D&D 5E Overspecialization

[Samloyal23]

Specialization is the only way to achieve excellence, but have a Plan B, just in case. You should not be helpless if your primary attack is foiled, but you should strive to be as good at that one technique as you can, and you should look for creative ways to use your primary talent.

 

[Dross]

I think it's helpful to be aware, every decision you make as a DM encourages or discourages the behavior you want to see. If you don't think specialized characters are appropriate for your game, be sure to let people know before they make them.

I need to ask: if someone makes a specialised character, anything a DM does that is outside of the specialisation is a "gotcha"?
And if not, where is the line?

Because to me you are implying that unless the DM sets everything up to allow the PCs to shine they are trying to "gothca" the players.
Which leads to the (absurd extreme example of) PCs will only face clones of themselves (including equipment and spells, and maybe tactics), & even the clones can only attack the mirror PC.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

I need to ask: if someone makes a specialised character, anything a DM does that is outside of the specialisation is a "gotcha"?
And if not, where is the line?

Because to me you are implying that unless the DM sets everything up to allow the PCs to shine they are trying to "gothca" the players.
Which leads to the (absurd extreme example of) PCs will only face clones of themselves (including equipment and spells, and maybe tactics), & even the clones can only attack the mirror PC.

I think you completely misunderstand. Specialization generally "works" against anything until the DM sets things up so that it doesn't. Fire Mage Guy generally does well against anything until you decide to make him helpless, same with melee only, bow only guy or even Heal Spells Only Guy. So my advice is, when you set up the negating scenario, think about what you're trying to achieve and what you're trying to teach or reinforce. If what you're trying to achieve with the scenario is or includes "Fire Mage Guy is a silly concept", maybe you should have told him that before he made Fire Mage Guy.

 

[Vael]

I dislike overspecializing my PCs and generally throw in a subtheme. For example, my Fire Mage Sorcerer also liked illusions, he called them "fire made form" and looked like blue flame to those that did manage to disbelieve the illusion.

 

[wingsandsword]

With spellcasters, you can usually get enough of a diversity in spells that they won't be TOTALLY helpless outside their specialization. A flame mage might not be able to do much against a Red Dragon, but they'll can have buff spells and protective magics, and there are "neutral" attack spells like Magic Missile which can fit a lot of play styles.

The problems I've seen have been when someone gets an idea for a "cool" character off some movie or TV show and tries to make it in D&D, only to find that a D&D adventure works differently than a movie or TV show that is perfectly scripted to let the highly specialized character show off their abilities and never touches much on the weaknesses or downsides of this plan. That or D&D does a poor job of conveying their plan, because their concept is rather silly and wouldn't work in anything but a comedy game.

I knew a guy once who, after watching some anime, really, REALLY wanted to play a fighter who specialized. . .in CHOPSTICKS! It was in some obscure anime he watched. He wanted to play a fighter who didn't wear armor and poked people expertly with chopsticks. We were playing AD&D 2e, so maybe a monk, with this as some kind of monk weapon might have worked in later editions, but rolling up a fighter, but not wearing any armor, and taking chopsticks that do 1 point of damage, and then using that as your main weapon? You're just weaker in every way than Bob the Generic Fighter with his plate mail and longsword and shield. He got angry because his character wasn't as "cool" as the anime was, and quit. We'd tried pointing out during character creation how it wouldn't work, but he insisted it would, because it was just so cool it couldn't fail.

 

[Dross]

This seems like a very old fashioned, pvp style of DM mentality. Int saves, fire immune foes, or archers all exist only because the DM wants them to exist. If you want to gatcha someone, that's fine, but don't pretend that's not what your doing. This being a problem at a table is generally created out of a disconnect between DMs who want to play grid-based-war-game and players who just want to be a fantasy archetype in a fantasy world, inspired by their favorite inspirational media or actual play. If they wanted to play grid-based-war-game, they probably would have created an appropriate character for that, if you let them know that's what was up.

I think you completely misunderstand. Specialization generally "works" against anything until the DM sets things up so that it doesn't. Fire Mage Guy generally does well against anything until you decide to make him helpless, same with melee only, bow only guy or even Heal Spells Only Guy. So my advice is, when you set up the negating scenario, think about what you're trying to achieve and what you're trying to teach or reinforce. If what you're trying to achieve with the scenario is or includes "Fire Mage Guy is a silly concept", maybe you should have told him that before he made Fire Mage Guy.

But if it flows naturally for the narrative of the game?
Lets try this:
Fire Mage Guy has been adventuring for a while and made an enemy of a cult. From encounters where there have been survivors the cult learns that FMG prefers fire.
Cult decides to kill FMG to prevent him from interfering anymore. They can either
1) cast protection from elements: fire to increase their chances, or
2) just attack FMG and hope for the best.

In post 33 you said that if a PC specialises in something (fire in this case) and the DM has something that is resistant/immune/outside the specialisation, it is a "gotcha." The above scenario seems perfectly logical to me, i would expect it if playing FMG myself (and i would not need the DM to say: in the course of the adventure someone may learn of your specialisation and try to counter it. I would expect it). I also don't see it as a grid-based-war game, and i don't see it as the DM thinking FMG is not appropriate for the game.

PCs can cast protection from elements: fire to give them a better chance against a red dragon if they know they are going to be facing one (hhhhmmmm, I wonder, do you consider this a gotcha by the players v the DM?).

Is #1 (or the scenario) a gotcha, or can you as DM only do #2 (or not have the cult proactively try to stop FMG)?

The 2 bolded parts of the second quote is the first time I've seen where you have added that anything outside the specialisation isn't a PvP/DM gotcha/teach them a lesson not to specialise (honestly, if I've missed it which post is it in?).

Fire resist/immune v FMG isn't automatically PvP/DM gotcha/teach a lesson. It may be just a natural outcome of what has happened. The bolded+italicised implies you agree that not all instances are automatically a gotcha. Is that the case?

I would think that a DM gotcha would be having most enemies be fire immune v FMG even with no prior knowledge of FMG, but I haven't seen that touted here.