D&D 5E Overspecialization

[CleverNickName]

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's a pretty strange way to interpret "your character should be prepared for anything."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

I think this highlights the difference between "story telling" and "gameist" play. In a storytelling game the encounters can be adjusted to reflect the characters' abilities (in either direction) if it makes for a better story. But at a "gameist" table adjusting encounters to reflect the party is always cheating. It's up to the players to be prepared for whatever might be ahead.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

That's a pretty strange way to interpret "your character should be prepared for anything."

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.

 

[Doug McCrae]

But at a "gameist" table adjusting encounters to reflect the party is always cheating.

This is true of some forms of gamist play but not all. By gamist play I mean play that is focused on challenging the players. A good way to do this is to give lots of opportunities to make decisions. Some decisions will lead to success and some will lead to failure.

A gamist GM could adjust every combat so that it's a close fight - one the players can win, if they make the right decisions, or lose if they make the wrong decisions. This would work best with a complex tactical combat system, like HERO or 3e-5e D&D, that has a lot of meaningful decision-making within combat. Under this GM a 10th level party would never meet kobolds, unless they were souped-up in some way (such as being given a lot of class levels in 3e).

A different kind of gamist GM might focus on decisions made out of combat - mission preparation, spell selection, scouting, and deciding when to fight, negotiate, or flee. This type of gamist play should use static encounters, to make the players' choices about which encounters to accept and which to avoid meaningful.

The second type of gamism is often considered to be Gygaxian though in fact it's not how Gary Gygax actually ran games, and one can find advice that goes against it in early D&D texts. "Number of creatures encountered should be appropriate to the strength of the encountering party." (1e DMG pg 179).

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

And along the same lines: if you are going to overspecialize your character to the point of limiting your actions and versatility in the game, that's perfectly fine...just understand that your options are going to be limited, and don't complain about it when (not if) it happens.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And along the same lines: if you are going to overspecialize your character to the point of limiting your actions and versatility in the game, that's perfectly fine...just understand that your options are going to be limited, and don't complain about it when (not if) it happens.

I’ve been very fortunate in that MOST of the people I’ve gamed with have not been whiners when their niche abilities were neutralized under certain circumstances. Instead, they took it as a challenge.

 

[Samloyal23]

The reason you have a party is so people can specialize then use teamwork to compensate for each member's deficits. When I played a barbarian who only used his trusty battle-axe the party's wizard once levitated him to the top of a tree so he could jump down onto a wizard's flying carpet to hack away at the evil caster in mid-air. Teamwork!

Now, if you are a caster and need to face an opponent who is resistant to your magic, be more indirect. A red dragon may be resistant to a fire ball, but a collapsing cave roof or falling tree beats fire resistance. Use your magic to create obstacles and distract the opponent so other combatants can get in attacks. Be creative...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I really do have a problem with someone expoliting different builds and then complain if enemies prepare against them. I mean, players prepare versus a red dragon by applying some kind of fire resistance or something, because everyone knows that a fire dragons breathes fire. And maybe you bring some way of dealing with flight.

So it is perfectly reasonable for high level enemies to prepare against someone exploiting hand crossbows with sharp shooter and crossbow expertise.
I mean using the level 1 (or is it level 2) wall of wind spell is the least I would expect. Probably invisibility or some kind of teleportation to get a bit closer.
Against a fire sorcerer fire resistance also helps (if the fire sorcerer didn't chose elemental adept).

Does every enemy prepare? Of course not. But your arch enemy knows about your weaknesses and strength if they have to deal with you again and again (compare it to superman and his weaknes against cryptonite, which later gets exploited). And if you are famous enough, everyone knows about your fighting style (like everyone knows that trolls fear fire).

 

[MichaelSomething]

"It's simple: Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death."
— Major Motoko Kusanagi, Ghost in the Shell

 

[ClaytonCross]

...snip...

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.

As the comic says its a strength turns into weakness. I LOVE IT!! Its like max/miners.... love them. I find characters are as often defined by their weakness as their strength. So having your super powerful overspecialized is fun but so is having to run around in a panic useless sometimes. Every min/maxer gets to shine doing what they do and to suffer when that fails them because they have nothing else and its better story telling because of it. It makes for better moments for the rest of the party not locked down by the lose of that specialty.