D&D 5E (2014) Would you play D&D if you knew there would be no combat?

[Eyes of Nine]

I'd play 4e Skill Challenges... ALL. DAY. LONG.

But seriously, D&D can be non-combat, and fun. I'd play, with the right group.

 

[Vyas]

Yes; I prefer GoT style games with combat in applied areas and low magic. And yes, I do have 4e, but, I do not have a monster's manual, so I get is PC vs. NPC and they have to learn to deal with them. There are no monsters to slay so I guess the monsters are other NPCs.

 

[Eltab]

other (classes) might be of less use, such as the Monk, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger.

Shadow Monk at night becomes the 'sneak in' guy or 'move at high speeds' guy.
Ranger becomes the Rogue of the Wild.
Druids can do stuff like break down doors (or walls - bear) and scare the witnesses into headlong flight.
Paladin becomes a persuader and intimidator.

 

[SkidAce]

Definitely. I’ve been in tons of D&D games with little combat.

But what about games with no combat? Just interested in the viewpoint.

 

[Don Durito]

But what about games with no combat? Just interested in the viewpoint.

D&D is a strange choice of game to play if you know in advance there will be no combat.

For example, there are games that let you have alternate set pieces and climax for things that are not based on combat. D&D just has a basic resolution system and utility spells.

But you know - you can make it work - even if it's not the ideal tool for the job. A lot depends on what the game is about if it's not in the action genre? Is it political intrigue? Are you going to resolve all the intrigue with Persuasion rolls and Charm spells (Doable but perhaps not the most satisfying approach). You could run a campaign which is all about running and managing a team of velociraptor pulled chariot racers - in which case you'd probably sketch out some kind of rough mechanics for chariot racing (which would become an action substitute for combat and probably constitute your climactic set pieces).

But the fact remains that you have all these abilities on your character sheet for doing violence to people - so even if the GM doesn't plan specifically to have any combat, the players are likely to turn to violence at some point as a problem solving tool.

Unless of course everyone has agreed to the explicit social contract of 'no violence' at which point, again, the choice of D&D becomes strange.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My expectation for a D&D (5e) game is to have about 1/3 of the time spent in combat.

As fast as 5e combat aspires to be, out of combat resolution - primarily binary pass/fail skill checks, if not just the straightforward play-loop with narrated success/failure - is even simpler & faster.

But the fact remains that you have all these abilities on your character sheet for doing violence to people

A lot of em you can swap out, though - spells known, most prominently.

 

[Ringtail]

No, in my opinion part of what makes D&D what it is, is combat. I'll be honest, as much as I love character development and bantering with the party, if too much time goes by without a combat I start to get bored.

That isn't to say I wouldn't like to play an RPG without combat. It would just be a different game. Call of Cthulhu for example, while it has the potential for combat, can certainly function and be exciting without it.

I'm also fond of Powered by the Apocalypse games, which again, can feature combat but more heavily lean into other aspects via the rules.

 

[Don Durito]

A lot of em you can swap out, though - spells known, most prominently.

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There would be no reason to play most of the classes or to ever level up.

While shunting most scaling to hps/damage, and BA constraining Proficiency has reduced the impact of leveling on mundane non-combat skills, there are still spells at every level with significant (even dedicated) non-combat applications.
So any full caster is going to have every reason to level.

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.

Correct.
But in the OP, you know, up-front that there's no point playing Fighter or Barbarian. There's 10 other classes to choose from.

Just like if the game were all combat, you wouldn't....
...well, OK, you could play any class, but you might not play certain builds.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I know I'm supposed to say that it's all about the roleplaying, and that combat is only one pillar, yadda yadda yadda. But really I like the fights.

I would love to find a game in which the other pillars were as fun.