Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8940316" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Now granted, denying melee isn't quite the same as denying magic; you do have ranged weapons of your own, though I fully realize, a character built to be melee is probably not the greatest archer in the world.And there are enemies where it sucks to be a spellcaster, especially when BS legendary resistance comes into play.But I do agree, building an encounter to "shut off" a character is a bad move.  And yes, it is easier to "shut off" a mundane character than it is a magical one.  I know I would never "shut off" a magical character, even beyond my dislike of negating characters, for the following reasons:1) I want them using their spell slots.  If they can't use them in Fight C, then they will have less reason to be frugal in Fights D, E, and F.2) They aren't designed to do much of anything if they can't use cantrips.  Now it's true most arcane casters are going to have Dexterity.  And Clerics often have good reasons to have Strength.  But these aren't required by their classes.  So if I shut down the magic of, say, a physically feeble but Wise Druid, no spells, no wild shape- I basically have to design the encounter as if they weren't present that day.Beyond all that, however, yes, there are people who change the game and then gripe that it doesn't adjust for that change.  The most obvious way this occurs is optimization.As you play the game, you learn that some choices are better than other ones.  So over time, almost everyone can make a better character unless they actively sabotage their efforts to do so.Unfortunately, the game doesn't take any of this into account for encounter design.  If Feats are optional, it's hard to imagine monster Challenge Ratings take things like "bless + advantage + great weapon master" into consideration.  Or PAM/Sentinel builds.You can definitely rest assured that the game doesn't take magic items into account beyond "well at level X, surely they have magical weapons".Multiclassing being optional as well; not only is the game not balanced around mixing class abilities, given how slowly you gain subclass abilities, it's obviously not balanced around a character reaching level 7, looking at what they have to look forward to for the next 7 levels, and deciding to switch classes after they pick up their next ASI.And that's not even getting into how some subclasses are better than others.  If your first character is a sword and board Champion Fighter, and your next is an Elven Samurai with Great Weapon Master and Elven Accuracy, you're going to see different results- though of course, your DM's style matters here as well.  (Like, if he's an "always target the Fighter" DM, the shield is probably the better choice, lol).But the flipside is that WotC gave us these "options" that just make the game more exciting and fun, then refused to do even the basic work of telling DM's how to employ them without altering game balance.  In my less charitable moments, I've equated this to them basically saying "oh here's this option, but if you use it and it breaks your game, it's not our fault, lol!".There is no wrong way to play game, but there's a caveat to this: unless you are playing in a way that makes the game less fun for others.</blockquote>

Verification