• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E Behind the design of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons: Well my impression as least.

It's very easy to stack the situations such that combat is nigh-inevitable under AD&D or BECMI.
  • A number of monsters have hatreds and attack on sight their "traditional enemies"... automatic "2" reactions.
  • It was fair game to make initial reactions upon the first one through the door or the one with the lowest charisma present at the encounter; lots of people used Cha as the dump stat.
  • It was the case in a number of modules that certain groups of monsters attacked on sight, even tho' the monster type in question didn't have an auto-attack statement in the MM.
  • It was not terribly uncommon for a DM to make the costs of successful parlay fairly high. Many of those DM's also made treasure experience based upon the difference of what you had going in and coming out of the dungeon. Therefore, if a monster is worth 20xp, but it costs you 25gp to parlay him out of your way, that's a 5xp deficit in the long run.
  • Not a few DM's required parlay to include a successful Cha test of some form; either an attribute test, a general skill test (BECMI, BX+Gazeteer) or less or a non-weapon proficiency test (AD&D). Some modified it for RP...

Essentially, when 1/4 to 2/3 of parlays failed, and playing a parlay was 5min, but the combat was 20min or more, combat eats most of the time.

Sure, if you dump Charisma, if your DM is invested in making parlays expensive and not using the xp for treasure rules as written, and if your DM adds stumbling blocks that aren't in the rules (at least pre-2e, or more properly pre-1e Oriental Adventures), it will be harder to parlay.

Forgive me, but... DUH!

OTOH a pc with a good Charisma in a game with a reasonable DM who compares the meager handful of sps that a given monster has to what it risks by offering battle and adjudicates its demands logically with what it considers great wealth to be (again, compared to treasure types that amount to 3d8 pieces of low-value coins), you're more likely to see successful parlays- and more of them.

Heck, my groups continued (and continue) to parlay (fairly often, and fairly successfully) in 2e; in 3e; in 4e (oh noes, it's all about combat!); and in 5e. In fact, my 4e group is infamous for parlaying with, among others:

  • Wererats and their purple hatchling dragon pet;
  • A keeper;
  • A death knight;
  • Pit fiends;
  • Enemy wizards;
  • Frost giants;
  • Bandits;
  • A mind flayer;
  • Drow;
  • Quarophons;

And any number of other things. Mind you, that's one group in the edition widely considered to be least conducive to interaction/roleplaying.

Again- experiences vary.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yeah, people are saying that. Notably Hussar and Celtavian. They've made statements that the only way to advance is through combat, that since "the vast majority of modules are combat, D&D is all about combat", and a bunch of other weird arguments. Like the "STR is the first listed stat on the char sheet so that's proof the game is mostly about combat." They are most certainly not implying that they're only talking about 51%, but have used phrases like "vast majority". So unless "vast" means something new now, people have made those arguments.

Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. I said so repeatedly. But, please, don't let me stop you from punching shadows.

Vast majority referred to modules - where almost all modules are centered around combat.
 

Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. I said so repeatedly. But, please, don't let me stop you from punching shadows.

Vast majority referred to modules - where almost all modules are centered around combat.

Why are you so hung up on these modules anyway? The core PHB and DMG are the only books you need to be referencing. There was absolutely nothing "official" about modules. Also, you must not be very familiar with half these modules because several posters around here have already proven your lack of knowledge with regards to their content.

You are really grasping at straws here.
 

Why are you so hung up on these modules anyway? The core PHB and DMG are the only books you need to be referencing. There was absolutely nothing "official" about modules. Also, you must not be very familiar with half these modules because several posters around here have already proven your lack of knowledge with regards to their content.

You are really grasping at straws here.

Ok, since I've been taken to task for my "lack of knowledge", let me provide a bit of education. The idea that modules weren't official is bunk. Many of the AD&D rules that are later collected in books like Monster Manual II or Unearthed Arcana first appear in various modules. In fact, a large reason to buy modules back in the day was to gain those rules, rather than the adventure itself. Secondly, if you look at the module, it will say Official right on the cover.

As far as "prooving" my lack of knowledge, let's dig down a bit more shall we? A bit above, someone (I'm too lazy to look who) talks about bribing the ogre in KotB to "deal with the goblins". Now, there's a few ways to interpret dealing with the goblins, but, let's pick a couple shall we?:

1. The PC's along with their Ogre ally strike a deal with the goblins, creating a series of treaties and interdependencies between the goblins and the rest of the tribes in the Caves, creating an era of peace and prosperity for all, followed by peace treaties and mutual benefit agreements with the Keep itself, forging a strong nation that brings enlightenment to all of the Known World.

2. The PC's along with their Ogre ally go into the goblin caves, commit a quick bit of genocide, wiping out all of the cave, possibly extending to the second, linked goblin cave, paying off their ogre ally and stripping the caves for loot.

IOW, the PC's have one non-combat encounter followed by at least one and like several combat encounters. IOW, the combat pillar takes up about 60% of the game with exploration and interaction taking up the other 40%. Exactly as I stated earlier.

I mean, it was mentioned that 17 out of the 90 (ish) encounters are straight up combat as the inhabitants automatically attack. So, that's 20% right there. About a quarter (at least) of all reaction rolls will result in combat flat out, so, we're already just about 50% of all encounters being combat oriented. Hardly the even split, or even the split that says that combat is the least important pillar in the game. If combat was so unimportant, wouldn't less than 50% of encounters directly lead to combat? Seems a little strange to claim that the game isn't about combat when the most popular module of all time results in half of encounters being combat.
 

And now, to take a moment to address the fallacious "all teh page count is combat in early D&D" argument, I'll quickly dissect the 1e DMG's page count, starting on page 9, the Introduction.

Page 9-20: Introduction; talking about dice, minis, pc backgrounds (secondary skills, age, height, weight), disease & parasitic infestation (NOT combat-related), death due to old age, ability scores, racial tendencies, followers and other class features (spying, warhorse, thief skills, etc). Not a whit of combat until the last 1/5 of pg. 20, and that's being generous (allowing that the discussion of poison can be used in combat, so we'll count it). 1/2 page of combat stuff so far, 11.5 pages noncombat.

pg. 21-26: Discussing monsters as pc, alignment, alignment languages, money (including gems & jewelry): no combat stuff. .5 combat total, 17.5 noncombat.

pg. 27-28: Finishing jewels and gems, but moving on to Armor, AC and weapons for half of page 27, which I'll allow can be seen as combat rules under a sufficiently generous reading (although it's actually almost entirely description). This continues to the first half of page 28, so let's call this 1 page of combat stuff. The other half is hirelings. So far, our total is 1.5 pages of combat, 18.5 noncombat.

Pg. 29-37: More hirelings, including expert hirelings, which include mercenary warriors. But there's nothing about actual combat there. It's all about how many serjeants a lieutenant can command and stuff like that. Then we move to henchmen and loyalty/morale. Again, being generous in my assessment, I'll count the "Situation Modifiers" chart (which is 10 lines long, including the heading) as combat stuff... by my finger-measuring, that's about 1/10 of the page. Then onto time in the campaign. Total so far: 1.6 combat, 27.4 noncombat.

pg. 38-39: More on time. Then notes on how pcs acquire spells, recover them, and all about casting. I guess you could argue (if you're reeeeeally stretching) that the slightly less than half-page description of tribal spellcasters (meaning humanoids, e.g. goblins and orcs) is combat stuff, though I wouldn't; but in the interest of fairness, I'll count it- it's about .4 of a page. Total so far: 2 combat, 29 noncombat.

Pg. 40-46: Spell commentaries. This requires a bit more in depth reading, so we have some mixed stuff, combat and noncombat. Re combat, we have discussions under a good number of spells that do, or arguably can, pertain to combat. I was actually making a list but it was getting too long and unwieldy. I'm going to just be sloppy and say about half of this section is combat-related, though I think it's probably more like 35%. So let's say we're at 5.5 combat, 32.5 noncombat.

pg. 47-53: We start with about 1/3 page that finishes up the spell commentaries, but only a tiny bit is combat related. Nonetheless, we'll stick to our "half of this is combat" estimate and say approx. 1/6 of page 47 is combat-related. Then we move onto wilderness exploration and getting lost and aerial adventures. Page 50 is about 45% combat-related, because it's where the discussion of aerial combat starts, and this continues through half of page 53 (the second half is a discussion of waterborne adventures.) So let's say 3.6 pages of combat here- this brings our total to 9.1 combat, 35.9 noncombat.

pg. 54-57: More waterborne adventure notes, including hull points, repairing damage and other combat related stuff- about 1 page's worth on 54-55. From there we move on to underwater adventure info, which runs from the end of 55 through most of 57. Here we have another 1.25 pages of combat stuff. So our total is 11.35 combat, 37.65 noncombat.

pg. 58-60: Adventuring on other planes or the moon, outdoor movement, infra/ultravision, invisibility (this bit is combat-related), detecting good or evil, listening at doors. Just over half a page of combat- we'll say .55. Total: 11.9 combat, 40.1 noncombat.

pg. 61-84: Combat! Interestingly, insanity and intoxication come in this section, which arent' actually about combat. I'm not counting a discussion of kleptomania as a combat rule, despite my generous reading in general on this. The last quarter of page 84 is about xp, but specifically as regards combat, so I'll count that as combat rules. Nonetheless, there are 2 pages of intoxication and insanity rules. So total: 33.9 combat, 42.1 noncombat.

pg. 85-100: Another page of xp stuff, most about combat, but about 1/4 page about xp for gp. Stuff about gaining levels. Then discussion of the campaign, climate, ecology, governance, economics, monster and treasure placement, territory development, peasants/serfs/slaves, sample dungeon, example of play. I'll be generous again and count the ghoul's attack in the example of play as combat related material. The rest of page 100 is all about personae of npcs. So about .3 pages of combat stuff. Total: 34.2 combat, 57.8 noncombat.

pg. 101-105: More about npcs. Languages. Hiring npcs to cast spells (notably, all are noncombat spells, with the exceptions of bless, earthquake, protection from evil and silence), monsters and organization- how several groups of monsters will respond to attack and retreat tactics. That, again, I'll count as combat stuff. The final third of 105 is about nonhuman troops, but is all about managing them, not combat. So 1.75 combat. Total: 35.95 combat, 61.05 noncombat.

pg. 106-110: Humanoid racial preferences, followed by construction and siege. The actual siege notes start on 108 and continue through much of the first half of 110. Then we move on to Conducting the Game. 2 pages worth of combat. Total: 37.95 combat, 64.05 noncombat.

pg. 111-119: More conducting the game, including the infamous crossover with other genres section. Again, being generous, I'll count all of this as combat related. Creation of holy/unholy water. Spell research, fabrication of magic items, potion miscibility and a wee bit on energy drain. The latter is clearly combat related, so about 2.5 pages of combat stuff. Total: 40.45 combat, 69.55 non.

pg. 120-136: Treasure! Especially magic items. This section, like the discussion of spells, above, is a mix. Of potions, animal, dragon, giant, undead, plant and human control; healing & extra-healing; fire resistance; giant strength; heroism and superheroism; giant strength, invisibility, invulnerability, oil of slipperiness and speed, I'll count. That's 1.25 pages worth of potions. I'll count all protection scrolls, as well; that's .75 pages of scrolls. Rings: I'll count elemental command, fire resistance, free action, human influence, invisibility, mammal control, protection, regeneration, shooting stars, spell turning, telekinesis and wizardry. That's 2 pages of rings. Rods: I'll count absorption, beguiling, cancellation, lordly might, rulership and smiting. That's 1 page of rods. Staves: I'll count command, the magi, power, serpent, striking and withering. 1 page. Wands: I'l count conjuration, fear, fire, frost, illumination, illusion, lightning, magic missiles, negation, paralyzation, polymorphing and wonder. 1.5 pages of wands. Miscellaneous magic items start on page 136, but just in terms of a general description. 7.5 pages of combat stuff. Total: 47.95 combat, 79.05 non.

pg. 137-147: Miscellaneous magic items. I'll count the amulet of life protection, apparatus of Kwalish, bag of tricks, beaker of plentiful potions, book of infinite spells, boots of speed, boots of striding & springing, bowl commanding water elementals, bracers of defense and defenselessness, brazier commanding fire elementals, brooch of shielding, broom of animated attack, censer controlling air elementals, cloak of displacement, cloak of the manta ray, cloak of protection, cubes of force and frost resistance, drums of deafening and panic, dust of appearance, sneezing and choking and disappearance, efreeti bottle, eyes of charming, figurines of wondrous power, gauntlets of dexterity and ogre power, gem of brightness, girdle of giant strength, helm of brilliance and underwater action, horn of blasting, collapsing, the tritons, and valhalla. Because I'm blanket-counting the figurines as combat, I'll leave out ioun stones. So in this section, looks like about 5.1 pages of combat stuff. Total: 53.05 combat, 84.95 non.

pg. 148-155: More magic items. I'll count all the instruments of the bards, iron flask, javelins (all), jewel of attacks, mattock of the titans, maul of the titans, mirror of opposition, necklace of missiles, nets of entrapment and snaring, periapts of proof against poison and wound closure, pipes of the sewer, robes of the archmagi, blending, eyes, powerlessness and scintillating colors, ropes of constriction and entanglement, rug of smothering, scarabs of enraging enemies and protection, sphere of annihilation, stones of controlling earth elementals and good luck, talismans of pure good/ultimate evil, and tridents of fish command, submission, warning and yearning. 3.65 pages of combat stuff, total: 56.7 combat, 89.3 non.

pg. 156-163: Artifacts and relics! Almost all have some application in combat, but none are really about combat. Moreover, most of them are almost entirely full of "pick your powers" lists. I'll count the armor and weapons, plus a few others that include combat stats- the Axe of the Dwarvish Lords, Baba Yaga's Hut, Invulnerable Coat of Arnd, Mace of Cuthbert, Mightyt Servant of Leuk-O, Orbs of Dragonkind, Sword of Kas and Wand of Orcus. 1.5 pages. Total: 58.2 combat, 95.8 non.

pg. 164-169: More on artifacts, then magic armor and weapons, which I'll count all of, including the discussion of magic weapon intelligence. There are .75 pages of artifact stuff on 164 and half a page of appendices on 169; the rest is all combat here, so 4.75 combat here. Total: 62.95 combat, 97.05 non.

pg. 170-193: Various appendices, including lots of charts. None of this relates directly to combat. Total: 62.95 combat, 121.05 non.

pg. 194-214: More appendices, but these do relate to combat. Most of 194-195 involves random fiend generation, and I'll go ahead and count the section wherein Gygax discusses strength and attacks onward as combat material. Then 196 through 214 are quick monster stats- not enough to run a complex monster, but it's all stats, and continuing my policy of generous assessment, I'll count all of it as combat. So here there's only 1.4 pages of noncombat stuff. Total: 82.55 combat, 122.45 non.

pg. 215-221: About half of 215 (again, being generous) finishes off the abbreviated monster stats, then we move on to gambling, traps, dungeon dressing, herbs and spices and other descriptive charts. That first .5 is combat. Total: 83.05 combat, 128.95 non.

pg. 222-230: Charts for summoning spells and the like. I'll count this as combat stuff. Inspirational reading, not so much. Encumberance? Nope. Spur of the moment party creation? Nope. Finally, a glossary- I'm not going to count the index. 2.5 pages of combat. Total: 85.55 combat, 135.45 non.

Doing the math, I have 221 pages, but my analysis (of 224 pages) starts on page 9. So somehow I've added an extra 6 pages in there. Let's say, because it was my bad, that they were all noncombat pages, so I'll knock six pages off the noncombat side.

I still end up counting 85.55 combat to 129.45 noncombat, nicely putting to rest (I hope) the notion that early D&D's page count was all, or even mostly, about combat. If anyone would care to perform their own counteranalysis, I welcome it, but if you're not going to do the work, I'm afraid I can't call a flat statement that the page count is all about combat credible.

EDIT: And to reiterate, I was extremely generous in what I counted as "combat" material. I mean, I counted the gem of brightness because it has one ability that can be used in combat compared to its two non-combat/exploration focused abilities, for Freja's sake! The index lists the following pages under "combat" and all its subheadings: 87-88, 61-84, 104-105 (in the PH), 50-53, 73-78, 56 and 54-55.
 
Last edited:

Jester, when even your own count puts the page count of combat at 40%, how can you possibly claim that combat isn't a major component of the game. It's still the largest pillar, even by your own count. And that's ignoring the PHB and the MM.

I mean, upthread someone talked about how the AD&D fighter rules are largely taken up by the followers and stronghold rules. Fair enough. Only problem is, you have to play NINE LEVELS of the game before you hit those rules. Everyone keeps telling me how slow advancement is in AD&D, so, if we start at level 1, that fighter is killing and looting for YEARS before those rules come into play.

Heck, I'll see your DMG and raise you a Monster Manual (1e).
 

Jester, when even your own count puts the page count of combat at 40%, how can you possibly claim that combat isn't a major component of the game. It's still the largest pillar, even by your own count.

The claim on the table was that the majority of the content was combat-related, and it clearly wasn't. Shifting to "well, this minority of the content is slightly larger than the other minorities" isn't nearly as persuasive.
 

Jester, when even your own count puts the page count of combat at 40%, how can you possibly claim that combat isn't a major component of the game. It's still the largest pillar, even by your own count. And that's ignoring the PHB and the MM.

Nice moving of the goalposts.

I have never claimed that combat isn't a major component of the game. I've repeatedly agreed that it is.

The claim that I am disputing is that the page count will show more pages devoted to combat than not. That claim, hopefully, can die the quick death it deserves.

And again, note how incredibly generous my analysis is to your side of this debate. It's pretty easy to argue that magic items like the cloak of the manta ray, gem of brightness, helm of underwater action and any number of others that I mentioned aren't focused on combat at all, but merely have abilities that can affect combat, while their main focus is on exploration.

Heck, I'll see your DMG and raise you a Monster Manual (1e).

That's just silly. Try the PH, OA, UA, DSG or WSG instead of a book whose back cover text explicitly states that it is there for the DM to create combat scenarios. It's a specialized tome explicitly and specifically focused on combat. Even so, I think you'll find that the original MM is full of creatures whose primary purpose is to populate the world. (Cf. "Herd Animal".)
 


several posters around here have already proven your lack of knowledge with regards to their content.
They have made assertions. Assertions do not equate to proof. For instance, did you read the tournament play report I posted upthread for G1? This was describe as a non-hack-and-slash module, yet in the report the winning team describe their approach as exactly one of hacking-and-slashing!

In 4e, the class description and benefits are literally all about combat.
Except for where they're not. Eg ritual abilities, non-combat utility powers, etc. By "literally" I think you mean "primarily".

In AD&D, half of the fighter's descriptions and one of the key benefits has nothing to do with fighting at all. It's about land and keep management, and the benefits the fighter gets in those.
upthread someone talked about how the AD&D fighter rules are largely taken up by the followers and stronghold rules. Fair enough. Only problem is, you have to play NINE LEVELS of the game before you hit those rules.
Just adding to Hussar's excellent point: in 4e, "domain management" etc are the province of paragon paths and epic destinies. So if you want to see how PCs fit into those social elements of the campaign, you need to look at the relevant paragon path and epic destiny descriptions (eg Knight Commander, Legendary Sovereign, Marsahll of Letherna, Questing Knight etc). Those descriptoins aren't primarily about combat, either - they locate the character in the bigger picture of the campaign world.

The mechanical abilities associated with them are primarily (not exclusively, by any means) combat focused, but then so is the fighter's keep and army in AD&D - the only mechanical rules around domain management that are not combat-focused (clearing hexes of monsters, siege rules, combat stats for mercenaries, etc) are the rules for taxation revenue. There are no rules for all the other, non-combat aspects of real-life feudal society (eg politicking, alliances, marriages, etc).

I think I'm beginning to see how 4e came along. If you've got this group of people who think D&D is all about combat and pretty much nothing else, no wonder a version of D&D was created that was focused solely on tactical combat and little else.
This is nonsense. 4e is not focused "solely on tactical combat and little else". It is focused primarily on conflict resolution rather than setting exploration, but has solid mechanics for resolving conflict without combat (ie the skill challenge). I think it's the first version of D&D published where it is possible to progress at a completely standard rate of XP and treasure gain without ever killing or looting anything (because XP awards for non-combat resolution are as robust as for combat resolution, nd treasure acquisition is decoupled from looting).

It is true that combat resolution in 4e tends to be mechanically more weighty than non-combat resolution. In this respect it emulates all its predecessor editions. And 5e is no different.

Haven't you ever heard of, even if you've never played in, games where the dice come out once or twice a session or even less?
Combat may need more page space to adjudicate fairly because the stakes are so high without requiring the conclusion that's what the game is heavily focused on.
I don't understand this repeated assertion of some sort of necessary connection between mechanics and combat. Or combat and stakes.

It is trivially easy to have combat resolution emchanics that require only a sinlge dice roll. Upthread I even provided a link to a session report for a system that has just that.

It's also trivially easy to lower the stakes of combat - say, via an opposed roll between two duelists to determine which one ends up at the feet of the other, sword to the throat.

Plenty of 4e players who post on these boards have used various sorts of skill check and skill challenge variants to resolve combat in this sort of way; I don't think it's as common among players of other editions. But the design choice to resolve combat with a degree of intricacy absent from other sorts of action (initiative checks, multiple rounds of resolution, hit point tallies, etc) isn't forced upon anyone by the nature of the activity: it's a deliberate decisin to make combat the most mechanically hefty part of the game.

And now, to take a moment to address the fallacious "all teh page count is combat in early D&D" argument, I'll quickly dissect the 1e DMG's page count, starting on page 9, the Introduction.

<snip>

I still end up counting 85.55 combat to 129.45 noncombat, nicely putting to rest (I hope) the notion that early D&D's page count was all, or even mostly, about combat.

<snip>

And to reiterate, I was extremely generous in what I counted as "combat" material.
This page count doesn't address my claim about AD&D or the DMG. A lot of the material you have counted as non-combat is "world building" material - rules for populating a campaign, for determining random monsters, etc. But that is not playing the game. What actually happens in that world, once the GM has built it? As I posted upthread, the only solid modes of conflict resolution in AD&D are combat and evasion (which takes the threat of combat as its premise). There are no rules for finality of social conflict, and no rules at all for the bulk of exploration - eg there are no rules to govern trying to chart a coastline while sailing around it, or trying to find water in a desert, or any of the actual things that actual explorers in the real world had difficulty doing. The exploration mechanics are framed almost entirely around the very artificial dungeon environment (finding, listening at and opening doors are the bulk of them).

I'm sure plenty of people have made up ad hoc resolution systems for this stuff (probably relying, in many cases, on GM fiat). But I don't feel that tells me much about D&D. I mean, exactly the same sorts of approaches could be used by groups playing Tunnels & Trolls, or Fighting Fantasy (the RPG), or even early versions of Rolemaster (before it got a fully-fledged skill system).

a pc with a good Charisma in a game with a reasonable DM who compares the meager handful of sps that a given monster has to what it risks by offering battle and adjudicates its demands logically with what it considers great wealth to be (again, compared to treasure types that amount to 3d8 pieces of low-value coins), you're more likely to see successful parlays- and more of them.
My 4e group also likes to make bargains. But there are two obstacles to this within the general framework of D&D.

The first is mechanical uncertainty. 4e has definite rules for the correspondence between money offered and the bonus to a check in a skill challenge (DMG2 indicates that 10% of the value of a level-equivalent magic item should confer the same benefit as a secondary check - typically +2 - so at 1st level an offer of 36 gp is worth a +2 on the relevant Diplomacy (or Bluff, or whatever) check). AD&D has no such guidance; and your comparison to the meagre personal monies of the monsters can break down if you also think about the much larger hordes they have stashed away in their lairs based on treasure type.

The second, and in my view more significant issue, is alignment. Classic D&D, including Gygax's AD&D, is written around an assumption that the typical PC will not be good, and is essentially a Conan-esque mercenary. Being good is a burden - eg it prevents you parleying with orcs - but also a benefit, because it opens up help from friendly temples etc.

But most modern D&D is written and played under the assumption that the typical PC is good, and committed to heroic endeavours. Even where the gameplay resembles the more classic game - entering the dungeon, etc - the framing goals and motivations are different - the PCs are entering the dungeon not just to seek their fortunes, but also to rescue the princess or recover the McGuffin that will free the village from the evil overlord, etc.

When players are playing those sorts of PCs, in adventures and campaign worlds framed in those sorts of terms, it is not reasonable to expect them to bargain with orcs, wererats etc. A truce with such creatures is, in this framing, tantamount to treason.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top