Is D&D all about murder and pillaging?
- Thread starter Sadrik
- Start date
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
When I first played D&D, it was all about murdering and looting.
That isn't really how most of my games go these days. Even in our D&D game, there's often some confusion as to whether we're going to attack on our surprise round. "So... is the surprise round happening because they're attacking? They're attacking us, right? We're actually under attack? So we can kill them, right? Oh, wait, they're human, maybe we shouldn't"
And so on.
In general, the new player chooses violence as a solution (even for intra party conflicts), and it's the old hands that tend to avoid it.
That isn't really how most of my games go these days. Even in our D&D game, there's often some confusion as to whether we're going to attack on our surprise round. "So... is the surprise round happening because they're attacking? They're attacking us, right? We're actually under attack? So we can kill them, right? Oh, wait, they're human, maybe we shouldn't"
And so on.
In general, the new player chooses violence as a solution (even for intra party conflicts), and it's the old hands that tend to avoid it.
Hussar
Legend
I'm going to be so sorry I did this.
What on a 3e or earlier character sheet WASN'T about combat? How is a 4e character sheet more devoted to combat than earlier iterations were?
This idea that 4e is somehow more about combat than earlier editions is just so much edition war nonsense. I mean, 1e didn't even have ANY rules for non-combat resolution. Does that mean that 1e was nothing but combat? Outside of a few skills, 90% of 3e revolved around combat.
Note, I'm specifically talking about the rules, not your particular campaign.
Did you really need to drag edition war threadcrapping into this?
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Are you kidding me? The genesis of the skill challenge is in recasting non-combat encounters into combat-like round-by-round skill checks. If anyone takes that bit of information and concludes that 4e is more combat focused than previous editions, they certainly have cause.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
The 10 ft. poles. You couldn't do anything with them in combat, but out of combat, oh my! They'd save your life numerous times.
This is because in earlier editions, the alternative to combat was death by no-save-you-die trap when you (the player) neglected to say you looked up, or when you put your ear against a keyhole, or when you did anything, or when you did nothing.
In 4e, you never die instantly. You instead will experience a full, rich, leisurely death via hit point attrition.
Cheers, -- N
Careful, there. Making a stretch like that, you could pull something.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
Wow. So, adding any mechanics beyond the bare bones basic ones contained in 2e and 3e skill checks makes non-combat encounters into combat encounters?
Damn, my Spirit of the Century game is all about combat then. Or Dogs in the Vineyard too. Or a plethora of games out there that have decided that having games as part of the "talkey" bits is fun too.
M.L. Martin
Hero
True; 'old school' D&D is more about the pillaging than the slaughter. 3E is more about the slaughter than the pillaging. Both are concerned with their emphasis as means to UNLIMITED POWER!
(2E paid at least lip service to heroism; 4E, I can't speak to that much yet.)
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
hell the humor of it damn near made me pull something,
Gee its mechanics wow it must be combat.
Hmmm lets emulate buffys scooby gang all cooperating towards an end goal and applying various different skills towards that one end by different routes... each contributing till it culminates and give experience points for it.
But we didnt kill anything... or steal anything either? must not be D&D
Am I typing in magical font that's impossible to read? I didn't say 3.5 was this bastion of non-combat mechanics, did I? No, I did not. I in fact stated that every new release of D&D was more based on combat then the last, didn't I? Let's see.
Oh hey, there's the post itself, stating exactly what I just said now. Look at my edition warring in claiming that 3.5 was slightly less combat focused then 4e!
As for character sheets, let's look at 4e's first. We have a small sliver at the top (With level, class, paragon, and destiny excluded), the senses box, skills, and languages known. Everything else? 4e items are almost all purely for combat use. Powers is a massive grey area as, other then utility powers, they are designed completely for combat, and usage outside of combat is complete DM fiat. Statistics? The issue in 4e is the heavy lead into optimiation and every class being brought to having two or, more and more lately, only one "strong" stat, with a very large push that you need to have either a 16 or an 18 in it, leading to a very large disjunction between what the stats mean and how they reflect on your character. If you take 4E traits as a literal measure of anything other than combat ability you're going to find every last Druid to be a pillar of godly wisdom and Wizards to invariably be geniuses. Feats? Another grey area, with 90% of all feats being dedicated purely towards combat usage.
So let's hit 3.5's.
Same sliver along the top. Right side is blotted out because it's all combat. Stats, however, are more strongly linked to character out of combat ability. After that, it's reversed - left side, with all it's attacks, is blotted out, while the big ol' skill list is left intact. However, the next page is interesting - spells and special abilities is a grey area as powers are, although I'll contend they're much less of a grey area, as they're both are very much designed to have an effect outside of combat, some spells aren't combat spells at all, and in fact many classes get special abilities that have no effect on combat whatsoever. Feats, too, are a grey area, with the same "not as grey" as spells, as there are more non-combat related feats. Lastly, items, which, while a solid block for 4e, is grey here, once again due to the much bigger number of items designed for more then just combat usage.
So the result? Still pretty combat oriented, but not as much. I'm not saying 4e is all combat all the time, I'm saying that 4e's character sheet is built with a heavier emphasis on combat then previous editions. What a shocker. 4e, between the much mroe combat based character sheet and the horrendous Wizards adventures and the focus on maps, minis, and tactical combat solutionos, has the heavy implication that the game is built to have the primary focus (not only focus) on combat, which, FFS, you and so many others have repeated in the past. Just because I'm saying it now doesn't mean it's suddenly wrong.
To quote someone else, who is in fact a huge 4e fan, "I'm not saying that 2nd Ed or 3.5 were roleplaying tours-de-force, just that they were moreso than 4E"
Funny enough, the sort of in between of 3.5 and 4e, SWSE, was much less combat focused then either of them, and I can't help but wish both editions were more like that.
Similar Threads
