Been reading this for a while and one thing wasn't answered: What is inherently wrong about specializing? This may be that I think too much as a pokemon player, but if something's 60% percent of your game plan, why not have 20% of the team dedicated to doing it, and doing it well, regardless of their versatility?
I don't think there is anything wrong with specialising, the question for me is how to manage the game as the GM where the PCs have hyper specialised characters.
...
For example the party tank is totally useless in social situations and the blaster sorcerer is useless in melee.
...You sure this isn't just a consequence of different builds? I can think of half a dozen easy ways to build a "tank", and only 2 of them use charisma at all and all of them get at most 4+Int (most get 2+ and none have an Int focus). More importantly, why should all tanks be good at social skills? Of all the other things they could do (buff, debuff, melee, ranged, trapfinding, knowledge skills) why social skills?
Similar issue with the blaster sorcerer, but they can just take a melee range spell (and cast defensive buffs). What do you want for "useful in melee"? Because they can just take Shocking Grasp, make the concentration check, and do more damage than most martials (at mid levels). If you mean "good at using weapons", why? Sorcerers are designed to spam spells. They just need one good in melee and they're set, and they can pick that up next time they level (or with a runestone).Your "specialist" looks an awful lot like "not jack of all trades". Those aren't the same thing. A tank not good at social skills is not hyper-specialized. They're not even specialized. They're just not broad.
I agree that there is a fair amount of subjectivity as to what should be classed as over specialisation. As an example the tank in our current campaign is a melee specialist to the point that he does not even have a ranged attack. In melee he is unbeatable, outside of that he is next to useless. I call that over specialised. My character in the same campaign is a ranger/rogue who is the party tracker/scout and trapfinder, back up tank, backup archer, minor spell caster and despite having a low charisma, he has enough bluff skill that he can lie his way out of social situations in a pinch. I build generalists, the others build specialists who have become increasingly specialised from campaign to campaign. I am wondering how to build a campaign for specialists because my preferred style is generalist.
The problem I've found is that if you don't specialize, you lose. In the short game (early levels) it's not much of a problem, and being a generalist can be quite beneficial. But when you start hitting the mid levels (8+), all that effort spent being okay at multiple facets starts to hang you. That is, of course, unless everyone in the group has taken the generalist approach. But Pathfinder, more often than not, rewards specialization and penalizes generalization.
My group has been playing an adventure path for quite some time. Like you, I was the generalist. I built an Inquisitor who was kinda good at a lot of things. In the early levels, I was awesome! I could do it all! But by the time we hit level 8 or 9, I noticed I had drastically fallen behind every other character in the game. Everyone had focused their characters on specific strengths, and to be comparable I had to expend several spells over several rounds. By the time I was adequately buffed, most fights were almost finished. Non-combat scenarios were the only place where my character would shine above the others, and those were becoming fewer and further between.
With special permission from my GM, I retrained virtually every aspect of my character except his class. I changed his feats, skills, spells, inquisition, and archetype. I SUPER specialized! Now I'm a crossbow sniper (the only real ranged character in the group) who is entirely focused on slaying undead. And nobody in the party can destroy undead even half as well as me (including the combinded efforts of the Paladin AND Cleric). I'm freakin' Van Helsing!
Specializing is not a bad thing. It's almost a necessity of the game. Arcanists, Clerics, Druids, Witches, Wizards, and any other spellcaster with a mutable spell list are about the only character types who don't need to specialize, perse. They are the only types who truly suffer virtually no penalties for being generalized. They're built for it. All others are pretty much required to specialize if they want to survive (campaign dependent, of course).
About the only types of games where it doesn't pay (as much) to specialize are social campaigns, like those based around the rules and concepts in the Ultimate Intrigue book.
You describe the other characters as "over" specialized, but I don't see that. The character I mentioned above? THAT is OVER specialized. Being melee focused, ranged focused, blast focused... that's just general specialization. Being a melee focused dragon slayer, ranged focused undead hunter, blast focused construct crusher; where these are the only things you're good at doing, and you suck at anything but these specific situation; that's OVER specialized. I over specialized because we're playing Carrion Crown, and it's almost all about undead at the end game (plus, it fit my character concept).
You say your tank doesn't have a ranged attack. Did they take a class or archetype that doesn't get a ranged weapon, or do they just not HAVE a ranged weapon? Almost every martial class I know of gets AT LEAST simple weapons proficiency, which includes light and heavy crossbows. Not possessing a weapon is not the same as not possessing the ability to use a weapon. If he chose not to carry a ranged weapon "just in case", well that's foolish. My sniper inquisitor still carries a melee weapon "just in case", even though I rarely have reason to use it.
As far as building a campaign for specialists, again, the game hits a point where that's almost a necessity for survival, unless is a city/socially-based campaign. It may take some experimentation, but I recommend finding the weakness in the characters' strengths. For example, your tank lays down the hurt in melee. They can deal loads of damage and drop a BBG without breaking a sweat. Welcome to Pathfinder, buddy! BBGs with loads of HP are DOA. Swarms are a trap. They're too good, or they suck. You don't want that. Try the alternative to swarms: hordes. Hurt 'em with numbers. Ranks of mediocre monsters. One BBG is easy. But 30 mediocre monsters that move quickly and can only take 1-3 hits from Captain Hammer will whittle him down. Find the weakness in the strength. Being able to deal 40-60 HP damage per hit doesn't matter when your surrounded by moderate mooks with 30-50 HP each. And use spells (or similar effects) when you can to slow them down. An Obscuring Mist effect will cause 20% of Superman's blows to miss, and will give total concealment beyond 5 ft (simulating Invisibility). Be creative. Analyze strengths and find the loopholes. It doesn't make the specialized characters any less cool, it just makes them a little less effective in scenarios where their specializations are excessive for their oppositions.
I agree that there is a fair amount of subjectivity as to what should be classed as over specialisation. As an example the tank in our current campaign is a melee specialist to the point that he does not even have a ranged attack. In melee he is unbeatable, outside of that he is next to useless. I call that over specialised. My character in the same campaign is a ranger/rogue who is the party tracker/scout and trapfinder, back up tank, backup archer, minor spell caster and despite having a low charisma, he has enough bluff skill that he can lie his way out of social situations in a pinch. I build generalists, the others build specialists who have become increasingly specialised from campaign to campaign. I am wondering how to build a campaign for specialists because my preferred style is generalist.Oh, that. That's a slightly different problem, which is a form of overspecialization but not inherent to overspecialization itself. It's the "poorly prepared player" problem. As I have told my players more than once, a sling is free, weightless, and can use rocks you find on the ground as ammo. Just write it on your sheet and forget about it until it becomes important. If the tank had focused on archery (and took Point Blank Master) then they wouldn't need a melee weapon and their lack of one wouldn't be a problem. The problem is in the fact they don't have a ranged weapon, not that they're really good at melee (again, sling, I think only the wizard isn't proficient with it?). That's "the player prepared poorly", not "the player specialized too much". Like not buying food or a spell component pouch (as a wizard) or only 10 arrows (as an archer). ...I've seen all of those. It's not a character problem, it's a player problem. The tank could buy a ranged weapon, they just need it pointed out.
As others have said, you just need to provide a variety of challenges. That will let the specialists feel powerful in their element and if the party is missing something they should...
He has a half ogre monk with huge base speed, 99% of the time he is far better off to close the distance and start punching rather than using a missile weapon, especially one that takes a move action to load. He also has an ability to ignore difficult terrain even while charging. Against flying enemies the party wizard just casts fly on him. We are a bit nervous about crafting him winged boots. One time he failed his will save versus dominate monster, despite having really good saves, and was forced to attack the party. Luckily I could fly out of his reach and subdue him with arrows. Otherwise it would have been a TPK.
How do you get immunity to mind effects?
|
exept for the wizards who have a 7 or worse str were a sling would literally do no damage even if they managed to hit somethingHe has a half ogre monk with huge base speed, 99% of the time he is far better off to close the distance and start punching rather than using a missile weapon, especially one that takes a move action to load. He also has an ability to ignore difficult terrain even while charging. Against flying enemies the party wizard just casts fly on him. We are a bit nervous about crafting him winged boots. One time he failed his will save versus dominate monster, despite having really good saves, and was forced to attack the party. Luckily I could fly out of his reach and subdue him with arrows. Otherwise it would have been a TPK.If he can move and attack them, why would he need a ranged weapon? Why would his lack of a ranged weapon matter? If you're going to say "he didn't have a ranged weapon" like it was a problem, you can't immediately follow up with "but he didn't ever need it, plus we were really happy he didn't have it when he got dominated". Clearly overspecialization worked. He never had any problems (except getting unlucky on a save).
Again, a sling is for when you have no other option. If I were building a Str monk with a proper ranged weapon, it'd probably be javelins. But a sling is free, weightless, and can use rocks as ammo. There is literally no reason every character shouldn't have one.
They would still do 1 point of Non-Lethal.
He has a half ogre monk with huge base speed, 99% of the time he is far better off to close the distance and start punching rather than using a missile weapon, especially one that takes a move action to load. He also has an ability to ignore difficult terrain even while charging. Against flying enemies the party wizard just casts fly on him. We are a bit nervous about crafting him winged boots. One time he failed his will save versus dominate monster, despite having really good saves, and was forced to attack the party. Luckily I could fly out of his reach and subdue him with arrows. Otherwise it would have been a TPK.If he can move and attack them, why would he need a ranged weapon? Why would his lack of a ranged weapon matter? If you're going to say "he didn't have a ranged weapon" like it was a problem, you can't immediately follow up with "but he didn't ever need it, plus we were really happy he didn't have it when he got dominated". Clearly overspecialization worked. He never had any problems (except getting unlucky on a save).
Again, a sling is for when you have no other option. If I were building a Str monk with a proper ranged weapon, it'd probably be javelins. But a sling is free, weightless, and can use rocks as ammo. There is literally no reason every character shouldn't have one.
My point was not that his lack of ranged weapons was a problem. My point was that his character was focused solely on being a melee character to the point that he didn't even have ranged capability.
I am happy for my players to build whatever characters they want. What I am looking for is advice on how to GM a game for highly specialised characters.
How do you deal with hyper specialisation at your table?I mow them down, just like I would with any character who can't deal with encounters that aren't specifically catered to them and custom tailored to make them shine.
While that may be valid for some hyperspecialized characters (generally badly optimized ones), its worth remembering that not all hyper-specialized characters are 7 wis, 7 int Trip fighters. What about builds like Dreamspeaker Slumber Witches, CaGM Pouncing Barbarians or Kitsune Sorcerers i.e. characters who have ridiculous "I win" buttons bolted onto their already powerful frame?
|
While that may be valid for some hyperspecialized characters (generally badly optimized ones), its worth remembering that not all hyper-specialized characters are 7 wis, 7 int Trip fighters. What about builds like Dreamspeaker Slumber Witches, CaGM Pouncing Barbarians or Kitsune Sorcerers i.e. characters who have ridiculous "I win" buttons bolted onto their already powerful frame?How do you deal with hyper specialisation at your table?I mow them down, just like I would with any character who can't deal with encounters that aren't specifically catered to them and custom tailored to make them shine.
Cram a whole bunch of orcs in fullplate into your cr budget and toss in a skald and some other support class. Fill the rest with low level casters. Drink your party members tears.
EVERY character have a soft spot. let it shine in most fights, a character who master 1 aspect, will have flows in several other fields.
there is no character that master all.
I find this view funny, because it's often not meaning what is meant I believe. A character can have a point that is lower than all their other points, their "soft spot". But well made character, even ones that are specializing in something, can have their "soft spot" be better than everyone else in the party.
"Oh no guys, the barb could get dominated and kill us. Good thing his will save is higher than the party's cleric's, which is higher than the party's investigator's which is higher than the party's wizard's and has 1 free reroll per day."
Like, having something be your worst thing doesn't mean you're actually bad at it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You had me at 'Half Ogre Monk'
|
EVERY character have a soft spot. let it shine in most fights, a character who master 1 aspect, will have flows in several other fields.
Maybe... but there are some PFS-legal characters who come pretty damn close to being able to do everything well. I can--and have :D posted recently if you search my posts--make a 7th level character who does a variety of damage types (adamantine, cold iron, etc on demand), has 101 hit points, does 45 damage a round, can attack either ranged or melee, has good AC, has tremorsense on demand so they don't worry about invisible enemies, and has saves of (for a level 7 character) Fort 17 Reflex 14 Will 13. Oh, and they only have 2 maxed skills (perception because you roll it all the time and UMD because that lets you do anything you couldn't otherwise do) but they have a sage familiar who can make any knowledge check with a pretty good bonus.
I'm just saying... some characters really can do almost everything, and do it well.
um... CHA 7 can do a lot still. Getting diplomacy over to int based or wis based is fairly easy.
Shadows need to be able to reach, hit, and have you fail the save to be a threat. So if that's not likely to happen then it's not really a danger.
*haven't looked at any builds to know if they do cover these or not.