Am I wrong ?

[oldtyran]

Hi fellows DM and players,
I've played pathfinder for a lot now, and in time , I've came to notice something that really bothers me, and I hope that some more experienced than me can prove me wrong .

In my experience I've played lots of different class and campaign, fanmade, officials, housemade, i've gone through all and I've noticed a central point on all of them
Combat.
But it's not the presence of combat itself that bother me, it's the fact that is so important in the overall mechanic of the system that all that doesn't impact directly in it became useless.
Now , It's true that not all the encounter you can have in a campaign are combats , since even exploring a cave, or crossing a raging river have a CR and therefore provides XP , but if you are planning to level up a characters doing only exploration and social interactions , you find that you'll have a veeeeeery long task in front of you .

and that explain why in all the prefab and fanmade campaign, just in the middle of nowhere the players are called to fight unusual collection of random monster that are just passing by, that hates you and are strangely of a level slightly less than your so that you can defeat them.
and since climbing the everest gives the same xp than killing a cr 7 encounter (just saying) it's much faster to level up doing combats than doing skill checks for finding herbs, or exploring caves.
that means that willing or not in a campaign the player will fight , this is assured.
and since the player must level up to let the campaign continue, all the player choices when building the characters will always ends to the problems of combat effectiveness ( because if there are some slightly chance that you will use your Profession skill, you are completely sure that your Armor Class will be tested )
speaking of combat effectiveness All my thinking start from a simple concept: all that is destroyed, cannot affect you in any way.
and doing my homeworks I've came to notice that destroying the enemy is waaaaaaay much simple than defending yourself, and that is caused by one simple fact: if you plan to defend youself you must find a way to have an adequate protection for each kind of ability , attack, special effect, condition, or technique that the enemy can throw at you ,
if you plan to attack instead , you worry basically only to hit, and how much damage you can give,
now , i've noticed that in order to keep the combat fast and the enemy balanced the hit point of a creature can be easily reached in even one single round of attack of a damage dealer player,
and there isn't really a single way to avoid that , the only way seems not give a chance to the enemy to come in line of sight of your character .
I've come to realize also that the Ambush is almost unbeatable if the master don't cheat, allowing npc to do perception check even when they don't have any clue that they could be in danger.
and even so, often only the boss can spot the danger leaving lots of minion on the field before the start of the combat.

In one campaign I've found myself mastering a group of 5 player ( 4 damage dealer, and one healer ) to survive the system they basically ovebuilded a couple of skill, like perception and stealth and ambushed every enemies if possible, the result was often a double attack when they won the initiative, that always killed everything before first round.
in most cases bosses or minions need 3 or 4 round to unleash all the worst on the players, or to have an effective dangerous strategy, and all of that require one important condition, be alive.
so there isn't a need to build defence if the enemy is dead in the first round .... always.

ambush ( for a splitted party that kills a great elemental of air in 3/4 of round ) is simply wrong, and after that I think that nothing can beat that strategy,
the only way i can think of is simply luring player in situation where they cannot roll any dice that have a dc lower than 42 , and that instakill them without option of surviving.
and what's worse is that this strategy of doing damages isn't nerfed even a bit, i mean , i'd love to play other characters than a dual wielding barbarian , or a dual wielding paladin, or a blaster caster, or a ranger turret,

let's make some examples:

i can think of the illusionism, or the charm that are simply the worst choice you can make if you are a player.
3/4 of the creature types are immune to them,and the other still have to lose their will save to be affected, and since we love charm, let the people more possibility to free themself, without losing actions. aaaand also you must speak the language of your victim ..... aaaand since you aren't technically dominating them , let's make sure that they won't do everything you say , ...... aaaaand oh , give also some HD and creature type limit , just because

doing a desna paladin ? ok here we have an archetype for you , let's only takes away your useless medium armor and here your uber weapon, a knife , bikker, heavyier, that requires strenght and dexterity, and makes half of the damage of a longsword, oh and check out our specific feat for it, you only need to build even wisdom and charisma, so you can choose to use strenght, dexterity, wisdom, or charisma , to hit ! what ? you would like to build only one so you can actually hit ? why ??? don't you prefer to be a level 22 paladin with the same effectiveness of a level 1 warrior ???

and the list goes on , there are hundreds of cool ideas , feats, and spells that cannot de used because they're not effective in combat, and if a character bravely ignore this and take one utility spell and keep it prepared, even the campaign penalizes them for doing so .
once i had locate object in a campaign where we had to find a sword, that was the only times that i thought hey maybe i can do that !
and then , no since you haven't seen the object and even so the city where you are is so big that to scan it all would require a MONTH !

so why again one wizard , that have only 2 spell at level would sacrifice space and going around with a locate object spell prepared ?
when he could prepare fireballs ?
and resolve even social interaction with terrorism act ?

for this I've came to realize that all of this various spells and feats, are not for the players, they're for the DM, wich is the only one at the table that can build a character for each necessity,

a player cannot do that since if you build a pg, he will do good only a couple of things, and for the other, it will rely on other party members, or die , and since the combats are soo deeply inserted into the mechanics every characters must be builded to survive . and thats a big limitation .

think in the real world , how many people would survive in a fight ? not many , but they survive anyway ,just because they avoid fighting, a thing that in a campaign you cannot do.

once we played a prefab campaign ( I'll not say wich one for sake of spoilers ).
i played a witch that was an archivist , literally the young shy girl that work to the town hall and keep organized the records.
after the first week i survived a monster invasion that almost destroyed all, ( even us )
after the second week i was parachuted beyond enemy lines, with a strike team in a castle full of enemies, wihout escape route, to kill the whole group of enemy generals in one all out attack....
I've looked at the DM at the first stealth check and I sad .... i keep organized paperworks you know ? why again am I here ?

the point is why in all the gdr there must be so much extensive use of combat ? why can't the adventure be more different and less lethal ?

do you think that could be a negative idea ?

[Pan]

Greetings,
Wow, that's a wall 'o text.

First of all, yes the game is heavily geared toward combat. You are hardly alone in your complaints. You need to make a few adjustments to the rules to move away from that. One thing you can do is stop giving out XP and use a milestone system (or advancement track in the APs) This assumes the PCs will level for accomplishing goals and moving the plot forward instead of wanton murder. (Difficult in Sandbox style games, but also not impossible). Another option is to write an urban adventure where most problems require diplomacy and guile over fists or blades. There are lots of subsystems in gamemastery guide and Ultimate Intrigue that can help.

When it comes to spells knowing their conditions is half the battle. Sure locate object might not be a great spell to know, but it would make a handy scroll to keep in your pack. As far as illusions and enchantments go, you need to know your enemies and pick the right tool for the job as a wizard. As a Sorcerer, you need to do whatever you can to make your spells effective i.e. feats and meta magic. Utility magic can be a life saver and is certainly not just for the GM. When folks talk about caster supremacy it aint because of fireball. Check the forums for tips and advice on how to use spells effectively.

Lastly, both issues of too much combat and spell futility are going to come down to playstyle. Some GMs want to run dungeon crawls and are not interested in intrigue or exploration. Discussing in detail the campaign ahead of time can help set expectations. During the game, make sure to let the GM know what you want your character to do. Hopefully they can provide a game with lots of opportunity for you to use your utility spells. If the GM constantly rules against their effectiveness and push you towards combat, maybe its time for a new group. Though before abandoning hope, trying out a new game system never hurts. You never know what you may bring back to PF if you even return.

Cheers!

[necromental]

I think you're in the wrong RPG and probably a wrong group for you. It's not that you're wrong but you just have different expectations.

[taks]

Pathfinder spawned from Dungeons and Dragons, a game that was originally derived from miniature wargames. Combat is an integral part of the game. It has always been, and always be that way. necromental is spot on.

[Dave Justus]

Pathfinder is a game focused on combat. I think their are a lot more ways to be successful at that than you seem to (indeed I think an all striker party will be less successful than other mixes) but their is going to be a lot of combat in most Pathfinder games, the system is built around it, and most GMs and players are going to be want and expect it. If you don't like combat, you probably are wrong to play pathfinder.

I will say that if you build a character for an adventure path, and during that path you have to ask the DM why your character is there, you screwed up and made your character wrong. The adventure paths come with players guides to help you build characters that are going to want to participate in the events of the path, if you choose not to, that is your fault.

[Darkbridger]

Agreed with Necromental. You and your group need to have a discussion about what you want from the game. If the players are happy with a heavy combat focus, you're going to have to adjust your DMing *or* find a group more in line with what you want to run. It's also possible the group may be willing to adjust a little away from combat and toward other things, but from the descriptions I'm not sure of that.

My group went thru a heavy optimization period where a couple of APs became very easy. When it was discussed outside the game, they had no idea I was running APs as-written. I had no time to modify things to meet their optimizations and still meet the gaming schedule we had. Since that time, the group has dialed back their own character creation to better fit a challenging game. We went from 15 to 20 point buy in an effort to broaden options and also coupled it with a "no dumping" rule.

But in the end, the game focuses on armed conflict a great deal. You aren't going to get significantly away from that without some significant work on your part. And if the party doesn't want to go in that direction, the work will be wasted. They need to tell you if they want more challenge from the game for their current characters. If so, you can try upping the ante in terms of combat power on your side of the screen, but that an arms race that probably won't end well.

Another useful exercise may be to ask each of the players to run a session so they experience the game from the other side a bit so they understand the issues.

[VampByDay]

So first of all, Pathfinder came from DnD, which came from table-top war games like Warhammer fantasy, so it is no big wonder that there is combat in it. But if that bothers you, have non-combat take a bigger role.

You are the GM. Make non-combat encounters worth more XP. One system I've borrowed from fourth edition that I like is that the party has to make 10 skill checks before they accrue 5 failures, with DCs dependent on the party level. Early level stuff could be crossing a raging river, but higher level stuff could be convincing a kingdom to go to war, or not go to war.

And if your PCs are murderhoboing everything, make it hard for them. Have them GET ambushed. Set them up with enemies that are pre-buffed. Maybe they are fighting mind-controlled people and need to knock them out instead of killing them.

It just sounds like you need to give the PCs a greater challenge by putting them in disadvantageous situations more than once. Not all the time, mind you, PCs need to feel cool, but put them in situations where they can't just fireball Willy-nilly. Maybe they are in a crowded market. Or there are hostages.

And I would recommend taking a look at certain PFS scenarios on how to do a non-combat session. There is a scenario, (Bid for Albastrane) that only has one combat in it (where the PCs are ambushed), and the rest is a complicated political mini-system that involves finding out what nobles want and trying to influence them to act in the PCs best interests. Same XP as a standard scenario.

Ultimate intrigue has the system, if you don't have access to the scenario.

[Dave Justus]

VampByDay wrote:

So first of all, Pathfinder came from DnD, which came from table-top war games like Warhammer fantasy, so it is no big wonder that there is combat in it. But if that bothers you, have non-combat take a bigger role.

Teeny bit off here, D&D descended from miniature wargames, but Warhammer itself came along later. Still the basic point is valid.

[Kayerloth]

Yep first and foremost the GM is in charge. Reduce the reward for combat encounters, increase them for non-combat solutions. Introduce non-combat solutions if and as needed. Story experience for completion of story goals. Give them goals that can't be solved via combat (or will make things harder and less rewarding. And as others stated up thread find a group whose play style matches your expectations and desires.

[ShinHakkaider]

I think that you guys are being deliberately trolled here...

[oldtyran]

shinhakkaider I assuret I'm not trolling, it's a real problem I'm having on pathfinder , it bother me that my players sooner or later became builded like butchers and no one seems to beat an eye,

I think you're right when yu say that probably this isn't the right system for me

[VampByDay]

Dave Justus wrote:

VampByDay wrote:

So first of all, Pathfinder came from DnD, which came from table-top war games like Warhammer fantasy, so it is no big wonder that there is combat in it. But if that bothers you, have non-combat take a bigger role.

Teeny bit off here, D&D descended from miniature wargames, but Warhammer itself came along later. Still the basic point is valid.

Right, I said "like," as in "similar too." Guess I could have been more clear.

@Shinhakkadier, even if this is a troll, it is a valid topic for discussion. I've seen a lot of GMs with similar issues. Maybe not quite as explicitly stated or blown up, but if a troll starts a serious discussion where we help other GMs, doesn't that mean the troll loses?

[marcryser]

When I run home games (that, typically, I have written or heavily edited) I do not give XP. I advance the characters at times that make sense for the story and the encounter levels. I will typically advance the entire group after 10-15 'encounters' which might be obstacles, opponents, or traps. They don't necessarily have to fight for the PCs to be challenged.

[Christopher Dudley]

You're not wrong. Combat is the focus of most of the rules because that's the thing that needs the most rules. The skill system can serve to arbitrate non-combat encounters, but so can plain old-fashioned role-playing.

My group does a fair bit of combat but the majority of most sessions is character-driven interactions with NPCs and with each other. It could be that your GM is just not looking to provide any challenges that can't be solved with combat, or it could be that your group is so bloodthirsty that they turn everything into a combat, but there are many ways to approach many challenges.

If you play published adventures, especially from Paizo, you will consistently see challenges that are suited for characters of the levels listed on the cover of the module. That really is part of the structure of the game. Some companies publish modules that include the occasional encounters the party would be wise to avoid (Necromancer/Frog God Games, I'm looking at you). Which sounds like it makes sense, but it's a bad feeling when you accidentally run into one.

If you don't like the way your game is being run, offer to run it yourself and run the kind of game you'd like to play in.

[justaworm]

BLUF: Eliminating XP removes much of the issues you are talking about.

However, much to everyone else's point, I play this game because of the fantasy combat element. I am not really looking for a "real life fantasy simulation" where I have to struggle to bake bread and hope I don't catch the flu, as that is not a fun use of my personal time (for me). However, with the right group there is also nothing that stops the GM from running that type of game, though other systems probably have better mechanics for it.

The history of DnD and the PF branch is becoming heroes and doing heroic things, and in that I love the PF Adventure Paths because they always lead to some sort of "world saving type event". Now within that context I am all for solving problems through non-combat where it is beneficial, cool, and/or challenging to do so.

As to most of your issues, I would start with eliminating XP. This will also remove the need for mindless combat that doesn't advance the storyline at all. It will also encourage players to try more creative solutions because they don't miss XP opportunities, and subsequently it removes the need for "random" encounters for the GM to insert to get the party up to the right level.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think a combat focus for a tabletop game has a lot of benefits. You get instant drama from the threat of imminent death, it works for people who don't know each other very well, it works for people with a wide range of emotional intelligence and social acumen (e.g. you can run this sort of thing for 7 year olds and it works), and it provides a lot of opportunities to roll dice (and "rolling dice is fun" is sort of the premise for the hobby.)

So it's a good starting point, and a good way to create a game that sells well because it appeals to a lot of people.

Two things I will observe though:

1) Just because there's a forest of dead trees devoted to how to hurt people with pointy objects, doesn't mean that needs to be the focus of your game. If you have players that would rather talk their way out of things than fight their way out, let them. There are rules for naval combat, but that doesn't mean you need to put the party on a boat.

2) If you're really in the mood for something different there are lots of other games out there that scratch different itches. If you're playing regularly with the same group of people it's good to periodically change up the game you're playing. Something that's "rules light and plays fast" is an excellent contrast to PF especially if it hits themes and tones you're interested in but haven't been able to accomplish in PF.

[taks]

VampByDay wrote:

@Shinhakkadier, even if this is a troll, it is a valid topic for discussion. I've seen a lot of GMs with similar issues.

I agree. And I think Paizo agrees, too, which explains APs like Hell's Rebels and the pending War for the Crown (presumably). These give you options beyond murderhobo (I saw treasure transient, recently), though combat is still integral (and necessary, IMO).

[Ring_of_Gyges]

One issue is that violence is *easy* from a storytelling perspective. An action adventure where the bad guy does a bad thing, is hunted down and killed by the good guy is very easy to write. You need to stat up the bad guy, think up a location or two for him to flee across, and you're done.

A story where there is no violence, but a young person makes up their mind about what to do with their life is much more difficult to write. Much more interesting if done well, but much more difficult.

"Baddies are coming! Kill them!" Is super easy and people are lazy.

[Fergie]

Here is the odd thing about Pathfinder (and just about every edition of D&D) - It is a "roleplaying" game with virtually no rules for roleplaying. Most of the rules are for a tactical combat simulator. This creates the odd situation where players are subtly coaxed into creating characters who are mechanically focused on combat, at the expense of other aspects of the game. This is generally referred to as "optimization", or a high level of combat optimization. The focus on combat tends toward an extreme hyperfocus on making the enemy dead before he has a chance to make you dead - this is known as "Rocket Propelled Grenade Tag". At the lowest levels, the master of RPG Tag is probably the two handed weapon barbarian or fighter. By the mid levels, the casters generally become the masters of RPG tag because of the versatile nature of most casters. Most people find RPG tag gets old quick, as it is generally very repetitive.

The important thing to remember is that the game is NOT intended to be played at a high level of optimization. It can be done, but requires a heavy amount of GM modification. GM modification is expected in almost every game, but is much easier when players are not optimizing. The truth is that the game is generally fairly easy, so you don't need to optimize to be successful. If the players optimize for combat, they are going to be less successful at other aspects, and players almost always want to do what their characters are good at.

What you need to do is figure out what you want out of the game. Are you really looking for virtually no combat, or do you just want combat to be interesting and varied? The next step is to get together with your group and listen (not argue) to what they want out of the game. Hopefully you will have overlapping interests, but that is not always the case. Ideally you will figure out how much combat, adventuring, social situations, etc. and agree on a level of optimization that is enjoyable for all.

PS There are some people who reject the connection between optimization and role playing. They refer to the connection as "The Stormwind Fallacy". While it is true that they are not always connected, the truth is that many decisions come down to mechanical power OR cool flavor. That's right, often you must sacrifice power for flavor. The more mechanical power is chosen over cool, the more likely GM/players are going to focus on situations that reward those choices, and the less likely they are to choose cool.

[Flamephoenix182]

Others have mentioned some of these points but I'll throw in my 2 cents:

1) Combat: Yes most rules are geared towards combat but that is because it is the most rule intensive requirements. You don't really need rules to roleplay and solve mysteries etc.. or you only need minor rules.
As mentioned you may want to talk to your group about what type of campaign you want to run. For reference or group will often go 2 or 3 sessions without any combat because they tend to try and avoid it, or solve in clever or non violent ways.

The ambush issue: It's good in a way that they are planning things and using tactics. but what about using your creatures in waves. So they ambush the first group of monsters, and the second group hearing all the commotion and cries run in from another room?

One big key I use (back when I still handed out experience instead of using the milestone system). If the players solve/avoid/talk their way out of a combat they get full exp as if they killed all those creatures. This also helps to motivate them to not just kill everything, since if they bypass an encounter they get full exp without needing to expend resources.

2) Encounters: I know you have said somethings are unbeatable, but nothing can out optimize you, if your players are optimizing to the extreme for combat raise your encounter difficulty. Usually I slowly ratchet up the encounter difficulty until I find that sweet spot where 1/4 PCs will almost die every encounter. then I use that as a baseline to scale up or down as needed.

3) Roleplay: If your PC's are completely ignoring non combat stuff make sure to factor that in. If they are sticking their foot in their mouth, killing everyone they meet. people in the world should take notice, powerful law enforcement can show up (this can lead to fun RP as well).

4) Spell issue: Locate object vs fireball. Put them in situations where brute force cannot solve it more often and that will gently encourage them to prepare a wider variety of spells.

Anyways I hope some of that helps

[oldtyran]

thanks to all guys for all the replies, Ring_of_Gyges i agree with you, and Fergie, thanks for the detailed explanations.

reading this game me hints on more and more topics, that I've always tought about:for example

I'm familiar to the milia stone system, i've experienced it many times,and I prefer it above many others, it have only the minor defect that takes away one primary way to reward the player for their deeds.
for that reason I think that I'll use feats , objects and companions, since many of them are not so powerful and would help the players to better develop their characters.

Flamephoenix182 I respectfully disagree on raising the difficulty, for what i saw, in the party I've played with , boosting the level of the encounter, wwould only lead to more optimization from the players.

often i see that the exp are never calculated, or prized, it's more about being safe that bothers my players not growing stronger.

I think that all of this bad killer habit is caused by the fear of what a enemy can do to you
in many games we encountered umbalanced fights, monsters with ability that left us completely umprepared , like paralyzing undead, ghost at the early levels, bosses with 5 level more than players,
and always ambushes in the tavern .

sometimes I propose to go in the woods and to sleep on a tall tree instead that in the tavern in our games , it seems that the owner leave the bad guys go upstairs all the time.

anyway I think that the player react to the master decision building their character accordingly to the campaign requests, and for that reason the master must be strict to a concept of a campaign,

like you do many various skill checks or
you kill things or
you go on boats

[Flamephoenix182]

oldtyran wrote:

thanks to all guys for all the replies, Ring_of_Gyges i agree with you, and Fergie, thanks for the detailed explanations.

reading this game me hints on more and more topics, that I've always tought about:for example

I'm familiar to the milia stone system, i've experienced it many times,and I prefer it above many others, it have only the minor defect that takes away one primary way to reward the player for their deeds.
for that reason I think that I'll use feats , objects and companions, since many of them are not so powerful and would help the players to better develop their characters.

Flamephoenix182 I respectfully disagree on raising the difficulty, for what i saw, in the party I've played with , boosting the level of the encounter, wwould only lead to more optimization from the players.

often i see that the exp are never calculated, or prized, it's more about being safe that bothers my players not growing stronger.

I think that all of this bad killer habit is caused by the fear of what a enemy can do to you
in many games we encountered umbalanced fights, monsters with ability that left us completely umprepared , like paralyzing undead, ghost at the early levels, bosses with 5 level more than players,
and always ambushes in the tavern .

sometimes I propose to go in the woods and to sleep on a tall tree instead that in the tavern in our games , it seems that the owner leave the bad guys go upstairs all the time.

anyway I think that the player react to the master decision building their character accordingly to the campaign requests, and for that reason the master must be strict to a concept of a campaign,

like you do many various skill checks or
you kill things or
you go on boats

The idea between raising the difficulty is to keep the encounters challenging and fun, but you know your group better than anyone so go with what you like. Maybe they want the power fantasy where they defeat every encounter easily.

But the point I was trying to make is it gives you a baseline, generally once a character is built they are as optimized as they are going to be. The other idea behind it is you know how to make an encounter too strong... which can be good. As long as you drop hints and don't go overboard and kill them, running into something way too strong for them to kill is a good way to encourage roleplaying/make them realize blunt force can't get through everything/Learn to run away sometimes.

The other reason is assuming they are all optimized roughly the same, then no one is actually optimized if you scale the encounters to them. Same with reverse if everyone made sub optimal combat characters and you scale the encounters down it's exactly the same. The problem comes when the PCs are mixed optimization

[FamiliarMask]

oldtyran wrote:

I've looked at the DM at the first stealth check and I sad .... i keep organized paperworks you know ? why again am I here ?

If this had been in a game I was running, you would've known about the adventure themes ahead of time, and I'd have asked you to provide an answer to that question before I let you play the paper-pushing witch as a concept.

Maybe you wanted to play a PC who was a relatively normal person out of their depth and forced to rise to the call of adventure? I don't know, but you would need to find some kind of motivation for your character to be involved, or make a more suitable character.

I don't run or play in games that are all about combat, and I've gotten great use out of skills, social interaction, and utility magic, but I expect combat to be a part of the game, and I prepare to deal with it effectively when it comes up.

It's also worth noting that defeating an encounter by diplomacy or stealth or other non-fighting means also earns you the same XP as if you'd killed everything, so needing to kill things to gain experience shouldn't be a problem.

Maybe you could talk to your group about toning down the amount of combat and exploring other solutions to problems besides fighting. If that doesn't work, possibly you need a new group to play with that doesn't focus as heavily on violence. You might also be happier with a different style of RPG, maybe one with a more narrative and rules-light approach to mechanics.

Ultimately, I think making your play experience better is going to be up to you and the people you're actually playing with.

[Nixitur]

I think trying out a different system for one or two sessions is pretty solid advice. Pick something more focused on roleplay and social interaction. There's systems where the characters advance by acting in line with their beliefs, rather than by killing monsters, heavily encouraging roleplay. Maybe a few of your players find out that they enjoy this aspect more than they had previously thought and you can gently introduce more systems for that into Pathfinder.
Ultimate Intrigue offers some great starting points and Occult Adentures has an entire chapter on running an occult game, so one that is more focused on mysteries, secrecy and research. That's definitely something to carefully consider, though, as especially your local Fighter will probably not be all that useful for most games like that.

But to answer your original question, no, you're mostly not wrong. But whether certain items, spells or feats are useless depends entirely on the GM. Of course, the standard assumption from players is that optimizing for combat is the way to go, so when you're planning to deviate from that, it's definitely necessary to talk about it with your players beforehand. But nothing's stopping you from making combat mostly optional.
Although you'll still want to have some challenging combat because it's fun to try out your new toys. And if the combat isn't challenging, ramp up the difficulty. Your players can only optimize so far, you can slap templates and class levels on your monsters till the cows come home.

[Mysterious Stranger]

The way I run things in my games is to give XP for overcoming challenges no matter how you overcome them. If there is some creature blocking your way you get the same amount of XP no matter how you handle the challenge. If you manage to sneak by the creature without being spotted or talk your way around it you get the same XP as if you fought and defeated it. It has to be a legitimate challenge that actually advances the story or it is not worth any XP. I do this for combat as well so picking a fight with a random character in a town gives you no XP no matter how tough he is. I also award bonus XP for good roleplaying. There still ends up being a lot of combat because sometimes there is no other way to deal with the situation.

I also use the auto bonus progression to lessen the impact of wealth on the characters. Once the players realize that they will not be penalized for failing to kill everything y they are often surprised by how much it changes the game. Another thing I have often done is to have the party be sponsored by some group that provides equipment for them. Once it was working for the king as royal agents, another time it was working for a church as a special order of troubleshooters. This has allowed several concepts to be played that would otherwise be almost impossible in a normal game.

My players seem to like this because it allows them to play characters that are true hero's not just murder hoboes.