Yep. Missed it. I went through the PHB and DMG and missed it. Two pages in the PHB that does actually address activity in real world, non-combat terms. And weather and starvation are discussed, terms of DC checks, on pg 158-9 of the DMG. So I can't say "removed" anymore, although non-combat is still under-developed in 4E.
Mea Culpa!
Heh, no worries, I miss stuff all the time.
I'm not making a case that there aren't resources for non-combat activity. For certain, everything has been addressed in the past 30 years. But new players aren't going to be aware of all that, and/or won't have access to those older books. I'm going on the premise that new players will play the new edition--and if certain elements aren't in the new edition, then players aren't going to see them as a part of the game.
4E looks to me like a one-dimensional game because virtually everything is described in in-combat terms.
Gonna break down the next bit into smaller bits, because I think a lot of this actually is addressed, just in a different way than perhaps it was before.
Not in feet, but squares;
This was started in 3e. And, since the only time squares actually matter is in combat, it's not surprising that it seems like it's a major combat thing. Once you're out of combat, you no longer use the grid.
not in minutes or 1-minute rounds, but in "encounters" (an indistinct measurement that can theoretically be anywhere from one minute into infinity).
Well, it should be about 5 minutes according to the DMG. And, 4e is hardly new at this. A flexible time frame appears in many games. Additionally, this is specifically a combat rule and not meant for use outside of combat.
Older versions of spells were written perfectly for both combat and noncombat. AoE was in feet/yards, distance was in feet/yards,
Once upon a time, distance was in inches which translated to either 10 feet per inch indoors or 10 yards per inch outdoors.
time was in fixed measurements (one minute rounds or ten minute turns or days, etc). 4E spell effects are almost entirely limited to combat effects. For example, Freezing Burst stats read like just another magical attack. It does not convey that this spell has non-combat use (the flavor description does, but players are warned that flavor text is not to be used in-game).
Again, this gets back to a different design approach. Not one that's better or worse, just different. The narrative is largely divorced from the mechanics in 4e and the players are specifically encouraged to fit the narrative to whatever is going on in game. Which can certainly lead to confusion and, if the player is not sufficiently motivated, really boring actions where the player just states the power's name and the game turns very mechanical and overly gamist.
Earlier editions tied narrative to mechanics. You know pretty much exactly what an effect does and that effect does the same thing every time. The problem here can be twofold though. One, if the wording is a bit vague, you can get some really bizarre results - such as fireballs that melt lead but don't have any explosive force or lightning effects that don't behave like electricity (you can cast shocking grasp in 3e while grappled and standing in a puddle of water and not take damage, for example). Secondly, it can be very easy to abuse effects - create water inside a target in earlier editions, Continual Light in the eyes for permanent blindness, Stone Shape to smother victims, etc.
Note, in either system, the problems are certainly not insurmountable. They aren't. You can resolve these issues and most groups do. It's just that there are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches.
An experienced player or DM might readily see that powers can be used in noncombat situations (which might require some house-ruling on the specifics). But what will this look like to a new player or DM who doesn't have veterans around to point these things out?
In my personal opinion, people tend to go through pretty much the same stages when they start role playing. First, they grapple with the mechanics because most people want to know how to play the game. So, things like creativity and role play and whatnot takes a back seat. Later on, once they're comfortable with the system, then they'll start branching out.
Fortunately for 4e, there is a really excellent DMG to give that push into being more creative and engaging more than just the mechanics. Unfortunately, WOTC's modules tend to leave a LOT to be desired and really aren't promoting more engaging play. Combine that with a PHB that is pretty damn dry and it's easy to get a sense that 4e is nothing but a massive combat engine.
I don't think that it is, but, I can certainly see why people might take that view.
You are saying there wasn't noncombat skills back when you worried about your chalk and pitons?
