D&D 5E Overspecialization

[Fauchard1520]

Overspecialization is something you do with NPCs imho. Often they are going to be used for a specific occasion (but not always), which may or may not involve combat.

In my experience, the true one trick pony enthusiasts are fairly new to gaming. They're just getting into the fun of character builds, and haven't had the chance to sit down and run a game. Because you're right: I think that's where you get a lot of the wackiness out of your system.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

While the increase of options has contributed, I can remember going back to my earliest days of gaming when a PC was stuck throwing daggers because they couldn't close to melee and bring their main weapon into play, or the ranged archer had to use that silvered shortsword instead of their bow because of immunities. The increased amount of hyperfocus on builds has certainly made it more common, but the risk has always been there.

In my experience, the true one trick pony enthusiasts are fairly new to gaming. They're just getting into the fun of character builds, and haven't had the chance to sit down and run a game. Because you're right: I think that's where you get a lot of the wackiness out of your system.

 

[Dausuul]

I think it's fun for PCs to have a Shtick. But the player also needs to recognize that it comes with a cost.

I think the idea that there should be a tradeoff between fun and effectiveness is far too common in games.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think the idea that there should be a tradeoff between fun and effectiveness is far too common in games.

IMHO, some of the fun in playing a 1TP comes when the trick is neutralized. Like when Green Lantern characters have to figure out how to solve a problem involving the color yellow, a monk has to fight a foe he can’t touch, or spellcasters need to solve a problem without magic, it means you have to innovate.

 

[aco175]

What's that old saying? "Poor planning on your part doesn't mean I'm a bad DM."

In the Army it was called the '5 Ps of Success" - Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What's that old saying? "Poor planning on your part doesn't mean I'm a bad DM."

Not mutually exclusive, though.

 

[Li Shenron]

I like themed characters, particularly spellcasters. You can keep a theme without being too much focused on a single type of function. "Fire mage" is kind of an extreme example because fire mostly just burns things, but you can still find fire-themed spells that cover different functions than damage, for example Wall of Fire essentially still deals damage but works in such a way that it normally ends up provide battlefield control.

Then, when the DM allows, you can alter descriptions to adapt many spells to your chosen theme without changing how they work.

You certainly don't want to shoehorn yourself too much in terms of those functions. But OTOH I don't worry if once in a while I might end up useless in a specific encounter, that's why the game is played by a team anyway. And to be honest, I don't fully believe it's really that possible to be completely useless anyway, just less effective.

 

[Undrave]

I was curious and I just looked and... I don't think the Sorcerer, in the PHB at least, has a single cold damage spell for level 1 and 2 aside from Chromatic Orb...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I was curious and I just looked and... I don't think the Sorcerer, in the PHB at least, has a single cold damage spell for level 1 and 2 aside from Chromatic Orb...

That's why they added more (years ago) in the Elemental Evil Players companion - free download, free on D&D Beyond.

Ice Knife
Slilloc's Snowball Swarm

Those where reprinted in Xanathar's, along with Chaos Bolt and Dragon's Breath.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I like themed characters, particularly spellcasters. You can keep a theme without being too much focused on a single type of function. "Fire mage" is kind of an extreme example because fire mostly just burns things, but you can still find fire-themed spells that cover different functions than damage, for example Wall of Fire essentially still deals damage but works in such a way that it normally ends up provide battlefield control.

Then, when the DM allows, you can alter descriptions to adapt many spells to your chosen theme without changing how they work.

You certainly don't want to shoehorn yourself too much in terms of those functions. But OTOH I don't worry if once in a while I might end up useless in a specific encounter, that's why the game is played by a team anyway. And to be honest, I don't fully believe it's really that possible to be completely useless anyway, just less effective.

One of the last 3.5Ed PCs I ran was a dragon & lightning-obsessed human sorcerer with blue Draconic heritage. He basically had 2 kinds of spells: electrical/lightning damage spells and utility spells...and because of his draconic heritage, he could burn spell slots for a lightning breath weapon.

He also wielded a maul and wore scale mail. No, at the campaign kickoff, he did NOT have the feats to use them properly. Used ‘em anyway.*

The single campaign homerule the DM implemented for my PC was that he did away with the Elemental Substation feat, and ruled that elemental spells all existed in distinct versions for each element. So you could still have acid, cold, earth sonic or lightning versions of a fire spell without burning a feat...but you had to learn 6 spells instead of one.




* He didn’t allow any non-PHB classes or variants and you could only draw feats from the PHB and your choice of 2 other sourcebooks, so proficiency in arms & armor would have eventually come from multiclassing, feat selection or a combo of both.