D&D 5E Overspecialization

[Northern Phoenix]

It's not "old-fashioned," it's not "a PVP style of mentality," and it's not a "gatcha," it's just a kobold with a crossbow. It's the same crossbow that the barbarian can purchase in any shop and use without penalty, but decided not to because it wasn't optimized and therefore, "completely useless." The player made a deliberate choice to hamstring his character in all ranged encounters--you can't put that on the DM.

It's pretty silly for the player to assume that because he decided to never buy a ranged weapon, ranged combat is now off-limits. (I mean, what if another player wants to play an archer ranger? Is he just out of luck now?) Likewise, it's pretty silly for the player to assume that because his wizard focuses on fire spells, all enemy spellcasters can't cast the protection from energy spell.

It's a disconnect alright, but I think it's in the opposite direction from which you implied.

A kobold won't have a crossbow unless you want him to for some specific purpose. A enemy caster won't have "protection from energy" unless you want him to for some specific purpose. Simulationism is an illusion, in reality the only things or facts that exist outside of the player characters are what the DM decides exist for some specific purpose.

 

[Eltab]

I DM'ed for a Barbarian who refused to use ranged weapons ... until I had a dragon fly in tight circles 15' over her head, using Tail attacks (had the reach) on her and breath weapons or something else on the rest of the group. The group slew the dragon in the end and the barbarian picked up the bow-and-arrow out of its hoard. (This dragon kept a bunch of weapons of dragonslaying "under its mattress" as the safest place they could be: not in circulation slaying dragons.)

I've thought about playing a Sun Soul Monk so I have that always-available short-range attack, for when "I run up and kick him" just isn't going to work - across a chasm, say.

I fluffed Fog Cloud one time as 10,000 of those maple tree seed 'helicopter' whirly thingies falling to the ground - the campaign was set in a forest, so I wanted something that evoked being in a forest.

And in one 4e LFR adventure, my convention table discovered my StarLock was our only ranged combatant. So I got to be the designated 'flak gun' and everybody else kept the ground-pounding foes out of my hair.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I played a monk who was mostly of the weaponless variety...except for the Quiver of Ehlonna chock full of spears, javelins and darts. Those were quite handy, even after she took a feat that let him use unarmed strike at (short) range.

Since then, High-Dex monk = light mobile artillery in my book.

 

[CleverNickName]

A kobold won't have a crossbow unless you want him to for some specific purpose. A enemy caster won't have "protection from energy" unless you want him to for some specific purpose. Simulationism is an illusion, in reality the only things or facts that exist outside of the player characters are what the DM decides exist for some specific purpose.

That's not true, though. Kobolds have slings in their monster description. Drow have hand crossbows in their monster description. Medusae have longbows in their monster description. I could go on, but my point is that these monsters all have ranged weapons equipped by default. The same goes for certain monsters with fly speeds, and certain spellcasters that have anti-magic spells already listed in their description. Simulationism might still be an illusion, but even in this simulation there are rules.

It's poor practice to expect the DM to change every monster's stat blocks to suit your character. Wise players will make sure their characters are prepared for anything, especially things as common as wings and bows.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A kobold won't have a crossbow unless you want him to for some specific purpose.

Well, no, a standard kobold has a sling. But the Monster Manual gives pretty much all intelligent humanoids a melee weapon and a ranged weapon, because it would be unbelievable for them not to carry both.

A enemy caster won't have "protection from energy" unless you want him to for some specific purpose. Simulationism is an illusion, in reality the only things or facts that exist outside of the player characters are what the DM decides exist for some specific purpose.

The specific purpose of making them believable opponents.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

That's not true, though. Kobolds have slings in their monster description. Drow have hand crossbows in their monster description. Medusae have longbows in their monster description. I could go on, but my point is that these monsters all have ranged weapons equipped by default. The same goes for certain monsters with fly speeds, and certain spellcasters that have anti-magic spells already listed in their description. Simulationism might still be an illusion, but even in this simulation there are rules.

It's poor practice to expect the DM to change every monster's stat blocks to suit your character. Wise players will make sure their characters are prepared for anything, especially things as common as wings and bows.

The idea that the MM is anything other than a suggestion is another illusion, but more importantly, i personally i think it's poor practice to pvp people who are not expecting pvp, though i don't think we're ever going to agree on that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The idea that the MM is anything other than a suggestion is another illusion, but more importantly, i personally i think it's poor practice to pvp people who are not expecting pvp, though i don't think we're ever going to agree on that.

So you are saying it's "PvP" not to remove a monster's ranged weapon if a PC does not carry a ranged weapon!?

You are right: we are never going to agree on that!

 

[Northern Phoenix]

So you are saying it's "PvP" not to remove a monster's ranged weapon if a PC does not carry a ranged weapon!?

You are right: we are never going to agree on that!

It's "PVP" for a player to tell you they want to play a concept, tell them that's fine, and then attempt to "gatcha" them anyway to "teach them a lesson".

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's "PVP" for a player to tell you they want to play a concept, tell them that's fine, and then attempt to "gatcha" them anyway to "teach them a lesson".

That might apply if someone created a fire sorcerer and the DM gave everything fire resistance, but it's insane to consider it a "gatcha" if common creatures use their regular abilities.

 

[Stalker0]

Any good story consists of two themes.

1) The hero looking badass and heroic.
2) The hero getting countered by the villain, and having to overcome these great obstacles, to become even more of a hero.


As it always is, the role of the DM is to provide a range of challenges, sometimes to highlight a player's strength, and sometimes to pick on their weaknesses. The key always is balance, which is something 5e recognized always comes back to the DM, at the end of the day no one knows their party like they do, so they will always tailor encounters to find the best cinematic fit.

So if a character is all about fire, then you know I'm going to throw in some encounters with tightly grouped people, or flammable things, so they can see everything burn and feel awesome. And you know I'm going to throw in a fire resist/fire immune monster here and there, to make them go "gulp, what now?". That's just good storytelling.