More to your point however, I still think my ideas are valid and while one DM may allow something and another may not that is in fact ALWAYS the case. One DM might not allow Fighters to be played at all (or as was the case in one game I ran, Halflings to be played) if they so chose which says nothing about the game but simply shows that the DM can do whatever they wish.

Granted the advancement system is the same for all players, but I simply don’t see this as a problem. Personally having characters of different levels and power levels only seeks to cause issues between players and create imbalance. I just don’t see this as a positive. I don’t really understand how every class could be “mechanically” different since that would imply that they make up different rules that only effect certain classes and this just seems… wacky to me. As for a PC Warlock being the same as a PC Ranger… this has not held true at all in my game as the Warlock and the Ranger characters end up doing rather different things. Maybe it’s just their builds but each seems to fulfill different functions even in that they are both Strikers.

The point of my point of my post is that a “Paladin” in 4.0 is specifically a DEFENDER that follows a god and little more. If you want a STRIKER that follows a god you need to be something else. It’s certainly different than how things were approached in 3.5 but I like it.

Obviously there are more powers, classes, feats etc coming out for 4.0 but honestly the classes in the base book come across to me as being more interesting than the sum total of classes from 3.5 simply because the powers actually do something in combat that results in combat being more than ganging up on the one big monster that gets three attacks that do 1d10 + 25 damage if they hit.

I also still don’t see why people that DO like 3.5 can’t just stick with it and appreciate that some people like 4.0. As I said in my review post, the games are in fact DIFFERENT GAMES and it’s actually hard to make real comparisons between them other than to say “I like this game more than that game” in the same sense that I can say “I like History of the World more than Monopoly”.

Next, who says a Paladin cannot be an assassin? Because they are named a defender-class, they cannot be something other than a defender? That seems rather close-minded to me.

Many defenders of 4E fall back on DM house-ruling. Your example of a paladin actually being a Warlock or some other class following a non-defender type deity proves it. That is a DM house-rule that another DM may not allow and so your character would be unplayable or have to be changed in order to play. And you can have all the creativity in the world, but still be unable to change the facts:
* Every class is mechanically the same (same advancement in powers, attack bonus, defenses, intiative, etc.).

* The choices available to players at character creation are much fewer (fewer classes, fewer paragon/ prestige-like classes, fewer spells/ powers, etc.) than was previously advertised (pre-release statements).

* The differences in characters are strictly role-playing differences. A PC Ranger isn’t really different from a PC Warlock or a PC Warlord. And there is no difference at all between PC’s of the same class. Your example of the Warlock class “paladin” proves my point here. They have essentially made a “cookie-cutter” class system.

Obviously I’m not a fan (though I have DM’ed and played the game a few times), so please don’t take my remarks as being hostile in any way. I really wanted 4E to be a good game, but the more I see of it, the more I realise that instead of correcting old problems from previous editions they have created all new problems. I also believe that by changing the base of the game an entire generation of D&D players will be alienated.