[4e] What do you like about being a 4E player?

What are the things you like about being a player 4th edition?

Not DMing it...I know all about the reduced prep time and such. I mean as a player; I'm trying to gather facts before going into my first 4e game. And you can be as specific as you want, as in, "I like how class X can now do action Y!" because I imagine I will have a huge selection of options that I don't know anything about, and any guidance on something that works well would be helpful.

I'm asking this here even though there are other forums I frequent where there are more 4e players precisely because I expect that most people around here do NOT play 4e, or do not love it as much as 3.5. What I'm looking for are your "grudging respect" moments. The things you have to admit you like about it, even if 3.5 is still your favorite.

Most importantly, I am not looking for the things anyone doesn't like about playing 4th Edition. I know most of them, and I'm sure I'll figure out the rest as I go.

So, to make sure we don't turn this into an Edition War, let's recap:

• DO post what you like about being a player in 4e.
• DON'T post about what you don't like about 4e.
• DON'T post about what you like about being a DM in 4e.
• DON'T post anything about 3.0/3.0/Pathfinder at all. Phrase your responses as positives about 4e, not negatives about 3.X.

I like the idea of being able to cross class several times to make a truely unique character....

Ha, no I'm just kidding.

Seriously I love 4E and I'd have to say one of my favorite things about the few times I've played it (usually I'm DM) is that everyone feels insanely useful. The fact that the classes are, for the most part, balanced means rarely does anyone feel like they're not contributing. Not to say everyone can't contribute in any table top, it just seems like in 4E it's practically inherited in the system.

Well, I like that I can read the rules and know what they mean :smallamused:

Seriously. The ability to walk to a table and build & run a character without worrying about whether or not my abilities can do what they say they can do is great. This was brought into sharp relief with a 4e game I recently joined with a novice DM.

ANECDOTE

Spoiler

Show

The man means well, but even as a Player he never showed much interest in understanding how the game was supposed to work. As a DM, naturally, this lack of interest in the rules means he usually has ideas for how an encounter is supposed to work without having a clue as to what it means mechanically.

As an example, in the very first Encounter I stepped on some ice and he said "you fall." I asked "well, can I make an Acrobatics check to maintain my balance?" He looked at me funny and asked why. When I pointed out the Balance rules in the PHB he acquiesced to the roll but despite a roll of 25+ I found myself sliding all over the place. It turns out he had designed "magically slippery ice" to work like an Ice Puzzle from a video game (e.g. Pokemon) and didn't think about how that would mean from a rules standpoint.

Oh, he's gotten better since but it brought back bad memories from other times.

That said, it makes the times that someone tries to run some poorly worded Dragon Magazine power or feat past me all the more galling - such as a silly Seeker combo that may or may not give infinite shots on a miss :smallsigh:

Also: In before Edition Warz :smalltongue:

Favorite things:
Reduced ridiculousness with grappling monsters (screw you CR "3" Crab)
Easy character creation if you have the character builder. The DM doesn't even need to check your sheet.
Easy power descriptions/clear cut. Read the power, and its understandable. Not open to interpretation in almost all cases
More variety of monsters (artillery, controllers, brutes, solos..) that are more easily used
Less annoying traps
While PCs are less varied group variance can be huge. You can make a party full of healers and still be very effective. Or a party full of controllers, etc.
Balanced. Or about as close as one can come with such a big game.
Better at creating (balanced) monsters
Actions are very clear cut
Most classes work in a similar way, so it is easy to pick up for new players
edit: Oh and I don't need to think about or count out skills so much

Maybe I should clarify some more. I mean things that you notice and prefer when sitting at the physical table playing.

Things like "more variety of monsters" is not a benefit to players, because your DM is only going to throw certain monsters at you during the course of the game anyway. The fact that there are 1,000 more in the book doesn't really come up during the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter

Well, I like that I can read the rules and know what they mean :smallamused:

---

This is something that should be assumed to be true of any game. If it is not true of another game, then that's a fault of that other game, not a benefit of 4e.

--------------

To be clear: I want to know what parts of the system work are particularly fun or clever or entertaining or whatever because I need help picking what sort of character I want to have. I want specifics, not generalities about how you feel when you play. If 4e makes everyone who plays it feel useful, that's cool, but then I will feel useful no matter what character I play...and therefore, that doesn't help me make any decisions.

Does that help?

First things first tier equality. In 4e the vast majority of classes are all more or less equal in ability. 3rd to 4th teir according to the system. This allows people who play classes like fighter (like me), rouge and even monk to be very powerful right up to the end. Wizards and such are still probably the most powerful over all but the difference is far less now.

I also like the class synchronization that happens in 4e. Because each class has a role it means that the players need to work together a little bit more then in previous editions. So instead of having one class killing everything before the others can really do anything every encounter everyone has a part to play. I also can lead to interesting builds if a role is not present in a group, for example my current group lacks a controller so I have been taking powers (another thing I love is the fact that each class can take powers and not just basic attack each turn) that allow my fighter to simulate controller abilities so I can attack many enemies at once.

Third I love the fact that they got rid of alignment restrictions for all the classes. This really does make a lot of sense as say a paladin is a warrior of his god but not all the gods are lawful good. So now I could make a chaotic evil paladin of gruumsh that would be completely legal for use.

Fourth more + less -. Now when you choose your race instead of the old +2 to one and -2 to you get a +2 too two abilities (except for humans) allowing for stronger player characters.

Fifth better defence scores. In 4e when determining fort, ref, and will instead of taking the mod of one ability score to determine the def you now take one of two abilities. This allows for say a character with low wisdom but high charisma to have a high will defense.

It made me like the bard class. It made me found out that, after some careful consideration, even a 3.5 bard is awesome and insanely fun class to play. For that, I am grateful to it.

Out of the box, your character will be effective. You don't need to know how to make a good build to feel like you're contributing. There's still plenty of building to do if you're into that, but they make it much easier to throw together a character and have fun with it even if the rest of the part is better optimized and higher level than you.

There's less to read. Okay, there are a lot of powers. But you can read only what applies to your character. Feats too. If I'm playing a fighter I can scan through all the fighter feats at once. I can ignore the feats that only work for other classes. It lets me focus on my character and ignore the rest. I like not being required to do homework in order to make my character.

You have choices every turn. On my turn I want several possible actions. In 3.5 I only played casters because melee characters just didn't offer enough choice. In 4th I've always got 5 or 10 different things to do unless I've used up my powers. (As a sidenote, what I don't like in 4th is having characters with obvious choices. I retired my Invoker because after 3 sessions he had a script for combat. He always did the first 4 or 5 turns the same way because it was straight up the best option. That said, I prefer obvious choices over no meaningful choices at all.)


Your skills will matter. Skills are all now roughly the same scope. They come up a pretty even amount of the time. No longer will forgery rock under some GMs and be a waste under others.

Niche protection. Everyone has a clear and distinct job. I don't like competing with my friends. I want to work together. If I do my job, their jobs become easier and vice verse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mordokai

It made me like the bard class. It made me found out that, after some careful consideration, even a 3.5 bard is awesome and insanely fun class to play. For that, I am grateful to it.

---

What about the 4e bard makes it fun? I only have access to the first PHB right this second, and the bard is somewhere else. But I love bards in 2e and 3.5e, so I'm curious what the 4e bard is like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valadil

There's less to read. Okay, there are a lot of powers. But you can read only what applies to your character.

---

How do you reconcile this with choosing what character to make, though? Don't you have to read everything at least once to figure out whether that's what you want to play? One of the reasons I posted this thread is that I looked in the PHB and was overwhelmed with the amount of reading I would have to do to even figure out what each class does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPoD

To be clear: I want to know what parts of the system work are particularly fun or clever or entertaining or whatever because I need help picking what sort of character I want to have. I want specifics, not generalities about how you feel when you play. If 4e makes everyone who plays it feel useful, that's cool, but then I will feel useful no matter what character I play...and therefore, that doesn't help me make any decisions.

Does that help?

---

Healing as a minor action. Wow. It's ... brilliant. A healer is no longer that annoying class that no one wants to be stuck with. "I move into position, swinging my sword at the goblin's knees, jerking it forward while tripping him. ... Oh, I'll heal Bob the bloodied too." It's just an after-thought to heal and that makes playing Leaders so much more fun to play (as in, now they actually ARE fun to play).

Page 42 of the DMG. All you need to be a real swashbuckler is to be decent at Athletics and Acrobatics. Those rules aren't used very much, but when they are it's truly a blast. They are so simple to use now, too.

Defenders can actually defend. It's annoying when, in other games, the Fighter-type doesn't have any way to actually encourage the target to attack them. That's a thing of the past. Now, the Fighter stands in front of the monster and says, "Attack me ... or else." And they finally mean the "or else." It's brilliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPoD

What about the 4e bard makes it fun? I only have access to the first PHB right this second, and the bard is somewhere else. But I love bards in 2e and 3.5e, so I'm curious what the 4e bard is like.

---

They are leaders. Their primary job is to make the party better. They do this through healing (as a minor action, so they still get to move and attack) and buffing their allies. The buffs come in the form of attacks. So, for instance, you attack the monster. If you hit it, you do some damage and all your allies within 5 squares (25 feet) can score a critical hit on an 18-20. Neat stuff like that.

Quote:

---

How do you reconcile this with choosing what character to make, though? Don't you have to read everything at least once to figure out whether that's what you want to play? One of the reasons I posted this thread is that I looked in the PHB and was overwhelmed with the amount of reading I would have to do to even figure out what each class does.

---

As long as you understand the primary roles, you'll be fine. For instance, know that:
Leader = healer/buffer
Defender = tank
Striker = damage dealer
Controller = debuffer/makes DM's cry

Each class will say their primary role and secondary role. For instance, Paladins are primary defenders and secondary leaders. This means that they are very good at making themselves the target of the monsters and kinda good at buffing their allies.

Once you know that system, understanding the classes becomes easier. Also, it'll help once you see them in action.

-I like how a fight might seem to be going completely down the tubes, feeling like maybe this time the DM screwed up and threw something at us we just can't take...and then some PC, (usually the leader, but it can be anyone) pulls out a Daily power hey just picked up (or have had for a long time, that we've all forgotten about) and the tide just SHIFTS in our favor. Fights don't always landslide one way or another...good tactics (and well placed Daily powers) can completely change the course of a fight going bad.

-I like how completely unpredictable the monsters are. As a PC, I never know quite what the monsters will be capable of, since they don't follow the well-known and well-explored PC-side rule-set. Anything can happen-that creates a certain sense of wonder when adventuring. Conversely, it's cool to figure out how a certain type of enemy works and incorporate that knowledge into future tactics.

-I like exploring the battlefields. I know that this is more a hallmark of a good DM than a 4ed-only deal, but I like that fights generally spill into multiple parts of the battlefield, and that 4ed makes it easy to get to all of the cool zones in a battlefield through push, pull, and slide effects, teleportation, separate move/standard/minor actions, and cool movement powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcrudisi

Healing as a minor action. Wow. It's ... brilliant. A healer is no longer that annoying class that no one wants to be stuck with. "I move into position, swinging my sword at the goblin's knees, jerking it forward while tripping him. ... Oh, I'll heal Bob the bloodied too." It's just an after-thought to heal and that makes playing Leaders so much more fun to play (as in, now they actually ARE fun to play).

Page 42 of the DMG. All you need to be a real swashbuckler is to be decent at Athletics and Acrobatics. Those rules aren't used very much, but when they are it's truly a blast. They are so simple to use now, too.

Defenders can actually defend. It's annoying when, in other games, the Fighter-type doesn't have any way to actually encourage the target to attack them. That's a thing of the past. Now, the Fighter stands in front of the monster and says, "Attack me ... or else." And they finally mean the "or else." It's brilliant.

---

Thanks, these are spot-on in terms of the kind of advice I was looking for. Those are definitely things that sound cool about those specific character types.

Keep it coming, folks!

I like that everyone in the party is useful no matter what their character is. Nobody is a win button and nobody is an audience. Even if you make the absolute worst choices possible in making your character, you can contribute.

As a result of the above: less time poring over a dozen books, more time playing the game.

Easy to learn and understand.

Characters last. The threat of death is still there, but you won't have to reroll a new character five times in one session.

Encounters are fun and interesting so long as the DM is willing to put some thought into them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPoD

What about the 4e bard makes it fun? I only have access to the first PHB right this second, and the bard is somewhere else. But I love bards in 2e and 3.5e, so I'm curious what the 4e bard is like.

---

4ed Bard is no longer 2nd best at everything. There are things he is VERY GOOD at-he serves a specific role, but he does it in a very cool and flavorful way.

Bards are excellent leaders, handing out bonuses and healing like they are candy. The "Hit Point Pinata" and "Damage Pinata" powers are favorites at our table, turning the tides of many a battle with a brutally tough big-boss. This means they will be good in every single fight. They also can be great at providing combat mobility to allies.

Beyond fighting, they are still super-versatile with their bonuses to untrained skills and ability to multi-class lots of times, maintaining their Jack of All Trades trademark, without making them 4 incomplete, sub-par classes rolled into 1. They still excel in interaction skills as well. Also, ritual support is handy.

Quote:

---

How do you reconcile this with choosing what character to make, though? Don't you have to read everything at least once to figure out whether that's what you want to play? One of the reasons I posted this thread is that I looked in the PHB and was overwhelmed with the amount of reading I would have to do to even figure out what each class does.

---

Figure out what character type you wanna play (or decide what kinds of things you wanna do in a fight)-ignore the powers for now. After you have a character idea, start looking at the class descriptions and see what best fits your idea. THEN start picking powers. If you find no powers that fit what you wanna do, look somewhere else.

Reading EVERY SINGLE POWER is like feeling the need to read EVERY SINGLE SPELL before playing a sorcerer in 3.5. It's not THAT important, just get a feel for what sort of spells it has by looking at the at-wills, and first tier or two of encounter, daily, and utility powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPoD

What about the 4e bard makes it fun? I only have access to the first PHB right this second, and the bard is somewhere else. But I love bards in 2e and 3.5e, so I'm curious what the 4e bard is like.

---

For starters, they are the only class that can multiclass freely, unlike every other class(without Traveler's Harlequin PP, at least), who can only take one multiclass feat. While wasting your feats on a lot of multiclassing is usually a bad idea, it allows for a much more versatility, which is a cornerstone on which the whole class is built. The bard is really almost a perfect controller/leader combo on it's own. While it will never be as good controller as wizard or as good leader as cleric, it can substitute each of them admirably and the party will be hard pressed to notice the difference.

I could probably go on, but it all boils down to this. Bards are really the jacks of all trades, but masters of none. Sure, depending on your choice of feats, powers and everything else, you can specialize them towards certain role heavier than the others. But they will always be the one class with a trick up their sleeve nobody expected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPoD

What about the 4e bard makes it fun? I only have access to the first PHB right this second, and the bard is somewhere else. But I love bards in 2e and 3.5e, so I'm curious what the 4e bard is like.

How do you reconcile this with choosing what character to make, though? Don't you have to read everything at least once to figure out whether that's what you want to play? One of the reasons I posted this thread is that I looked in the PHB and was overwhelmed with the amount of reading I would have to do to even figure out what each class does.

---

The Bard is found in the Player's Handbook 2 and is a leader class character. Leaders have the ability to heal and buff their allies with some debuffing thrown in as well (but usually nothing as good as a Controller will have). Your average Bard without Arcane Power will be focused on melee attacks which provide buffs at the same time or ranged magic attacks which usually provide debuffs or do interesting things.

Bards are also very good at sliding allies and enemies around, constantly giving their allies the tactical advantage (their heal spell automatically lets an ally slide 1 square as well).

Bards still sing too, don't get me wrong. Using either a wand or an instrument (of which there are plenty interesting ones) or simply your voice your bard has songs which they sustain the entire battle which can buff your allies or musical attacks which damage an area of enemies. In addition they have unique performance rituals which do different things (like make people sleepy and such).

When deciding on a class you first need to ask yourself "What do I want to be able to do in battle?" then compare it to the list below:

Striker: I want to be able to kill enemies quickly and efficiently. I will be the lord of all damage.

Defender: I want to keep the enemy occupied and away from my allies. I want to be able to act as a physical wall who punishes the enemies foolish enough to look away.

Leader: I want to aid my allies by healing them and passing around buffs. I'll still be able to support them in battle though as I usually end up wearing hefty armor and having some cool spells.

Controller: I want to attack several enemies at once and pass around status effects like candy. I'll have to stay behind the stronger allies and my forte won't be damage but I'll know I'm doing a good job when the DM's face turns red from frustration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShaggyMarco

Figure out what character type you wanna play (or decide what kinds of things you wanna do in a fight)-ignore the powers for now. After you have a character idea, start looking at the class descriptions and see what best fits your idea. THEN start picking powers. If you find no powers that fit what you wanna do, look somewhere else.

---

Hmm. I guess the problem I have is that I have played so many D&D characters across so many editions over the years, that I have fallen into the habit of finding a cool battle shtick first, and then building the character's personality around it. I've played so many fighters that I don't have any ideas left on "what sort of fighter" I want to be. I need inspiration, and I usually find that inspiration by trolling sourcebooks until I find something. I felt like that won't really work with 4e, and it sounds like you're telling me that yes, that's true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShaggyMarco

Reading EVERY SINGLE POWER is like feeling the need to read EVERY SINGLE SPELL before playing a sorcerer in 3.5. It's not THAT important, just get a feel for what sort of spells it has by looking at the at-wills, and first tier or two of encounter, daily, and utility powers.

---

I played a lot of 1e and 2e in my youth; when I first tried 3e, I was able to read the list of spells and estimate the effects that many of them could do based on the fact that they used the same names. Most of the names in 4e are new, so I have no idea what they do. So I've never been in this position before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPoD

This is something that should be assumed to be true of any game. If it is not true of another game, then that's a fault of that other game, not a benefit of 4e.

---

The funny thing is that it isn't true of other games. Allow me to explain.

Spoiler

Show

Pre-WotC D&D, pretty much every system out there was written as a series of guidelines. Yes, there were usually some clear rules in place but they were almost always couched in language that made it clear that the rules as written were unlikely to be the rules of the game. GMs were expected to have a series of house rules and specific rulings unique to the games at their table - or the games were run largely on GM Fiat, lightly tempered by the rules in the book.

Even the games which were more "simulationist" frequently had rules which conflicted with rules from splatbooks or sometimes even with other rules within the same book. And these systems, in an attempt to have rules for everything, often threw in poorly thought-out rules for peripheral portions of the game which were simply ignored in the long run.

WotC started a trend in creating what I would call "legal rules" for RPGs with 3e. These are rules that are constructed like formalist legal contracts - they use defined Terms of Art to provide clarity and rely on short, clear sentences to spell out the rules of the game. Instead of arguing over semantics or grammar a Player can read a rule and then cross-reference it with other definitions in the system to get an unimpeachable reading of the rule. IMHO, 4e expresses the "legal rules" approach the best of the systems out there today - and it's one reason I like it.

EDIT: Oh ho, I seem to have missed the point of the thread. Apologies to the OP for not being terribly helpful :smallredface:

Vastly superior balance, both between the classes and overall.

Overall clarity of the ruleset.

Relative ease and rapidity of character generation and play.

Superbly defined class/build roles.

Fun and tactical combats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPoD

How do you reconcile this with choosing what character to make, though? Don't you have to read everything at least once to figure out whether that's what you want to play? One of the reasons I posted this thread is that I looked in the PHB and was overwhelmed with the amount of reading I would have to do to even figure out what each class does.

---

I usually have some idea of what I want to play ahead of time. If I don't, I'll pick a role or a power source. If I choose to play a leader, that cuts the reading time down to a fourth of what it was. Then I check what races make sense or each class in that role and see if any of those appeal to me. Last time I did this eladrin warlord and half elf bard both appealed, but we already had a bard so I went with the warlord.

Beyond that I pay attention to how other peoples' builds work. I make a mental note to try the ones that look fun. While I'm enjoying the warlord, I'd still like to try a bard. And barbarians look like a really good time because I enjoy movement and bonus attacks. Playing 4e gives me a lot of "next game" syndrome, in that each time I join a group I see at least one class I'd like to try next time.

The other way I deal with this is by cheating. I read the handbooks on WotC's forums. Just look at the gold or sky blue powers. If those look fun, I play the class. That also helps cut down on reading time, but it's not something I do exclusively with 4e.

4E is the best simulationist roleplaying game there has ever been.

Stop, don't panic, this is true if you assume that you are trying to simulate the heroics of fantasy literature, rather than our mundane reality. Yes magic is all powerful from a campaign perspective, but the stout hearted fighter can shake off its effects and still defeat the all powerful wizard.

That is what I love about 4E, in the hands of a good dm, anything can happen but the PCs save the day. It starts in the low levels and gets even more so in the higher levels, though I have only played into paragon levels.

The death rules are fun and exciting.

I like the nitty gritty battlefield details. It plays as a small team tactics game in combat and I enjoy that kind of thing.

One of the common complaints about 4e is one of my favorite parts. People say their is less RP in the system. They are right!
It makes Role-Playing something you do through actually thinking through what your character does and says instead of reducing it to a few rolls of the D20.

Melee characters who actually have mechanics to help them defend their allies. Fighters especially -- it's refreshing how the basic "Fighter" is one of the better classes in the game.

Bards having a hint of Factotum flavor mixed into them.

Not having to keep track of combat spells and non-combat spells in the same categories; keep those Rituals off in their own part of the game where they belong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPoD

Hmm. I guess the problem I have is that I have played so many D&D characters across so many editions over the years, that I have fallen into the habit of finding a cool battle shtick first, and then building the character's personality around it. I've played so many fighters that I don't have any ideas left on "what sort of fighter" I want to be. I need inspiration, and I usually find that inspiration by trolling sourcebooks until I find something. I felt like that won't really work with 4e, and it sounds like you're telling me that yes, that's true.

I played a lot of 1e and 2e in my youth; when I first tried 3e, I was able to read the list of spells and estimate the effects that many of them could do based on the fact that they used the same names. Most of the names in 4e are new, so I have no idea what they do. So I've never been in this position before.

---

A method that I've come to like to use when choosing a class is to take a look at the paragon paths available for that class instead of the class powers. The PPs write-ups tends to be a bit more flavourful and/or highlight some of the more common or obvious schticks available to that class.

Aside from liking that I don't need to worry about how effective my character is going to be in relation to how effective other characters are going to be, what I really, really like is that combat is tactical rather than strategic. Even if a single combat takes an hour, that's an hour where people are doing stuff, not an spending 10 minutes figuring out what buffs you want to cast, then another 10 adjusting everyone's sheets, then another 20 in actual combat.

If you really want things to help you pick a class to play, I'd agree with Sipex. Decide which role you want to play (Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader) then go from there to which classes can fill the role you want to play. Also, note that some builds straddle the line between some roles. Fey Pact Warlocks tend to be half Striker and half Controller with the status effects they can impose on enemies. Polearm Fighters tend to be Defender|Controller crosses in that they're good at tanking but can move enemies all around them and knock them prone whever they want to. Dragon Sorcerers are Strikers that can pretend to be Defenders for a few encounters a day since they get some PPs and powers that can mark. Primal Predator Druids that focus on Beast Form are Controller|Striker mixes since they hand out some pretty decent damage with their control. Those happen to be some of my favorite builds, so if nothing else you could check them out to see if you like them.

It's cheaper. Older editions had people buying books over books or stealing them lol-pirates but 4.0 has CB which you can subscribe to once and never renew until you need it again.

all my freinds play it. Now here are the reasons I don't like it.
after the four roles every class feels like a reskin.
this is to allow balance but the powergamer has proven that it can be broken!
If I wanted simple I could be a barbarian in 3.5 who has to keep track of 1 active ability and 7 feats as opposed to 23 active abilities and 16 feats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupkeyk

It's cheaper. Older editions had people buying books over books or stealing them lol-pirates but 4.0 has CB which you can subscribe to once and never renew until you need it again.

---

WotC errata'ed that. Too many people went for the pay once, have CB forever build. Now the CB is a website that requires an active DDI account to login. Granted, those of use who have the old CB still have it, but you can't legally get a new copy of it anymore.

Thought of another thing.

Despite there being less combos, multiclassing, gestalting etc (so far anway...) in3.5. In a way the 4e classes are more distinct to make up for it. In 3.5 a wizard and sorc, in an average game, play almost identical.

In 4e they play (or at least hint very strongly to the player to play optimally) very distinctly. Even though they each have a bit of the others role. A sorcerer is a master at AOE damage at range (although you can build a close one too). A wizard can be similar but its better at controlling the battlefield, that is, playing a game similar to chess, making the enemy use up more resources faster than their team.

Another good example, a rogue and an assassin play very very differently.