Jack-of-All-Trades Characters

[Cheesegear]

One of my groups has a very inconsistent make-up, when it comes to scheduling. One player is absent almost every week. However, oddly, it isn't the same player each week. Everyone has something going on, every other week, on our usual day. This causes a lot of story problems for me - the DM - 'cause sometimes I'll have storylines prepared for a particular session for a certain player, and then that player doesn't show...

Anyway, D&D is a cooperative game, and, due to the nature of snowflakeness, no two players ever really fill the same role - or at least they don't intend to. So when a player - and their character - is missing, their role and abilities are simply...Lost...For that session.

Wizard is away;
"Well, looks like we fail at Arcana and Int checks this session. Here's hoping that we don't have to deal with any complicated magic in Dungeons & Dragons!"

Bard is away;
"This encounter could be solved with two minutes of talking and a dice roll...But that option is closed to us since the rest of us have no higher than 10 in Cha. Looks like we're doing a 30-minute combat."

The Draconic Sorcerer is away, nobody speaks Draconic. Lizardfolk are infamously one of the more-common Humanoid species that don't speak Common. GG.


Aside from "Everyone should just pick up two levels of Bard and gain half-proficiency in every single skill." what are some solutions to this kind of problem? I don't want to force my players into playing certain classes. But I would like to...Make a list (?)...Of classes/sub-classes where "If the party make-up is going to be inconsistent, then these are the classes that can do almost everything - at least somewhat. So the group isn't actually reliant on one character to do every skill check of a certain type."

[Willowhelm]

If you have one of the group that is actually consistently showing up you could see if they would play an all around capable character. There are plenty of builds that are pretty good at everything so they would be able to cover for any missing players.

You can encourage everyone to be a little less specialised so there isn't such a large hole when a player is missing

Depending how you run things when the player is a no-show... the character could still be present and do the bare minimum to cover that role when necessary.

You could on-the-fly alter the scenario to ensure there isn't a single (unavailable) approach to solve it.

None are great options.

[OldTrees1]

Campaign design
1) Since you are the GM, you can design the campaign to accept multiple approaches. That way the PCs still have the options to play to their strengths even if the ____ PC is missing.
2) Since you are the GM and decided to have storylines that require specific characters be present, can those storylines get delayed a week or skipped if the player is busy IRL?

Party
3) There is no need to get Jack of All Trades.
Bards can cast Bardic Inspiration when the anyone else is missing.
Guidance is a very popular cantrip that does a similar role.
Enhance Ability is an unpopular 2nd level spell that does a similar role.
If the party has access to one of those abilities, they have a chance to cover for the missing PC.

5E Skill System Flaws
4) Someone with an 8 and no training can still get a 19. They have a 25% chance of passing a DC 15. A 9th level character doing something with both training and a 20 ability score only has a 75% chance of passing a DC 15. If this is something you were counting on the missing PC passing (aka ~ DC 10) then the worse PC still has a 50% chance of passing. Might as well give them a shot.


5) My list
Artificer (Enhance Ability)
Bard (Bardic Inspiration, Enhance Ability, Expertise*)
Cleric (Guidance, Enhance Ability, Knowledge Domain Channel Divinity)
Druid (Guidance, Enhance Ability)
Fighter (Champion's Remarkable Athlete)
Rogue (Expertise*)
Sorcerer (Enhance Ability)


*Expertise can be used to create experts or jacks of all trades depending on if you specialize or generalize

[borg286]

Here is a build that you can add to the group which should be capable of filling any role
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?625704-Aberrant-Mind-Sorlock-A-Renaissance-Man
Perhaps there are some clever ways of filling roles that you may have looked over which your party has access to but you didn't realize would stretch as far as I described them.

[Kol Korran]

Frankly, it sound as if the only consistency is... the DM. So if this is such a problem, how about using that to solve it?
You seem to mention mostly skills. Or their lack.
So, my suggestion- build an NPC with a lot of access to skills, who accompanies the party. A sort of a Butler/ servent/ follower, who is of a lower level, doesn't usually do any of the najor decision making, but can help in most situations, usually as a back up. Not as good as the main characters, but enough to give them a decent chance when a vital party member is missing.

I am thinking something on the lines of... human lore bard, with the "skilled" feat (to add 3 more proficient skills). If healing may be a problem, you cab also muticlass him into a cleric of knowledge/ life. His/ her abilities wil be spread out, and not optimal (likley a +2 modifier for most), but enough.

A lore bard, or multiclassed bard, can also have access to the basic categories of spells sometimes needed (healing, divination, utility and such)

[Jamesps]

If it were me DMing, I just wouldn't worry about it. Difficult challenges are more fun (usually) than easy ones, and if a party is missing their specialist that will let them waltz through a challenge, they can have just as much or more fun getting creative or doing things the hard way. You shouldn't design encounters that absolutely require a specialist, so the characters shouldn't end up roadblocked entirely by missing a single character and encounters that were going to be a breeze and barely mentionable might end up being challenging, but that's not a problem because challenging encounters are fun.

[Sigreid]

I'd just be open to other ways of resolving a task than what you personally have thought of. Players tend to be cleverer than many DMs give them credit for when they know that can matter.

[quinron]

The best advice I've ever gotten on the degree to which you should out-think players is from a years-old Angry GM article and boils down to this:

Get to know how your players run their characters. When planning an encounter, try to figure out the first approach they would take to overcome it. Put some measures in place to make that more difficult (maybe even impossible). DO NOT consciously put any measures in place to counter their second, third, etc., possible strategies - in fact, it's a good idea to choose one of those and specifically put measures in place to make it work.

They'll have a challenge that's rewarding to overcome, and they'll feel smart for coming up with a solution. And every once in a while, throw them a bone and give them an easy encounter where their most common strategy works so they feel a little more empowered.

The applicability for your situation is that if you set up a challenge for a specific character and their player isn't at the session, you've already both thought through how that character is most likely to overcome the challenge and considered how either the other party members can use their skills or the challenged character can use alternate skills to overcome it.

[da newt]

A very simple fix is to play the missing PCs when their Player misses a game. You can take this responsibility on yourself, or hand off the character sheet to one of the other players for a session.

It's not really the sort of solution you were asking for, but it solves your issue directly.

When the Bard Player is MIA, the party still has access to the Bard PC - problem solved.

This also makes it easier to build encounters as your party's capability is consistent.

[RogueJK]

1) Since you are the GM, you can design the campaign to accept multiple approaches. That way the PCs still have the options to play to their strengths even if the ____ PC is missing.


This is the best option, rather that pidgeonholing your players into only playing certain classes/builds.

But since you asked, a solid build option for an "all-arounder" type of character is LudicSavant's Celestial Tomelock Generalist - Melee, ranged, full caster, healing, Face skills, DEX skills, utility cantrips, rituals, Familiar for scouting and Help, etc.: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?583957-An-Eclectic-Collection-of-Fun-and-Effective-Builds. It can find a way to be useful and fill a hole for just about any party.

[arnin77]

I agree; if you limit what your players can play, it will be less fun for them. If you design an obstacle a certain way - maybe try to have another option for success or maybe they just can’t get past the obstacle and have to figure something else out on their own.

Also adding an NPC to help in certain areas would help out the group since if you’re there; it’s there. I would personally suggest a Ranger (combat, skills and 1/2 caster) or Arcane Trickster Rogue (combat, skills and 1/3 caster) based on personal playing experience. I’m sure there are tons of builds you could figure out to help though.

[The_Jette]

Have you considered asking your players if they're okay with you running their characters if they're not there? It really only works if one player is missing, but in my group we're small enough that one player missing will stop us from playing. So, I've had to run someone's character every now and then. I'm familiar enough with their play style that I run the character the way they would. But, they trust me to do that. If that would work for you then you wouldn't have to bring in an NPC to fill in when they're gone.

[Milmoor]

Anyway, D&D is a cooperative game, and, due to the nature of snowflakeness, no two players ever really fill the same role - or at least they don't intend to. So when a player - and their character - is missing, their role and abilities are simply...Lost...For that session.

If you planned something special for a certain character, that's an issue. How long in advance do they cancel? But the generic absence of a certain skill, spell or PC should not be an issue. Ok, they fight instead of smooth talking their way out, or they have to force the lock. So what? It seems that you have a specific ideal solution in mind. That's their job. You are there for the stilt and the problems. They can handle their part.

[Cheesegear]

So, my suggestion- build an NPC with a lot of access to skills, who accompanies the party. A sort of a Butler/ servent/ follower, who is of a lower level, doesn't usually do any of the najor decision making, but can help in most situations, usually as a back up.

I refuse to build NPCs that solve problems for the party. I'm willing to build an NPC that fills a role in combat (e.g; Healing). But running an NPC who solves encounters because they literally drop the real players hints...Just no.
Also I refuse to roleplay with myself. Just in general.

Let's say I design an encounter that becomes easier if someone passes an Arcana check, and is able to shut off the environmental effect. Even if the party doesn't shut off the effect, they can still run the encounter, it's just slightly more difficult.
...Why the **** would I design an NPC - in this example is good at Arcana - that solves my own encounter?

That's barely a step away from just running a DMPC - the bad kind.


I am thinking something on the lines of... human lore bard, with the "skilled" feat (to add 3 more proficient skills).

Again, I refuse to run anything more than a Sidekick. Even then, probably not.


The applicability for your situation is that if you set up a challenge for a specific character and their player isn't at the session, you've already both thought through how that character is most likely to overcome the challenge and considered how either the other party members can use their skills or the challenged character can use alternate skills to overcome it.

Mostly, I try to design my encounters so that every party member feels useful, and I also try to not make my encounters just straight "Whoever deals the most damage the fastest, wins."
Typically this might involve using a Skill check.
Typically this might involve some roleplaying.
Typically this might involve using a specific spell that I know that the party has access to.

But, again, a very often overlooked fact that is a player's character, is only as smart as the player themselves. Each player brings something to the table. Each player has different knowledge bases about physics and sociology, and how to bring real-world concepts into DND mechanics. Each player has differing levels of real-world intelligence and charisma (two vital aspects of roleplaying, in general). When 'the ideas guy' isn't at the table, the players as a group, get dumber, because they don't think of novel solutions. When the girl who likes roleplaying, isn't at the table, all encounters tend to devolve to combat, because no-one knows the words to say or how to bargain with the hostiles.

I know what each player's character can do.
I know what magic items - and even regular items - I've doled out to my players. I know what options they have available to them.
But when the players themselves, don't use those options? ...I dunno what to say.

It's more than the players' character not being at the table. I suppose in part it also has to with the fact that the player themselves isn't at the table. But that depends on the player. I have a couple of players over my three groups that, if they don't show up, nothing changes in the player dynamics at the table.


I agree; if you limit what your players can play, it will be less fun for them. If you design an obstacle a certain way - maybe try to have another option for success or maybe they just canÂ’t get past the obstacle and have to figure something else out on their own.

I'm not limiting what my players can play at all. They're limiting themselves and pigeonholing themselves into specific roles (e.g; "Only one of us needs to have high CHA, that character can do all the talking.") in such a way that when one of them isn't at the table, the whole party loses more than the normal amount they would lose by not having a player at the table.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They're limiting themselves and pigeonholing themselves into specific roles (e.g; "Only one of us needs to have high CHA, that character can do all the talking.") in such a way that when one of them isn't at the table, the whole party loses more than the normal amount they would lose by not having a player at the table.

This is the root of the problem. They're not playing a party of individuals, they're playing a single, multi-brained hydra character. And you're exacerbating this by allowing them to effortlessly substitute the specialist whenever a problem arises and creating challenges that both require and cater to the "single specialist solves the problem" style.

Build scenarios that are open-ended but cannot be solved by a single person. Build scenarios that force people to act off-specialty. Force the non-face to be the face (because the people they're talking to don't trust the face). Ensure that they can't just body-swap to the specialist each time. And then generally lower the difficulty of checks. Average 10, "hard" 15, "really hard" 20. Basically nothing above that. Build scenarios that everyone feels comfortable contributing to, and reward that behavior.

Generally, I much prefer playing with a group of individuals rather than a hydra. Right now, I've got a party with 0 STR-heavy folks (although the dexadin can fake it a couple times a day with his Channel Divinity) and 4 (out of 4) charisma-heavy people: a dexadin, a sorlock, a hexlock, and a bard. None of them are particularly high-INT or high-WIS, but they muddle through. Usually by finding paths that suit their strengths (talking and blowing things up, really). I've had parties with zero faces--one infamous one had a shy rogue, a wizard who dumped CHA, a druid who no one wanted to let anywhere near talking to people (she was just too random), and a fighter who was better at thinking than at bashing faces. The rogue and fighter did most of the talking, which was somewhat amusing[1].

[1] both players were on the autism spectrum (although high-functioning), and neither character was exactly designed for it.

[arnin77]

I refuse to build NPCs that solve problems for the party. I'm willing to build an NPC that fills a role in combat (e.g; Healing). But running an NPC who solves encounters because they literally drop the real players hints...Just no.
Also I refuse to roleplay with myself. Just in general.

Let's say I design an encounter that becomes easier if someone passes an Arcana check, and is able to shut off the environmental effect. Even if the party doesn't shut off the effect, they can still run the encounter, it's just slightly more difficult.
...Why the **** would I design an NPC - in this example is good at Arcana - that solves my own encounter?

That's barely a step away from just running a DMPC - the bad kind.



Again, I refuse to run anything more than a Sidekick. Even then, probably not.



Mostly, I try to design my encounters so that every party member feels useful, and I also try to not make my encounters just straight "Whoever deals the most damage the fastest, wins."
Typically this might involve using a Skill check.
Typically this might involve some roleplaying.
Typically this might involve using a specific spell that I know that the party has access to.

But, again, a very often overlooked fact that is a player's character, is only as smart as the player themselves. Each player brings something to the table. Each player has different knowledge bases about physics and sociology, and how to bring real-world concepts into DND mechanics. Each player has differing levels of real-world intelligence and charisma (two vital aspects of roleplaying, in general). When 'the ideas guy' isn't at the table, the players as a group, get dumber, because they don't think of novel solutions. When the girl who likes roleplaying, isn't at the table, all encounters tend to devolve to combat, because no-one knows the words to say or how to bargain with the hostiles.

I know what each player's character can do.
I know what magic items - and even regular items - I've doled out to my players. I know what options they have available to them.
But when the players themselves, don't use those options? ...I dunno what to say.

It's more than the players' character not being at the table. I suppose in part it also has to with the fact that the player themselves isn't at the table. But that depends on the player. I have a couple of players over my three groups that, if they don't show up, nothing changes in the player dynamics at the table.



I'm not limiting what my players can play at all. They're limiting themselves and pigeonholing themselves into specific roles (e.g; "Only one of us needs to have high CHA, that character can do all the talking.") in such a way that when one of them isn't at the table, the whole party loses more than the normal amount they would lose by not having a player at the table.

Your last paragraph in your OP literally suggests making a list of classes they can play.

Anyways I see a lot of people offering you advice and you just not listening. If your players are pigeon-holing themselves then they just fail the encounter. If you don’t want an NPC that can fill in when someone isn’t there, then they fail the encounter. It’s either on them or on you.

Anyways this got boring real fast. Sounds like a you problem as a bunch of people are trying to help you out and all I see is whining. Glad I’m not at your table.

[Cheesegear]

This is the root of the problem. They're not playing a party of individuals, they're playing a single, multi-brained hydra character. And you're exacerbating this by allowing them to effortlessly substitute the specialist whenever a problem arises and creating challenges that both require and cater to the "single specialist solves the problem" style.

I will concede that it actually might be a two-fold problem, and you're right.

My players hyperspecialise into roles.
In response, I have to design five different encounters in a session, where each one plays to a specific player/character, in such a way that each player gets to feel like they contributed during the session.

They're exacerbating it by saying "My character isn't proficient in Arcana, so I wont even try."
They're exacerbating it by saying "My character is a Hammer, so all problems are nails."

"My character isn't a face, so I wont even try to do face things. If the face was here, they'd do it. But they're not. So, draw steel!"


Build scenarios that are open-ended but cannot be solved by a single person. Build scenarios that force people to act off-specialty. Force the non-face to be the face (because the people they're talking to don't trust the face).

I wont force my players to do anything.
But that's exactly the problem; Non-faces don't want to be faces, because part of the problem is that they didn't design their characters with that in mind. Non-Skilled characters, don't try Skill Checks. So not only are they not good at it, but with their -1 to CHA checks, they wont even try, because they already believe that that's not their role. I didn't tell them this. The other players in the group, did.

"This looks like a job for the Fighter." actual quote.
Well, no. It's a job for anyone. The Fighter might fail the Str test first. But the rest of you can try to d-
"If the Fighter fails, then the rest of the group shouldn't even try. If the Fighter can't do it, no-one can. This obviously isn't the solution. Let's try something else. Let's go the other way."

Meanwhile, in my head I'm screaming. Just have another character try. I know half of you have Dungeoneer's Packs. I know you have Crowbars. I wrote this obstacle to take less than 20 seconds. Open the door. It's not locked. It's just heavy. Have two characters push at the same time...Use the Help Action!

After about 5 minutes of arguing about what to do..."What if I dealt cold damage to the hinges on the door, and then we had the Fighter smash the hinges, and then we just push the door down? Or what about if I cast Grease on the door and make it slide easier?"
Sure. Yes. Perfect. Do that. I don't know if the mechanics on Ray of Frost support shattering something, and I definitely don't want you burning a Level 1 spell slot, but considering that the solution I had written down was "Push real hard. At least three players have Crowbars. Teamwork makes the dream work." whatever you suggest, will work.


Build scenarios that everyone feels comfortable contributing to, and reward that behavior.

Again, I have a feeling that this is a player-created problem: They only feel comfortable doing, what their character, does.
"Design your encounters knowing how your players, play." ...I think the problem is that I actually was doing that. Except that when that player isn't around, my scenario/puzzle/obstacle/encounter goes out the window, because of the way my players, play.


Your last paragraph in your OP literally suggests making a list of classes they can play.

Correct. They can play, if they want to. If they don't, then they fail encounters. But at least I can say that I tried to advise my players on what to do.


Anyways I see a lot of people offering you advice and you just not listening.

"Design your encounters with multiple solutions."
I do.

"Design your encounters with your players in mind."
No ****. I think that's actually the problem.

I didn't ask for that. I didn't ask how to design encounters. I already know how to do that. What I asked for was a list of classes that I can recommend that these players, in this group can play, specifically in order to resolve their hyper-specialisation issues, and try to convince them that you don't have to hyper specialise in order to play D&D.


If your players are pigeon-holing themselves then they just fail the encounter.

Which I don't want them to do. I want them to progress. I want them to have fun. But I want them to have the agency. I don't want to solve the problems that I create by using my own DMPC. I think everyone here knows what lies down that road. But I do want to create encounters that aren't just "Hit things the fastest and the hardest, and try and get high numbers on the damage roll."

I want them to use their characters' abilities. One great example is when the Paladin could've solved a problem instantly by using their Divine Sense. They just...Didn't use it. Why didn't they use Divine Sense? "I didn't think of it. It's not a damage ability." But that's a player not knowing their class, not a particular issue of a player being absent from the table, and as such, the party missing their player and character...But it is an indicator of something.


Sounds like a you problem as a bunch of people are trying to help you out and all I see is whining.

Sometimes combat encounters will be too hard.
Sometimes social encounters will be too hard.
Sometimes puzzles will be too hard.

This is both a problem of lack of the player, themselves, with their brain that works differently to other players at the table, and a combination of themselves pigeon-holing themselves into specific roles, in such a way that they each feel special and nobody steps on each others' toes. The other two groups that I run, don't behave this way; Everyone kind of attempts to do everything. But, because of the inconsistent party make-up, and because of themselves pigeonholing themselves into hyper-specific roles...That creates a problem, where if one player and/or character is missing from the table that session, they either fail at specific scenarios or tasks, or, perhaps worse, they don't even try to perform certain tasks because they are under the assumption that because they're not good at something, they'll automatically fail at it somehow. Even though as mentioned previously, a character with a -1 in a particular check will still pass even a DC 15 ~25% of the time. They should still try, especially on a DC 10...Or Hell, a DC 5.

Sounds like I asked for a suggestion of classes I could could nudge my players into, in this one, specific grouping of players, specifically to solve the problem which is caused by their inconsistent party make-up, and hopefully try and solve their issues of hyper specialising themselves - which they did. I got that pretty quickly, and the list is actually pretty decent:

Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer. That's a good party. Even if someone doesn't show up. I'm sure multi-classing would also plug any holes that actually do remain. That's the thread. Now, if some players don't want to pick those classes, and picking something...Like a Barbarian. At least I can say that I tried to steer my players in the right direction before they started failing encounters by pigeon-holing themselves.

Any talk about redesigning my encounters, and upending an entire session on the fly, isn't actually a solution to the problem I've outlined. Or rather, it's not a solution I can enact because I'm not the best DM in the world and I'm not great and making up an entire session in less than a day because I like to spend my time going to paid employment...And also writing sessions for my other two groups.

I've also heard that this problem also crops up in Adventurer's League, where players are more or less anything they want, and the drop-in, drop-out nature of AL, means that some parties, in some sessions, will end up pretty janky... That's what this feels like. Except unlike Adventurer's League, I actually do know exactly who my players are going to be, and I know exactly what the group make-up will be or can be...And ideally by steering my players in the right direction, I can prevent or mitigate the janky party that just fails at things - or worse, just doesn't even try because they don't think that that's what their character can do.

[quinron]

I feel your pain. I ran a nominally 5-player group for almost a year that rarely had more than 3 players per session. And I ran a bland, uninteresting game that was mostly just a series of quest givers with fights between them and the things they were after. And eventually it wasn't the players coming up with excuses for why they couldn't come to the game; it was me.

That said... I'm seeing a lot of what I'd call "backseat play" in your responses. You're getting frustrated by your players not being able to overcome encounters the way you've planned them, but are the players getting frustrated? When the strategy guy doesn't show up for a session, does the group get upset because the fights are going worse? When the roleplaying girl doesn't show up and all the social encounters get wrapped up with a few terse exchanges and a couple dice rolls, does the group complain about it being boring? If yes, then I suppose it's worth suggesting some less specialized options. If no, then I don't see any real reason to fix things unless the game just straight-up isn't fun for you. Excelling in your specialty field means giving up competence in other areas, and some players even like giving up that competence because it's a way to distinguish their character (see "any non-bard that takes proficiency in Performance").

[Kol Korran]

I refuse to build NPCs that solve problems for the party. I'm willing to build an NPC that fills a role in combat (e.g; Healing). But running an NPC who solves encounters because they literally drop the real players hints...Just no.
Also I refuse to roleplay with myself. Just in general.

Let's say I design an encounter that becomes easier if someone passes an Arcana check, and is able to shut off the environmental effect. Even if the party doesn't shut off the effect, they can still run the encounter, it's just slightly more difficult.
...Why the **** would I design an NPC - in this example is good at Arcana - that solves my own encounter?

That's barely a step away from just running a DMPC - the bad kind.

Again, I refuse to run anything more than a Sidekick. Even then, probably not.

Ok, you presented a problem- You have missing players, and thus have missing characters, and thus have missing essential skills (or so I gathered from your opening post), and I suggested a solution. You don't have to accept it, but your reply came as almost hostile... I was trying to help, no need to respond like that...

Regarding youe reply:
1- If yoy read my post, I wasnt suggesting a DMPC. A DMPC takes the spotlight, is better than the PCs, and solves most things on his own. I SPECIFICALLY said this character would be in a support/ subsercvience role, won't make any major decisions, and will be LESS capable at any given task than any of the PCs who's main schtick is that. The character is supposed to be a backup, for when any main PC is missing, so the party has access to the essential skills, which is the problem you complained about... The way I suggested to design the character, made it clear that the main PCs are better and preferred, but in case they aren't available, and it is essential, then they have a moderately compenet back up.

It is basically just another resource. Pretty much a hireling/ cohort the party hired/ recruited in some way.

Heck, if you want to make it more seem like a tool, you can even make it some sort of an old automaton that can follow the group and be activated to use a specific skill if need be. They may even need to use some resource for that (money? Special crystals? Whatever...) but this goes way beyond the initial problem.

2- You are not supposed to role with yourself. Again- a backup subservient NPC, who doesn't suggest or solve problem on his own. Have the PCs play with the NPC.

3- "... Why the **** should I design an NPC thst solve my encounter?"

Idealy, you shouldn't. But idealy- players are comminted enough to the game to show up regularily, and if they miss a game, it's rare. And if the challenge is just slightly more difficult, than why are you even raising a problem? The OP made it sound like this is a major problem, so much that you thought of intervening in the skill/ class choices the players take.

To me (and I may be wrong) it sounded like you wanted/ needed the party to have access to the skills, if a player was missing. So I offered an idea.

This was just an idea. Not a perfect one, but a potential one, to address the problem YOU put up. You can say that you don't like it/ don't think it would fit/ won't work, but I ask to do this civilly, and kindly. No need for the aggression in your post. I was offering a suggestion, not attacking or insulting you. I'd appreciate the same.

Good luck with your game!

[GeneralVryth]

If this group likes designing their characters with the others in mind (how you get hyper-specialization) why not just ask them to make at least 2 characters can address a non-combat role with at least tertiary (preferably secondary) proficiency? Building characters that are good at covering multiple non-combat roles isn't really class specific (though Bards and Rogues can cover more than most). You just need to build the characters with a desire for some overlap in mind.

That said, some of the most interesting puzzles come from being forced to make do with the resources. Being faced with a challenge where the obvious solution isn't available can be a fun puzzle to solve.

Is the lack of the obvious solution actually causing problems for the game? Or is it just annoying because the being "clever" process takes long than expected?

[Nefariis]

let everyone pick up three extra skills for free - boom - it seriously wont break the game.