By the skill challenge rules as stated in the DMG, a skill challenge can't be resolved without the players thinking about how their PCs engage the scenario, then engaging it, and then having the GM narrate through the consequences of each skill check.resolution mechanics can actually discourage roleplaying the underlying action and reduce the amount of game time spent on it.
<snip>
If it is implied that a successful skill challenge can resolve a situation, there isn't much incentive for a player to think about or act out the scenario (obviously DMing will greatly affect how this plays out).
Again, in my view this is pretty contentious. A 4e bard, for example, has an encounter boost to social interactions, a class boost to untrained skills, and free access to rituals, as class features. And also one of the best skill lists in the game.while the system as a whole describes noncombat actions, the characters themselves are more combat oriented by default.
For example, some players would regard the 4e system as more robust in its support of non-combat action resolution, by avoiding the issue of skill bonuses that become irrelevant as DCs scale.skill points were replaced with a less robust system of of trained skills
About half the wizard and warlock utility powers in the PHB are non-combat powers. And low-level rituals are pretty trivially affordable for mid-to-high level PCs.Many non-combat spells were changed to rituals, and thus were no longer part of the typical caster's daily repetoire.
In my experience the issues here are with WotC adventure design - which provides no support for non-combat activities and action resolution - and also with the guidelines in the DMG, which provide inadequate advice to GMs on how to prepare and adjudicate such scenarios, not with the action resolution mechanics themselves.
I don't have enough familiarity with 3E to have a firm view on that comparison, but my memory of the 3E MM is that most of the information in it - HD, hp, attacks, damage, special attacks, special qualities etc - pertains to combat resolution. This is certainly true of Basic D&D and AD&D 1st ed monster stats.NPC and monster stats were redefined to focus on combat statistics. On the whole, the rules for characters were greatly shifted towards combat.
There is a degree of confusion in 4e's presentation of NPCs/monsters as to whether their stats are meant to figure in non-combat action resolution at all, or whether the default DCs should do this work.
Which seems consistent with my claim that this is contentious! I mean, we haven't even got to the XP rules yet, or the treasure guidelines, both of which - in 4e - disconnect PC advancement from combat encounters more than in any other edition.So while the statement about non-combat resolution mechanics is true, I think the broader reality is thus:
This is why I think WotC have a hard time on their hands with their "unity" edition. My own feeling, at this stage, is that it is tending towards a reactionary edition, but it's early days.