What I mean is that the 4E Classes are same-y. Not identical, without any demarcation. Anchovies pizza, pepperoni pizza, and Hawaiian Pizza have differences, but if one doesn't care for tomatoes sauce, cheese, or bread...they are same-y.
5E Classes share a mathematical structure on a foundational level (HP and the Spell slot), but they are much less same-y. Like a pizza and a burrito that share much of their chemical structure bit are not experientially interchangeable, rather than two types of pizza.
Unless you find "primarily a spellcaster" to be very samey.
In which case
at least half of 5e is essentially identical. Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Bards are all "Wizard with One Extra Thing instead of getting Even More Spells." Warlocks are "Wizard, but with a weird rest mechanic" (that is probably going to go away or be heavily changed in 2024.) Artificers are "Wizards, but less Wizardy and more tools-y." Together, those comprise more than half of all classes.
The fact that we can easily lump the vast majority of characters into "full-caster," "half-caster," or "non-caster" is
exactly why I find this whole "samey-ness" argument completely baffling and, frankly, more than a little disingenuous. There are essentially only four groups of classes in 5e, if we want them to be mechanically different from one another: Full-Caster, Part-Caster, Non-Caster, and Warlock. And even Warlock is
barely that much different from other casters, it just automatically upcasts and has fewer slots to play with (but which, as noted, will probably get a major change in 2024 due to the de-emphasis on SR abilities.)
In 4e, classes used a common structure, but had unique expressions of their power for each individual class, and special baseline features distinguishing one class from another. Some groups of classes shared certain baseline features, e.g. Defenders getting a mark punishment, Leaders getting a 2x-per-encounter heal, etc.
in 5e,
most classes use a common structure (spellcasting), but have unique expressions of that power for each individual class (spell lists), and special baseline features distinguishing one class from another. Some groups of classes share certain baseline features, e.g. physical fighters get Extra Attack, spellcasting-focused characters get cantrips that scale, etc.
If 4e was samey, there's no way on God's green Earth that 5e doesn't have just as much to answer for.
Unless...
Unless it's
familiarity with the system that makes the difference. As I've said before. From the outside,
all you know is the framework. The common structure. So it all looks the same, because it's all using the same presentation. Even though you may know cognitively that it is different, it
feels the same because it uses the same format. But 5e is familiar; it went back to the 3.x model of doing most things, something that had been around for over a decade (and which was superficially pretty similar to what came before it.) Since you already know it well, you don't need to be
told the parts where it differs, you can
see them, plain as day. Like seeing your workplace that you've been working at for a decade, suddenly having a crashed car out front--the difference is jarring because the background is forgettable in its familiarity.