1: In earlier editions (3.x especially), if you played a character that had little no utility in combat, that was okay. There was still plenty for your character to do. One of my favorite characters was a Master Inquisitive who fired crossbow bolts wide in most combats and one time threatened a kobold prisoner into helping out with a difficult melee, and that was it. Later in that same run I played an eight-year telepath who could certainly do thing in combat, but that wasn't his defining characteristic. Everything that defines your character in 4e is what their combat utility is. Even non-combatants (like the aforementioned princess warlord) is generally defined by how she contributes to combat without actively attacking herself. This was due to game balance and I do appreciate that, but I do miss my "utility" characters. This leads to disappointment number two:
Hold up,
I made a character who was a charlatan psychic, who would fake contacting spirits, communing with the dead etc. That was their character.
The actual build was a Wizard, using the various cantrips to simulate ghostly intervention and activity.
That my character could cast Magic Missile, Scorching Burst, etc was besides the point. The character was a Wizard who had wizardly powers, but their character was a charlatan psychic.
When combat cropped up, they would still lead with their skills and cantrips rather than combat.
I recently made a character who's an acrobatic performer and dancer, yes they're also a Wild mage but that's secondary.
I also had a character who would intimidate people on the battlefield with the threat of aggressive actions.
If you really want to, you could make an inquisitor or a psionic telepath. It's just the mentality you take towards character creation.
The key difference between your inquistior then and now is that you might be able to fit with effect rather than be useless.