D&D 5E Overspecialization

[Benjamin Olson]

I think you generally make a more viable and less one note character if your interpretation of thematic specializing is "I will favor this thing and eschew this thing, and that thing, and the other thing", rather than "I will only ever use on brand spells and abilities".

For example, while I would expect a pyromancer to take a lot of fire spells, and not invest in other elemental damages, that doesn't mean they could not learn all manner of non-elemental evocation related spells and be able to do other things. Pyromania can just be one important aspect of their repertoire, rather than the be-all-end-all of it. As for learning cone of cold, I would say only if you are ruling at your table that that spell puts out fires, in which case having an off-button spell or two is very on-brand to being able to control fire.

 

[FrogReaver]

I like tightly themed and having options to intelligently defeat my enemies.

I used to play call of duty a lot. I liked to use a bayonet exclusively (original world at war). Well I was running down a long wide open ally. Someone turned on radar and I seen 3 enemy blips about to round the corner at me. I layed flat on the ground and played dead (this was before the animation where your head was always up when lying on the ground). The first enemy ran by me. I jumped up on the second and stabbed him dead. I ended up dying to the others but 1 kill for 1 death was enough to turn a certain defeat into a defacto victory.

in short, working around limitations is very fun. You just have to have Mechanics that allow you to do so.

 

[Gadget]

Well, 5e (and D&D in general) does encourage some types of specialization by dint of the class (and subclass) system. It just cannot accommodate all types of specialization, as indeed no system could. Specializing in a vary narrow type of magic--out side of say, school specialization--just does not work very well. Ideally, a special class or subclass could be made with class features and spell lists to make a balanced fire mage.

Or, lacking that, I think it could be a fair bit of re-flavoring to make things work. Even Gandalf the Grey, who specialized in fire & lights type of magic, still had other tricks to help out. Things like 'dispelling' hostile fire hazards or attacks "I am a Servant of the Secret Fire and a wielder of the Flame of Anor! The Dark Fire will not avail you, Flame of Udun!" Perhaps that Cone of Cold is merely a skilled fire mage taking the heat out of everything in the area. After all, Morgoth (to once again go to Tolkien), who was somewhat of a Fire God (or at least, that seemed to be his realm, just as Manwe was Air, Ulmo was Water & Alue was Earth) caused fierce colds to ravage the land and thereby created snow and ice. Perhaps a divination spell is seeing a vision in a fire burning special fuel with incense. Magic Missile and radiant damage can be seen as part of, or at least adjacent to, a broad defination of a fire theme.

 

[Krachek]

Specialization is good for movie or novel, in gameplay it is a gamble you make at every fight.

 

[Undrave]

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.

There was an obscure anime about a decade ago called 'Law of Ueki' where the characters had all sorts of wacky specialized powers and making use of them in clever way was the most interesting aspect (HunterXHunter also does this to a certain extant). The main character's power was turning trash into trees... One of his rival could make onsen towels hard as steal when holding his breath...That's some silly specialization.

I like tightly themed and having options to intelligently defeat my enemies.

I used to play call of duty a lot. I liked to use a bayonet exclusively (original world at war). Well I was running down a long wide open ally. Someone turned on radar and I seen 3 enemy blips about to round the corner at me. I layed flat on the ground and played dead (this was before the animation where your head was always up when lying on the ground). The first enemy ran by me. I jumped up on the second and stabbed him dead. I ended up dying to the others but 1 kill for 1 death was enough to turn a certain defeat into a defacto victory.

in short, working around limitations is very fun. You just have to have Mechanics that allow you to do so.

Reminds me a bit of my days of playing Splatoon... I specialized in a VERY short ranged weapon (Luna Blaster, because it looked like a sci-fi gun) that could splat in one hit if I lined my shot correctly... which was rare. But I was loaded with Quick Respawn gear and a shirt that tagged anybody who killed me with a radar all my allies could see... So my whole game plan was to always rush force my way past enemy lines to disrupt their paths to the central conflict zone (and be a good super jump point for my allies) and whenever I ran into an enemy I would either take them out, take them with me, or be back in action so fast that I could still benefit from my own haunting tag, making killing me something of a waste of time.

It was fun, but on certain maps I just wasn't fast enough, and my gun was pretty slow so I didn't get a lot of coverage for Turf War, but I had gotten very good at knowing all the different possible paths on a map (months in people STILL could get lost in Kelp Dome, like... HOW?!), all the choke points, all the dangerous spots and I've turned fights around by being able to break through the line on more than one occasion.

And if the rest of the crew was too good I'd often feel like surplus the requirement since they were breaking through the line on their own.

 

[Marandahir]

Well, 5e (and D&D in general) does encourage some types of specialization by dint of the class (and subclass) system. It just cannot accommodate all types of specialization, as indeed no system could. Specializing in a vary narrow type of magic--out side of say, school specialization--just does not work very well. Ideally, a special class or subclass could be made with class features and spell lists to make a balanced fire mage.

Or, lacking that, I think it could be a fair bit of re-flavoring to make things work. Even Gandalf the Grey, who specialized in fire & lights type of magic, still had other tricks to help out. Things like 'dispelling' hostile fire hazards or attacks "I am a Servant of the Secret Fire and a wielder of the Flame of Anor! The Dark Fire will not avail you, Flame of Udun!" Perhaps that Cone of Cold is merely a skilled fire mage taking the heat out of everything in the area. After all, Morgoth (to once again go to Tolkien), who was somewhat of a Fire God (or at least, that seemed to be his realm, just as Manwe was Air, Ulmo was Water & Alue was Earth) caused fierce colds to ravage the land and thereby created snow and ice. Perhaps a divination spell is seeing a vision in a fire burning special fuel with incense. Magic Missile and radiant damage can be seen as part of, or at least adjacent to, a broad defination of a fire theme.

Gandalf's really a Life Cleric though (complete with a sword!). In Tolkien, Wizard is a particular class of angel (Aasimar).

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I try to stick with themes super tight....by only taking thunder and lightning damage spells for my storm sorcerer, and other spells that echo environmental things like Fog Cloud or Sleet Storm. But man-oh-man is web a juicy spell and I couldn't let it pass.

Yes, I do cop-out of a theme, but I feel bad about it and do my absolute best to at least retheme if at all possible...

 

[Shiroiken]

In 5E it's really hard to overspecialize, but it's possible to under-prepare (all characters need a melee and ranged option), which is an excellent thing. The only example would be the one given: an elemental mage who only deals one damage type. There was a Red Dragon Sorceress PC in a game I ran, focusing on fire damage. However, not only did she have non-combat spells, but when she knew that they were going to a volcanic region with fire immune monsters, she took some non-fire based damage spells (although not cold spells for thematic reasons).

3E & 4E allowed for much more levels of specialization, as did AD&D to a lesser extent. I saw players ignore magical weapons and armor because it didn't fit their min-max setup, even if the magical bonus overcame the difference. I recall a 3.5E game in particular that had a super-powerful greatclub (+7 equivalent) that no one was willing to use; I just shook my head and wished I was proficient (I was tempted even without it).

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

It also depends on how often it comes up - I really don't mind a once-every-few-levels ranged encounter as a paladin. Sure, I can throw insults or javelins, but honestly readying a melee attack that never happens is probably a better use of my turn, and it's cool to watch the sniper ranger shine for an encounter while I sit there like a lump. It's a triumph of teamwork.

Now, if the kind of encounter I need to sit out comes up once per adventuring day on average... that's a problem. But it's probably self-imposed as a player by building a character who needs an external factor to function.

 

[Iry]

Overspecialization? Like when the Barbarian rages and rushes into combat, and none of the enemies attack them that round?