Sorcerer VS Mage

Remove all ads!

Choose one of them and explain why! I do this because I hear that sorcerer can be a lot more powerfull than mages. It is true?

 

I prefer sorcerers generally because they can cast more spells without having to prepare, and although they can only have fewer spells in comparison to the wizard, I only use a few spells per level anyway, so it suits me.

 

You can cast any spell you know of a particular level with a sorcerer. For example...suppose you cast stoneskin and go into a room full of creeps, you see that they're attackind you and your stoneskin is going to run out...you cast Spirit Armor on yourself to give yourself better AC.

Then you cast Greater Malison, followed by Fireball or Sunfire...without preparation from before.

If you were playing a wizard in this situation, chances are you would not have all of those spells memorised before hand.

Sorcerers also get one extra spell per lvl as though they were a specialist mage, and at the same time, they can cast spells of all levels. They are extremely flexible and versatile, which is why they are generally considered more powerful.

Albeit, they're not a very newbie friendly class.

 

I love the idea of a Sorcerer - naturally inclined to the arcane arts. Powerful and flexible, as mentioned before. A true source of power and awe to your enemies. Perhaps a good class for a Bhaalspawn

Yet one of my best characters was a mage. I admire mages more than sorcerers, yet sorcerers are more impressive I find. I guess, as always, depends on the tone I wish to create in the game and the character I am playing.

Rogue bhaalspawn with seemingly endless escape plans or academic bhaalspawn outwitting their opponants?

 

The number one problem with Sorcerers is that you can't dual or multiclass. And the BGII game rules unfairly penalise single classed characters.

 

I don't think that's true Harbourboy.
I very very rarely multi-class characters because I know how powerful a single-class character can be, especially at high levels.

 

I only multi-class when I need some skills in a class I dont want much of. Like a thief. I dont see the point of a pure class thief so will make a multi. Pure class clerics or druids can really kick ass though.

 

I don't see the point of a pure class cleric. In my current game, Viconia is virtually the same character at level 30 as she was at Level 25.

 

It's for the high level spells. Summon Deva, and flaming aura etc. The HLA's are great, plus I like having lots of healing spells.

Multi-class characters just dont get there enough for me.

 

A mage is great at lower levels because of the experience you get memorizing spells. All depends on your pref I guess.

 

A sorcerer is almost always the choice for me. His only disadvantage is at the beginning, when a mage gets lots of experience from learning new spells, and sorcerer doesn't.

I agree that it is a real weakness that you can't dual/multiclass him, but the game has to be balanced, after all.

 

Another vote for sorcerers. Mostly because sors get more spells in ToB than in SoA.

Edit : if I don't have to go thru the whole pain to regain inactive class, I would go for a lv13/29 Kensage (or 21/22 maybe ? )

 

Sorcerers may be able to cast more freely than mages do, but they are too restricted in the number of spells they can learn. I prefer to have a wider selection of spells from which to choose. Therefore, I give my vote to mages, since they reflect better my idea of what a spellcaster should be.

 

I agree with Colthrun - you have the variety. Maybe not that little extra-added power, but ultimately, you have more spells (or perhaps All spells?)

The sorcerer is indeed a great spellcaster, but loses that little feeling of how a mage should appear - literally an open book of knowledge - so smacked full of knowledge that the book's pages aren't enough. The sorcerer as a character more stands like a little bastion of spells - ready for combat anytime.

The mage seems - to me - to have a more broad content of the arcane in his head, and is more properly prepared to face all kinds of adventures.

I'd chose the mage.

 

IMO, he's asking from a powergamer's point of view, and I doubt there can be any effective argument to prove that a Sorcerer is more powerful than a Mage...based purely on the merits of the class alone.

Of course, if you're looking at it from a roleplaying point of view, certain arguments would be valid, but he's asking for a powergamers' point of view...

 

By the way, a sorcerer can not resist becoming a god: his taint and his divinity are the same with his magical energies. If stripped of them, he's no better of than a peasant, IMO.

 

Sorcerer.For example you have 4 spells from a level.You can cast same spell 4 times or cast all spells once.You are prepared for everything with a sorcerer.
Mages can memorize spells and gain XP,but it is about 200.000-300.000.It isn't so important later in the game.

 

Well, if he's asking from a PG's point of view - then you ppl are probably. If not - if he is indeed askin' for a powerful character from the Roleplaying aspect - then I dare to say that the mage is most powerful.

Well, nothing to argue about ;P

 

I think that the experience of the player is important too. For example, if you've never really played a mage or sorcerer before, then you are definitely going to screw it up if you play a sorcerer first. Because a sorcerer gets only a few spell choices, EVERY SPELL YOU PICK MUST SERVE SOME PURPOSE. A mage can afford to scribe pretty much any spell into his spell book, whereas a sorcerer if he choses a spell he doesn't have much use for is permanently disadvantaged by his selection. So I definitely would say that one should become proficient with the mage class first, to know which spells they really want before attempting the sorcerer class.

 

well i always chose a sorcerer because they are very powerfull and because you can exercise better with them on wizardry and how to manage spells and blah blah blah....