D&D 5E Overspecialization

[Fauchard1520]

Having a tightly-themed character can be a lot of fun. Fire mages with burning hands and fireballs and wall of flame have a pretty solid identity. Of course, it's considerably less fun when you run into that immune-to-fire red dragon. That's where you stop being an interestingly-themed character and become a one-trick pony.

"Sorry guys. I guess I'm sitting out this combat. Good luck!"

So my question to the board: Do you think it's better to hedge a themed character with a few alternate vectors of attack, or does cone of cold feel like betraying your concept when you're a fire mage? Same deal with melee bruisers vs. ranged specialists, debuffers vs. evocationists, etc.

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

 

[jasper]

I love dming for one trick ponies. The sounds of their suffering when they enter a module which counters their shtick makes my heart go pitter pat.

 

[Umbran]

I just don't build themes so tight that they don't allow for some leeway.

I'm playing a lizardfolk barbarian. He's a pretty standard barbarian "get in front and soak up the damage" kind of lizard. But having some javelins and hand axes on hand just in case doesn't break his theme.

 

[the Jester]

If you really only have one trick, you're leaning hard into being useless some of the time. It's the same thing as the guy whose is amazing with the greatsword but has never bothered to pick up a bow or other ranged weapon- when you're fighting a ranged flyer, my sympathy as a DM is very limited. Versatility is important; if you can't do anything if your shtick isn't going to help, you're willingly choosing to shoot yourself in the foot. If you do that, don't expect others to feel bad for you when you limp.

 

[Dausuul]

So my question to the board: Do you think it's better to hedge a themed character with a few alternate vectors of attack, or does cone of cold feel like betraying your concept when you're a fire mage? Same deal with melee bruisers vs. ranged specialists, debuffers vs. evocationists, etc.

I do think it is important to have a backup plan for when your primary weapon is useless, but it doesn't have to be as extreme as giving cold spells to your fire mage. Magic missile goes with pretty much any theme and works on almost any foe, and you can always turn to thematically-appropriate buff and debuff spells (haste for a fire mage, slow for a cold mage, etc.).

By far the most common issue I encounter with overspecialization is the melee warrior who doesn't pack any kind of ranged attack and can't figure out what to do when they can't get to the enemy in 1 round. However, this is usually down to poor planning rather than a deliberate thematic choice.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think it's pretty damn rare in 5E for overspecialization to actually be "a thing" in a genuine mechanical way.

I can't think of any examples where overspecialization was an actual mechanical issue that forced someone to sit out a fight or be totally ineffectual or the like.

What I can think of is examples of players being thoughtless and thus ending up sitting out a fight. For example, the melee Barbarian who just doesn't even bring any throwing axes or javelins. It's not like anything was stopping him. Not mechanics, not money, not opportunity or anything. He just didn't see the need. And then when we had to fight a bunch of flying stuff, he was less than useful - but even though by stunts and stuff he managed to help out.

I made a character recently who was basically resistant or immune to vast swathes of magic (Satyr Oath of the Ancients Paladin - so big save bonus, Magic Resistance, Fey, and half-damage from magic due to the aura), and so far it just hasn't come up (the DM hasn't even realized, but it will be pretty funny when he does I guess!), but 5E is so solidly built that despite me having this massive "Magic won't work on me" deal, my character functioned just fine.

 

[TwoSix]

Depends. If the character is built around a specific schtick to maximize multiple synergistic bonuses, then sure, they need to pay a price for not building in versatility.

If they're just playing for the aesthetic of using a certain type (like a wizard who only chooses ice spells), than I'm a lot more likely to give them an assist, not punish them.

 

[Doug McCrae]

does cone of cold feel like betraying your concept when you're a fire mage?

Yes, fire spells or nothing. The solution is to make up a feat, Elemental Master, that allows your spells of a particular energy type (which should always be fire ofc, the best energy type) to ignore immunity.

As my PC Flaming Helen would say, "Fire kills everything."

 

[Undrave]

I do think it is important to have a backup plan for when your primary weapon is useless, but it doesn't have to be as extreme as giving cold spells to your fire mage. Magic missile goes with pretty much any theme and works on almost any foe, and you can always turn to thematically-appropriate buff and debuff spells (haste for a fire mage, slow for a cold mage, etc.).

And don't forget Fairy Fire! It's a popular buff spell and it's thematically appropriate even if it doesn't inflict Fire Damage. I would also argue 'Shatter' fits in well enough as an explosion.

And you could always find some piece of scenery to set on fire and have fall on the dragon (are you fighting in a mine held up by wooden posts?)

 

[Umbran]

Part of the issue is that D&D, and some other games, are a little stingy on their rules supporting actions that aren't direct attacks or use of spells or abilities with well-defined effects, and also are very tight with their action economy.

If the game and GM are not active in encouraging more "off menu" actions, players will tend to not try them. So, when they have no other recourse, they've not built up ideas of how else they can contribute.