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

[Oofta]

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.

Sure, and I still remember an encounter I ran where the PCs were in a burning warehouse because they failed a whole bunch of checks and the bad guys trapped them inside and started the building on fire. Even after busting down a wall to an adjacent building, they then decided to help others get out out. It was a lot of fun. I do many scenarios or even entire sessions with 0 combat.

But if there is no combat, then half the game rules or more suddenly become irrelevant. There are other games that would work better for something like this.

I just think it would be very limiting in such a way that I would use a different system for an ongoing long term campaign. YMMV.

 

[RolemasterBlog]

Totally agree, there are systems that are set up for non-combat as a central theme.

Rules-wise, there is an argument that we only need the rules for things that we cannot role play. I cannot cast a fireball so I need rules to describe that. I cannot physically attack the monsters so I need rules for that too. Talking, on the other hand, I can do. So I don't really need that many rules for negotiations, diplomacy, wit, and bribery. The OP explicitly names D&D so other better-suited systems are moot.

 

[Celebrim]

Prompted by another thread; if you were involved in a new D&D game and were aware up front it would NOT be a combat heavy game, or hardly any combat at all, but rather exploration and mystery and horror, would you still play? Assume you do not know the DM and he is not a friend, this is all 100% new.

I'd certainly be intrigued. A lot of my favorite sessions have involved no or almost no combat, and there are a variety of challenge structures that don't really need combat. Now, I think almost every heroic story can benefit from time to time with some physical conflict and D&D is geared to support that, and I like my campaigns to explore diverse sorts of challenges and scenarios, but I'd be very willing to give it a try.

 

[Ath'kethin]

I wish there was a HELL YES! option in the poll.

"BuT tHaT's NoT d&D!!1?!" comes the frequent chorus from the woodwork. But I don't see why not, especially as the game now explicitly runs on three distinct pillars, only one of which involves stabbing things.

 

[Derren]

No, not because I insist on combat in my games but because D&D is 90% about combat and a very bad system for non violent campaigns.

 

[Anoth]

No, not because I insist on combat in my games but because D&D is 90% about combat and a very bad system for non violent campaigns.

Every sentence is completely false. But I will take what you are saying as hyperbole. Mainly the 90% number and d&d not being good at non violent e counters.

 

[iserith]

That's a no from me dawg.

 

[Derren]

Every sentence is completely false. But I will take what you are saying as hyperbole. Mainly the 90% number and d&d not being good at non violent e counters.

If you don't want to admit it is fine, still doesn't change how bad D&D is at non combat.

The entire class system is based on combat power as are most build options. The non combat parts a very lacking and basically being reduced to "do you have a tools profiency or not". And even there your combat power factors in because of your level.

 

[Lanefan]

A Fighter or similar in a non-combat game could still be of use, as sheer brute strength is sometimes handy for more than just breaking heads.

However, in a non-combat game I'd put a high number into Charisma and-or Intelligence (while letting Con and Dex slide more than I would for a normal Fighter) so I could legitimately role-play it through all the talky bits.

 

[ccs]

Think about it though.

Spoiler

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).

You are preaching to the wrong guy. I do not need to think about it.
I'm the player who comes up with a concept for a character (not just a bunch of powers & bonuses), then uses the rules to optimize for that. Simply looking for the most bang for my buck rules wise & then molding things around that is not how I make my characters. Hasn't been for nearly 30 years & has been working just fine for me across 4 editions + PF.
So, if I feel that what I'm envisioning would A) fit the campaign, B) be fun to play, C) be best represented as some sort Fighter or Paladin, or monk or barbarian or whatever? Then regardless of the amount of expected combat, or the rules (dis)advantages(?), then that's what I'd make the character as. How they lv up during play will be influenced by both concept & how the story is developing. It will not be based upon "Ooh, if I MC to X at lv._ I'll gain __."