History Main / CripplingOverspecialization

24th Jun '17 11:54:53 AM sorin255
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Damage dealing specializations suffer from this as well. Specs like Outlaw (formerly Combat) Rogues and Elemental Shamans can dish out massive amounts of AOE damage, good for trash and boss fights with a lot of adds, but their damage is extremely poor for single target. Specs like Affliction Warlocks or Arcane Mages deal massive single target damage, both ramping up overtime, but are particularly bad for shorter fights or fights with lots of weaker adds is their bane. Burst specs, like Feral Druids, are great for shorter single target fights, but their damage drops off completely when their cooldowns expire and rotations inevitably slow down. The representation of each class in raid groups depends on the specific raid, and some specs might be entirely absent for entire raid patches due to their overspecialization.
12th Jun '17 6:04:25 AM Connacht
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Both represented and averted in the ''VideoGame/BaldursGate'' series. Some classes and kits are extremely specialized and find total usefulness in very limited situations or only until a certain point. However, a party made of versatile multiclass characters would become fairly weak both because level progressing is slow (as XP points are divided among every multiclass) and both because some powerful abilities or items are available only to particular classes. For example, the best sword in the entire franchise is the two-handed Carsomyr, which is available only to paladins: a more generalized fighter can't wield that. On the contrary thieves, who are specialized in an essential part of gameplay, at very high levels gain the ability to use every item, even Carsomyr. Triple multiclass like a fighter/mage/thief characters would progress very slowly and be ultimately VERY weaker than a fighter, a mage and a thief alone cooperating, and they are often used only for solo playthoughs where they can still get to higher levels and put to good use their flexibility. It is the player in general who should think strategically about strengths and weakness of character builds in order to balance the main protagonist and the party.
** The case of limited situations is the paladin kit of the undead hunter: while still strong as a paladin, it is relatively weaker than a cavalier kit or an inquisitor kit (and maybe even a plain unkitted paladin) outside situations involving, as the name suggests, undead creatures. In the first game, undeads are very few and not so strong. So undead hunters often result in a wasted OverKill against those few moments when they excel, not counting that there are many spells or items that plenty cover what they can do alone, while a cavalier is all-around better wight strengths that cover a wide range of enemies and situations. However, the sequel ''VideoGame/BaldursGateII'' gives much more moments where the player needs to deal with undeads (and very strong undeads). Thus an undead hunter becomes a lot more useful for those specific situations where it proves strong. Still, its powers can easily be covered by items or spells, while cavaliers and inquisitor are usually more versatile while still specialized against powerful enemies.
** Missile weapons, like bows or crossbows, are quite deadly in the first game, but lose a lot of effectiveness in the second. The ranger kit of the archer is in particular hyperspecialized in ranged weapons. While for the most part of the first game it results in a OverKill, the archer still proves deadly against the most powerful enemies of late game. On the contrary his abilities and powers make him a bit more competitive during early Shadows of Amn, but better melee weapons and enemy AC and resistances cripple his usefulness in late game sets.

to:

* Both represented and averted in the ''VideoGame/BaldursGate'' series. Some classes and kits are extremely specialized and find total usefulness in very limited situations or only until a certain point. However, a party made of versatile multiclass characters would become fairly weak and fall into the MasterOfNone category, both because level progressing is slow (as XP points are divided among every multiclass) and both because some powerful abilities or items are available only to particular classes. For example, the best sword in the entire franchise is the two-handed Carsomyr, which is available only to paladins: a more generalized fighter can't wield that. On the contrary thieves, who are specialized in an essential part of gameplay, at very high levels gain the ability to use every item, even Carsomyr. Triple multiclass like a fighter/mage/thief characters would progress very slowly and be ultimately VERY weaker than a fighter, a mage and a thief alone cooperating, and they also weaker than hyperspecialized single class characters that would then compensate their limitations with higher level skills. They are often used only for solo playthoughs where they can still get to higher levels and put to good use their flexibility. It is the player in general who should think strategically about strengths and weakness of character builds in order to balance the main protagonist and the party.
** The case of limited situations is the paladin kit of the undead hunter: while could be considered still strong as a paladin, it is relatively weaker than a cavalier kit or an inquisitor kit (and maybe even a plain unkitted paladin) outside situations involving, as the name suggests, undead creatures. In the first game, undeads are very few and not so strong. So undead hunters often result in a wasted OverKill against those few moments when they excel, not counting that there are many spells or items that plenty cover what they can do alone, while a cavalier is all-around better wight strengths that cover a wide range of enemies and situations. More generalist fighters perform overall better than undead hunters. However, the sequel ''VideoGame/BaldursGateII'' partially averts this. It gives much more moments where the player needs to deal with undeads (and very strong undeads). Thus an undead hunter becomes a lot more useful for those specific situations where it proves strong. Still, its powers can easily be covered by items or spells, while cavaliers and inquisitor are usually more versatile while still specialized against powerful enemies.
during all the game.
** Missile weapons, like bows or crossbows, are quite deadly in the first game, but lose a lot of effectiveness in the second. The ranger kit of the archer is in particular hyperspecialized in ranged weapons. While for the most part of the first game it results in a OverKill, the archer still proves deadly against the most powerful enemies of late game. On the contrary his abilities and powers make him a bit more competitive during early Shadows of Amn, but better melee weapons and enemy AC and resistances cripple his usefulness in late game sets. In Throne of Bhaal, some boss enemies are almost immune to missile damage.



** Wizard slayers come with skills that make them usefull only against magicians, but they are quite powerful in that. While the second game has a lot of situations where wizard slayers excel, the first game has really weaker and less common mages, so that wizard slayers are quite unnecessary most times for any party.

to:

** Wizard slayers come with skills that make them usefull useful only against magicians, but they are quite powerful in that. While the second game has a lot of situations where wizard slayers excel, the first game has really weaker and less common mages, so that wizard slayers are quite unnecessary most times for any party.



** Ranger racial enemies. This is a "skill" that gives a bonus against a particular enemy. Now, when you create a ranger protagonist, you can choose a racial enemy that is common, a racial enemy that is uncommon but really dangerous, or an enemy that is uncommon and weak (and even enemies that you might not encounter at all!)...
** Totally averted with cleric kits. It doesn't matter which one you choose, they have only bonuses in comparison to plain unkitted clerics, thus a kitted specialized cleric is always stronger than a normal one (unless you plan to dual class).
** Dual classing in general is a powerful and viable strategy. If it is considered a type of flexibility that counters and evidences crippled specialization, or a combination of specializations that averts the trope, is up on the player. Particularly appreciated is the kensai--->mage dual class. The kensai might be considered a GlassCannon with strong attack and no armor. The mage has weak attack, no armor too, but can cast spells both offensive and defensive. Combine the two and you can get a powerful spellcaster that can engage in melee with deadly proficiencies and magical armor (stoneskin, firewall, globe of invulnerability etc.). Combine the kensai kai ability with time stopping spells, katana proficiencies and the magic katana+2 that gives extra spell slots and you have probably the best damage dealer of the game.

to:

** Ranger racial enemies. This is a "skill" that gives a bonus against a particular enemy.enemy and might compensate the weaker fighting skills of a ranger compared to other fighters. Now, when you create a ranger protagonist, you can choose a racial enemy that is common, a racial enemy that is uncommon but really dangerous, or an enemy that is uncommon and weak (and even enemies that you might not encounter at all!)...
** Totally averted with cleric kits. It doesn't matter which one you choose, they have only bonuses in comparison to plain unkitted clerics, thus a kitted specialized cleric cleric, even if dedicated to only one particular field of a deity, is always stronger than a normal one (unless you plan to dual class).
unkitted one.
** Dual classing in general is a powerful and viable strategy. If it is considered a type of flexibility that counters and evidences crippled specialization, or a combination of specializations that averts the trope, is up on the player. Particularly appreciated is the kensai--->mage kensai-->mage dual class. The kensai might be considered a GlassCannon with strong attack and no armor. Many situations require tanking and a kensai if not correctly employed might become very vulnerable. The mage has weak attack, no armor too, but can cast spells both offensive and defensive. Combine the two and you can get a powerful spellcaster that can engage in melee with deadly proficiencies and magical armor (stoneskin, firewall, globe of invulnerability etc.). Combine the kensai kai ability with time stopping spells, katana proficiencies and the magic katana+2 that gives extra spell slots and you have probably the best damage dealer of the game.
12th Jun '17 5:41:26 AM Connacht
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* Both represented and averted in the ''VideoGame/BaldursGate'' series. Some classes and kits are extremely specialized and find total usefulness in very limited situations or only until a certain point. However, a party made of versatile multiclass characters would become fairly weak both because level progressing is slow (as XP points are divided among every multiclass) and both because some powerful abilities or items are available only to particular classes. For example, the best sword in the entire franchise is the two-handed Carsomyr, which is available only to paladins: a more generalized fighter can't wield that. On the contrary thieves, who are specialized in an essential part of gameplay, at very high levels gain the ability to use every item, even Carsomyr. Triple multiclass like a fighter/mage/thief characters would progress very slowly and be ultimately VERY weaker than a fighter, a mage and a thief alone cooperating, and they are often used only for solo playthoughs where they can still get to higher levels and put to good use their flexibility. It is the player in general who should think strategically about strengths and weakness of character builds in order to balance the main protagonist and the party.
** The case of limited situations is the paladin kit of the undead hunter: while still strong as a paladin, it is relatively weaker than a cavalier kit or an inquisitor kit (and maybe even a plain unkitted paladin) outside situations involving, as the name suggests, undead creatures. In the first game, undeads are very few and not so strong. So undead hunters often result in a wasted OverKill against those few moments when they excel, not counting that there are many spells or items that plenty cover what they can do alone, while a cavalier is all-around better wight strengths that cover a wide range of enemies and situations. However, the sequel ''VideoGame/BaldursGateII'' gives much more moments where the player needs to deal with undeads (and very strong undeads). Thus an undead hunter becomes a lot more useful for those specific situations where it proves strong. Still, its powers can easily be covered by items or spells, while cavaliers and inquisitor are usually more versatile while still specialized against powerful enemies.
** Missile weapons, like bows or crossbows, are quite deadly in the first game, but lose a lot of effectiveness in the second. The ranger kit of the archer is in particular hyperspecialized in ranged weapons. While for the most part of the first game it results in a OverKill, the archer still proves deadly against the most powerful enemies of late game. On the contrary his abilities and powers make him a bit more competitive during early Shadows of Amn, but better melee weapons and enemy AC and resistances cripple his usefulness in late game sets.
** Druids possess some of the most powerful offensive spells in the Forgotten Realms. However, many of them only work outside in wide open areas, while the most difficult parts of the first game and almost all of the second game are played indoor, inside dungeons...
** Wizard slayers come with skills that make them usefull only against magicians, but they are quite powerful in that. While the second game has a lot of situations where wizard slayers excel, the first game has really weaker and less common mages, so that wizard slayers are quite unnecessary most times for any party.
** Hexxat has powers that make her really powerful at night and in dungeons. Outside when there is daylight, however, she becomes really vulnerable.
** Ranger racial enemies. This is a "skill" that gives a bonus against a particular enemy. Now, when you create a ranger protagonist, you can choose a racial enemy that is common, a racial enemy that is uncommon but really dangerous, or an enemy that is uncommon and weak (and even enemies that you might not encounter at all!)...
** Totally averted with cleric kits. It doesn't matter which one you choose, they have only bonuses in comparison to plain unkitted clerics, thus a kitted specialized cleric is always stronger than a normal one (unless you plan to dual class).
** Dual classing in general is a powerful and viable strategy. If it is considered a type of flexibility that counters and evidences crippled specialization, or a combination of specializations that averts the trope, is up on the player. Particularly appreciated is the kensai--->mage dual class. The kensai might be considered a GlassCannon with strong attack and no armor. The mage has weak attack, no armor too, but can cast spells both offensive and defensive. Combine the two and you can get a powerful spellcaster that can engage in melee with deadly proficiencies and magical armor (stoneskin, firewall, globe of invulnerability etc.). Combine the kensai kai ability with time stopping spells, katana proficiencies and the magic katana+2 that gives extra spell slots and you have probably the best damage dealer of the game.
11th Jun '17 2:35:10 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* It's possible to build Snipers this way in ''XCOMEnemyUnknown''. Making them ''extremely'' good at sniping means that they won't be good at anything else: moving, close range combat, etc. This type of build is also punished in ''XCOM Enemy Within'', which introduces stealthy melee combatant aliens that, once they start choking a soldier (like a sniper who's all alone), won't stop unless another soldiers shoots it off. This can be countered by giving your sniper an immunity to strangulation with the Bioelectric Skin [[BioAugmentation Gene Mod]], which also revealed cloaked enemies nearby.

to:

* It's possible to build Snipers this way in ''XCOMEnemyUnknown''.''VideoGame/XCOMEnemyUnknown''. Making them ''extremely'' good at sniping means that they won't be good at anything else: moving, close range combat, etc. This type of build is also punished in ''XCOM Enemy Within'', which introduces stealthy melee combatant aliens that, once they start choking a soldier (like a sniper who's all alone), won't stop unless another soldiers shoots it off. This can be countered by giving your sniper an immunity to strangulation with the Bioelectric Skin [[BioAugmentation Gene Mod]], which also revealed cloaked enemies nearby.
31st May '17 6:06:07 PM bombadil211
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* With the invention of guided missiles in the early years of the Cold War, the US thought gun armament on aircraft were obsolete, and so they lost many jet fighters in the Vietnam War. The F-4 Phantom was armed with the then state-of-the-art AIM-7 Sparrow missiles, which were capable of locking on to a target far outside of visual range. However, the Rules of Engagement mandated that the pilots make visual contact before firing their missiles. The problem with this was that the missiles ''would not lock on'' at that range (not to mention that they required the pilot to keep the radar focused on the target, which is easy when it hasn't seen you yet, but becomes impossible to do when it's dodging and weaving all over the place), and the pilots got slaughtered by the [=MiG=]-21 and, more embarrassingly, the obsolete [=MiG=]-17. Though the F-4 had an externally mountable "gun pod", it was often bulky and unreliable. Seeing this mistake, all jet fighters today are equipped with integrated gun armament and all pilots receive training in dogfighting.

to:

* With the invention of guided missiles in the early years of the Cold War, the US thought gun armament on aircraft were obsolete, and so they lost many jet fighters in the Vietnam War. The F-4 Phantom was armed with the then state-of-the-art AIM-7 Sparrow missiles, which were capable of locking on to a target far outside of visual range. However, the Rules of Engagement mandated that the pilots make visual contact before firing their missiles. The problem with this was that the missiles ''would not lock on'' at that range (not to mention that they required the pilot to keep the radar focused on the target, which is easy when it hasn't seen you yet, but becomes impossible to do when it's dodging and weaving all over the place), and the pilots got slaughtered by the [=MiG=]-21 and, more embarrassingly, the obsolete [=MiG=]-17. Though the F-4 had an externally mountable "gun pod", it was often bulky and unreliable. Seeing this mistake, all subsequent jet fighters today are became equipped with integrated gun armament and all pilots receive training in dogfighting.dogfighting.
** The B and C models of the F-35 seem to be repeating the mistakes of the F-4. Due to the Marines' insisting on SVTOL capability and the Navy's unique requirements for carrier-based operations, these models had to remove the A model's integrated cannon to save space and weight within the fuselage. Like the F-4, the B and C also have an external gun pod that can be mounted but this takes away space for missiles and fuel tanks that the tiny plane can't necessarily spare.
23rd May '17 5:53:05 PM FictionIsntReal
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Nevertheless, Athens was defeated in the PeloponnesianWar, and would have been utterly destroyed had the Spartans not objected to that course of action.
16th May '17 9:27:32 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In another sense, the dependence of the American South, the Caribbean, Latin America, TsaristRussia, and similar agricultural economies on chattel slavery, serfdom, and peonage wound up screwing them in the long run. Bonded labor was unpaid, coerced, captive, and overall far cheaper than wage labor, especially in agriculture, with the only expenses being for food (which, on plantations, the laborers often grew for themselves on small personal plots), clothing, and a shack to sleep in. Wage laborers, meanwhile, demanded paychecks big enough to cover all of their living expenses and those of their families, as well as decent working conditions -- and when they didn't get them, they could either quit and find a new job, move to a homestead out west, or unionize. In the short term, bonded labor [[http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/economic-history-2 produced a ton of prosperity]], albeit chiefly at the top rungs of the socio-economic ladder.\\\

to:

* In another sense, the dependence of the American South, the Caribbean, Latin America, TsaristRussia, UsefulNotes/TsaristRussia, and similar agricultural economies on chattel slavery, serfdom, and peonage wound up screwing them in the long run. Bonded labor was unpaid, coerced, captive, and overall far cheaper than wage labor, especially in agriculture, with the only expenses being for food (which, on plantations, the laborers often grew for themselves on small personal plots), clothing, and a shack to sleep in. Wage laborers, meanwhile, demanded paychecks big enough to cover all of their living expenses and those of their families, as well as decent working conditions -- and when they didn't get them, they could either quit and find a new job, move to a homestead out west, or unionize. In the short term, bonded labor [[http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/economic-history-2 produced a ton of prosperity]], albeit chiefly at the top rungs of the socio-economic ladder.\\\
14th May '17 11:15:38 AM Reymma
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In ''TabletopGame/MagicTheGathering'' there's a branch of decks known as Combo decks that fall into this. They aim to do one specific thing using a certain combination of cards. When this thing happens [[TheEnemyGateIsDown they usually win instantly]]. If they can't get the cards in or one of them gets destroyed, they're usually left with a sub-par deck. Combo decks tend to be very good against 'raw power'/'aggro' decks because comboed cards will dismantle an equal number of individual cards without synergy (even though said cards tend to be stronger individually), and are vulnerable to control decks that systematically block or remove the components of a combo. These are popular among some casual players, who don't care nearly as much about a reliable win/lose percentage as about the fact that it's absolutely [[RuleOfFunny hilarious]] to use a finishing attack featuring an unblockable attacker whose power and toughness grow by a factor of 32 [[SerialEscalation every turn]].

to:

* In ''TabletopGame/MagicTheGathering'' there's a branch of decks known as Combo decks that fall into this. They aim to do one specific thing using a certain combination of cards. When this thing happens [[TheEnemyGateIsDown [[InstantWinCondition they usually win instantly]]. If they can't get the cards in or one of them gets destroyed, they're usually left with a sub-par deck. Combo decks tend to be very good against 'raw power'/'aggro' decks because comboed cards will dismantle an equal number of individual cards without synergy (even though said cards tend to be stronger individually), and are vulnerable to control decks that systematically block or remove the components of a combo. These are popular among some casual players, who don't care nearly as much about a reliable win/lose percentage as about the fact that it's absolutely [[RuleOfFunny hilarious]] to use a finishing attack featuring an unblockable attacker whose power and toughness grow by a factor of 32 [[SerialEscalation every turn]].
13th May '17 6:08:13 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''Franchise/StarCraft''

to:

* ''Franchise/StarCraft''''VideoGame/StarCraft'':
6th May '17 8:23:42 AM Prometheus117
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Often a deciding factor in ''WebAnimation/DeathBattle'', where often the two fighters are more or less evenly matched from a technical standpoint, but one has more variety to their abilities, particularly when the specialization of the overspecialized one happens to be something the generalist knows how to counter (such as in [[Franchise/TheLegendOfZelda Link]] vs. [[VideoGame/FinalFantasyVII Cloud]]) or the specialization is in something not particularly applicable to combat (such as in [[Franchise/TheLegendOfZelda Zelda]] vs. [[Franchise/SuperMarioBros Peach]]). Special mention to [[VideoGame/MortalKombat Raiden]] versus [[ComicBook/TheMightyThor Thor]], where Raiden was overly specialized in electric attacks in a fight where both parties were more or less immune to electricity.

to:

* Often a deciding factor in ''WebAnimation/DeathBattle'', where often the two fighters are more or less evenly matched from a technical standpoint, but one has more variety to their abilities, particularly when the specialization of the overspecialized one happens to be something the generalist knows how to counter (such as in [[Franchise/TheLegendOfZelda Link]] vs. [[VideoGame/FinalFantasyVII Cloud]]) or the specialization is in something not particularly applicable to combat (such as in [[Franchise/TheLegendOfZelda Zelda]] vs. [[Franchise/SuperMarioBros Peach]]). Special mention to [[VideoGame/MortalKombat Raiden]] versus [[ComicBook/TheMightyThor Thor]], Thor]] and [[Manga/FairyTail Natsu Dragneel]] versus [[Manga/OnePiece Portgas D. Ace]], where Raiden was overly specialized in electric attacks in a fight where both parties were more or less immune to electricity.electricity (and had a severe strength and durability disadvantage otherwise on top of it) and Ace was overly specialized in fire attacks in a fight where both parties were more or less immune to fire (though unlike Raiden, physically he was still enough of a matchup to hold a stalemate for a time).
This list shows the last 10 events of 1062. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.CripplingOverspecialization