This is why I, at least, find the game so homogenious. We fight. We fight. We fight. Skill challenge. We fight.
Why won't you take us at our word that our 4e game sessions aren't like this? It makes me angry and sad to read it. I don't mind criticisms that one doesn't like a particular mechanic, or that they would prefer if 4e had more of one element of play. But when people have been telling you for over a year now that their games have the same mix of action and roleplaying that they've always had, and that 4e is not a barrier to it, why not believe it?
But instead of fixing the flaws and building up on giving a robust out of combat set of mechanics for doing things that don't include smacking someone with a club, 4e just sort of threw it away and made skill challenges your one stop shop for "Ok we aren't fighting and my fingers are twitching."
I have my problem with skill challenges myself, but not all 4e non-combat encounters are skill challenges, nor even the majority of them. It is supposed to be specifically for a complex task that requires group cooperation. That said, more options for out-of-combat resolution is always a good thing and something D&D in all editions has too long neglected.
And with the skills list so brutally cut short, the number of differences two rogues have outside of combat is even smaller.
I'm not so sure about this. I suppose it was possible to make a pick-pocket focused thief who didn't know anything about locks and traps in 3e, but the pressure from your party to put ranks into those skills above all was pretty overwhelming. So I think it was one of those "illusionary choices". It was the case in 2e as well, where open locks and F/R percentile abilities were always maxed out first, followed by move silently and hide in shadows.
Plus I think you're underestimating the effect that different builds (and their associated ability scores) play on character options. An artful dodger rogue is going to be far more about bluffing, diplomacy and other charisma related skills, while the brutal rogue will not. That's quite a significant difference out of combat. There is also the ability to choose a non-class skill with an appropriate background, which can help distinguish rogues from each other.
I do take your point that it would be nice to have specialized rogues who would say "I'm a cat burglar" or "I'm a safe-cracker", but I can't agree that it should come at the expense of a general level of proficiency in dungeon cracking skills. As a rogue you have to be useful for the adventure too, as well as have fidelity to a character concept.
Ok, sure, one wizard throws fire and does damage to enemies, the other...throws illusions and does damage to enemies, somehow, I guess, that's probably the lamest and dumbest thing about 4e. But once the fight is done, the first wizard can't light things on fire. The second wizard can't make illusions of doors.
There are some illusion powers that simply disrupt or disorient foes, and there are lots of precedents for damaging illusion spells in prior editions. Shadow evocation and Phantasmal Killer for example.
I also can make a wizard light things on fire out of combat, or make illusions of doors without house rules. I use the fire attack spell to attack an object.
To make an illusion of a door I use a combination of prestidigitation and the bluff skill. This isn't a house rule, it is just an expectation on how the new skill system works. You don't just use bluff to tell lies, but you use it for any endeavor that involves deception. A more recent option is to use the ritual that creates illusions of objects, which wouldn't have to be sustained by the concentration of the illusionist.
Two very simple ways to do exactly what you said 4e can't do without house rules, which means you don't know the system very well. Which is why your posts are so infuriating to me. When you say that 4e doesn't allow for x type of gameplay and I know otherwise, I get the sense that you are implying that I don't know how to run an engaging D&D game at all levels, which is why I play 4e.