What makes the classes unique?

[RandomCitizenX]

I think a lot of the difference will come from what the powers actually do. The Fighter and Ranger may both have powers, but the Fighter has powers which make him a stickier target while the Ranger has powers which help optimize his damage potential.

 

[PeelSeel2]

In the old days of D&D, mostly what made the classes different was fluff. Sure they had different specializations. Mathematically, their was not a significant difference. That is what unintentionally made some of the older edition fun across all levels of play they where designed for. I am not worried about that in the current edition either. Fluff really makes an RPG IMO. It helps the players and DM imagine things. And that is what it is about. Stimulating the imagination. Imagination is the truest test of intelligence IMO. Imagination helps you virtualize interaction.

 

[Scipio202]

From the limited amount of details, it seems like there are significant differences based on role and power source.

Different roles appear to be tied to different kinds of effects. E.g. Controllers get lots of AoE effects, non-controllers get few/none. Leaders get lots of heals and ally assisting powers, others get few none.

Power sources seem to be tied (at the least) to what kinds of defenses you attack. Martial classes seem to mostly attack AC. Divine hit Will a lot. Arcane didn't attack AC much, attacked Reflex a fair bit, and was really the only source to attack Fort a lot.

We haven't seen much about utility powers, but I bet that different classes will have access to different kinds of utility powers.

While the classes have the same kinds of resources, they do different things with those resources.

 

[Mort_Q]

You could argue that anything beyond rolling high on a d20 is fluff.

It's all different ways of subtracting enough numbers from their column, before they subtract too many numbers from yours.

You don't need classes to do it, and I would have happily seen classes go, save they likely make balancing things easier.

Classes are meant to fit particular roles, and thus tactics. Makes it all different.

Classes are meant to use different power sources, which is in most senses fluff, but allows for some rock/paper/scissors balancing and flavour.

But still, it's a game of the imagination moderated by a random number generation... and snacks.

 

[ShockMeSane]

Having run a few demos of 4E for my campaign group, I can tell you that even at level 1 the characters don't play excessively similarly. Characters sharing roles obviously do suffer from overlap, but I have the feeling this will become increasingly alleviated as you reach higher levels and customize more with increased number of powers/feats/magic items. Remember most magic items seem to grant encounter powers now as well.

Also, it seems that every class will have a primary stat (example: Rogue = Dex), and a choice of two secondaries (example: Rogue = Cha or Str). Mechanically it looks like this might have a pretty big impact on how your character plays at the higher levels.

The Ranger and Warlock had the biggest overlap in the games I ran, with both having a similar mechanic (curse/quarry), and both being ranged strikers. Still, there were some noteable differences in their Powers, namely that the Ranger could sacrifice damage for accuracy and the Warlock could sacrifice damage for invisibility against his attacked foe. The Warlock had the additional bonus of being able to choose to target either Reflex or Will, while the Ranger could only attack AC.

If those are the two most similar classes in the game (which they seem to be) and they become increasingly differentiated as they level, I'll have no problem.

 

[MindWanderer]

I recommend you think about the roles, and which one(s) you most see yourself playing.

In 3rd edition, I was all about the big numbers. The 4e ranger was really gratifying this way: at DDXP, I played Scalegloom Hall in Slot 1--one of the first 100 people in the world to pay to play 4e!--and when I won initiative and dished out 22 points of damage to the kobold in the first room, everyone was very impressed... although they were even more impressed that the kobold didn't die (I was feeling very proud of myself, to be rapidly replaced by horror).

My second demo was Escape from Sembia, in which I played the cleric. I never liked being the cleric, but I actually had a lot of fun in this one.

Spoiler

The fight against the undead on the cliff was particularly entertaining: not only did I get to dish out substantial damage due to their radiant vulnerability, I got to chuck a couple off a cliff using Turn Undead, and used Sacred Flame liberally to extinguish the party members that were set on fire. The fact that you can assist the party without sacrificing your butt-kicking actions changes the whole flavor of clerics.

I played the paladin and wizard only in the Delve, and I can't say I got a great feel for either. Partially this is because the Delve is so high-stress, preventing me from experimenting much, and having the monsters beat me six ways to Sunday regardless. Partially it's because of the paladin's then-broken Challenge mechanic, so I had the option of marking and running (boring and not the way it's supposed to work) or standing and stabbing (ineffective mainly due to the pregen's average stats and small weapon)--they're supposed to defend the other characters, but in the Delve you don't have time to be ineffective. And partially it's because, at level 1, the wizard doesn't feel very special--they can be very impressive against tightly packed groups of monsters, but only in a limited fashion. I think that will get better at somewhat higher levels.

 

[lutecius]

Classes with the same role are not that different to me either. There are only so many ways you can buff or de-buff people, move them around, move around them, mark them so that they hit you rather than others.
Most of the powers we've seen so far are very war-gamey (bonus and movement related) and repetitive to me.
They're even monotonous within a same class, actually. Most warlord powers seem to be "successful hit = random bonus/malus".

Eventually, I think they will come up with truely unique powers for the new classes, but for that they will have to drop or redefine the rigid role constraints. That's when balance issues show up...

 

[Lackhand]

I completely agree with you. All the rules changes and conceptual differences in every other area xound pretty good to me, but the classes sound like all that makes them different is fluff.

I hope I'm wrong, because this looks like it could be my favorite incarnation of the game.

Don't worry, you're wrong.

Reasoning: The difference between the rogue and the fighter in 3x is fluff, as is the difference between the cleric and the wizard.

Luckily...

 

[mmu1]

I've played a couple of 4E demos, and despite the first-hand experience I still think the classes feel very smilar.

I even played a 1st level 3.5 dungeon crawl just days afterwards, and if anything, it only confirmed my opinion of 4E. (it certainly didn't make the 4E feel more varied and interesting in comparison)

 

[Incenjucar]

Wizards play like this, but fighters play like this.

Seriously though, there are huge differences in ranges, areas of effect, variety of ability, access to status effects, positioning...