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

[WhatGravitas]

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

You mean like the... Archivist, who can potentially learn all divine spells?

 

[Byrons_Ghost]

I second Eric's feelings- this would make the class much better to me, and before now I've pretty much had zero interest in playing them.

An interesting variant might be to cut down on their spells per day (or something) in exchange for some sort of metamagic abilities- essentially make them hedge wizards who use music to expand their powers beyond what they can learn on their own.

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

If their other spellcasting restrictions- only going up to 6th level spells, slower progression, and limited use- were kept in place, then I don't think it would be overpowered. It's not like they'd be a wizard with a medium BAB or something similar.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I think the book-learnin' approach would be more suitable for the 3e Bard, yep.

 

[Ruslanchik]

I think Bards are the definitive spontaneous casters. Removing this aspect would fundamentally change the class in a bad way.

Remember, bards are trained in magic like wizards are. They learn to use magic by observation and by feel, not by readng spells out of books.

If you want your bard to learn spells like a wizard, give him some levels in wizard because that's essentially what you are looking for.

 

[S'mon]

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

Yes - a bard is a lore-master type, making them spont casters made no sense. I do quite like the C&C non-spellcasting Bard though.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not sure the variety would help as much as folks think.

A preparing caster has lots of variety, yes. But putting that variety to use requires a plan and/or foreknowledge of what you're getting into. Once you know, you can set yourself up, but then you're fixed into that plan.

The bard, on the other hand, seems to me to be the sort who mixes in to a variety of different situations at the drop of a hat. That's not something you can prepare for. While the bard's list of known spells is small, within that list the bard has far more short-term flexibility than a preparing spellcaster.

Basically, the bard seems to me to be a master of improvising to meet his situation at the time, and preparing spellcasting doesn't fit that role. YMMV.

 

[Crothian]

I think they just need to improve his number of known spells.

 

[Aus_Snow]

[T]he bard seems to me to be a master of improvising to meet his situation at the time, and preparing spellcasting doesn't fit that role.

I know what you mean, but on the other hand, with a whole bunch of spells known (and Bard spells are actually reasonably versatile overall), a Bard could prepare for just about anything that is likely to come up.

Either way, there's a valid argument. But to me it's more to do with the 'feel', along the lines of that whole Bardic Knowledge, extensive learning type thing. . . which is partly in interpretation (so, preference) I know.

 

[Slife]

You mean like the... Archivist, who can potentially learn all divine spells?

Or the cleric, who already does?

 

[Sejs]

I'm actually not a big fan of the 'you only know X spells' model in the first place. I shy away from most spontaneous casting classes because there's always the doubt in my mind that I'm going to be kicking myself in the ass because I've run into a particular situation and bemoan "if only I'd picked spell X instead!"

The only class I've seen with a happy compromise is the Spirit Shaman: spontaneous caster, has potential access to a list of spells, but can only know a certain subset at a given time.

I would've much rather seen a bard built on that model. Not full spontaneous, not full prepared - somewhere in between.