Keep out of combat in D&D? Why?

[Mercule]

My original group tended heavily toward rangers and rogues with most wizards being coniving SOBs. Even the "spill their guts" fighters tended to be the gritty, tactically minded sort that didn't really cotton to a fair fight. Sure, there were wandering monsters and unavoidable guards to dispatch, but it was mostly about fighting on our terms, not theirs.

If the goal was to confront the Duke and probably end his reign, you didn't carve your way through the guards (they might actually be loyal to the seat, not the man, and you'd need people to staff your new realm). You did the minimum engagement necessary to acheive your goal.

I think part of that was because of what's now termed the 15 minute day. You knew you didn't have the resources to kill everyone and still stand up to the kahuna. Camping wasn't always an option and leaving and coming back only served to alert them.

If you were in an orc den or some other traditional dungeon setting, you might come back and clean up, but we tended to run a lot more above ground adventures. In dungeon settings, though, the wandering monsters tended to discourage picking fights with everything.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Of course.

You give the impression that you believe other people don't do things this way.

Do you really believe the kinds of people who will spend their time posting here are the type who run games entirely to "Roll the dice, kill the monsters and take thier stuff" as you put it?

Because you're coming across as terribly condescending.

Not all all. I do believe that it exactly that type of game that WOTC is marketing 4E as, not what everyone may actually be playing.

 

[Pinotage]

When I was younger and playing BECM and 1e, a lot of it was about combat, sure. But then that's more to do with the fact that immersive roleplaying for a 13 year old is not necessary something that appeals to them. Combat was more fun.

On the other hand, as I grew older, you bounce you head against the idea that you're playing a character. And that character is not about killing things and taking their stuff. That character is about surviving. If you think about it that way, many character would want to avoid combat simply because they then get to live another day. Granted that's not always true, but most of the characters I played were like that.

It's a playstyle difference and a character perspective difference.

Pinotage

 

[Mercule]

I've seen people here mention that one of the reasons their earlier games didn't focus on combat was because they gained the majority of their xp from treasure.

I've never been in a game that game xp for treasure. I honestly thought using that was about as common as using the weapon vs. AC chart (which is to say vanishingly rare). Very interesting.

It might also explain why I think nothing of spending months at the same level, even when we played daily and/or marathon sessions in college and during summer breaks. The 3e and 4e philosophy of "completing" your advancement in 12-18 months is just weird.

 

[Wombat]

D&D is a combat game, first and foremost.


In fact, in the current edition, it is ridiculous to stay out of combat, because combat is pretty much all there is. 4e makes a great gods'-eye-view tactical miniatures game -- you have hordes of options on how to strike various targets, how to outmaneuver them, how to play the odds of hits points versus damage, etc. If you like combat, D&D is for you.

Thus staying out of combat in 4e is probably a silly concept. The game is utterly designed around combat, so why bother?

 

[Raven Crowking]

D&D is a combat game, first and foremost.

"He who lives by the sword -- when something else will work better -- sooner or later dies by the sword."

In fact, in the current edition, it is ridiculous to stay out of combat, because combat is pretty much all there is. 4e makes a great gods'-eye-view tactical miniatures game -- you have hordes of options on how to strike various targets, how to outmaneuver them, how to play the odds of hits points versus damage, etc. If you like combat, D&D is for you.

Thus staying out of combat in 4e is probably a silly concept. The game is utterly designed around combat, so why bother?

And non-intuitive (in terms of what game mechanics mean within the game world itself) combat at that. One of the many reasons I avoid 4e.



RC

 

[Mallus]

Thus staying out of combat in 4e is probably a silly concept. The game is utterly designed around combat, so why bother?

Because sometimes it's more fun to talk or sneak or otherwise bamboozle opponents than to do murder to them? There's still plenty of support for that in 4e.

 

[Allister]

re: Avoiding Combat

I remember avoiding combat in 1E games but that's because of the wandering monster table. Seriously, that table could spit out some monsters that you had no right being in the same area.....

re: Levelling speed
Er, don't forget this...Levelling in earlier editions

By the book, OD&D and 1e characters should be levelling at least pre-teen level at around the same pace as 3e/4e characters.

2e's levelling pace was actually an abnormality when you look at the RAW over the past 30 years....

 

[Raven Crowking]

re: Avoiding Combat

I remember avoiding combat in 1E games but that's because of the wandering monster table. Seriously, that table could spit out some monsters that you had no right being in the same area.....

re: Levelling speed
Er, don't forget this...Levelling in earlier editions

By the book, OD&D and 1e characters should be levelling at least pre-teen level at around the same pace as 3e/4e characters.

2e's levelling pace was actually an abnormality when you look at the RAW over the past 30 years....

That analyis assumes a "monsters are there to be fought and treasures to be found" mentality that, while in keeping with 3e/4e, was not the case with earlier editions.

If, on one hand, you accept the complaints that earlier edition adventures hid treasures in places where they would almost never be found, then it doesn't follow that you should expect that the potential gp value of treasure in a module was anything like the actual gp (and hence XP) value the PCs would gain.

(In a 3e game, I had PCs find a gold comb that was the size of an adult human. Sure, that was a lot of gold, but because of its sheer weight and bulkiness, they abandoned it where it was found! This sort of "challenge the player" puzzle appeared a lot in earlier edition adventures.)



RC

 

[Allister]

That analyis assumes a "monsters are there to be fought and treasures to be found" mentality that, while in keeping with 3e/4e, was not the case with earlier editions.


RC

Heh...Another one that disbelieves that by RAW, OD&D and 1E were supposed to be levelling as fast as 3e/4e.

If you read the whole thread, he points out one interesting fact that if you actually follow the progresson, you'll end up at the appropriate level you were SUPOOSED to be for the follow-up adventure.

Quaqoth pretty much convincingly IMO proved people are misremembering 1e or were screwing up with the treasure allocation...

Killing monsters wasn't the goal of 1e/OD&D. Jacking their loot however, THAT was the goal of 1e/OD&D.