Do you really need a mage?

Remove all ads!

I have to find out if I'm alone in this thinking. The last few times through BG1, I haven't even bothered taking a mage at all. If I want to have some access to the mage equipment and spells, I'll take Garrick or Eldoth (the two bards in the game). Basically, most of the spells that are worth using come in wand form, and thus, because bards can use wands, eliminate the need for a mage. Plus, a bard does get a fair number of low level mage spells. As far as I can tell, the only spells that a bard won't be able to cast are a few of the domination type spells (level 4) and some of the better summoning spells (level 5). There's even a few cloud kill scrolls hanging around during the game that you can cast. In addition to their high lore and pickpocket abilities, bards are much more capable fighter than mages when not casting spells, and let's face it - it's not like a mage has so many spells that he/she can be casting them every battle. I view bringing a mage along as a liability to the party - he/she is taking up a space that could be put to better use by someone else.

 

Personally, I would have to agree with you based upon my style of play. The only mage spell that I use in BG1 with any degree of regularity is magic missile and there are plenty of wands for that.

In my current game I dual classed Imoen over to mage and apart from the ring of wizardry doubled oodles of magic missiles that I have her spewing forth I think I have used dispel magic once and fireball a couple of times. Mostly Imoen is acting as a thief (scouting, picking locks and disarming tracks).

 

Mages aren't very good in Baldur's Gate;
but if you want to take Minsc with you, instead of Kivan, you also have to take Dynaheir(i think )with you.

 

@ Blast Skeleton - Needing both members of a pair may be quite true from a role playing perspective but it is easily avoidable from a powergaming perspective.

 

Exactly JSBB. "Oh, hi Dynaheir! It's great that we arrived when we did to rescue you from those gnolls. Now, can you just go down the stairs over there, with absolutely no armor or weapons, and hope there isn't a pack of gnolls or xvarts waiting for you? Thanks."

 

Yeah, mages aren't necessary. But then, do you really need all those clerics and thieves around? You can bash the doors and chests open and just suffer damage from traps. You can get healing in towns and use your potions to cure poison.

I agree with Aldeth, that mages aren't so good in small battles, but they can also be very powerful in big battles.

I always take mage in my party, because I want versatile party: as many different classes as possible.

 

I haven't played BG1 without a mage, but it appears not to be a problem - the advantages of having a mage in BG1 aren't as big as of having another tank. Dispel magic may be important, but priests have it too.

 

I've completed the game lots of times without a mage in my party. It isn't a problem at all, especially if you got the Necklace of Missiles to acompany with...

 

For the original BG1 mage is not too important, but, for the Durlag's tower, i think they are neccessary. The ability to wear 2 ring of wizardy, is unique, and makes the character realy strong. There are several monster, what you can hit only with magic. Of course you can replace the mage with bards, but personaly i hate sleeping in the game. So the more spells i have the happier i am.

 

Ofcourse you can beat it just as easy without a mage. But I play for fun and since I love mages I always have atleast one in my party. Had an evil party with 4 evil mages, 1 evil cleric nad 1 evil thief. Kicked ass I tell you =)

 

@ Valer

You can equip TWO rings of wizardry on the same mage? So it doubles the number of spells twice for four times the effect? I knew about there being two rings of wizardy, but I assumed that since they both doubled the number of spells, that there was little point in putting them both on the same mage. I didn't realize that you actually got both bonuses.

I was never really in doubt as to whether or not you could finish the game without a mage, as many people are saying. I was more or less asking if other people do it with any regularity. Keep in mind, if there was no such class as a bard, I would probably bring a mage with me just to use all the items I'd otherwise miss out on. It just seems that the cost/reward ratio favors a bard much more than a mage in BG1.

 

Think, if you dual a mage from a fighter, you can get better character, than a bard. The lore maybe is attractive, but the weapon profiency, the lower thaco, more possibility of equipments... it's worth to think about it.

I mostly play solo, or only with 3-4 characters, so this way there is no place for a bard, but the 5th one surely would be a tale teller, singer.

Yeah, with the ring of wizardy you can get 20 magic missiles. I love it! You can see only 12 in your spellbook, but keep clicking on the spells, you can hear, more spells are added. At last, when you cast, you will see at the small index number 20...

 

I think Mages (and specialists) are very useful and strong in Baldur's Gate. A 3rd level wizard can cast a Stinking Cloud, then the cleric can summon skeletons...
The final battle is very very easy with mages:
shoot some Magic Missiles and Sarevok is dead...

 

Isn't he supposed to be 100% magic resistant?

 

Mages are not necessary, they are either a luxury or a challenge. Either way they come in useful.

 

Duke Eltan really took it to extremes with 4 mages but I'd say it's always useful to take at least 1 mage in a party. They aren't great for little battles but are great for fighting small groups of tough characters (e.g. Sarevok, hostile adventuring bands, bounty hunters etc.). If mages aren't your thing though and you really want Minsc (he's such a cool NPC ) you can always kill Dynahier off by sending her off alone into a big group of Gnolls. The rings of wizardry and amulet of metaspell influence can make one mage really powerful and if you want to use the same party in BG II your mage will become your most valuable party memeber (mages appreciate in value very well as they gain levels).

Conclusion: you don't have to play with a mage but it is useful to have one token mage for high level battles and there are 3 artifacts that will make him a valuble addition to the party. GO MAGES!

 

Ok if people can solo almost any character... I don't think it matters at all who is in your party for you to "beat the game". Except unless you totally crapify your characters stats and equipment on purpose.

 

Mages are not "useless" in BG.

Sleep is very useful early on.
Haste/Slow comes in VERY handy for melee fighters.
Resist Fear/Dispel Magic is almost required at some points.

Fireball is plain and simple the best crowd control in the whole game, and a bard can not cast them as well or as often as a conjurer.

 

The spells above are available in forms usable by other classes:
Fireball: Scrolls, Arrows, Potions, Wands
Haste/Slow: Scrolls
Dispel Magic: Scrolls, Arrows, Potions?
Sleep: Scrolls
So clearly you do not require a mage to use these. There are certainly enough arrows of detonation, potions of firebreath & fiery explosions and fire wands in the game to give a party more fireballs than they could possibly need.

 

Yes but they get a fixed number of damage dice rolls when used in this way, and you get limited uses. I had used up the fireball wands and potions long before the end of the game.

They don't last as long as they do when cast by a mage though. And these scrolls are expensive. Too expensive to use very often without scribing to a spellbook.

Dispelling Arrows are extremely expensive at 1500-2200 gold for a pack of 5 arrows. I'm not sure but don't the potions affect only one person? And scrolls should have a lower chance of affecting enemies with beneficial abilities on them.