D&D 5E (2014) Is D&D 90% Combat?

In response to Cubicle 7’s announcement that their next Doctor Who role playing game would be powered by D&D 5E, there was a vehement (and in some places toxic) backlash on social media. While that backlash has several dimensions, one element of it is a claim that D&D is mainly about combat.

Head of D&D Ray Winninger disagreed (with snark!), tweeting "Woke up this morning to Twitter assuring me that [D&D] is "ninety percent combat." I must be playing (and designing) it wrong." WotC's Dan Dillon also said "So guess we're gonna recall all those Wild Beyond the Witchlight books and rework them into combat slogs, yeah? Since we did it wrong."

So, is D&D 90% combat?



And in other news, attacking C7 designers for making games is not OK.

D&D 5E - Doctors & Daleks - Cubicle 7 Brings Doctor Who to D&D 5E

Cubicle 7 -- makers of the official Doctor Who roleplaying game -- has announced that the Doctor will officially be coming to 5E soon under the name Doctors and Daleks. There are no dates or details yet, over than that the Doctors and Daleks Player's Guide will launch 'soon'. A NEW COMPANION...

www.enworld.org

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

Okay, as the subposted person here, I made absolutely clear that your play was great! However, mentioning how you used your own approach to play doesn't really address how 5e works within the topic of discussion, it just talks about your houserules for doing so. I don't think you're wrong to play this way at all, in fact I wholeheartedly encourage you to play your truth! I've run with heavy houserule as well, and played in extremely freeform games (in 3.x even!). I don't have a problem with your play, just the applicability of it to the topic of discussion in this thread.

Lol that's my point though, you're reinforcing it. You keep saying there was no applicability without acknowledging that you missed the forest for the trees.

Yes, the INTERACTIONS weren't done by the rules. People have latched onto that one little aspect of a post that mostly said "hey, look guys, just because there are monsters in front of the players that doesn't mean there's always going to be combat".

 

[Ovinomancer]

Lol that's my point though, you're reinforcing it. You keep saying there was no applicability without acknowledging that you missed the forest for the trees.

Yes, the INTERACTIONS weren't done by the rules. People have latched onto that one little aspect of a post that mostly said "hey, look guys, just because there are monsters in front of the players that doesn't mean there's always going to be combat".

No, I'm really not, because the fact that there can be non-combat encounters in 5e isn't really in question. Of course there can be. Neither really is the exact percentage. Instead, the general claim is that 5e is very much focused on combat -- much of the game revolves around it. And the corollary to this is that 5e puts a lot of love into combat and very little into everything else. So your anecdotal stories of how you had a non-combat encounter don't really move the needle on the former and the fact that they were done by ignoring the systems that do exist and just running ad hoc don't move the needle on the latter.

That's not to say that your play was badwrong -- it very much wasn't. It just reinforces that claim that 5e is focused on combat and if you're doing something else, it's because you've homebrewed or ignored those rules that are present in 5e.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

No, I'm really not, because the fact that there can be non-combat encounters in 5e isn't really in question. Of course there can be. Neither really is the exact percentage. Instead, the general claim is that 5e is very much focused on combat -- much of the game revolves around it. And the corollary to this is that 5e puts a lot of love into combat and very little into everything else. So your anecdotal stories of how you had a non-combat encounter don't really move the needle on the former and the fact that they were done by ignoring the systems that do exist and just running ad hoc don't move the needle on the latter.

That's not to say that your play was badwrong -- it very much wasn't. It just reinforces that claim that 5e is focused on combat and if you're doing something else, it's because you've homebrewed or ignored those rules that are present in 5e.

See that's where I'm wondering something I've already asked before: let's say you went with the core rules. How hard is it to avoid combat?

I mean how often are players having to pass a mind numbingly high DC just to persuade someone not to fight? I can't remember exactly what was said about my undead encounter but he said the DC would have been 19.

Now when you mention that most of the rules are about combat and much less of them are about anything else, that does suggest to me that 5E may have a problem.

 

[Hussar]

that does suggest to me that 5E may have a problem.

Ahh, now you understand.

The issue isn't that there is nothing in D&D that allows for avoiding combat, it's just that avoiding combat is not easy and the system generally will push the players in the direction of combat far more often than not. The fact that you resolved a scene without referring to the actual game mechanics is pretty much precisely the point that's been made all the way along.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

Ahh, now you understand.

The issue isn't that there is nothing in D&D that allows for avoiding combat, it's just that avoiding combat is not easy and the system generally will push the players in the direction of combat far more often than not. The fact that you resolved a scene without referring to the actual game mechanics is pretty much precisely the point that's been made all the way along.

But they DID have to make a skill check. It just wasn't a ridiculous DC. It's not like the game mechanics were avoided.

 

[tetrasodium]

See that's where I'm wondering something I've already asked before: let's say you went with the core rules. How hard is it to avoid combat?

"ask your dm", which goes back to the original problem because at various points d&d itself has had rules for npc/enemy disposition & morale that the gm could leverage. 5e decided those were complicated and ejected them from dmg to the cutting room floor.

 

[Mordhau]

If you're not doing combat then there's whole classes that don't get to use any of their cool stuff.

If you're party's all rogues or wizards that's probably fine, but if you have Fighter's and Barbarians and the players don't want to get into fights, then why exactly did they choose to play those classes?

 

[Krachek]

I disagree that all the tools are given. Many are not, and left up to the GM to figure out themselves. Some tools are given is where I'd land. I've played games that actually offer a more robust toolset for things, and even there there are holes where you have to wing it yourself. No system is complete, but 5e really chose to not do very much as far as rules outside of combat. You get a skeleton frame with ability checks and proficiencies, a light dusting of sprinkles with background abilities, a little bit on traps and exploration (pace, food, job in the wilderness, etc), and some interesting, if not universally useful, social interaction mechanics (really only useful for asks, which a lot of social encounters can be boiled down to). That's it. Ask questions about how many converts you can get for preaching on the street corner and 5e stays quiet. And yet the game features themes that make that action seem a very reasonable one to ask.

You can add rules, to transform non combat encounters into combatlike encounter, for example giving a preaching ability that does 8d6 converts on a successful check. it will transform the game into permanent combat like game, giving to possibility to optimize every aspect of play.
But I think that some like the light rules aspect of non combat encounters that allow some cooperative lighthearted play between the DM and the PCs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You can add rules, to transform non combat encounters into combatlike encounter, for example giving a preaching ability that does 8d6 converts on a successful check. it will transform the game into permanent combat like game, giving to possibility to optimize every aspect of play.
But I think that some like the light rules aspect of non combat encounters that allow some cooperative lighthearted play between the DM and the PCs.

I do not accept the claim that free play with ad hoc GM Says are the only way to avoid the boogeyman of optimization and the fear that optimization is the enemy of roleplaying. Neither is true.

Wanting to play free play with ad hoc GM Says rulings is fine. Insisting it's the only way, or that the choice to do so being available means anything at all about 5e, is odd. I have other games that show it's not, including other editions of D&D (4e).

 

[Krachek]

I do not accept the claim that free play with ad hoc GM Says are the only way to avoid the boogeyman of optimization and the fear that optimization is the enemy of roleplaying. Neither is true.

Wanting to play free play with ad hoc GM Says rulings is fine. Insisting it's the only way, or that the choice to do so being available means anything at all about 5e, is odd. I have other games that show it's not, including other editions of D&D (4e).

For you I will redo my sentence,
« DM guide give enough tools to run any non combat encounters. »
4ed try to give more structure to non combat encounter with the skill challenge. It’s a way.
past editions favor a lot of supplement rules, for handling church, warfare, economics, politics, there is room for dozens of splat book to write up. It is still doable in 5ed.
But for what I see in 5ed there is a lot of space for DM fiat. For some it seem a shame, but overall it seem to be popular.