Is a well-balanced D&D party:
1 Fighter
1 Wizard
1 Rogue
1 Cleric
Is this what WotC is thinking of when they talk about Challenge Ratings being based on 4 PCs of a certain level?
Surely an all Wizard party is more disadvantaged than the example "well-balanced" party above.
Should WotC state (or maybe they already do, I haven't read my books in a while) that a party of 4 should ideally feature 1 each of the 4 "main" classes as featured above?
Furthermore, should a GM make players compromise when they are building an adventuring party? For example, say all the players wanted to play Wizards in their D&D game. Can the GM say: "No, some one has to play a Cleric, a Rogue, and a Fighter".
1 Fighter
1 Wizard
1 Rogue
1 Cleric
Is this what WotC is thinking of when they talk about Challenge Ratings being based on 4 PCs of a certain level?
Surely an all Wizard party is more disadvantaged than the example "well-balanced" party above.
Should WotC state (or maybe they already do, I haven't read my books in a while) that a party of 4 should ideally feature 1 each of the 4 "main" classes as featured above?
Furthermore, should a GM make players compromise when they are building an adventuring party? For example, say all the players wanted to play Wizards in their D&D game. Can the GM say: "No, some one has to play a Cleric, a Rogue, and a Fighter".