I don't think the classes play the same at all. So far I've played a rogue, a cleric, and a paladin. All three classes play very different. The claim they are homogenous and play the same is an out and out untruth. They don't feel the same at all, especially at first level.
I think your point here of stating "untruth" lacks the understanding that what was stated is based on opinion. Since opinions in essence are neither true or false. By the poster's opinion it is in his feeling that they are homegenous in design and play. Stating that it is untrue is akin to stating it is a lie, and doing that would be taking him out of context.
I find being a 1st level adventurer in 4E more like what being a 1st level adventurer was supposed to be: a fairly experienced combatant who has spent many years training to survive adventures.
The problem with this statement is that an "adventurer" only is that experienced through adventure. To say that he already starts like this means that he has already adventured prior thus making him that experienced. The reason an Experience Point Chart exists is to show the level of understanding/training the adventurer has. To have him start at such a level and never before adventure would in essence put him at a level higher than the effective point of experience he would have had otherwise.
The whole I'm a 1st level guy who can die in one hit didn't at all fit the idea of a starting adventurer who just spent a great deal of his life training to adventure and wield weapons. Instead you actually feel like a combat veteran about to set out on your own. I much prefer the starting feel of 4E because it makes you feel like a seasoned combatant right from the beginning, like you actually did spend quite a bit of time training in your chosen class.
My answer to this is that someone who is a bookworm and has been so for most of his child and adolescent life isn't going to be the most physically fit. More so he also has not been trained to fight in such situations dealing with skill at arms, though he does have magic on his side. Are we to say he is just as hardy and can take a knife to the chest and shrug it off to the already battle scarred fighter? Mind you this bookworm is also the guy whose only armor is his trusty robe his teacher gave him.
Much, much better mechanic than the 3E start at 1st level being enormously weak and able to be slain with one or two lucky hits. That didn't at all feel like a fighter or wizard that had spent a great portion of their life learning their profession.
The problem with this statement is the assumption that the character has spent their life learning their profession. If this were true I would gather they would be very old and at that point most likely would be easily killed to being frail from age.
4E is a nice game. I feel it did a very good job of differentiating classes. In fact a superior job to 3E because it allows for specialization within a given class. No more assuming your a wisdom based cleric or a strength based paladin. Instead you have alot more options for building paladins and clerics with different focuses.
Can you please elaborate on your response. As I have seen it I don't know that Clerics had to be wisdom based, and Paladin's had to be strength based. In fact I have seen a cleric who acts much like a wizard, and a paladin who acts like a Spartan from the movie 300. Maybe it is just me but have you actually read the books and considered the options available?
So the whole "classes feel homogenous" isn't at all true. A 3rd edition cleric at the early levels is almost exactly the same as any other cleric at early levels. A low level fighter is the same as any other fighter. There was very little to separate one class from another of the same class at early levels. But the differentiation of classes starts very early in 4E. So I'm not buying that classes are homogenous compared to 3E until I see what kind of splat books come out.
I will agree with the splat book part. However I think you have lost what you are even stating. You are comparing a fighter to a fighter, and a cleric to a cleric. And of all things at 1st level.
Because as far the Player's Handbook goes, the 4E Player's Handbook offers way more options than the 3E Player's Handbook for starting characters. If the splatbooks expand 4E options as they did 3E options, then I see 4E as having superior specialization and differentiation at higher levels as well.
Please provide examples to back this statement.
It kicks 3Es behind at character differentiation at early levels. It isn't even arguable.
If it isn't arguable why are people arguing it?
