Tell me if what i did is nuts

Remove all ads!

When many people play wizards, they usually chose a specialist mage or sorcerer, or kensai dual to mage. but has anybody out there been just a mage? A mage and mage only? Do you think that it is a stupid idea? I mean i chose to be it is because
1) You can cast all the schools of magics spell
2)You do not get a -15% penalty when learning spells of other schools
3)Items like Rings od wizardry and aculty(it that correct?) can make up for the loss of extra spells

so what do you think

 

Gorsh! That's why Edwin failed to learn so many spells. I didn't know that. (#2)

[This message has been edited by Ironbeard (edited April 01, 2001).]

 

Hey I did the same thing and by the end of the game they're realy powerful.

 

Well I played through with a mage and as long as you have some beef upfront they'll be fine. the sheer amount of damage you can do if you unload on a creature is incredible. All classes are equal in power except for wizard slayers and inquisitors, both of them suck.

 

i spose but i think its more the fun in having a rivel school and being evil eg necromancer

 

My view is that it's not really nuts at the moment. In BG1 it was a good idea to specialise as a Conjurer as the opposition school was Divination (and who really needed Divination spells anyway?). They've kept it the same for BG2 but I think that they are going to change that like they did for HoW.

The new opposition school becomes Evocation so you lose out on spells like Magic Missile and Fireball, probably 2 of the most important spells for a low level wizard. I don't know what's going to happen with ToB but I assume that they'll implement the same schools as they did for HoW.


On another note....i just realised that this is my 100th post!!!!! Hip, Hip, Hurray!!!!! I've got a new avatar, YAHHH!!!!!

[This message has been edited by Cerryl (edited April 02, 2001).]

 

Inquisitors are awfully powerful. I would have to say the weak classes are the Totemic Druid and the Jester and the ultimate of suckass class, the wizard slayer.

 

I played a pure mage, very powerful indeed. He don't kill much people (6%) but he's a little bit underestimated, the fighters kill but the mage makes it easy to kill the enemies.

 

Jester isn't any weaker than a bard in general. They just have a bard song that confuses enemies instead of bolsters friends.

I've heard the beastmaster is pretty weak.

 

Mages Rule.

I have played the same fully class mage through BG1 TOSC and now BG2 and will probably play it through TOB.

Pretty weak in the beginning , but now with Spell Sequencer and Contigency, my mage is the major damage doer in any fight.

Also if you get the staff of magi and the amulet of ??? from the thieves guild the one that makes you immune to level drain and reduces your spell casting time , you cast cast multiple spells in one round.

On later levels you are going to need all the spells you can get your hands on and the ablilty to cast them quickly is awesome.

 

Mages are great, but don't you miss the feeling of walking into the middle of melee and seeing the bodies fly?

I know that the Sunspot spell could be fun in that situation, but not as much fun as a good two handed sword!

 

I did that for the first game that i played.

to bad i got my ass kicked every five minutes.

(p.s. This was before i learned the wonders of protective magics)

 

My personal opinion is that a strict mage is BETTER than a specilist. Unlike P&P you can't gain and specilty items for each school. Therefor being a mage, ALTHOUGH limiting your spells, in fact increases your power because you dont strugle to learn spells and you have a more wide range of spells. I think loseing a school of magic just to get one extra spell per level is crazy. well that is just MY opinion, take it for what it is worth.

 

I always play as a plain Mage, but when I complete BG2, I'm gonna play it again as a Monk, they sound interesting.

 

playing a "regular" mage is the best.
when they get to higher levels, mages are the only ones who can adventure truly on their own, you get a true ad&d feel. not every body in the world travels in packs, and mages have a special tendency to not socilaize and go privately about their intersting business. nothing better than playing a high level mage.

 

I totally agree with you Marek. Most mages need tanks in their 'younger' years, but when they get to higher levels, they can summon their own tanks Mages have a sollution to everything, the perfect swiss army knife. Just read about elminster and be convinced!

 

First of all i would like to say that i never summon creatures as i find it a cheap trick, and i cant understand why someones mage only had killed 6% or something of all the creatures, i mean my singleclass mage has killed over 40% of all opponents, but then again Abi-Dalzims Horrid Wilting packs a good punch. All in all i wouldnt say you were nuts as i think singleclass unspecialized mages are the best kind.

 

My spellcasters are used as backup, weakening the enemies as the fighters hack at them. I rarely use direct damage spells except magic missile. After all fighters can deal out damage but they can't cast haste or confusion, can they?

 

Why do people have a problem with summoning spells? There are dozens of them in the game, and I don't get the feeling they are unbalanced. I use the same tactics with them as I would in the PnP game.

 

When I'm a magic user, I use a sorcerer. They are extremely powerful. Before I tried out a sorcerer, I never liked magic users much, because they weren't flexible enough (and I couldn't find any really kick-ass spells). I had to anticipate what I was going to run into, when I was going to run into it, etc, etc. Comparing how much use I'm getting out of my sorcerer compared to my Imoen/Nalia combo in my previous game, they are much more useful than a normal mage.