Would the bard have been better off as a non spontaneous caster?

[frankthedm]

One must pay to be a spontaneous caster in D&D. Slower spell progression and only knowing a select few of the spells you can cast. In exchange for this you can cast them over and over again. Now for a blaster, that is not so bad. But for someone that tries to be a jack of all trades and ready for anything, setting your spell list in mental stone sounds more like a liability that a bonus.

So anybody think the bard operating off of spellbooks / sheetmusic would be better off than the current spontaneous casting set up?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

No.

 

[Voadam]

I find spontaneous far more useful for "ready for whatever comes" type of characters. Wizards are powerful when they know what they will deal with and can prepare appropriate spells. Sorcerers are just ready to jump right into any action full blast even if surprised by different things.

 

[wayne62682]

Spontaneous casting is far overrated anyways. Big deal if you can cast it once more per day (which is what it boils down to, really, a difference of about one measly spell a day) if you only know two to begin with.

 

[krunchyfrogg]

I like Bards the way they are. I always concentrate on buff spells and certain enchantment spells (charm person, sleep, ect.).

When it comes to combat, I'll occasionally take a spell like Chromatic Orb, but my Bards usually don't like actually engaging in combat (but I don't have much of a problem with missile weapons).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think Bards would be better off with the Spontanous Casting of a Beguiler.

That said, I also always liked the idea of Bards preparing spells. A bard uses music (unless he uses poetry ), and if you want to be really good at playing a music theme, you have to prepare them.
On the other hand, a musician can certainly take a sheet of notes and play them, too, so he can easily switch the type of music he plays.

Maybe Bards should actually have both spellcasting types. He can prepare spells like a wizard, but he can also learn how to cast a few spells spontanously.

Otherwise, I think Bard can cast so few spells per day, that it doesn't really matter whether it is spontanous or prepared casting. Each has its advantages and its disadvantages...

 

[green slime]

I dislike the modern bard. I prefer the image of the bard from the 1e PHB appendix. Sorry. Not usually such an old stick-in-the-mud. But on this issue...

 

[EricNoah]

I think the bard would be well-suited for a book-learnin', learn any type of spell I can find (including clerical, druidic, etc.) type spellcasting. Wow. That would actually make the class quite appealing to me. I'm not sure why it never occurred to me before.

 

[krunchyfrogg]

I think the bard would be well-suited for a book-learnin', learn any type of spell I can find (including clerical, druidic, etc.) type spellcasting. Wow. That would actually make the class quite appealing to me. I'm not sure why it never occurred to me before.

It would have the potential of becoming the most powerful class then. Too munchkinny for my tastes.

 

[Chimera]

I am not a Bard, but I play one in D&D...

Bards are very limited spellcasters. They have to be Spontaneous with what little they have.

If that was removed, I could see making them like Wizards, with the +2 spells per level and no cap on how many they could know, and more spells per day. But the difficulty in that path lies in the question of whether or not they could just pick up any old Wizard spell and so forth.



I have to admit that it was a bit of a shock, really, to be playing a first level Bard.

"Wait a minute. I get to use my Inspire Courage ONCE a day, and have NO first level spells??? My weapons are WHAT??? My Bardic Knowledge check is a whole +2???

WHAT THE ****?!?!?"

Had to learn to take enjoyment from the fact that I was boosting other players. "Oh, you just barely hit? Rolled exactly what you needed? Ha! That was only due to my Inspire Courage! Chalk up another one for the Bard! Haha!"