Special Specialists
By Cedric on March 11th, 2009- Comic »
- Comic »
- Introduction
Mar 11
In all versions of D&D, specialists are better than generalists in their chosen specialty. That’s fine in of itself, but not all encounters are arranged such that the specialty will come into play.
The more specific your specialization, the better you are in that task, but the less likely it is for a situation to arise where that task is useful.
Specializing in dealing damage? Should come up a lot. Specializing in maximizing bluff, but only against a bloodied Tarrasque? Not so much. Though playing dead might be a good tactic for some (or about equivalent to what they’ll contribute anyways).
Originally, Coco’s last line was supposed to be ‘Yeah, what did he think this was, 4th edition?”
But I didn’t want to break the fourth wall. Apparently that’s bad or something.
I’ll have you know that a max out bluff is the best thing EVER! Those fighters can keep their muscles and six foot long swords. Me, I’d rather have the bluff. Why, I remember that time I was up against a elder red dragon and he was like, “WHERE IS MY BOOK!” and I was like, “What book? I’m just a little ol halfing.” And he was like “I WILL EAT YOU IF YOU DON”T TELL ME!” and I was like, “Oh, THAT book. Those orcs over there has it. Don’t take no for an answer, big guy.” And he was like, “THANKS!” and flew over to the orcs and ate them because they wouldn’t tell him where his book was … the book was boring anyway. I still have it around here somewhere.
Diplomancer was an actual build in 3.5. I wonder why there wasn’t a Bluffamancer.
Probably because it irritated the DM… =)
I have no idea what you are talking about …