Truth be told, I think this is somewhat of a problem that people have with 4e. Lots of folks liked the rags to riches story of some farm boy going out to make a name for himself and doing just that. Unfortunately, that's one of the points of "Well, sorry, but your play style no longer works."
Yeah, a farmboy fighter eh? That somehow learned to use all martial weapons and heavy plate in battle and ride horses and climb. And learn combat feats to start with?
Or a farmboy that mastered magic and has a starting spellbook?
Or a farmboy that started out as a dedicated priest that knows how to wear heavy armor and use weapons and turn undead?
Sorry man, even in 3E if you wanted to do a starting farmboy you had to take the commoner class and wait to become another class. How many people did this?
I see no reason why you couldn't do the same in 4E if you so chose. Your DM could come up with a way.
I don't think you got the issue of the "classes feel same-y." It's not based on classes not having different "builds" as much as it's based on the Powers system. Classes feel same-y because, quite literally, they're supposed to. Wizards made it one of their big goals in 4e to homogenize mechanics to ensure the classes remained balanced. Classes working the same is, in all honesty, one of the things 4e uses as a selling point. Denying this isn't just saying "you're wrong" to the players, it's saying that Wizards doesn't know their own game.
People say classes are same-y because they're comparing it to 3e where several classes all used different mechanics entire. Even straight from the core books there was a difference between how class mechanics worked with different classes or builds, that was big in some cases (wizards and non-casters) or a smaller difference (sorcerers and wizards). But the thing was, the difference was still there. In 4e, because of the Powers system, fighters fight like wizards fight like rogues fight like paladins fight like every single unreleased class will fight. I'm not saying that's inherently a bad thing - again, this is one of 4e's selling points. It's just something that some people will like, and others won't.
That's just it. Balanced does not equal same-y.
I thought the same thing prior to playing the game. The given the mechanics the classes would feel too much alike. But they don't. They don't play alike and they don't feel alike.
I was wrong. I was happy to be wrong.
As I said, so far I have tried three different classes. They all play differently. The cleric is still a very powerful healer and his powers give very different bonuses than the powers of a rogue or paladin.
If anything I would say 3E classes feel more same-y at level 1. They may get very differentiated, but at low level 4E classes feel and play differently.
When you played a starting rogue and fighter, you both did melee damage. Even though the rogue was supposed to be the tough damage dealer in 3E, he was very weak at dealing damage compared to the warrior. So if you played a single class rogue, you were the damage gimp compared to the warrior. So you really didn't fulfill your role in the game and felt like a weaker fighter there were so many limits on your sneak attack.
But in 4E the rogue feels like that shifty sneaky fighter or that brutal thug that has learned to maximize his attacks. He feels and plays very differently from the fighter right from level 1.
You seem to be confusing balance with homoginization. Just because Wizards employed a more balanced mechanic does not at all make the characters seem homogenous. They play very differently. If you have any questions as to how, then I'll answer them.
But the characters feel homogenous is as I said earlier: based on a lack of experience with 4E or based on a bias against 4E. Because if you spend the time playing and going over the abilities of each class you find they are very different, play very different, and can do very different things.
A fighter cannot do what a wizard does even if they have a few attacks that do similar damage. A warlord cannot do what a cleric does even if they fill a similar role.
This same-y feel is like saying clerics and wizards in 3E are the same because they both use d6 as a damage standard for their abilities. Is that the case to you? Or saying rogues and fighters are the same because they both use melee weapons. Is that how you feel?
I guarantee you in 4E that a rogue and a fighter don't play the same at all. If you read a list of their powers, you will find that each stands out in a much more defined way than they ever did in 3E.
Now mind you, that is comparing PHB to PHB, not includind splatbooks. If you include the splatbooks then the 3E system allows for more differentiation. But as far as straight PHB versus PHB I give the edge to the 4E PHB for character options and differentiation.
