Thanks for the responses, guys. I don't have time to answer everything right now, so I'll pick one:
It's not really intended for new players, although it could run quite smoothly if the campaign was set at a low level. I don't see utility powers or magic items being much of a hindrance anyway. They use the same basic mechanical framework as everything else.
I've got at least one new player (a former 3.5 player) who's chief problem with 4e is that they have to choose between two at-wills (plus all the generic ones like basic attack and bullrush) instead of just being able to smack someone, so adding new powers and categories of powers can potentially be enough to make a difference.
This is something I'm considering, although it'd still be dependent on game world interaction. Swapping out powers and feats would require locating a tutor, or fighting alongside those who practice them.
I did have a bit of a brainwave actually: what if all the STATS stayed constant, but the level of powers that you could retrain to was purely based on your tutor/the heroic event that allowed you to train them?
As for combat becoming repetitive - remember it no longer grants experience. As I see it, fights are likely to occur only when something is at stake. Kicking down the door of the nearest dungeon is still viable, but when xp is absent and treasure thin on the ground it takes on a different complexion.
In my experience, the only thing that makes combat in a roleplaying game less common is if the consequences of engaging in it are more severe.
4e isn't really geared to this at all - healing surges and encounter powers specifically exist to allow multiple combats per day, each at more-or-less full resources. The threat of death is only really present over a series of combats within a day.
If combat is rarified, then threatening the party in combat becomes a lot more difficult.
So - either you need to carefully structure the campaign such that combat is rarely an option at all OR you need to make it so that combat is much more risky.
And I mean do option - if the players CAN fight, then a lot of the time they will even if something else would be a superior solution, purely because it takes EVERYONE to choose another solution, but a rumble typically starts even if only one person chooses it.
To make combat more risky you could simply make it such that an extended rest (probably change the name) only occurs once per story arc, and ban any surgeless healing encounter powers.
Mechanical character growth is halted. Treasure acquisition slows to a trickle, but it's still possible to get rich via interacting with the game world. What's changed is that you no longer find loot lying around in level appropriate parcels on the battle field.
Cool. So if you want a +1 sword, you can still engage in a quest to get one. I really like that idea.
As far as goals go it's question of tailoring them to what's suggested by the campaign level. Of course you can aspire - this is heroic fiction, after all - but those wishing to radically exceed their mechanical reach need to think outside of advancement mechanics to get what they want.
The main problem is that 4e ties so many things to advancement: combat prowess, flexibility, skill prowess, toughness, leadership etc.
As an example: it's not actually possible for someone to become extremely knowledgable about botany under the 4e system without them levelling. They're either created knowledgable or not.
Is your goal to eliminate all progression, or simply combat progression and the combat->xp loop?
.
