Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8716648" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Exactly this. It’s a spectrum, surely. I don’t adjust for anything other than level and number of PCs in 4e or 5e, except to intentionally create a specific kind of challenge. Eg, enemies which are much more mobile than any PC can be, that the PCs have to find a way to counter in a complex geography. Sure, casters will navigate that differently than martials, but they’ll all find a way and be challenged in the process. All I need is level and number of PCs to balance the encounter. The bolded part is what is controversial, along with the idea that the game needs to change to accommodate having or not having a tank in the group. They designed the game using the metric of a range of normal average damage per PC per level per round. Hardly arbitrary. And it works. DMs adjust to the party because it’s more fun, not because an “Oops all rogues” party needs to face different enemies than a party with a Barbarian and a wizard and a cleric in order for the game to be balanced. Literally no one is saying that. Kind of, sure. But also valuation of different kinds of balance, or perhaps more accurately different approaches to balance. And that is how it’s designed, yes. The thing is that this design doesn’t make it unbalanced, it just means that it doesn’t try to balance around things like whether the group has weird controls spells or stunning strike, it just is design such that the game runs fine with or without those abilities in a party.</blockquote>

Verification