ccs
41st lv DM
Well yes. But there's whole classes that make no sense if you're not doing combat. Why a Barbarian? Or a Fighter? Clearly if you're a character that doesn't have spells, then you're a Rogue.
Not if Rogue doesn't fit my concept.
Well yes. But there's whole classes that make no sense if you're not doing combat. Why a Barbarian? Or a Fighter? Clearly if you're a character that doesn't have spells, then you're a Rogue.
Think about it though.Not if Rogue doesn't fit my concept.
Well yes. But there's whole classes that make no sense if you're not doing combat. Why a Barbarian? Or a Fighter? Clearly if you're a character that doesn't have spells, then you're a Rogue.
One of the situations we were in, in a very low combat game, was a terrible fire sweeping through the town. The heroic action involved rescuing trapped people, being trapped in a temple as the ceiling started to come down and trying to help people across a river after the bridge started to collapse.I've run and played in hours long sessions with no combat, and they can be fun. But no combat ever? I think you'd see a party of rogues and bards because proficiency bonuses and expertise will be all that matters. Even then you'll only see a couple of subclasses. No reason for assassins, swashbucklers, college of swords or valor.
Why play a fighter or barbarian if there's no fighting? A paladin? Pfft. You might play a divination wizard or some other caster, but even then your spell options are going to be limited. Do you ever need cure wounds? Can you cast charm person or is that considered combat? It seems like there are only a handful of spells that would matter and if you don't have to balance out spells like detect thoughts with other resources the game could be very unbalanced very quickly.
Just seems to me there are other systems designed to do this very thing and do it well. I would no more use a sports car as an off road vehicle than I would challenge a sports car to a drag race with my Wrangler.