Many players of 4e simply disagree with you that the options presented in 4e are inadequate, not thought out well, and don't handle noncombat situations well. They do in our games. In my games, skill challenges work great. They have depth and drama and are far, far superior to single skill checks. The spotlight shining solely on skill monkeys outside of combat is over, and my players enjoy that they are equally engaged and valuable in or out of combat. For those reasons and others I find 4e handles noncombat situations far better than previous editions. It combines the freedom of roleplay and DM design of the early editions with mechanical support (imo, correctly) so it is about the character's and not the player's skill.
Well, this player of 4e agreed with him. This player of 4e brought up the complaint. (was it a complaint? I didn't think it was). And this player got ignored by the 4e boys who pounced on KM for stating his opinions (by the way, I think he's mostly right).
You say "In your game" - that's an obvious. And then you keep coming back to skill challenges.
Skill challenges can be fun. We've had fun with them, every now and then. But they're not the whole parcel of what I'm getting at.
Every character class in 3e had non-combat resources (and I'm only going to go with abilities that are used primarily outside of a fight). Let's take a look at the core classes:
Barbarian: Trap Sense (remember that traps in 3e were more for outside of combat - I prefer this style of play, but not everyone does; this is cool, and I can totally respect your stance. It's not the point), and a few skills: Intimidate, Handle Animal, Craft, CLimb, and Survival.
Bard: MANY spells like Charm Person and Silent Image, Fascinate, Bardic Knowledge, Inspire Competence, Suggestion... the bard was pretty much written for non-combat situations. And we're not even looking at their skill list.
Cleric: Some good spells (at first level, only a few are that useful primarily out of a fight, like Hide from Undead, or Endure Elements... but this picks up from 2nd level onwards), and a few skills (Diplomacy, Religion, and Heal spring instantly to mind).
Druid: In my games, Shapechange was primarily a non-combat ability. Yours may differ, so I'll exclude it here. But even with that, the druid had Nature Sense, Wild Empathy, Woodland Stride (arguably useful in some combats), Resist Nature's Lure, and Timeless body... Plus, there was a buttload of useful spells (Calm Animals, Endure Elements, Charm Animal, Pass without Trace, and, my favourite, Speak with Animals) ... not to mention a few skills.
Fighter: Arguably the worst off class at non-combat elements in the game, since Charisma was usually the big "dump stat". the fighter had... extra feats (which could allow their usual feats to be spent on non-combat abilities, but in actual play, this rarely happened), and a few useful skills: Intimidate, Craft, Handle Animal, Swim...
Monk: I have to admit, I Hate the monk, and one of the great arguments in favour of BECMI, 2e, and 4e is that they don't have monks. So, I'll give you points there. 3e has the monk, so it loses points.
Paladin: Detect Evil (not a game killer, in my experience, by the way), Divine Health (some use in combat, though), Special Mount, Remove Disease, Aura of GOod... and a few useful skills. And later, they got some kind of nifty spells... and they got them at a level when they were pretty much useless in a fight! In other words, they got a game element that was really only useful in non-combat situations!
Ranger: Wild Empathy, Track, Endurance, Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, and maybe Hide in Plain Sight. Like the paladin, they got spells that were really only useful outside of combat. Oh, and they got quite a few nifty skills (Survival springs to mind. I'd add Search, too, but the argument is that Search is folded into Perception in 4e, so it's a moot point).
Rogue: Trapfinding and Trap Sense. And a lot of very useful non-combat skill options.
Sorcerer: Sorcerers often focused on combat, becoming war mages. Or, in my games, they would take one or two combat spells at their two highest spell levels, and focus the rest of their spells on neat utility effects. They had a lot of great spells available to them, even at level one (Silent Image or Charm person are obvious choices). they also had a familiar that was so weak in combat that it was tailor-made for non-combat situations - in fact, many 3e games sort of had the familiar disappear in a fight, and only appear when it could be useful. They even made fun of this in Order of the Stick. Oh, and the Sorcerer also had some fun skill options (Bluff, Craft, Profession, Arcana).
Wizard: A buttload of spells. Like, a lot. And many of the wizards I've seen run would either carry a bunch of scrolls with utility spells, or they would invest in a wand or two (Magic missile + Fireball), and memorize only utility spells. Sometimes, they'd use Web to stop themselves from taking falling damage. Sometimes, they'd use it to tangle their enemies up. And sometimes, they'd tangle their enemies up, and then light it on fire. Oh, and they also got some nifty spells.
Now, in 4e...
Cleric: You get rituals where, if you spend money and take a lot of time, you can make a skill check for a minor effect. You also get some fun skills.
Fighter: You get some fun skills. Also, if you want to spend a feat or two, you can get Ritual Casting.
Paladin: You get some fun skills. Also, if you want to spend a feat or two, you can get Ritual Casting.
Ranger: You get some fun skills. Also, if you want to spend a feat or two, you can get Ritual Casting. (you also have a few utilities that let you improve your allies' skill checks. Which is cool... but I've mostly seen that used in combat in my games, and, as with most utilities, it is at least as useful in a fight as outside of a fight)
Rogue: You get some fun skills. Also, if you want to spend a feat or two, you can get Ritual Casting.
Wizard: You get rituals where, if you spend money and take a lot of time, you can make a skill check for a minor effect. You also get some fun skills. But hey, you get web, right? Only, it reads pretty flat, and doesn't really seem to encourage creative play. Most people looking at it (in my experience, at least), see only the effect and the SINGLE FREAKING DESCRIPTIVE SENTENCE and rightfully assume that the spell creates a batch of bad terrain. Whether or not the GM will allow the PCs to light a web on fire is in the air in a way that was never present in the culture of earlier games.
***
My point? 4e characters overlap way more than they did in 3e, and almost all of their abilites are made for combat. While there are powers that can be useful in non-combat situations (Wizards have a few, as to be expected), they are not nearly as ubiquitous as they were in earlier editions. In effect, you are found lacking.
A big problem I have with 4e (in fact, the biggest problem I have with 4e), is in the powers. You'll note I brought up web. In earlier editions, it would say "you create webs. This is what they look like, feel like, and whatnot. Here are the rules." In 4e, you are given a set of rules, and a line of flavour text. there are good and bads, here. The good is, it is very easy to "re-skin" (and I LOVE that!) The bad is, it becomes harder to really encourage creative play. All you have to work with are the lines of rules, whereas in earlier editions, you could use the flavour text to create extensions beyond those rules.
If 4e was the first edition, and there were no other editions, do you really think "You call into being a giant web made of thick magical strands that hang in midair, trapping those within it?" could be used as a sort of magical safety net? If a player tried to throw a torch into the webbing, is that really supported by the rules of the effect? Maybe it is (I have a feeling you'd allow it). But the problem is, when 95% of the effect is in the rules, you only see the rules. Doesn't the aura of pure combat rulesage sort of BLOCK such a creative style of play, anyways?
Now, I should stress it again - I do like 4e. And I can see myself playing certain types of games with it. I could even run an investigative game with it... but I'd have to tweak it considerably to do so (see my original post, and you'll see I was asking about possible tweaks to the rules to fit "tougher" game styles... why hasn't anyone offered up their own tweaks to make a cthulu 4e?)
But my problem with 4e is this: it shouldn't be a game about combat. If I want to run a fight against goblins with some buddies, there are numerous video games that allow me to do this these days. Not only can I play a game that allows me to build weird character combos and work with my friends as a team, but I can actually run many more fights in an hour than I can in 4e.
No, 4e should be trying to offer something that computer games CANNOT do - interact with a creative environment that offers feedback on your actions, and use your powers in unforeseen, creative ways. And, really, it doesn't do that nearly as well as earlier editions did. I'd say it is actually the worst edition for that purpose.
