Generalizing vs specializing [Archive] - Wizards Community

Generalizing vs specializing [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Tony Vargas
02-20-04, 07:21 PM In another forum, I've managed to sidetrack into a discussion about the viability of generalist characters (not just bards and multi-multi-classed characters - but just anyone who isn't totally focused on being "The best there is at what I do") and the price of specializing in doing one thing extraordinarily well.

This post kinda picks that up in the middle with me responding to Gith:

Originally posted by Sensei Gith
Should every speciality have immunities, and every character forced to overgeneralize?

Short answer: Yes.

Because, where you say 'overgeneralize' I say, be useful in a variety of situations.

A highly specialized character is potent enough within his purview, and boring or even useless, outside of it. A playable character will be specialized enough to contribute some useful abilities to the party's success, but not so specialized as to be worthless whenever that speciality isn't aplicable. Allowing no one tactic to work every time encourages characters not to over-specialize, as well as encouraging them to work in teams of specialists - both of which benefit the game.

Despite what Psifon might say, by "specialized" I am referring to a character who chose his class features, feats, and other abilities to be good at something, the way that a barbarian is a specialized THF'er. Every single class feature of the barbarian benefits the THF style. A fighter who spends all of his bonus feats on THF is in exactly the same situation. Yet while no one is suggesting that a barbarian be allowed and encouraged to trade Greater Rage for Point Blank Shot, the fighter is supposedly expected to do exactly that: trade away his specialization to be equally mediocre in all situations.

A barbarian certainly could be a very good THF'er - for exactly the reason you point out, all his class abilities are at least somewhat useful for it. However, he does have a few class abilities that require lighter armor, while, really a THF'er should ignore DEX completely as it serves no purpose in his style. So it's not quite that cut-and-dried.

A fighter could specialize heavily in THF, and, with his weapon specialization and heavy armor, he could be quite as good as the barbarian....

But, of course, he pays the price for doing so. With little DEX and no ranged combat feats, he won't be the archer he could have been, for instance, so when the party is trading missle fire with enemies across an impassable chasm, he won't be doing so well.

OTOH, a fighter who chooses to be good at THF, but also puts a feat or two into archery might be a point or two per swing behind the abject specialist, but will do better when his speciality doesn't come up.

In game terms, that's why you get to be better at something you choose to specialize in - because you won't be as good at everything else. That price comes due occassionaly.

Since a fighter cannot compete with other combat classes in their specialties, he has to find a single combat style that he can sink 17 feats into. The solution: special combat options. They are very feat-intensive, but just as rewarding— exactly what the fighter needs.

I'm not so sure about that. A fighter's speciality /is/ combat. He won't have the hit points or temporary stat boosts (Rage) a barbarian does, but that, alone, won't make him uncompetative in a toe-to-toe melee, not when he gets to specialize and to complete aplicable feat trees levels earlier. In addition, the fighter has the option of specializing in something other than toe-to-toe damage trading (while the barbarian, really, doesn't) or in not specializing as much, and being more useful in a greater variety of situations.

What that means, is that the fighter can try to choose his fights, and tailor his tactics to the opponent - while the barbarian pretty much just closes to melee and rages every time. When facing a foe similar to the barbarian, for instance, the fighter can try to keep at range for a while, using his feats to put the hurt on from a distance, before the close-in stuff gets started, or, he could use disarm or sunder to precipitously reduce his enemy's damage-dealing potential. He doesn't have to pick one tactic and do nothing else, he just has to pick the best tactic for the situation.
Beamup
02-20-04, 07:42 PM If you can totally specialize in one thing to the exclusion of all else and NOT have to worry about sometimes (or even frequently) having your specialty neutralized....

that specialty is utterly broken and MUST not be allowed. (Corollary: If you have to pull in material from 1,001 non-core sources to build your ultra-specialized character, it's probably not a good idea anyway. Non-core sources, especially several of them at once, don't tend to play well together.)

If you feel you NEED to ultraspecialize in one thing to the exclusion of all else to have a viable character of a certain class...

either you need to get a clue how to use the class effectively OR the class is severely underpowered, and instead of hunting up 1,001 non-core sources to make your ultra-specialized character and then whining because he can be neutralized, you should be thinking about how to improve that class to a reasonable level of power.
Tony Vargas
02-20-04, 08:24 PM I suppose it could be possible that the Fighter is a bit underpowered, and that's why there's some sort of mass urge to add endlessly to feat trees - so the fighter can just ultra-specialize himself into non-under-poweredness...

I rather doubt it, though. I think that not specializing to the nth degree can be an advantage. Fighters are already pretty specialized - they fight. But, in a game so focused on combat, there are a lot of options in a fight, and no character except a fighter is going to be able to do more than one or two of them really well. On top of that, the fighter will be able to pick any one combat speciality and likely do it well sooner than anyone else - by the time they've caught up, the fighter is on to something else. A fighter could easily be about as good a THF as a barbarian and about as good an archer as, say, a ranger (whose chosen to specialize in archery over TWF) - for instance. By mid-level he'd have a hard time being better than either of them, though, since they've also had time to complete the aplicable feat trees. Being able to do both is good, for the fighter, and the party. The player of the fighter gets to be effective along with the other archer when ranged combat is called for and the THF is artlessly tossing javelins, /and/ still be effective along side the THF when the archer-ranger is timidly poking at un-favored enemies with his paired shortswords. The party gets two effective THF to lay the smack down, and two effective archers to feather the opposition - for the price of three shares of treasure.

That's why I don't think it's much worth it to just add tons of feats to a given tree so a fighter can just put all his bonus feats into doing one thing ludicrously well - because he misses out on being a real fighter if he does.
Beamup
02-20-04, 08:28 PM Which would indicate the "need to get a clue" bit of the either/or would be the one of relevance. I happen to agree with you, personally.
Tytalus
02-21-04, 12:50 AM To me the fighter's specialty is his ability to be a generalist in combat. No other character can master so many combat styles (feat trees) as him. So a specialized fighter is a generalist. YMMV.
Naeron
02-23-04, 06:12 AM Where a Fighter wins out is that they can specialise but they do also have enough bonus feats to add a second partial specialisation to their repertoire.

A Barbarian can be a great THF combatant, but to achieve this they will be poor in other areas (e.g. ranged combat). A Fighter can be a great THF fighter but also have the feats to be a decent ranged combatant.

A Barbarian gets 7 feats by 20th, usually enough for 1 Feat Tree, a fighters 18 Feats will easily buy 2 or 3 feat trees plus additional supporting feats.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tony Vargas 02-20-04, 07:21 PM	In another forum, I've managed to sidetrack into a discussion about the viability of generalist characters (not just bards and multi-multi-classed characters - but just anyone who isn't totally focused on being "The best there is at what I do") and the price of specializing in doing one thing extraordinarily well. This post kinda picks that up in the middle with me responding to Gith: Originally posted by Sensei Gith Should every speciality have immunities, and every character forced to overgeneralize? Short answer: Yes. Because, where you say 'overgeneralize' I say, be useful in a variety of situations. A highly specialized character is potent enough within his purview, and boring or even useless, outside of it. A playable character will be specialized enough to contribute some useful abilities to the party's success, but not so specialized as to be worthless whenever that speciality isn't aplicable. Allowing no one tactic to work every time encourages characters not to over-specialize, as well as encouraging them to work in teams of specialists - both of which benefit the game. Despite what Psifon might say, by "specialized" I am referring to a character who chose his class features, feats, and other abilities to be good at something, the way that a barbarian is a specialized THF'er. Every single class feature of the barbarian benefits the THF style. A fighter who spends all of his bonus feats on THF is in exactly the same situation. Yet while no one is suggesting that a barbarian be allowed and encouraged to trade Greater Rage for Point Blank Shot, the fighter is supposedly expected to do exactly that: trade away his specialization to be equally mediocre in all situations. A barbarian certainly could be a very good THF'er - for exactly the reason you point out, all his class abilities are at least somewhat useful for it. However, he does have a few class abilities that require lighter armor, while, really a THF'er should ignore DEX completely as it serves no purpose in his style. So it's not quite that cut-and-dried. A fighter could specialize heavily in THF, and, with his weapon specialization and heavy armor, he could be quite as good as the barbarian.... But, of course, he pays the price for doing so. With little DEX and no ranged combat feats, he won't be the archer he could have been, for instance, so when the party is trading missle fire with enemies across an impassable chasm, he won't be doing so well. OTOH, a fighter who chooses to be good at THF, but also puts a feat or two into archery might be a point or two per swing behind the abject specialist, but will do better when his speciality doesn't come up. In game terms, that's why you get to be better at something you choose to specialize in - because you won't be as good at everything else. That price comes due occassionaly. Since a fighter cannot compete with other combat classes in their specialties, he has to find a single combat style that he can sink 17 feats into. The solution: special combat options. They are very feat-intensive, but just as rewarding— exactly what the fighter needs. I'm not so sure about that. A fighter's speciality /is/ combat. He won't have the hit points or temporary stat boosts (Rage) a barbarian does, but that, alone, won't make him uncompetative in a toe-to-toe melee, not when he gets to specialize and to complete aplicable feat trees levels earlier. In addition, the fighter has the option of specializing in something other than toe-to-toe damage trading (while the barbarian, really, doesn't) or in not specializing as much, and being more useful in a greater variety of situations. What that means, is that the fighter can try to choose his fights, and tailor his tactics to the opponent - while the barbarian pretty much just closes to melee and rages every time. When facing a foe similar to the barbarian, for instance, the fighter can try to keep at range for a while, using his feats to put the hurt on from a distance, before the close-in stuff gets started, or, he could use disarm or sunder to precipitously reduce his enemy's damage-dealing potential. He doesn't have to pick one tactic and do nothing else, he just has to pick the best tactic for the situation.
Beamup 02-20-04, 07:42 PM	If you can totally specialize in one thing to the exclusion of all else and NOT have to worry about sometimes (or even frequently) having your specialty neutralized.... that specialty is utterly broken and MUST not be allowed. (Corollary: If you have to pull in material from 1,001 non-core sources to build your ultra-specialized character, it's probably not a good idea anyway. Non-core sources, especially several of them at once, don't tend to play well together.) If you feel you NEED to ultraspecialize in one thing to the exclusion of all else to have a viable character of a certain class... either you need to get a clue how to use the class effectively OR the class is severely underpowered, and instead of hunting up 1,001 non-core sources to make your ultra-specialized character and then whining because he can be neutralized, you should be thinking about how to improve that class to a reasonable level of power.
Tony Vargas 02-20-04, 08:24 PM	I suppose it could be possible that the Fighter is a bit underpowered, and that's why there's some sort of mass urge to add endlessly to feat trees - so the fighter can just ultra-specialize himself into non-under-poweredness... I rather doubt it, though. I think that not specializing to the nth degree can be an advantage. Fighters are already pretty specialized - they fight. But, in a game so focused on combat, there are a lot of options in a fight, and no character except a fighter is going to be able to do more than one or two of them really well. On top of that, the fighter will be able to pick any one combat speciality and likely do it well sooner than anyone else - by the time they've caught up, the fighter is on to something else. A fighter could easily be about as good a THF as a barbarian and about as good an archer as, say, a ranger (whose chosen to specialize in archery over TWF) - for instance. By mid-level he'd have a hard time being better than either of them, though, since they've also had time to complete the aplicable feat trees. Being able to do both is good, for the fighter, and the party. The player of the fighter gets to be effective along with the other archer when ranged combat is called for and the THF is artlessly tossing javelins, /and/ still be effective along side the THF when the archer-ranger is timidly poking at un-favored enemies with his paired shortswords. The party gets two effective THF to lay the smack down, and two effective archers to feather the opposition - for the price of three shares of treasure. That's why I don't think it's much worth it to just add tons of feats to a given tree so a fighter can just put all his bonus feats into doing one thing ludicrously well - because he misses out on being a real fighter if he does.
Beamup 02-20-04, 08:28 PM	Which would indicate the "need to get a clue" bit of the either/or would be the one of relevance. I happen to agree with you, personally.
Tytalus 02-21-04, 12:50 AM	To me the fighter's specialty is his ability to be a generalist in combat. No other character can master so many combat styles (feat trees) as him. So a specialized fighter is a generalist. YMMV.
Naeron 02-23-04, 06:12 AM	Where a Fighter wins out is that they can specialise but they do also have enough bonus feats to add a second partial specialisation to their repertoire. A Barbarian can be a great THF combatant, but to achieve this they will be poor in other areas (e.g. ranged combat). A Fighter can be a great THF fighter but also have the feats to be a decent ranged combatant. A Barbarian gets 7 feats by 20th, usually enough for 1 Feat Tree, a fighters 18 Feats will easily buy 2 or 3 feat trees plus additional supporting feats.