Neonchameleon
Legend
Nonchameleon, i will have to take your word on the bard, as I only have the first phb and dmg (another issue i had with 4e was the expectation people buy 3 phbs). But what you are describing still doesn't sound like what I am after. If that class works out for you, great. But my experience making characters with the first PhB, and with the others when I went back and tried to play again last year is the roles totally ruin the game for me. There may be exceptions, like the bard,as you point out, and they may have changed their approach over time, but the classes were very carefully balanced around combat encounters in 4e, rather than against other elements or over the course of the campaign. This is something 4e defenders hold up as a good design model, something they said explicitly they were doing, etc. So either they didn't do what they set out to do with roles, or they changed how they were used over time. Either way, i dont see what roles bring to the table in that case.
Balanced across the combat encounter != straightjacked to that balance.
As long as you have options balance is information. Nothing more, nothing less. It means that if you put approximately the same inputs in, you get about the same outputs. There are choices (feats, utility powers) where you can go for different types of combat option - or non-combat options and when stacked these can have a significant impact. But by making the choices I was I was completely aware of what I was doing.
I've listed above what roles bring to the table. Guidance for both developers and players.
And for the record, the PHB2 is both much better designed and written than the PHB1. The Invoker, with a literal shard of unfiltered divine power, and spells such as Rain of Blood rocks. The Bard's great fun - with the ability to viciously mock people and do psychic damage. The Shaman with a spirit companion really extends the game. The Avenger - a divine assassin has a line of inspiration that lead directly to a ninja librarian of Ioun.