1: You H4ter
4E Fan 2: Yeah, and besides, there is no difference. B is exactly like A. And A never existed in the first place. There is no mechanical or conceptual difference between A and B.
almost every internet discussion...
I see the bigiset issue is
when a 3e fan says "I hate that you can't do X in 4e"
then a 4e fan responds "Of course you can do that, we do all the time"
then the 3e fan basicly breaks down into tell you why everything about 4e sucked.
or
when a 3e fan says "I hate that 4e forced you to do X"
then 4e fans respind with "Um, no it doesn't we don't play like that."
then the 3e fan breaks down into why everything about 4e sucked
or (and this thread is the perfect example of it)
WHen a 4e fan says "X or Y is needed in 5e like it was in 4e"
then a 3e fan will come in and say "No other edition had anything like that"
so the 4e fan will respond with "Well X and Y where always there, 4e handled it a bit differently but it was based on they way it always was."
then a 3e fan will break down into tell you why everything about 4e sucked...
In this case (Roles) someone asked what they were, I said "Same as always" and used the 4e labels. over 100 pages later we still have people claiming that isn't true... I even tried to round it out by explaining that the basic explanations could be expanded on and that some names sucked, and even that it was used to nerf some classes... but all of that means nothing if you like 4e.
Rogue is the best example...
in2e you had backstab, it was a bit of flavor and hard to use consistently but gave the thief a good burst damage. the rogue wasn't the best combat class by far. in 3e and 3.5 they expanded backstab into sneak attack, made it MORE damaging and easier to use. in 4e they lowered the damage (although not much and did give a feat that could get you back up there) kept the ease of getting the same. 5e went back to the 3.5 more damage and made it still easier to get the damage. so from 2e into 3e/3.5 into 4e then finally to 5e every edition except 4e made them more damaging. some how by just putting a lable on the 4e class that it is good at doing damage, it made it "YOU MUST PLAY THIS WAY" but it is the only edition that didn't up both ease of doing the damage and the damage... 4e also had the same or more rp and skill abilities as 3.5 and 5e, and had the same evasion type abilities.... the class didn't really change that much sine 2000