>>39608>More to the point, it removes the game's infrastructure that makes the dungeon delving inherently challenging.No, that's not what makes it challenging, especially in the settign where spells trivialize most of the stuff anyway.
>That's just circular reasoning. "The game is combat, so anything in the game is combat."Are you retarded or something? "Most rules and stats of monsters are only relevant in the combat, so we consider them combat rules" There is no circular logic anywhere. You are just trying to stretch the argument because of nostalgia goggles.
>Monsters stats were barebones because if you weren't fighting them they would behave similarly.Which means their main purpose is combat. Thank you for proving my point.
>By the way, random encounters weren't meant to always be combat.Neither they are in later editions. Hell, it is even explicitely stated in DMG for third edition. But unlike in earlier editions, they actually expanded on this, monsters have different behaviours and reactions, not one ubiquitous charisma roll and one table of outcome, which makes all those monsters look like different skins over same NPC code.
>Some of those were combat related, but not all of them.MOST of them. I bet if we do one for one comparison, we will see that later editions have a lot more class features that have use outside of combat. Both for 3e and 5e.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.