Dex-Build for the Bard

[Camelot]

No, because Canny Bards already exist.

I'm going to assume you mean cunning bards.

Everything Dex can do, Int can do the same -- except Dex gets Initiative and Stealth, and Int gets Arcana with all its impressive rituals.

But in terms of defenses, you're dead wrong here. There already is an evasive Bard build, and it's not broken.

The cunning bard has a different feature, different powers, and different feats that play in to its balance. I don't know the math, I don't pretend to, so I like to be cautious. The prescient bard is meant to have synergy with its feature, powers, feats, and high wisdom. Who knows what changing it to dexterity could do? I'd prefer to not risk it.

Of course, that's just my preference. If you find it fun and your DM likes the idea, go for it, having fun is the point of the game. I find balance to be fun, and it would take one of my players a lot of effort to convince me to allow it.

 

[Nifft]

I'm going to assume you mean cunning bards.

Yes, thanks. Habit from CharOp where the abbreviation ("cunnibard") is frowned upon.

The cunning bard has a different feature, different powers, and different feats that play in to its balance. I don't know the math, I don't pretend to, so I like to be cautious. The prescient bard is meant to have synergy with its feature, powers, feats, and high wisdom. Who knows what changing it to dexterity could do?

Anyone who looks can know.

There's one class feature, and seven powers (total) which use Wisdom. That's a small enough number, even my puny little brain can handle it.

The other changes are all things the Cunning Bard can already do, plus Stealth and Initiative.

I'd prefer to not risk it.

Interesting forum you've chosen to post in.

Ciao, -- N

 

[Camelot]

Interesting forum you've chosen to post in.

I do like creating and adding to the game, but not changing what the beach wizards have already done. Again, that's just me. You do what you find fun!

 

[Starfox]

D&D character creation shouldn't be held accountable for making every idea of every character optimized, especially when the games level of difficulty (ascribed by the DMG) doesn't at all call for it. It's a game of give and take, not have your cake, eat it, then eat the other guys cake because that looks good too.

I can't agree wit this. Why should a player be punished for wanting to play a concept outside of the builds WotC has furnished us with? This is one worst things about 4E IMO.

 

[Flipguarder]

If you want a fighter who can talk his way out of the electric chair, you gonna have to take some penalties. Its not a punishment, its a trade off.

For additional instance, if I want a guy who can throw a spear, sling a spell, shoot an arrow, then whack a guy with a hammer, I can, its just going to be costly. Again, its not an unreasonable punishment for going outside the strict limits of the paltry offering Wotc has given us, its a trade off.

PS: Im not saying a cha/dex build bard wouldn't be convenient for many players, (in fact I would enjoy the build's existence.) All I'm saying is you can make a reasonably powerful cha/dex bard alreadyif you think outside the strict boundries of what Munchkins think is "reasonably powerful". And thus it doesn't really need a houserule.


PSS: You wouldn't be wrong or evil or stupid for making cunning bards based off of dex, I'm just trying to break people out of the "optimization box" i see so freaking often nowadays.

 

[Starfox]

PSS: You wouldn't be wrong or evil or stupid for making cunning bards based off of dex, I'm just trying to break people out of the "optimization box" i see so freaking often nowadays.

I was just trying to point out that the game shoehorns us, and that there is a concept ax for not picking an "approved" build. The "optimization box" is pretty firmly imposed in the rules, and this is a problem. You can fight it as a player but at considerable cost. Some of us dislike the entire idea of the box and want more flexible rules/builds.

 

[Nifft]

If you want a fighter who can talk his way out of the electric chair, you gonna have to take some penalties. Its not a punishment, its a trade off.

That is ONLY true because you've defined your "concept" as half mechanical / half functional. If you want to make a Defender-who-stabs-people who can talk his way out of the electric chair, you play a Charisma Paladin, and you take no particular penalties.

Unlike your example -- which is trivial to solve with a little "out of the box" thinking -- there are no Leaders who are sneaky.

- - -

Since there's been a lot of opposition, yet nobody has actually come up with anything wrong with the mechanics -- which are based off the Prescient Bard, not the Cunning Bard -- I'm going to go ahead and assume there is nothing broken about it.

Cheers, -- N