Specialist vs Generalist?

[Mara]

Since numbers are so tightly bond in 5e, do you think it is more optimal to build for general competency rather than specializing?

I'm more used to games that heavily reward specializing over branching out, but is 5e a game like that?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Since numbers are so tightly bond in 5e, do you think it is more optimal to build for general competency rather than specializing?

I'm more used to games that heavily reward specializing over branching out, but is 5e a game like that?

Just pick a class that can be both, there really isn't a reason to chose between the two. 5e is very 3e in that regard.

Edit

Clerics, Druids, and Wizards for example, they can be specialist one day and then generalist the next. Hell, some casters (Land Druid, Wizard) can regain spell slots on a short rest... They can change from a generalist to a specialist (or vice versa) during a short rest.

[rollingForInit]

What with bounded accuracy and the skill system being extremely shallow, you can't really specialise too much. Branching out doesn't really hurt you a lot. Or at all, depending on how much you do it.

[Occasional Sage]

*snip*
Hell, some casters (Land Druid, Wizard) can regain spell slots on a short rest... They can change from a generalist to a specialist (or vice versa) during a short rest.


Regaining spell slots does not change the list of prepared spells. Those remain fixed until the next long rest.

[Ninja_Prawn]

As far as I can see, being a generalist works well in 5e, especially with skills.

It starts to look less attractive in larger parties, where there's always someone who's better than you at any given task, but even then it's not a terrible way to be. The DM might even come up with tasks that need two people to make the same roll, or one of your experts might be incapacitated for some reason.

I find the game more fun when I've got at least one unique trick that no one else can do, but it's easy to get that and a lot of 'generalist' flexibility in 5e, so... yay?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Regaining spell slots does not change the list of prepared spells. Those remain fixed until the next long rest.

Yes, but they don't have to choose which spells to cast until they cast them.

So if you have a bunch of different type of spells you are a generalist. If you cast all your spells on one type, because that one type is quite effective, then you become a specialist in those spells. Some wizard traditions help more with this than others, coughDivinerscough, but wizards can be both generalist and specialist.

If they use all their spells on one type and then regain those spell slots (some of them) they are back to being a generalist again until they cast spells.

Same with the Land Druid.

[MrStabby]

You really need a specialism is my experience.

Once you get three other people in the party, if you are a generalist, you will rarely do tasks that fall in their specialisms and the tasks you do do will either be tasks that could be done by other people or still not be very good at them yourself.

If nothing else if you specialise you are more likely to do epic things. Consider what you can grapple with decent strength, expertise in grappling, and advantage from being something like a barbarian. If it wasn't for the size restriction then you would be wrestling dragons.

[SharkForce]

Yes, but they don't have to choose which spells to cast until they cast them.

So if you have a bunch of different type of spells you are a generalist. If you cast all your spells on one type, because that one type is quite effective, then you become a specialist in those spells. Some wizard traditions help more with this than others, coughDivinerscough, but wizards can be both generalist and specialist.

If they use all their spells on one type and then regain those spell slots (some of them) they are back to being a generalist again until they cast spells.

Same with the Land Druid.

at no point did that make them any less of a generalist or any more of a specialist. at any point, they could have decided to use any of the other spells available to them. they retained full generalist capabilities at all times, and simply decided to use one specific tool out of the many they had available. but they still had all of them available.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

at no point did that make them any less of a generalist or any more of a specialist. at any point, they could have decided to use any of the other spells available to them. they retained full generalist capabilities at all times, and simply decided to use one specific tool out of the many they had available. but they still had all of them available.

Casting burning hands all days makes it where you specialized in casting AoE spells.

Recovering your spell slots and then deciding to go with burning hands, web, and suggestion made you generalist.

The broken thing about casters is that they don't have to pick one or the other, they get to have all the options and then decide on the spot if they are going to be a generalist or a specialist.

Martials have to build their entire character around being a generalist or specialist, the actions of a caster determine if they were a specialist or a generalist.

[Tanarii]

Specialization is generally stronger, even at the lowest level. In 5e, specialization mostly means starting with one or two high stats, picking skill proficiencies to match higher stats, and using your ASIs on your attack stat or an appropriately specialized feat. Generalization means spreading out your starting ability scores, skills, and ASIs more. (Significantly optimized characters are super-specialists IMO.) Classes & Sub-classes specialize you in something by their very nature, so the only way to become generalize there is multiclassing. But not many people multiclassing to become more generalist.

When a generalist is strong is when there's no specialist to cover the function. That's most likely to happen in small parties, which in my opinion means it's less useful in official play, since those tend towards larger groups. It's also strong when you *know* there are several uncovered functions ahead of time, which is also more common in home play.

It's also useful if your DM finds ways to use skills that require input from multiple characters, or give meaningful opportunities to multiple characters. As opposed to the far more typical party Sage / Spotter / Intuit / Face making one check for the entire party.

[MaxWilson]

Since numbers are so tightly bond in 5e, do you think it is more optimal to build for general competency rather than specializing?

I'm more used to games that heavily reward specializing over branching out, but is 5e a game like that?

Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy to me, since you can specialize at one thing while still being a good generalist... but yes, hyper-specializing is pretty pointless in 5E. Don't sacrifice generalist capabilities for an extra +5% effectiveness in your hyper-specialized niche.

Case in point: I have a Paladin of Devotion 7/Wild Sorcerer 4 who fills the roles of tank/healer/ranged combatant/protector. He has Stealth proficiency even though his Dex is only 11 (house rule: odd-numbered scores give an extra +1 to ability checks but not saves or attack rolls), which combined with plate armor make him... surprisingly not-terrible at Stealth, even before you add in Pass Without Trace from the Shadow Monk. He actually can sneak up on trolls and goblins, even in plate armor.

Similarly, even with only Str 16 and +7 to Str (Athletics), his Extra Attack and a Hex from the party Bardlock make him surprisingly good at grappling enemy trolls, chuuls, etc. to keep them away from the rest of the party.

Instead of trying to be the theoretically optimal X, try to be a truly excellent X and a good Y and Z. Your game will be richer for it, and you'll probably have more success, unless X was already a dominant strategy for the table you're at.

[SharkForce]

Casting burning hands all days makes it where you specialized in casting AoE spells.

Recovering your spell slots and then deciding to go with burning hands, web, and suggestion made you generalist.

The broken thing about casters is that they don't have to pick one or the other, they get to have all the options and then decide on the spot if they are going to be a generalist or a specialist.

Martials have to build their entire character around being a generalist or specialist, the actions of a caster determine if they were a specialist or a generalist.

not really. you weren't specialized in AoE spells. you just chose to use them. if i have a bow and a sword, and i choose to use the bow mostly one day and the sword mostly the next, i wasn't a bow specialist the first day and a sword specialist the second, i was just using whichever of the tools available to me that are more appropriate... which is what a generalist does. has multiple tools, chooses to use the one(s) that are appropriate in any given situation. the fact that the situation called for AoE spells doesn't mean i'm any more or less of a generalist, it just means that today, there was more need for one of the tools i had available than the others. had the situation called for a web or a suggestion, i could have potentially used them. but that's not what the situation called for. i still had those tools available, though.

a much better example would be a wizard changing their prepared spells from day to day. at that point, you may very well not have the tools to be a generalist (for that day); if you expect to need only damaging spells and you prepare burning hands, shatter, fireball, lightning bolt, aganazzar's scorcher, scorching ray, snilloc's snowball swarm, and chromatic orb to cover basically every possible permutation of nuking you might conveivably need, at the expense of preparing other spells like web, suggestion, hypnotic pattern, fear, sleep, haste, fly, and tasha's hideous laughter (and of course potentially keeping some of those nukes), that would be an example of becoming a specialist temporarily.

but if you have other types of spells prepared and just didn't use them? you're still a generalist. you had the tools available, it just didn't come up.

[Mara]

Casting burning hands all days makes it where you specialized in casting AoE spells.

Recovering your spell slots and then deciding to go with burning hands, web, and suggestion made you generalist.

The broken thing about casters is that they don't have to pick one or the other, they get to have all the options and then decide on the spot if they are going to be a generalist or a specialist.

Martials have to build their entire character around being a generalist or specialist, the actions of a caster determine if they were a specialist or a generalist.

What are you even talking about? A fighter with 20 strength and 20 dex that spends all day firing her bow is not a ranged specialist.

A generalist uses what is optimal out of their skillset. A specialist finds a way to use their one thing. The difference I see in 5e is that you can be a generalist while still being effective while many other systems require specialization to function.

Also this discussion isn't about caster vs martial at all. That whole debate comes down to how the DM runs ability checks. Which people have mentioned that their character didn't need advantage and a +17 in stealth checks to sneak.

[MrStabby]

Also this discussion isn't about caster vs martial at all. That whole debate comes down to how the DM runs ability checks. Which people have mentioned that their character didn't need advantage and a +17 in stealth checks to sneak.

So I don't know if this is good or bad. High DCs for skills really reward players that focus on it but penalises those that dabble. Low DCs help those that dabble but waste class attributes of those that specialise.

A range of difficulty is ideal but how many different skills of how many different difficulties can you really fit into one session? Can you really expect 6 knowledge religion skill checks - 2 easy, 2 medium and 2 hard in a short campaign, let alone a session?

[MaxWilson]

So I don't know if this is good or bad. High DCs for skills really reward players that focus on it but penalises those that dabble. Low DCs help those that dabble but waste class attributes of those that specialise.

A range of difficulty is ideal but how many different skills of how many different difficulties can you really fit into one session? Can you really expect 6 knowledge religion skill checks - 2 easy, 2 medium and 2 hard in a short campaign, let alone a session?

Great question. I've dabbled with ways to make Investigation checks and Religion/Arcana/Nature checks more structured and transparent for the players--but the DMG doesn't give any really good guidance out of the box. If anyone has a great way of making knowledge-related checks relevant in a campaign I'd love to hear it. So far what I've got is a system whereby I give the players a knowledge map (actually a directed acyclic graph) and they unlock portions of it by discovering bits of info, until they get the answer. Having higher Investigation/etc. skills will allow them to start with portions of the map auto-filled, or make it easier to satisfy certain prerequisites. The design goal is to make the players aware of and therefore appreciative of the positive return on their investment in knowledge skills--which means they need to sometimes know that they missed out on something by not having the right skill, but not necessarily to know what it was.

E.g. "if you have a History skill over 20, OR you've been to the Corridors of Chaos and you have a Perception skill of at least 12, you've seen this symbol before and know that it's associated with Yuan-tis. If you have a History of at least 15, or you've talked with Gibber, you know that Yuan-tis live in trees. If you see the symbol and you know that Yuan-tis live in trees, an Investigation score of at least 15 will tell you to check the ceiling above the symbol for a tunnel leading upward." In that tunnel, you find a monster guarding some treasure.

In all cases, the goal is to enable players to engage with the content EITHER as players (can use their own brains to reason out what the symbol means and where they want to look--if I've done my job as a DM the puzzles will be potentially solveable on this level no matter what knowledge the PCs have) OR as characters (rely on knowledge checks and going to the right locations, and they still eventually get enough hints to learn the answer). Also, there may be some characters who have the PC skills to unlock a given answer but choose not to because they'd rather engage as a player, and I would want the knowledge map to support that scenario too.