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

[ccs]

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.

Not if Rogue doesn't fit my concept.

 

[Don Durito]

Not if Rogue doesn't fit my concept.

Think about it though.

What does picking one of the other classes get you that you're going to actually use in a non-combat game?
Weapon proficiency? you're not going to use it - it's just background. Have your character walk around with a big sword on his hip - no one cares. Armour? Why are you wearing Armour if you're not doing any fighting - just say you have a suit ready somewhere. If you really want proficieny in Plate take 1 level of Fighter and then proceed as Rogue. Action Surge? Will never feature as you won't be fighting. Rage? Advantage on Strength checks might be useful - but it will only last for 6 seconds as so because you won't be able to maintain the rage. Hit Points? Possibly - just possibly - you could be in a situation where a high number of hit points is useful because you're taking damage but not actually fighting - but it doesn't seem likely. Some of the Rogue abilities such as Sneak Attack might not fit your character concept but as you won't be fighting anyone, you won't be using it, so the point is moot.

Remember, I was talking about a non-combat game. Not one where there's a small but real chance of occasional combat. In the case of the latter, I might still go a Fighter - if fighting well is part of the character concept and it's actually going to feature in the game - I'd still be picking up Rogue for Expertise in such a game, although if the new Unearthed Arcana variant for Battlemasters were being used that would be less necessary (In fact, looking at them now, it seems they stack - ok I take it back -there may be a reason to take at least 3 levels of Fighter in a totally non-combat game - if you're using the Unearthed Arcana class variants - same with Barbarian - Survival Instincts basically nabs you Expertise in skills that Way - although since your main interaction with the game is going to be through skill checks you might as well Multiclass Rogue and pick up 2 more).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I like smacking bad guys round the head with a big sword. So I wouldn't be enthusiastic about joining a non-combat game.

 

[RolemasterBlog]

There is a joke along the lines of RPGs are where a 3 hour journey takes 30 seconds to play but a 30 second fight takes 3hrs to play.
I find that no or little combat games fill the void left by the missing combat with far more interesting challenges for the characters. They give a chance to explore your character much more and when combat does break out it is much more shocking and for plot reasons, tends to be for much higher stakes.

But maybe I have just been lucky with the GM and fellow players in these sorts of campaigns.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Some of my favorite sessions have included little or no combat, so yes, absolutely. Even in games where I've played a fighter. I will add the caveat that it would need to be with a DM who I believe has the skill to pull it off competently, or otherwise on a trial basis.

IME, including combat is a fairly reliable way to ensure that the game is fun. It tends to be something that almost everyone enjoys and can participate in. However, there are plenty of other things that can be even more enjoyable. Such as unraveling a mystery that's been taunting the players. Or conversing with NPCs who have interesting personalities / things to say.

It doesn't matter to me that those aspects don't have enormous mechanical support in D&D because I don't feel that they require it per se. In other words, those aspects are admittedly less gamified than combat, but I don't necessarily consider that to be a bad thing.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I've run and played in hours long sessions with no combat, and they can be fun. But no combat ever? I think you'd see a party of rogues and bards because proficiency bonuses and expertise will be all that matters. Even then you'll only see a couple of subclasses. No reason for assassins, swashbucklers, college of swords or valor.

Why play a fighter or barbarian if there's no fighting? A paladin? Pfft. You might play a divination wizard or some other caster, but even then your spell options are going to be limited. Do you ever need cure wounds? Can you cast charm person or is that considered combat? It seems like there are only a handful of spells that would matter and if you don't have to balance out spells like detect thoughts with other resources the game could be very unbalanced very quickly.

Just seems to me there are other systems designed to do this very thing and do it well. I would no more use a sports car as an off road vehicle than I would challenge a sports car to a drag race with my Wrangler.

 

[Anoth]

I would try it. I definitely played entire sessions with no combat that were quite good. But there was always the threat or possibility of combat. So I’m not sure what kind of adventure this would be if there wasn’t at least the threat or potential for combat.

 

[ikos]

I voted yes. Lately, combat (for me) has been the most boring aspect of the game, on either side of the screen. Combat as sport just doesn’t do much for me anymore. Give me good RP for four hours in a row over rolling dice while crossing speed bumps. Other systems do handle RP better and make violence more meaningful, which is exactly why I’ve been throwing bashful glances at those very systems.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

No, but only because the GM is unknown. I'd certainly play a non-combat game with an unknown GM in a system designed for that, but not in a combat-focused system like D&D.
(And of course, I'd play with a known GM!)

 

[RolemasterBlog]

I've run and played in hours long sessions with no combat, and they can be fun. But no combat ever? I think you'd see a party of rogues and bards because proficiency bonuses and expertise will be all that matters. Even then you'll only see a couple of subclasses. No reason for assassins, swashbucklers, college of swords or valor.

Why play a fighter or barbarian if there's no fighting? A paladin? Pfft. You might play a divination wizard or some other caster, but even then your spell options are going to be limited. Do you ever need cure wounds? Can you cast charm person or is that considered combat? It seems like there are only a handful of spells that would matter and if you don't have to balance out spells like detect thoughts with other resources the game could be very unbalanced very quickly.

Just seems to me there are other systems designed to do this very thing and do it well. I would no more use a sports car as an off road vehicle than I would challenge a sports car to a drag race with my Wrangler.

One of the situations we were in, in a very low combat game, was a terrible fire sweeping through the town. The heroic action involved rescuing trapped people, being trapped in a temple as the ceiling started to come down and trying to help people across a river after the bridge started to collapse.
There was still 'existential threat', drama and tension.

To run such a game the GM really has to know what the players want to get out of the game and the sort of challenges they enjoy. If it ticks all the boxes for all of the people playing the game it is fine. You can still play a barbarian in a non-combative game. You play it because that is the character you want to play.