How can we add non-combat crunch without mangling the rules?

[nothing to see here]

Honestly, I've read this sort of post on many forums and I can't say that I "get" it. I'm a self-proclaimed "slayer" sort of player, but that's mostly a product of my group. I LOVE how everyone gets to excel In AND Out of combat.

So you want to sacrifice your usefulness in a very combat-oriented setting... why? 4e is set up so that you can succeed in both. I think it's a very 3.x mentality to have to sacrifice one for the other. I'll also admit that 3.x is when I started, so I'm not the most knowledgeable person on how it worked before then or in other groups.

Anyway, aren't there feats that increase your skill ability, effectively moving your feat choice from combat to skills?

This brings me to my main point: why can't you just specialize in skills? Almost everything I can think up for non-combat has been covered by skills with the ONE exception of the cool spells that have been taken out or changed to rituals.

It's a matter of taste than anything. When i build a character I want the stats to actually match the character. If the character is a fast-talker, why should 80% of his stats about how he beats the snot out of enemies on a battle field. I'm not talking about this house rule as a universal rule fix, but just as a way to make the mechanics fit the character. For many character types, you cannot do (or can only do it very superficially) this with the rules as written right now.

 

[Ambush Bug]

So you want to sacrifice your usefulness in a very combat-oriented setting... why?

That's a fair question. I think the answer for a lot of people is that we don't play in a very combat-oriented setting. The 4E rules look like they could support a more social game for those of us who want it. There's no rule saying D&D is only about stabbing monsters in the face - the new ruleset looks robust, and it could support more interaction options. That way you could alternate face-stabbing with, say, running a long con on a dragon.