My Bias
I've been DMing consistently for 30 years and have been a player on and off during that time. At this stage in my gaming career, I'm an RP hound. When I was younger, I was more into the combats (this in no way implies that RP is superior or a more mature way to play - it's just the path I took and I mention it so you know where any prejudices may lie).
Combat vs. Non-Combat Balance
When creating an adventure to be used by any D&D player, you have to be able to pick out monsters, NPCs, etc. without knowing who the players are. If you don't have a pretty small range of combat abilities, this is nigh impossible. If a character sacrifices combat abilities for non-combat abilities, then when they do get into a combat designed for the "average" character, they get smoked. While this is okay by some people, I think it's safe to say that it isn't for most. Alternatively, if someone puts all their abilities into combat and then has no chance to swim across the river, engage in a rooftop chase, or sneak into a palace, then those people have to sit on the sidelines. Again, okay by some people, but not by most. This is not only problematic for J Q Public game designer, but also for DMs in a home game who would otherwise have to figure out what level monster their group could handle. With all combat being "balanced" so that all characters can be guaranteed to be within a certain small range of effectiveness, then it's easier for a DM to say, "6th level party, 6th level monsters." I believe this is the main reason these two were separated.
D&D is a mass market game. It is designed for the average player - one that always wants to be involved. One that doesn't want to accidentally hamstring their character so that they can't participate (much) in some situations. It is easier for the more experienced player to add feats that will allow players to throw off this balance than it is for less experienced players to figure out which feats to "ban" or add "proceed with caution." I would also add that many people believe that rotating "fun time" (e.g. the rogue shines when he sneaks ahead while the rest of the party sits back and waits... the warrior wades into battle while the bard sings for one round, then hides in the corner so he doesn't die...) is not as enjoyable for everyone as everyone engaging at once. Some people don't mind that. Many others do. Thus when creating a system designed for the mass market, I find it logical that they focus on the more common play style.
Character Specialization
The master swordsman should be better at combat than the pick pocket. For reasons described above, the amount of "better" needs to fit within a small window. From what we have seen and what's been described and stated by the play testers and designers, each class will have a minimum required level of competence. They can specialize from there. We saw 6 abilities. Combat abilities. Probably because most people get excited by the combat crunchies. This in no way implies that there are not abilities for climbing sheer walls, slipping away into the darkness, distracting guards with quick wit, etc. I would be surprised if these abilities didn't show up in skills or feats. Assuming they won't based on 6 abilities in a preview is, I think, a bit... premature. My suspicion based on what has been said by the actual designers, is that on a range of 1 to 20, with 20 being maximum task effectiveness for a given level, that all characters will be "forced" to have abilities that bring them to a 16, then given their feat and ability choices, will move that up to an average of 18 and a max of 20. The idea being that no one can accidentally have a character with an effectiveness of 1. Is having a 1 effectiveness in combat a valid character personae? Sure. Will it work in certain campaigns? Yes. Will it work in your average published adventure or with your average DM? No. Thus, in the core rules, you're held to a minimum. And it's easier to say, "for those who are new to D&D or who want to ensure effectiveness, we've given you the 'required' tools." For those who have a more experienced group... it is in no way difficult to say, "pick any 6, you don't start with those two auto skills." For those who say, "I shouldn't have to house rule," I say, "someone's going to have to, and it's better for the more experienced player to have to do it than for a new player."
Dump Stats
We have seen 6 abilities and basically no feats, out of what are sure to be dozens upon dozens in the core book alone. Surely there's bound to be one or two that feature a benefit for having strength or intelligence. For example, "Well Versed - Add your int modifier to all skill checks." I believe there should be things like this so that there are no worthless stats, and if there are worthless stats, I'll come up with some feats to get around that issue. However, complaining about it at this point again seems seriously premature. It will certainly be frustrating if such things aren't in the core game, but what will be will be, someone will pick up the slack, and I don't feel there is a point to panicking at this stage.
Weapon/Armor Proficiencies
Rogues can wear leather and use short swords. Is a rapier a type of short sword? It had the same specs in 3e, except for crit range, which is gone. Is leather a category and not just a specific type? Probably. Is this really much different from rogues in the past? Not really. This doesn't say "rogues can only wear leather," like every previous edition it says, "rogues know how to use leather."
Speaking of proficiencies... what does it mean? In 3e, it effectively meant you couldn't use the weapon. We know it's changed for 4e, but we have no idea how. What if there is no penalty, and being proficient means you get +1 to attack? Suddenly, I don't really care if a rogue is not automatically proficient with a longsword. Yeah, I'd be missing a +1 to hit, but I can probably get that with a feat. Should I have to take a feat? Well, rogues are probably balanced with the assumption that their weapon does d6, so being able to pick one that allows d8 should require a feat, yes. As long as the character can effectively use a weapon, is there really an issue? I'd say no. What about only being able to sneak attack with short swords? Perhaps there's a feat that allows you to do it with any weapon with which you are proficient? Thus elves could automatically sneak attack with bows. Does it seem a bit silly to me to say "slings are okay, but bows aren't?" Yes. But it doesn't mean it's not possible within the core rules. It means that in a very small preview we don't know and it doesn't appear to be free.
Skill Choice
The list ain't big, and diplomacy is not on it. However, first, the list of skills is pretty comparable to 3e given the merging of many skills. Second, what if characters gain "talents" (i.e. pick a class specific ability this level) and "feats" (pick a generic ability this level)? And what if one of the generic feats is "proficiency with a skill regardless of your class list?" I can certainly add such a thing and the whole problem goes away. Or I can just add diplomacy to the list. They probably took it off because even the charismatic rogue is not stereotypically diplomatic (see "What are Classes For", below) as they are skilled at spinning a tale and convincing people of things (read: bluff).
Non-Combat skills are covered under... skills. We haven't seen the skills, but given SWSE and other clues, each skill has a plethora of different things you can do with it, and skill specialization comes with skill training and skill focus. How does one very sneaky rogue differentiate himself from another very sneaky rogue? Perhaps by what else they can do. Perhaps there are other skill-specific feats that give alternative abilities for skills? Who knows, we haven't seen squat. But what we do know pretty much for certain, is that you can specialize in skills through feats and that each skill has several abilities associated with it. And that trained characters often get more such abilities. In other words, there are ways to gain and specialize in non-combat abilities.
What are Classes For?
Yes, there are plenty of different types of "rogues" throughout literature. Some wore chain. Some were sneaky politicians. Some were assassins. Some were pick pockets. Some were safe crackers. Some were swashbucklers. Or are these not rogues? And are rogues really sneaky people with light fingers that can break into places and who use that agility and those skills to sneakily pop around combat and do major damage unexpectedly? Perhaps other archetypes are different classes - or at least require feats.
The conceit of classes (especially in regards to D&D) is that they have limited definitions. Yes, they can branch out some. But for the most part, they are there specifically for game balance and to help new people (or those with less of a mind for such things) more easily adapt to a role. But what if you want something less... limiting? Well, you do things like say, "wizards start with 1 bonus feat and no familiar, but they can choose a familiar as a feat." Or "pick any 6 skills and you don't automatically start with the two listed." Or "when you level, don't pick a class, just pick a new ability from any class that matches your level."
The wide open definition of "fighter" or "rogue" is limited in its scope. The question is how limited should it be? D&D is a game of classes with added flexibility via multiclassing and feats. True20 is a game with 3 core archetypes designed for the utmost flexibility in a class-based system. Each has their place. But D&D is definitely not a 3 core archetype system, and to have some classes that feel that way (like the 3e fighter to an extent and the 3e rogue to a greater extent) mixed in with a lot of more specific classes feels... strange... to me.
Again, it is far easier for me as an experienced DM who likes flexibility to loosen the reins and let more in than it is for a novice DM or player to figure out how it should be constrained when they want a specific archetype. It's easier for many people to pick a more classic archetype and be given most of the powers necessary to define it, then flex out with a few feats than it is for them to look at 200 feats and abilities and try to build that character from scratch. Sure, it would allow them to build more variants without needing more classes, but it is far harder to do so. For the more experienced player, we can simply open up more options until we've reached our comfort zone. Yes, this means that those that stick to the core rules won't have every option available at launch. Much like 1e, 2e, and 3e. You just can't cover everything in this type of class system. But it's what makes D&D, D&D. Limited characters with a minor ability to expand in scope.
Fire away...
Let's rephrase. 4e as we've seen appears to be parameterized, meaning that it's possible that every character of the same level will deal the same damage. You make a good point about the different damage types. I had not considered that. That at least will broaden the spectrum a bit further.
