Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 8063390" data-attributes="member: 5889">though I do have some counters, I applaud this example, as it’s a good debate point.So this is an example of a 5e truism, which recognizes that the dm will (and really must) adjust his plot and encounters to his party for optimal effect.for example, the example group presented is decently “low magic”. Such a party could be trivially  killed by a mage doing a combo of some poison cloud plus wall of force. But we would expect that a good dm would not do that, or would at least give the party a chance to acquire needed resources to beat such a ploy if he intended to use it.So the point of the example is that a low magic party can play in a high level campaign with a good dm who properly adjusts for his party (Which I think is an expectation of 5e gameplay). I agree!!I think the wrinkle though is when you do have full casters in the party. Now the dm is freer to throw in those scenarios that require magic. Or if the dm allows for more mundane options...the party will still use the wizard because it is the much faster more efficient option.so this again brings me back to my original point, full casters tend to “cinematically dominate”. If a wizard is not available, the party will adapt (as you noted). But if they are, a party will heavily rely on them...and the wizard will consume a large amount of “screen time” away from the fighters</blockquote>