How important are mages?

Remove all ads!

My party consits of Khalid, Jaheira, Yeslick, Coran, Imoen and (of course) myself (Fighter/Cleric). I use Imoen and Coran as archers (i only use magical arrows by now), Khalid, Yeslick and myself for melle combat and Jaheira mostly for healing (though she tries to fight a little, too..*g*) As you see I have no mages in my party and until now (chapter 6) it has been no problem....will it become one?

Möge euch das Schicksal wohlgesonnen sein

LowboDyiss

 

I only use mages for offensive spells, but if you have a good fighters then i think it isn't a problem.....

 

Well in BG1 it's a little bit but not as importants as in BG2 that you have mages to dispel enemies protections. In BG1, maybe it's possible to play without a mage (I doubt it) but in BG2 you simply can't hit some mages without casting breach, secret word and/or pierce magic on them, so when you look in the information, the mage doesn't many enemies, but they help your fighters killing them.

 

Mages can certainly help in the final battle, especially if you have been collecting wands (particularly of Fire and Monster Summoning). The monster summoning really helps as you can use the poor summoned monsters as cannon fonder to give your troops a bit of breathing space.

Otherwise, its up to you. I personally would want a mage to increase my options and see more aspects of the game. One time through, I played a mage and I also had Dynaheir & Xan in the group. But I guess the game is possible to finish without one. I am trying a similar thing to you on my latest run-through of BG2 (no mages at all). It is much harder in BG2 because the increased experience levels result in some very powerful spells and spell casting adversaries.

[This message has been edited by Slappy (edited April 07, 2001).]

 

I recommend Edwin as the primary party Mage even though hes evil. Mages in red or the best.

 

as for every type of charachter, you don't HAVE to use mages, but it just adds more depth to the game. having mages in your party makes battles more stratigecally fun and challenging, and mages in all are usually interesting charachters.

long live Raistleen.

 

Mages is BG1 are utterly useless. By the time they get enough spells its late chapter 6, and you don't get a mage until chapter 2. They are just not worth it to have, stick with your fighters until you give BG2 a go.

 

Utterly useless? I whole-heartedly disagree. My party right now is made up of Myself, a Druid, Shar-Teel, and Edwin. Without Edwin we would not get along nearly as well. He can take hits with mirror image, dole out damage with magic missile and acid arrow, summon monsters as an additional distraction, and last, but certainly not least, can haste my party making Shar-Teel an ass-whupping machine with the Light crossbow of Speed and the Longsword +2. There, I've said it.

 

Personnally i don't like mages in bg1 but in bg2 they KICK ASS!

 

The idea of mages in BG being useless is laughable. I can respect anone who doesn't like them or doesn't want to play them, but mages are great in my opinion. In my only full run through BG, I had three mages of somesort in my party. It made things a world easier, as three mages (Myself-fighter/mage, Quayle, Dynheir) have just soooo much firepower. With the multitude of wands, not to mention three mages slamming someone with multiple magic missles or fireballs, mages are my favortite thing about BG.