I come the the side of the tracks that says nothing is balanced so dont try to make it so. Moreover, its a Lord of Greed. I would think many parites would die fighting it. So maybe its best not to fight it unless the party has some serious firepower. Maybe 3 or 4 parties.
Originally Posted by Blackrazor
While I can appreciate the origin of this line of thinking, it flies in the face of the published design concepts for D&D 4th Edition. WotC went out of their way to redesign 4E with balance in mind. Gone are the "class tier" issues that often cripple 3.x games. Similarly, while parties should still face a good challenge, the party is generally expected to win an even-level encounter. This holds true even in most epic-level encounters.
Granted, the Lords of Sin are pretty much the biggest baddest evilest (sic) guys around, and their individual power level should probably be a level or two above the party that faces them. Even so, the party should win if they are smart
. Since death at epic levels is often little more than a temporary inconvenience (as evidenced by the numerous powers that start "Once per day, when you die
..."), taking out one or two or three PCs in the course of the fight still results in a net win for the party.
Also, D&D isn't World of Warcraft
. The 4 or 5 PCs in the party are the stars of their own little movie; they are pretty much the ONLY "big damn heroes" the world has to call on in this moment in time. Contrast this to WoW's "you'll need 70 Level 80 characters for this raid" mechanic
|Hyperbole for example purposes |
. Sharing the spotlight with another playgroup is logistically difficult (in terms of real-world scheduling), mechanically unsupported, and a very
advanced roleplaying concept. Game balance doesn't support that many PCs squaring off against a single foe.