Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 2236468" data-attributes="member: 151">Which they didn't, as the information in the DMG makes clear.  But they also make clear that a CR 10 encounter is meant for four 10th level PCs, and that you can't throw it at 2 10th level PCs and expect the same results every time.None of which really has that much to do with whether magic is overpowered or not, but is discussing specific instances.As far as I understood, the contention was that Willowhaunt perceived a problem in that a suitably high-level spellcaster was disproportionately powerful compared to a fighter of equal level.  Under the right situation, this is true.  The opposite can also be true.  As I mentioned before, a high level fighter can kill some monsters in a single round...in my game saturday night, a 343 hit point creature was killed in a single strike due to Devastating Critical.  He needed no magical powers to do this...it was the end point of a long feat chain.  But at the same time, without his boots of flight, he wouldn't have been able to reach the combat to engage the foe in the first place.Your contend that CR and balance are effectively meaningless, since it requires DM intervention.  I respectfully disagree.  I cannot envision a game or system where DM intervention is not required, by very definition of the format.  The DM chooses the place and setting, he chooses the opponents and the circumstances.  He could throw a Balor against a 2nd level party...but he knows, in general, that this would be ridiculous.  The CR system makes general assumptions about what the party can manage at that level.  There are always multiple ways to defeat an opponent at any level: some are more optimal than others, but they exist.  In D&D, the assumption exists that players will have a certain level of access to magical resources.  Higher level D&D expects that players with any intelligence will use them.  Don't like the bodak's death-stare?  Make sure your party can get access to spells like death-ward.  That's an example of what the system anticipates and expects.In the party you mentioned, the ranger IS a front-line fighter, if he wants to be.  Less variance in his feats than a normal fighter, but a fighter nonetheless.  The same applies for the paladin who can heal, is a front line fighter and can turn undead.  That bard?  He can uses scrolls and wands as he pleases, has healing spells and buffs the party.  The warlock buffs himself, and can double as a secondary fighter or a specialist wizard, as needed.  The bard and ranger can both substitute as the rogue very handily, if they desire.  If they don't, that's fine too.  There are plenty of options. I just really don't see a problem, personally.  If you have a party of four barbarians, then you adapt your tactics.  If adapting your tactics mean triggering a trap and hoping to make your save and suck up the damage rather than deactivate it, so be it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification