Yeah, the only problem is that improvising rapid-fire epic narration turn after turn can become exhausting (at least for me).
I find it is like all things a practice thing, I now narrate every roll of the dice in combat, every miss, every hit, every saving throw, It adds an extra layer of tension, especially early on in combat when players don't know the AC, describing how the character swings it's sword, is parried, parried again and then swings in an underthrust and pierces the armour.
But I have also played on tables where everything was very mechanical roll the dice, you hit, or you missed, roll damage next player.
As long as she is participating during combat, I wouldn't worry about needing to remove her from the game just yet.
I do think you need to clarify the "at all" part.
Is she turned off by the mechanics/rules of combat? Or is she literally turned off by any sort of physical confrontation in the game whatsoever?
The latter is certainly the more problematic, but not necessarily in a game removal sense. She can play a character who prefers to avoid violence, and advocates alternative means, but as long as she's willing to deal with violence when that's the option on the table - and the rest of the players are good with that - everyone can still have fun. Especially if your new player is adding to the non-combat portions of the game.
As long as she is participating during combat, I wouldn't worry about needing to remove her from the game just yet.
I do think you need to clarify the "at all" part.
Is she turned off by the mechanics/rules of combat? Or is she literally turned off by any sort of physical confrontation in the game whatsoever?
The latter is certainly the more problematic, but not necessarily in a game removal sense. She can play a character who prefers to avoid violence, and advocates alternative means, but as long as she's willing to deal with violence when that's the option on the table - and the rest of the players are good with that - everyone can still have fun. Especially if your new player is adding to the non-combat portions of the game.
^^^This. Also, I’m somewhat confused by what you mean when you say she completely has no interest in combat, but doesn’t tune out when it happens. Is it like people who don’t enjoy shopping encounters? What does she actually do or say? Is it the actual combat itself? How does she feel about support roles and actions? For example, how would she feel about a character that doesn’t engage, but just stands out of danger’s way until someone needs a heal or buff?
Yeah, the only problem is that improvising rapid-fire epic narration turn after turn can become exhausting (at least for me).
I am actually implementing a rule into my games going forward: Anyone who can give me a good description of their attack, and a reason that it is better than just straight up swinging a mace, gets a bonus to their attack roll. For example: "Tim attacks enemy No.1" compared to "Tim hangs back, waiting for an opportune moment to strike. When an opening makes itself clear he reaches down and flings a handful of dirt into enemy No.1's eyes, then lunges with his sword at their exposed throat."
Hopefully this will encourage more roleplay (Not a massive issue in our group, they are all really good) and more creatie=ve
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
GoodBovine was heard to say: "Tim hangs back, waiting for an opportune moment to strike. When an opening makes itself clear he reaches down and flings a handful of dirt into enemy No.1's eyes, then lunges with his sword at their exposed throat."
The occasional narration of an attack can be all right. I will narrate as I see fit, when DMing. I don't want my players to be anywhere near that specific about what they do. The trouble is that when a player describes their actions like that, they may expect to get some benefit from it. Throwing dirt in your enemies' eyes? Ancient tactic, invented when rocks were, but in D&D, that would be an Action, so no sword attack to follow it up until next turn. You also can't target specific locations, so you can't throw dirt in your opponent's eyes without DM permission. I'd let it happen if they spent an action. Dex check, target number 10 to avoid flying dirt. For free? Sure, as long as there is no effect. Dirt or not, no lunging for throats either.
Another problem is that not a whole lot of us have ever been in a real fight with "martial" melee weapons. Guns, maybe yes. Two-handed swords? Not unless you were in the SCA or something similar. I'm willing to bet none of us have ever fought a cat-like creature with a fanged mouth, six clawed legs, and a couple tentacle things coming out of it's shoulders. How can you accurately narrate a fight when you don't know what it would be like?
What I do in play runs more like this. "Tina hangs back, waiting for an opportune moment to strike. When an opening makes itself clear, she glances down, looking at the Goblin's feet and tries to figure which way it will move next. She takes a swing and... (dice roll) her lips twist into a frustrated snarl as her sword deflects off the Goblin's armor." or maybe (dice roll) her face lights up with a delighted smile as her guess proves correct and the Goblin dodges right into her blade!" (more dice, and to the DM I say "10 points of very impressive swordy damage.")
As has been mentioned several times, if the way you've been running the game for years has been a lot of fun for you and the players, you shouldn't feel the need to change it for a new player. All the discussion of the merits of roleplay vs combat and balancing them and the mechanical virtues thereof and game design philosophy is completely irrelevant to the question being asked by the OP.
That being said, I do not know how you handle combat in your game (and again, if it's been working for this group you probably shouldn't make any major changes to accommodate one new player who still enjoys the rest of your game). Personally, I think the best way to balance combat and story based roleplaying is to have the two each actively affect the other as much as possible as opposed to random encounters tossed in just because nobody has swung a sword or cast a fireball for a while. If your player is invested in the story they're roleplaying in, they might become more engaged in a combat encounter if it's clear at the start of combat that it can end different ways that will directly affect the story. That can happen a lot of ways that are more complex than "roleplay in town then go out and plunder a dungeon before coming back to town with a magic macguffin and talking to interesting characters some more." I assume your game has a more complex plot than that, but I don't know how. For example, is somebody trying to assassinate a significant NPC? Then the party has a clear motivation to find the assassin(s) and prevent them from killing the NPC, especially if said NPC is actually present and the PCs have to guard them or help them escape while also fighting the bad guys. Without knowing more about your game's style and feel that's the best I can suggest.
The occasional narration of an attack can be all right. I will narrate as I see fit, when DMing. I don't want my players to be anywhere near that specific about what they do. The trouble is that when a player describes their actions like that, they may expect to get some benefit from it. Throwing dirt in your enemies' eyes? Ancient tactic, invented when rocks were, but in D&D, that would be an Action, so no sword attack to follow it up until next turn. You also can't target specific locations, so you can't throw dirt in your opponent's eyes without DM permission. I'd let it happen if they spent an action. Dex check, target number 10 to avoid flying dirt. For free? Sure, as long as there is no effect. Dirt or not, no lunging for throats either.
....did you read the post? It is SUPPOSED to give you a benefit. The bonus would not be game changing, I currently have it at somewhere around a +1 or +2 (Depending on how effective I deem it). You 100% can target specific places, it just doesn't do anything. That's like saying you can't kick a stone because there is no rule for it. This rule was also to encourage the PLAYERS to narrate. If it isn't your style, that's okay, but I think it works pretty well.
Another problem is that not a whole lot of us have ever been in a real fight with "martial" melee weapons. Guns, maybe yes. Two-handed swords? Not unless you were in the SCA or something similar. I'm willing to bet none of us have ever fought a cat-like creature with a fanged mouth, six clawed legs, and a couple tentacle things coming out of it's shoulders. How can you accurately narrate a fight when you don't know what it would be like?
The thing is, I have the right to narrate the fight however I wish, because I am the DM. It doesn't need to be realistic when whatever I say goes. It is as accurate as I say it is, because it is my game.
What I do in play runs more like this. "Tina hangs back, waiting for an opportune moment to strike. When an opening makes itself clear, she glances down, looking at the Goblin's feet and tries to figure which way it will move next. She takes a swing and... (dice roll) her lips twist into a frustrated snarl as her sword deflects off the Goblin's armor." or maybe (dice roll) her face lights up with a delighted smile as her guess proves correct and the Goblin dodges right into her blade!" (more dice, and to the DM I say "10 points of very impressive swordy damage.")
Yep, that's great. In our games, normally the player narrates the attack, and the DM describes how it lands but the idea in the same. This new ruling is to encourage roleplay (not a big problem in our group), but importantly tactical thinking. Personally, I find creative solutions to overcome obstacles far more entertaining than blunt force, and that goes for combat as well. I would prefer my players try to think a bit more tactically, but in the current rules there is no reason to. So I made a reason to. Simple as that.
This rule is still in the beta testing phase, if it doesn't feel right it will be removed.
Also, no-one is asking you to use it, it is simply for my group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
An established group that's having fun needs to be as welcoming as possible to new members of the group.
It is upon the new member of the group to find ways to best integrate themselves into the flow of the current group. This includes making some sacrifices to ensure they aren't spoiling the fun that the already established group has been having all along.
It's not on you or the others. So long as you and the others make the environment comfortable and welcoming, it's on the new person to fit in. That's sort of the whole point of joining a new group. It's your job to make it work.
GoodBovine was heard to say: "Tim hangs back, waiting for an opportune moment to strike. When an opening makes itself clear he reaches down and flings a handful of dirt into enemy No.1's eyes, then lunges with his sword at their exposed throat."
The occasional narration of an attack can be all right. I will narrate as I see fit, when DMing. I don't want my players to be anywhere near that specific about what they do. The trouble is that when a player describes their actions like that, they may expect to get some benefit from it. Throwing dirt in your enemies' eyes? Ancient tactic, invented when rocks were, but in D&D, that would be an Action, so no sword attack to follow it up until next turn. You also can't target specific locations, so you can't throw dirt in your opponent's eyes without DM permission. I'd let it happen if they spent an action. Dex check, target number 10 to avoid flying dirt. For free? Sure, as long as there is no effect. Dirt or not, no lunging for throats either.
Another problem is that not a whole lot of us have ever been in a real fight with "martial" melee weapons. Guns, maybe yes. Two-handed swords? Not unless you were in the SCA or something similar. I'm willing to bet none of us have ever fought a cat-like creature with a fanged mouth, six clawed legs, and a couple tentacle things coming out of it's shoulders. How can you accurately narrate a fight when you don't know what it would be like?
What I do in play runs more like this. "Tina hangs back, waiting for an opportune moment to strike. When an opening makes itself clear, she glances down, looking at the Goblin's feet and tries to figure which way it will move next. She takes a swing and... (dice roll) her lips twist into a frustrated snarl as her sword deflects off the Goblin's armor." or maybe (dice roll) her face lights up with a delighted smile as her guess proves correct and the Goblin dodges right into her blade!" (more dice, and to the DM I say "10 points of very impressive swordy damage.")
My players understand description is for flavour, and I will totally let them describe how they flick mud in the eye of the attacker before taking a swing with the sword, if they roll to hit then I describe it as the mud blurs their vision giving you an opening to thrust as they flail to try and parry while trying to clear his vison. The sword blow slices into his side and out of instinct he pulls away but too late. Looking at you he wipes the mud from his eyes growling and hefting his sword obviously pissed off.
If they miss then, the mud hits the left eye, but the right is still clear, as a result the bandit swings his sword in a desperate effort to parry, and manages to do so, giving you a gorwl he wipes the mud from the one eye and throws it in anger to the floor.
It is a table by table call but I narrate every single combat dice roll and saving throw, building a narrative with the players of how the fight has taken place. One of the players is really good at making notes of these battles meaning that when it comes to writing out the combat in the journal the whole combat can be described in terms of these moments.
As for narrating a fight with a creature with multiple claws and wings, that is the most fun bit, describing how the creature attacks, and how the characters react to that.
The occasional narration of an attack can be all right. I will narrate as I see fit, when DMing. I don't want my players to be anywhere near that specific about what they do. The trouble is that when a player describes their actions like that, they may expect to get some benefit from it. Throwing dirt in your enemies' eyes? Ancient tactic, invented when rocks were, but in D&D, that would be an Action, so no sword attack to follow it up until next turn. You also can't target specific locations, so you can't throw dirt in your opponent's eyes without DM permission. I'd let it happen if they spent an action. Dex check, target number 10 to avoid flying dirt. For free? Sure, as long as there is no effect. Dirt or not, no lunging for throats either.
....did you read the post? It is SUPPOSED to give you a benefit. The bonus would not be game changing, I currently have it at somewhere around a +1 or +2 (Depending on how effective I deem it). You 100% can target specific places, it just doesn't do anything. That's like saying you can't kick a stone because there is no rule for it. This rule was also to encourage the PLAYERS to narrate. If it isn't your style, that's okay, but I think it works pretty well.
Another problem is that not a whole lot of us have ever been in a real fight with "martial" melee weapons. Guns, maybe yes. Two-handed swords? Not unless you were in the SCA or something similar. I'm willing to bet none of us have ever fought a cat-like creature with a fanged mouth, six clawed legs, and a couple tentacle things coming out of it's shoulders. How can you accurately narrate a fight when you don't know what it would be like?
The thing is, I have the right to narrate the fight however I wish, because I am the DM. It doesn't need to be realistic when whatever I say goes. It is as accurate as I say it is, because it is my game.
What I do in play runs more like this. "Tina hangs back, waiting for an opportune moment to strike. When an opening makes itself clear, she glances down, looking at the Goblin's feet and tries to figure which way it will move next. She takes a swing and... (dice roll) her lips twist into a frustrated snarl as her sword deflects off the Goblin's armor." or maybe (dice roll) her face lights up with a delighted smile as her guess proves correct and the Goblin dodges right into her blade!" (more dice, and to the DM I say "10 points of very impressive swordy damage.")
Yep, that's great. In our games, normally the player narrates the attack, and the DM describes how it lands but the idea in the same. This new ruling is to encourage roleplay (not a big problem in our group), but importantly tactical thinking. Personally, I find creative solutions to overcome obstacles far more entertaining than blunt force, and that goes for combat as well. I would prefer my players try to think a bit more tactically, but in the current rules there is no reason to. So I made a reason to. Simple as that.
This rule is still in the beta testing phase, if it doesn't feel right it will be removed.
Also, no-one is asking you to use it, it is simply for my group.
Neither he nor anyone else questioned you thinking it should give a benefit. What was questioned was:
1) Treating it like a free action
2) Suggesting it something that is RAW rather than a houserule you are experimenting with.
And it is not '100% that you can target specific locations,' since otherwise people would always complain about it not doing anything extra. It places the onus on the DM to explain why someone being hit in the eye doesn't take penalties and/or extra damage.
And suggesting something 'in the beta testing phase' as an example of a clear solution, well...
I allow tricky tactics too. So do most experienced DM's. But there are limits.
Oh, I am pretty sure I said it was a house rule, but if I didn't my apologies. I also was just putting it out there, I wasn't saying it was a solution to OPs problem 😂 Sorry for the confusion. Come to think about it, the sand in the eyes tactic was probably a bad example, but I had just woken up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I had a player play a rogue once who played the character entirely risk avoidant (basically transposed own personality on character) in combat or any situation that could put the character in jeopardy. I tried to explain that the very definition of a rogue is one who takes risks against the rules (and the character was more deft and capable than the IRL player so it's ok to take risks outside of your IRL capabilities, like jumping off a ten foot wall), but it didn't go anywhere. So we basically had someone who hung in the back in combat, I'd occasionally throw a brain teaser their way in the interest of equal time, but yeah, player didn't last long in the group.
Anyway, agreeing with everyone else that it would be really a disservice to the rest of the group you've been DMing two years to change format play style to accommodate a new player. The new player may be special to you, but the rest of the group will see any significant modification as boat rocking. To use a possibly offensive analogy, don't John and Yoko your Beetles. I mean you and your new player may enjoy discovering this new way to play, but the rest of the group will think the game's gone in a bad way and maybe even join other games to cope with the experience (like the Beetles).
So the question comes to why and how does she not like combat. Is it the mechanics? How does she fair with other mechanical challenges? I mean combat has more mechanics to keep track of than any other aspect of the game. The trick there is to find some sort of role for her in combat that doesn't put her into the thick of the fray usually. The other side of the coin is it just violence. Few D&D players, but there are some, get uncomfortable narrating their PCs through violent action. But I could envision a non violent personality having issues with gelling with a group or a scene when the swords come out. There was a thread sometime this year that spoke of "pacifist campaigns". I wouldn't do that because the group I think by and large wouldn't want that, but there may be seeds to pluck there.
What class is she? It's understandable for non martial characters, even rogues (though wasting an ability), being violence avoidant. How does she build her characters? What does the character do besides RP and are class features utilized? If she has something to do in game, I mean you could have her default to hiding and basically design combat challenges to be -1 party member.
If the player doesn't gel with your regular campaign, maybe every few sessions you do RP intensive one shots or even side stories to the campaign they can play in. Maybe RP intensive one shots that give the group a further lens into the campaigns, world building.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, the only problem is that improvising rapid-fire epic narration turn after turn can become exhausting (at least for me).
I find it is like all things a practice thing, I now narrate every roll of the dice in combat, every miss, every hit, every saving throw, It adds an extra layer of tension, especially early on in combat when players don't know the AC, describing how the character swings it's sword, is parried, parried again and then swings in an underthrust and pierces the armour.
But I have also played on tables where everything was very mechanical roll the dice, you hit, or you missed, roll damage next player.
As long as she is participating during combat, I wouldn't worry about needing to remove her from the game just yet.
I do think you need to clarify the "at all" part.
Is she turned off by the mechanics/rules of combat? Or is she literally turned off by any sort of physical confrontation in the game whatsoever?
The latter is certainly the more problematic, but not necessarily in a game removal sense. She can play a character who prefers to avoid violence, and advocates alternative means, but as long as she's willing to deal with violence when that's the option on the table - and the rest of the players are good with that - everyone can still have fun. Especially if your new player is adding to the non-combat portions of the game.
^^^This. Also, I’m somewhat confused by what you mean when you say she completely has no interest in combat, but doesn’t tune out when it happens. Is it like people who don’t enjoy shopping encounters? What does she actually do or say? Is it the actual combat itself? How does she feel about support roles and actions? For example, how would she feel about a character that doesn’t engage, but just stands out of danger’s way until someone needs a heal or buff?
I am actually implementing a rule into my games going forward: Anyone who can give me a good description of their attack, and a reason that it is better than just straight up swinging a mace, gets a bonus to their attack roll.
For example: "Tim attacks enemy No.1" compared to "Tim hangs back, waiting for an opportune moment to strike. When an opening makes itself clear he reaches down and flings a handful of dirt into enemy No.1's eyes, then lunges with his sword at their exposed throat."
Hopefully this will encourage more roleplay (Not a massive issue in our group, they are all really good) and more creatie=ve
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
GoodBovine was heard to say: "Tim hangs back, waiting for an opportune moment to strike. When an opening makes itself clear he reaches down and flings a handful of dirt into enemy No.1's eyes, then lunges with his sword at their exposed throat."
The occasional narration of an attack can be all right. I will narrate as I see fit, when DMing. I don't want my players to be anywhere near that specific about what they do. The trouble is that when a player describes their actions like that, they may expect to get some benefit from it. Throwing dirt in your enemies' eyes? Ancient tactic, invented when rocks were, but in D&D, that would be an Action, so no sword attack to follow it up until next turn. You also can't target specific locations, so you can't throw dirt in your opponent's eyes without DM permission. I'd let it happen if they spent an action. Dex check, target number 10 to avoid flying dirt. For free? Sure, as long as there is no effect. Dirt or not, no lunging for throats either.
Another problem is that not a whole lot of us have ever been in a real fight with "martial" melee weapons. Guns, maybe yes. Two-handed swords? Not unless you were in the SCA or something similar. I'm willing to bet none of us have ever fought a cat-like creature with a fanged mouth, six clawed legs, and a couple tentacle things coming out of it's shoulders. How can you accurately narrate a fight when you don't know what it would be like?
What I do in play runs more like this. "Tina hangs back, waiting for an opportune moment to strike. When an opening makes itself clear, she glances down, looking at the Goblin's feet and tries to figure which way it will move next. She takes a swing and... (dice roll) her lips twist into a frustrated snarl as her sword deflects off the Goblin's armor." or maybe (dice roll) her face lights up with a delighted smile as her guess proves correct and the Goblin dodges right into her blade!" (more dice, and to the DM I say "10 points of very impressive swordy damage.")
<Insert clever signature here>
As has been mentioned several times, if the way you've been running the game for years has been a lot of fun for you and the players, you shouldn't feel the need to change it for a new player. All the discussion of the merits of roleplay vs combat and balancing them and the mechanical virtues thereof and game design philosophy is completely irrelevant to the question being asked by the OP.
That being said, I do not know how you handle combat in your game (and again, if it's been working for this group you probably shouldn't make any major changes to accommodate one new player who still enjoys the rest of your game). Personally, I think the best way to balance combat and story based roleplaying is to have the two each actively affect the other as much as possible as opposed to random encounters tossed in just because nobody has swung a sword or cast a fireball for a while. If your player is invested in the story they're roleplaying in, they might become more engaged in a combat encounter if it's clear at the start of combat that it can end different ways that will directly affect the story. That can happen a lot of ways that are more complex than "roleplay in town then go out and plunder a dungeon before coming back to town with a magic macguffin and talking to interesting characters some more." I assume your game has a more complex plot than that, but I don't know how. For example, is somebody trying to assassinate a significant NPC? Then the party has a clear motivation to find the assassin(s) and prevent them from killing the NPC, especially if said NPC is actually present and the PCs have to guard them or help them escape while also fighting the bad guys. Without knowing more about your game's style and feel that's the best I can suggest.
....did you read the post? It is SUPPOSED to give you a benefit. The bonus would not be game changing, I currently have it at somewhere around a +1 or +2 (Depending on how effective I deem it). You 100% can target specific places, it just doesn't do anything. That's like saying you can't kick a stone because there is no rule for it. This rule was also to encourage the PLAYERS to narrate. If it isn't your style, that's okay, but I think it works pretty well.
The thing is, I have the right to narrate the fight however I wish, because I am the DM. It doesn't need to be realistic when whatever I say goes. It is as accurate as I say it is, because it is my game.
Yep, that's great. In our games, normally the player narrates the attack, and the DM describes how it lands but the idea in the same. This new ruling is to encourage roleplay (not a big problem in our group), but importantly tactical thinking. Personally, I find creative solutions to overcome obstacles far more entertaining than blunt force, and that goes for combat as well. I would prefer my players try to think a bit more tactically, but in the current rules there is no reason to. So I made a reason to. Simple as that.
This rule is still in the beta testing phase, if it doesn't feel right it will be removed.
Also, no-one is asking you to use it, it is simply for my group.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
This goes for just about anything else in life.
An established group that's having fun needs to be as welcoming as possible to new members of the group.
It is upon the new member of the group to find ways to best integrate themselves into the flow of the current group. This includes making some sacrifices to ensure they aren't spoiling the fun that the already established group has been having all along.
It's not on you or the others. So long as you and the others make the environment comfortable and welcoming, it's on the new person to fit in. That's sort of the whole point of joining a new group. It's your job to make it work.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
My players understand description is for flavour, and I will totally let them describe how they flick mud in the eye of the attacker before taking a swing with the sword, if they roll to hit then I describe it as the mud blurs their vision giving you an opening to thrust as they flail to try and parry while trying to clear his vison. The sword blow slices into his side and out of instinct he pulls away but too late. Looking at you he wipes the mud from his eyes growling and hefting his sword obviously pissed off.
If they miss then, the mud hits the left eye, but the right is still clear, as a result the bandit swings his sword in a desperate effort to parry, and manages to do so, giving you a gorwl he wipes the mud from the one eye and throws it in anger to the floor.
It is a table by table call but I narrate every single combat dice roll and saving throw, building a narrative with the players of how the fight has taken place. One of the players is really good at making notes of these battles meaning that when it comes to writing out the combat in the journal the whole combat can be described in terms of these moments.
As for narrating a fight with a creature with multiple claws and wings, that is the most fun bit, describing how the creature attacks, and how the characters react to that.
Oh, I am pretty sure I said it was a house rule, but if I didn't my apologies. I also was just putting it out there, I wasn't saying it was a solution to OPs problem 😂 Sorry for the confusion. Come to think about it, the sand in the eyes tactic was probably a bad example, but I had just woken up.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I had a player play a rogue once who played the character entirely risk avoidant (basically transposed own personality on character) in combat or any situation that could put the character in jeopardy. I tried to explain that the very definition of a rogue is one who takes risks against the rules (and the character was more deft and capable than the IRL player so it's ok to take risks outside of your IRL capabilities, like jumping off a ten foot wall), but it didn't go anywhere. So we basically had someone who hung in the back in combat, I'd occasionally throw a brain teaser their way in the interest of equal time, but yeah, player didn't last long in the group.
Anyway, agreeing with everyone else that it would be really a disservice to the rest of the group you've been DMing two years to change format play style to accommodate a new player. The new player may be special to you, but the rest of the group will see any significant modification as boat rocking. To use a possibly offensive analogy, don't John and Yoko your Beetles. I mean you and your new player may enjoy discovering this new way to play, but the rest of the group will think the game's gone in a bad way and maybe even join other games to cope with the experience (like the Beetles).
So the question comes to why and how does she not like combat. Is it the mechanics? How does she fair with other mechanical challenges? I mean combat has more mechanics to keep track of than any other aspect of the game. The trick there is to find some sort of role for her in combat that doesn't put her into the thick of the fray usually. The other side of the coin is it just violence. Few D&D players, but there are some, get uncomfortable narrating their PCs through violent action. But I could envision a non violent personality having issues with gelling with a group or a scene when the swords come out. There was a thread sometime this year that spoke of "pacifist campaigns". I wouldn't do that because the group I think by and large wouldn't want that, but there may be seeds to pluck there.
What class is she? It's understandable for non martial characters, even rogues (though wasting an ability), being violence avoidant. How does she build her characters? What does the character do besides RP and are class features utilized? If she has something to do in game, I mean you could have her default to hiding and basically design combat challenges to be -1 party member.
If the player doesn't gel with your regular campaign, maybe every few sessions you do RP intensive one shots or even side stories to the campaign they can play in. Maybe RP intensive one shots that give the group a further lens into the campaigns, world building.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.