For better or worse - most people identify a fighter by his martial fighting style. It's done in MMA, Boxing and for fictional Fighters as well. I think the choice between Defensive or Particular Weapon Category is a meaningful difference in conceptualization to most people.
On this point the way someone moves is far more indicative of their martial fighting style than which specific weapons they pick up, let alone a number or two you do not actually see. With the honourable exception of the 5e rogue and monk 5e characters march up to the enemy and beat them down mano-a-mano with limited movement. And this is a fine way of doing things; some 4e fighters, barbarians, and warlords do the same. But others drive forward and push the enemy back, rope-a-dope, or even invite the enemy to attack them to take them off balance.
But you create these fighting styles yourself when you create the character, visualise how they move, and pick powers that fit the character. You don't get them from a tiny list, you get a collection of building blocks to make them with.
I'll challenge this one. Take a 4e Fighter. What's he doing that meaningfully differentiates himself from another 4e fighter?
Moving differently. Tide of Iron as your default attack is very different from Reaping Strike - and it's not only very different it is different
in a way that is visible to external observers - it's not a statistical difference of one character critting a lot more while the other burns dice to hit more but all disguised by the randomness of the dice rolls
.
Different signature approaches. A first level fighter whose encounter power is Spinning Serpent Strike, knocking foes prone is clearly different from one whose encounter power is Passing Attack, allowing them to hit one foe, move, and then hit a second. They move differently and reach for different approaches as their favourites. This is genuinely different fighting styles.
Different responses when the chips are down. A first level fighter whose daily power is Villain's Menace, giving them huge bonusses in trying to eviscerate the main enemy boss is very different from one whose daily power is Comeback Strike, allowing them to attack and spend a healing surge as they dig deep and are able to fight longer.
And this is just first level 4e fighters using only the PHB. They are moving differently, they specialise in dealing with different numbers of foes in different ways, and when the chips are down they do very different things. The fighting styles are
genuinely very different.
Whereas in 5e that differentiation happens at the subclass level and it's effects are huge! Casting spells vs Defender Mechanics vs Superiority Dice vs Champion. Nothing in 4e got close to that level of differentiation for a fighter.
And here I am going to say that you have the main meaningful difference in 5e covered there. Spellcaster vs non-spellcaster.
As for the rest? Superiority Dice vs Champion simply isn't that different. One gets higher numbers to hit occasionally whereas the other gets higher numbers because they crit more often. And the half-assed Defender mechanics are very slightly different, but only very slightly. They don't move differently, they don't attack differently, and they don't respond that differently under pressure.
And the fundamental flaw in the Battlemaster design is that because the Superiority Dice are fungible there is almost always an optimal pick (from memory generally agreed to be Precision Attack). They only use other maneuvers under very limited circumstances - and when they gain extra maneuvers at 7th, 10th, and 15th level they are picking from the list of maneuvers that were not good enough for them to take at 3rd level.
No one 4e fighter power covers everything. Instead they add up to representations of very different fighting styles that move differently, pressure the enemy differently, have very visibly different signature moves, and mechanically reach for different approaches when the chips are down. This is vastly more differentiation, even at first level, than slightly different numbers higher in one place than another.
And all this despite the fact that fighter is a strong archetype in 4e and a weak archetype in 5e. Fighters are meaningfully different from barbarians for other reasons than that the barbarians rage in 4e - 4e fighters specialise hard into lockdown with the equivalent of , from memory, six 3.5 feats even before you've started choosing powers. (To be fair this is about two 5e feats, one of which is Sentinel).
Some classes fared better than others in this regard but I'd give 5e the edge in terms of aggregate differences.
Whereas I'd say that within any given class 4e only ever looks behind 5e when 4e is coming back round to lap 5e.
There's nothing 4e has in terms of roles on the same level as the divide between a 5e Champion Fighter and a 5e Wizard
Indeed. 4e ditched the BMX Bandit vs Angel Summoner dichotomy. A 5e champion fighter at first level can swing a sharpened piece of metal hard and fast against someone within 5ft of them and at 20th level can swing a sharpened piece of metal exceptionally hard and fast against someone within 5ft of them. Meanwhile at first level a 5e wizard can burning hands occasionally - while at 20th level they can turn into a dragon. Something is wrong with this conception of "level".
And the problem with the 5e wizard is that your spells are an equipment list and are fundamentally interchangeable with any other wizard if you swap spellbooks. You are better at one school, and that's the main difference. Meanwhile in 4e you focus on very different approaches, which frequently synergise with feats. Yes being different because of the equipment you choose to carry is a meaningful difference, but that's the main way 3.X and 5e wizards are differentiated.
But yes, there is a difference in 5e between casters and non-casters, with warlocks blurring the line.
