Could I get away with having a Bard as my only arcane caster? Arcane magic seems weak in the beginning and mages are liability at a low levels. They get like one Magic Missile spell and then they're either plinking away with a sling for minimal damage or they're just sitting there tiddling their thumbs. At least a Bard can use a bow once he blows through all his spells. It'd probably hurt in the beginning since you have no spells but that's not a problem once you get to Kuldahar and can buy scrolls fruom that wizard in the tower.

I think it's possible, my only main concern is the lack of slots compared to a wizard and the fact he needs to stop singing to cast a spell. Of course, I tend to play my Bards like they are archers who can cast spells, identify items and do the shopping; I think most of the songs are worthless except for the one that heals your party over time. That's for trash mobs of course, bosses are a different story, where the combat bonuses from singing could mean the difference between victory or having to reload.

Hell, no.

The bard good only for support since he/she can only memorize 3 spells per level (before hitting level 16), also get a new spell level only at every 3rd class level.

Yeah, the bard is very good in Icewind Dale, I love it since he/she has a very high lore (you don't need identify) has arcane spells, can use any weapons and can pickpocket (you can steal really good items!). Also there is the awesome Horn of Valhalla which is a must in one of the shops of Easthaven (and an other cool bard item). Ahh, and don't forget the cool songs (there is one with healing, so you can heal without spells and potions in between battles).

But it's good only for support. Heck, not good, awesome for support!

Btw, I suggest you have a fighter/mage or - may be even better - a thief/mage along with your bard. These 2 will do nicely.

A bard is definitely sufficient as only arcane caster in the party.

If you look at the spell and XP tables you'll see that a bard reaches new spell levels about as fast as a multiclassed mage.
Example: A fighter/mage multiclass needs 1,500,000 XP for casting level 6 spells, a bard only 1,320,000 XP.

Many have beaten the game with a multiclass mage as only arcane caster, a bard has even superior casting power because (s)he'll level faster and therefore have a much higher casting level.

Well, in the game, right now my characters have around 400k XP. My fighter/illusionist is at level 8/9, and the bard is at level 11. The fighter mage can cast 5th level spells, the bard can cast 4th level spells max, also the mage can memorize around twice as much (illusionist: 5/4/4/3/2, bard: 3/3/3/1). If my mage was only single class, the difference would be even bigger.

But yeah, in the end game the bard would reach higher casting levels, but can memorize only around half as much as a mage can do, which is a huge drawback.

And one more thing. Now I play on insane difficulty and on this level 1 arcane caster is definitely not enough, especially not a bard. On normal probably you can finish the game with a single bard without major problems if you have good tactics.

There are moments when the multiclass knows more spells and there are moments when the bard knows more spells. It takes longer for the bard to get level 5 spells but he'll get level 6 spells faster.
The reason why your multiclass can memorize more spells is that you have a specialist mage, he can memorize more spells but can't learn necromancy or abjuration spells.

The game has been beaten at insane difficulty with only 1 arcane caster by many players. A bard is definitely enough even for this setting.

Ok, I can't argue with this.

oooOOOooooh... i heartily disagree!!! bards have no-where near the versatility a wizard has. once you pick your spells, that's it. a wizard commands a huge arsenal and can stand toe to toe with a fighter (or two, or three, or four) of a similar level in the teens. not the case for the bard. im not dissing bards, but there is no comparison to a wizard. the songs are nice though :)

thats not to say you couldnt beat the game without one, however i think you would be missing out on a heck of a lot of destructive fun if you didn't include one.

The thread is about IWD1, which uses 2e rules. Bards memorize spells like wizards in that ruleset.

ah, right... my mistake. the rest of my post i stick by, however :D

For physical combat bard is superior to mage, he can learn the mage self-buffs like mirror image, blur and stoneskin (which is even more effective for the faster levelling bard), gets more hitpoints, better thac0 and can use better weapons.

aye, but when you start using your arcane spellcaster for melee combat your doing something wrong (unless your using Tenser’s Transformation and doing it intentionally)... but i won't refute the Bard's worth so i am going to stop debating this issue, hehe.

I agree. The other party members want to contribute something too.

You certainly CAN use a bard as the sole arcane caster.
However, I wouldn't choose to.

Bards are great & I never play the game without one, but I also use a fighter/mage.
You also CAN use a pure mage, but I prefer the multi class to get extra hitpoints & the ability to use bows. As an elf, he even gets an attack bonus with a bow.
At the early levels, a bow is a must for when the spell well runs dry.

If you tried hard enough you could beat the game without any arcane caster at all, so yeah, a bard would be more than sufficient if that's your scene. They can't get higher than 6th level spells, though, if you didn't know that... but you won't get enough experience for that to matter unless you play the expansion and/or do it on a high difficulty setting.

I generally use pure-class mages because they gain levels faster, and if your mages are actually needing their hitpoints on a regular basis you're probably doing something wrong.