In fairness though, 4e did have fairly strong niche protection in its roles. A striker couldn't really do a defender's job, and neither of them could replace the leader. There were also more specialized applications by class. The cleric and bard were both leaders, but the cleric was far more capable of granting their support from the front line, whereas a bard would need to hang back more.
I get that it wasn't to everyone's taste, and that's fine.
However, when I see "if everyone is special then no one is" it really seems to smack a bit of "if everyone gets to do cool stuff then no one does". Which is something I just can't wrap my head around. Bob the fighter getting awesome moves that he can use doesn't diminish my wizard in the least, IMO. Niche protection is important in class based games, but no one's niche should ever be 'all the cool stuff'.
This is a great point and I want to highlight it a bit.
I may not have played much of 4e, but what I did play supports this idea. A defender and their contribution to the party could not be fully matched by another role. Now, a lot of class did have a prime and secondary role. I think Paladins, going off memory, were Defenders who had a bit of Leader mixed in.
Now, I'd have to go and do much more in-depth research than I'm willing to do, but a part of me suspects that all Divine characters shared a similar focus. There was something that a divine Defender could do, that matched the idea of Divine characters, that a Primal Defender couldn't. I'd have to dig far deeper into the abilities and categorize them, but I suspect that is the case.
And so, the "niche" was actually double-layered, but you'll notice the part I didn't talk about. Class. Class was just the intersection of the other two. It wasn't the focus of the protected design. So, a Warlord could contribute in a very similar way to a Cleric and the Paladin had a very similar feel to the Cleric. This could have made the cleric not seem unique, but misses that the point was that Leaders had a role and that was the part they were protecting, not the Cleric itself.
I also would like to chime in and confirm, almost every time I hear people talking about 4e being too "samey" it is closely followed or explicitly paired with "Everyone was a caster". So, it is a very fair assessment of someone using the phrase "If everyone is special then no one is" and taking it in that direction.
Also Also, can we acknowledge that using that phrase as a negative is a horrible position to take? Syndrome's position was to ruing superheroes by making everyone into superheroes. If every persona has super strength, you aren't special anymore are you Mr. Incredible. And that is portrayed as a bad thing, but lets be clear, a world where every construction worker could strap on a suit of power armor and safely tear things up? A world where every firefighter had the technology to control fire, absorb it, stop it from burning down a house? A world were every deep sea diver was aquaman? Everyone could fly?
That is the goal of technology, to make everyone special. The idea that that is a negative, and that power and abilities should be hoarded so that "Only I am special" is a terrible philosophy to take.
And sure, I know some people are going to say "what we mean is that everyone is going to be special in their own way, not in the same way" I'll go ahead and repost the quote, so you can read it again.
"If
everyone is
special then
no one is" This doesn't mean if everyone is special in their own way. That isn't included in the line. If everyone is special, even in their own unique and quirky way, then no one is special.
