@Quineloe - At higher levels, the wild surge table becomes more user friendly. You get more spell slots for Chaos Shields (and Improved Chaos shields), and you can chain them together using sequencers. This makes Nahal's Reckless Dweomer a spell that can actually be used somewhat reliably. And that means you get a whole pile of level 1 spells that can be any spell in your book. It's like a super sorceror.
By dual-classing, you are choosing not to have a 9th level Xzar. You cannot just compare a Necromancer 6/Cleric 7 against a Cleric 8 without realizing that you are giving up his 4th and 5th level Mage spells. You have to compare the Cleric 8 along with the Necromancer 9 against the Necromancer 6/Cleric 7 and another character (to off-set the Cleric 8) to get an accurate view of the situation.
Xzar is better as Necromancer 9 than he would be as a Necromancer 6/Cleric 7, UNLESS every other character in your party is already a mage!
Dual-classing a Mage is not. worth. it.
This makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying you cannot come to the conclusion that a mage is better than a fighter until you realize everything you're giving up by not just rolling a fighter to begin with. What are you talking about?
You cannot compare Kagain to Yeslick without realizing that if you don't SK Kagain into a fighter/cleric you're giving up cleric spellcasting.
No where did I say I "didn't realize" that I was trading arcane casting for cleric casting. What is your point here? You can compare two characters to one another that are of different classes. I don't see any where in the rule book that you can't. And like I did earlier, when I compared Xzar as a necro/cleric i felt what he gained was more than what he lost.
Xzar is better as Necromancer6/Cleric 7 than Xzar as Necromancer 9 EVEN if the rest of your group is made up of Ninja Donkeys. 9th level mages aren't the be-all end-all of power in BG1. Myself, and others, have mentioned this many times. It might not be what you believe but saying something to the contrary over and over in an exasperated tone doesn't mean that we'll change our minds withut any sort of statistical proof.
Neera has wild mage drawbacks, which are fun, but do not make for a "good" character. Edwin is the best mage because he has the weakest school as his barred school. A specialized mage is better than a non-specialized mage because they can cast one more spell of each level (unless the specialization locks out too many good schools). Edwin simply has the best specialization. (Wild mage also gets the additional spells/level, but the drawbacks make it worse than even the worst specialist.)
A 5% chance of a wild surge (which are sometimes beneficial) including the bonus and not the negative of being a specialist mage has too many "drawbacks?" It seems it really only has 1 drawback and two positives. And apparently 1 is "too many good schools" therefore Xzar sucks, hmm? Ok.
Unless you wait to dual-class until you have more than 25,000 XP, you can easily start out as a different class and still hit 9th level as a Mage. 9th level mages = most powerful characters available in BG1.
Imoen and Safana make great Thief/Mages, for example (though Safana needs the Int book to qualify).
My point is that this is a soild choice for Xzar because he doesn't really feel much of the strain from dualing out of a casting class due to the low XP cap. If he were to be progressing much higher than a 6/7 split I would agree it wouldn't be worth it. That's not the case and as others have stated, including myself numerous times, it makes for a more versatile character.
This is anecdotal, which basically means it is not proof. Unless you can demonstrably prove that the average player will have enough gold to waste on scrolls, it is about as useful as saying you can just use the CLUAConsole to spawn them.
Yeah, you're right. This is all dependant on whether the player is smart enough to pick up and sell items throughout the course of the game. We shouldn't just assume something like this. So, lets take assumptions away.
Xzar is now IMMENSELY more powerful than Edwin because we can't assume the player will be able to afford any 5th level spell scrolls for him to scribe. It's also very possible that the player wont do any of the quests that lead to them finding any of those scrolls. So, an Edwin with lots of unfilled spell slots vs. an Xzar with a lot of unfilled arcane spell slots but an arsenal of cleric spells? I vote Xzar.
Xzar is probably the most amusing companion to have, but he does get annoying after a while.. I usually let them get killed by the first ogre encounter. If i'm in the right mood i just have imoen backstab xzar while i take care of montaron
Why even waste the belt on Yeslick when he can use DUHM, thereby saving the belt for someone who needs the strength more, such as one of the Harpers... both of whom have the same strength as Yeslick.
Because Khalid gets the strength gloves and Jaheira gets lost.
Yeslick is far better than Jaheira stats wise. And I must confess, I hate only relying on spells when the belt has prmanent effects.
@Aasimar069 How is that "too bad for me"? I said that I LIKE Yeslick, and if you looked in other threads I pointed out what you just did; that now, with said belt and the Gauntlets of Dexterity, Yeslick is a total BOSS with the right equipment. I am talking about his DEFAULT character, and I already said his DEFAULT character is good enough, and can be made awesome. I have said absolutely NOWHERE that I dislike Yeslick. Where are you people getting this?
@Quartz: Sorry for the mistake, that's nice to see that people are not only fan of Jaheira and Viconia only because they are in BG2, oblivious they are that their stats have been boosted in bg2.
By dual-classing, you are choosing not to have a 9th level Xzar. You cannot just compare a Necromancer 6/Cleric 7 against a Cleric 8 without realizing that you are giving up his 4th and 5th level Mage spells. You have to compare the Cleric 8 along with the Necromancer 9 against the Necromancer 6/Cleric 7 and another character (to off-set the Cleric 8) to get an accurate view of the situation.
Xzar is better as Necromancer 9 than he would be as a Necromancer 6/Cleric 7, UNLESS every other character in your party is already a mage!
Dual-classing a Mage is not. worth. it.
This makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying you cannot come to the conclusion that a mage is better than a fighter until you realize everything you're giving up by not just rolling a fighter to begin with. What are you talking about?
You cannot compare Kagain to Yeslick without realizing that if you don't SK Kagain into a fighter/cleric you're giving up cleric spellcasting.
No where did I say I "didn't realize" that I was trading arcane casting for cleric casting. What is your point here? You can compare two characters to one another that are of different classes. I don't see any where in the rule book that you can't. And like I did earlier, when I compared Xzar as a necro/cleric i felt what he gained was more than what he lost.
You said that Xzar was categorically better as a Necromancer 6/Cleric 7 than a Cleric 8 would be. But that is NOT the full situation. You are not "just" making a Xzar a "better cleric"; you are also making him a worse mage. Therefore, you have to compare the actual situation. He might be better than the Cleric, but he is worse than the Necromancer.
Thus: would it be better to have a Necromancer 6/Cleric 7 and another character, than it would be to have a Cleric 8 and a Necromancer 9? That is an HONEST comparison.
Kagain and Yeslick do not fulfill the same role. Kagain can never cast healing spells (unless you cheat, but cheating ruins everything, so that is entirely beside the point). You cannot compare Kagain's efficiency as a healer to Yeslick's; the latter wins every time. But Yeslick is more versatile than Kagain, and can fulfill the same role that Kagain can. His Cleric spells make up for what he loses by splitting his XP and being a lower level Fighter. The same cannot be said for a dual-classed Xzar: Nothing he has makes up for losing 4th and 5th level Mage spells.
Xzar is better as Necromancer6/Cleric 7 than Xzar as Necromancer 9 EVEN if the rest of your group is made up of Ninja Donkeys. 9th level mages aren't the be-all end-all of power in BG1. Myself, and others, have mentioned this many times. It might not be what you believe but saying something to the contrary over and over in an exasperated tone doesn't mean that we'll change our minds withut any sort of statistical proof.
It has been proved over and over and over again. "Quadratical Wizards and Linear Fighters" was made for AD&D 2nd Edition.
A multi-class Mage/Cleric (NOT a dual-class) is more powerful than a single-classed Mage. They never give up their Mage spells, and they get Cleric spells on top of it.
But a Mage dual-classed into a Cleric loses out on spells. 4th level spells and 5th level spells ARE that powerful, even if you refuse to see it. Stoneskin alone is practically worth it by itself.
Neera has wild mage drawbacks, which are fun, but do not make for a "good" character. Edwin is the best mage because he has the weakest school as his barred school. A specialized mage is better than a non-specialized mage because they can cast one more spell of each level (unless the specialization locks out too many good schools). Edwin simply has the best specialization. (Wild mage also gets the additional spells/level, but the drawbacks make it worse than even the worst specialist.)
A 5% chance of a wild surge (which are sometimes beneficial) including the bonus and not the negative of being a specialist mage has too many "drawbacks?" It seems it really only has 1 drawback and two positives. And apparently 1 is "too many good schools" therefore Xzar sucks, hmm? Ok.
I haven't said Xzar sucks, he's still a Mage. (I don't care for his personality--in fact, he straight up gets on my nerves-but that has nothing to do with how effective a character he is.) He has a poor specialization, but that does not ruin a Mage, it just makes him weaker than one with a better specialization.
Unless you wait to dual-class until you have more than 25,000 XP, you can easily start out as a different class and still hit 9th level as a Mage. 9th level mages = most powerful characters available in BG1.
Imoen and Safana make great Thief/Mages, for example (though Safana needs the Int book to qualify).
My point is that this is a soild choice for Xzar because he doesn't really feel much of the strain from dualing out of a casting class due to the low XP cap. If he were to be progressing much higher than a 6/7 split I would agree it wouldn't be worth it. That's not the case and as others have stated, including myself numerous times, it makes for a more versatile character.
I'm not saying that Xzar becomes useless if you dual-class him to a Cleric, but if the idea is to make him more powerful, then there is no point.
Versatility matters only if you cannot achieve the same net worth otherwise. You have to judge characters in their context, not as sole constructs.
For example, the following Evil party: CHARNAME, Dorn, Edwin, Xzar, Montaron, Kagain. Dual-classing Xzar makes sense; you have another Mage to pick up the lack of Xzar's higher level spells, and you're short a Priest (unless CHARNAME is one). Replace Kagain with Yeslick, however, and suddenly it doesn't make sense any longer. If your CHARNAME can substitute Kagain as the tank, you can also bring in Viconia instead. If CHARNAME is a Thief, you can get rid of Montaron and bring in one of the clerics, or if he is a powerhouse like Dorn, he can be substituted... and so on. If CHARNAME is a Mage, then honestly I'd dump Xzar over Edwin any day of the week. Imoen (even though she isn't Evil) can be my thief instead of Montaron, and a backup Mage to boot.
In short, out of a number of different party combinations, only one in which you deliberately avoid picking up clerical support does it make sense to dual-class Xzar.
This is anecdotal, which basically means it is not proof. Unless you can demonstrably prove that the average player will have enough gold to waste on scrolls, it is about as useful as saying you can just use the CLUAConsole to spawn them.
Yeah, you're right. This is all dependant on whether the player is smart enough to pick up and sell items throughout the course of the game. We shouldn't just assume something like this. So, lets take assumptions away.
Xzar is now IMMENSELY more powerful than Edwin because we can't assume the player will be able to afford any 5th level spell scrolls for him to scribe. It's also very possible that the player wont do any of the quests that lead to them finding any of those scrolls. So, an Edwin with lots of unfilled spell slots vs. an Xzar with a lot of unfilled arcane spell slots but an arsenal of cleric spells? I vote Xzar.
Edwin is by far the best mage for BG1. If you can only have one mage, he would always be my first choice, for character, for versatility and for sheer destructiveness.
That said... I do have a soft spot for Xan. Always did, even in BG1, but there was an excellent BG2 mod for him which, like many of the BG2 mods, really fleshed him out as a character. Not to mention a totally badass scene where he threatens to kill someone with the power of his mind.
Xzar is amusing as hell too, but the loss of illusion does make him a little squishier, and mages don't need to be any squishier than they already are. Larloch's Minor Drain is a damn good first level spell, and can mitigate the mage hitpoints issue (in addition to being an excellent counter-mage spell, given its casting speed), but by the time you've gotten to Nashkel you should have picked up a couple of the scrolls anyway. He's not terrible, but plays better as a support caster to Edwin.
Not sure if this was allready said but: 1. The beard 2. The eyes 3. The voice 4. If I look at earlier post from you I suppose you are a straight male, so you won't give a f*ck about 1, 2 and 3. 5. Lots and lots and lots of spells.
But he also has one huge disadvantige, he can't learn the Indentification spell.
As a straight male, I have to say that 1-3 are completely valid reasons for taking Edwin.
Maybe I should reassess the 'straight'...
Since we're talking mages, if we replace "beard" with "lips" (or other things) then Dynaheir suddenly seems like a rather tasty choice. I can't argue that she's the most effective, but that accent? That portrait? Mmmmm.
Now, to weigh in on the Xzar vs. Edwin vs. Everyone debate... Mr. Daniel Holm, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment. Specialization is powerful, but versatility is also power. If my party consisted of all dual-classed or multiclassed characters, it would be powerful indeed. No matter who got hit by a hold or a fear or an entanglement, I can still heal whoever is taking damage. I can perform whatever thief task I require, and early in the game. Everyone is relatively competent at fighting (except the mage/clerics, who are dedicated casters). You just don't have a weakness in such a party aside from lacking over-the-top specialists who can't do a lot of other things (so perhaps make room for at least one or two such people, such as Minsc, Dorn or Edwin). Even if you didn't, the party would be effective and would not require shoring up in practically any circumstance.
Further, let me state that when I beat Sarevok the first time, I did so on the backs of gibberlings and hobgoblins and skeletons. I didn't muck about with a bunch of mirror images and stoneskins, I summoned the whole world of Baldur's Gate 1 into that room with various spells. Those creatures rolled occasional critical hits, and with the efforts of my team added to the brave tanking of all the summons I didn't need a complex chart of spells to beat the game. Between the two versions of Xzar presented, I would say the necro/cleric version is not only the more versatile, but the more powerful of the two. He would possess a larger number of raw summoning spells, even if the creatures individually were a little less powerful. That doesn't matter to Sarevok: everything dies in one hit, but a gibberling still requires one of his attacks. This tactic, btw, is clearly effective for Edwin, but we are discussing two possible versions of Xzar for now.
Before I forget to mention it: I love Xan, and in almost every game (except the most recent one, because I'm trying new characters and tactics) I end up choosing him because he cracks me up. Any of them are effective enough to win the game with, so why nitpick?
Versatility matters only if you cannot achieve the same net worth otherwise. You have to judge characters in their context, not as sole constructs.
You could equally argue that focusing only matters if you can't achieve the same net worth otherwise. If things are dying just fine with lower levels of mage spells, then do the higher ones really matter? And that extra healing/utility means your team can go even longer without resting. You have to also judge characters in context of the entire game not just a single fight.
Adding in cleric also takes care of the main difference between Xzar and Edwin. The number of spells he casts per day goes up quite a bit. I'm not saying either route is better than the other, but you're not convincing me in any way that adding in cleric is a bad thing. Even if your team has another cleric.
And also worth pointing out that Dualing Xzar gives you a good excuse to bring Edwin along too. They'd both bring something different to the table.
Guys, you forgot several things when you compare a mage->cleric 6/7 to a necro 9.
1. When you dual a character you lost his first class for a period of time. In case of a mage->cleric you have to wait till you collect 55k XP. That is a lot of time even if you optimize (not collecting some XP and take them only after dualling). In practice it means that 25-30% of the time you will miss your 6th level mage and you will have a useless or almost useless low-level priest.
2. Not just you loose 4th and 5th level spells but you loose also damage from level-dependent spells. Xzar in that setup can cast an MM that makes 3D4+3 damage, while Edwin can cast is as a 5D4+5. That is a huge difference, Edwin makes 50%-60% more damage almost in every damaging spell he casts! Additionally Edwin will be much better with Remove/Dispel Magic.
3. Number of spells. Xzar will be able to cast 5/3/3 and Edwin will be able to cast 6/5/5/4/3. That is a real difference.
It could be that Xzar could be better then a single class level 8th cleric but that just means that he is more powerful then a single class cleric. But no one order us to use a single class cleric, there are a lot of multi class cleric possibilities. And do not forget that in practice Xzar have no protection spell at all (against weapon damage)! He cannot cast MI or Stoneskin. So, he is there without any really useful protection and he could have maximum 40 HP at the end (if you maximize HP). 40HP!!! Just compare it to Edwin's 54 HP (plus MM and Stoneskin) or to a single class 8th level cleric 80 HP. Better if you do not compare it.
So, Xzar only advantage as a dualed character compared to a single class mage (Edwin or even himself) is that he is able to cast clerical spells. On the other hand his drawbacks are: - has to use a very valuable item (Tome of Bodily Health) that could be way better useful for other characters (the only thing he gets from it is to be able to dual to cleric) - not able to cast 4th and 5th level mage spells - no good protection against melee and he will have only a small amount of HP, so he will die very often - his mage spells will last for a shorter period of time and he will have only pathetic damage with most of the damaging spells (compared to a 9th level mage) - he will be useless in 25-30% of your adventure - Special weaknesses against Edwin: --- missing of important spells in illusion school (mirror image, improved invisility) --- very low HP --- small amount of spells
To be honest I do not see how can be they compared. Edwin is _way_ bettter than Xzar. I think it could be not a totally bad idea to take Xzar as a cleric replacement but even that is a borderline decision (consider the awful HP and that you have to use the Tome on him).
If you want a cleric/mage then create a special cleric (Priest of ...) and at level 5th dual them to a specialist mage. That way you will get a full mage who can cast level 1-3 clerical spells. It is a good decision. Or you can make a dual-class cleric (ranger->cleric or berserker->cleric) if you want a max. level cleric (and take Edwin as a mage). Or take a druid to be able to cast level 5th cleric spells. There are a lot of options and all of them are better than Xzar.
By dual-classing, you are choosing not to have a 9th level Xzar. You cannot just compare a Necromancer 6/Cleric 7 against a Cleric 8 without realizing that you are giving up his 4th and 5th level Mage spells. You have to compare the Cleric 8 along with the Necromancer 9 against the Necromancer 6/Cleric 7 and another character (to off-set the Cleric 8) to get an accurate view of the situation.
Xzar is better as Necromancer 9 than he would be as a Necromancer 6/Cleric 7, UNLESS every other character in your party is already a mage!
Dual-classing a Mage is not. worth. it.
This makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying you cannot come to the conclusion that a mage is better than a fighter until you realize everything you're giving up by not just rolling a fighter to begin with. What are you talking about?
You cannot compare Kagain to Yeslick without realizing that if you don't SK Kagain into a fighter/cleric you're giving up cleric spellcasting.
No where did I say I "didn't realize" that I was trading arcane casting for cleric casting. What is your point here? You can compare two characters to one another that are of different classes. I don't see any where in the rule book that you can't. And like I did earlier, when I compared Xzar as a necro/cleric i felt what he gained was more than what he lost.
You said that Xzar was categorically better as a Necromancer 6/Cleric 7 than a Cleric 8 would be. But that is NOT the full situation. You are not "just" making a Xzar a "better cleric"; you are also making him a worse mage. Therefore, you have to compare the actual situation. He might be better than the Cleric, but he is worse than the Necromancer.
Thus: would it be better to have a Necromancer 6/Cleric 7 and another character, than it would be to have a Cleric 8 and a Necromancer 9? That is an HONEST comparison.
Kagain and Yeslick do not fulfill the same role. Kagain can never cast healing spells (unless you cheat, but cheating ruins everything, so that is entirely beside the point). You cannot compare Kagain's efficiency as a healer to Yeslick's; the latter wins every time. But Yeslick is more versatile than Kagain, and can fulfill the same role that Kagain can. His Cleric spells make up for what he loses by splitting his XP and being a lower level Fighter. The same cannot be said for a dual-classed Xzar: Nothing he has makes up for losing 4th and 5th level Mage spells.
Xzar is better as Necromancer6/Cleric 7 than Xzar as Necromancer 9 EVEN if the rest of your group is made up of Ninja Donkeys. 9th level mages aren't the be-all end-all of power in BG1. Myself, and others, have mentioned this many times. It might not be what you believe but saying something to the contrary over and over in an exasperated tone doesn't mean that we'll change our minds withut any sort of statistical proof.
It has been proved over and over and over again. "Quadratical Wizards and Linear Fighters" was made for AD&D 2nd Edition.
A multi-class Mage/Cleric (NOT a dual-class) is more powerful than a single-classed Mage. They never give up their Mage spells, and they get Cleric spells on top of it.
But a Mage dual-classed into a Cleric loses out on spells. 4th level spells and 5th level spells ARE that powerful, even if you refuse to see it. Stoneskin alone is practically worth it by itself.
Neera has wild mage drawbacks, which are fun, but do not make for a "good" character. Edwin is the best mage because he has the weakest school as his barred school. A specialized mage is better than a non-specialized mage because they can cast one more spell of each level (unless the specialization locks out too many good schools). Edwin simply has the best specialization. (Wild mage also gets the additional spells/level, but the drawbacks make it worse than even the worst specialist.)
A 5% chance of a wild surge (which are sometimes beneficial) including the bonus and not the negative of being a specialist mage has too many "drawbacks?" It seems it really only has 1 drawback and two positives. And apparently 1 is "too many good schools" therefore Xzar sucks, hmm? Ok.
I haven't said Xzar sucks, he's still a Mage. (I don't care for his personality--in fact, he straight up gets on my nerves-but that has nothing to do with how effective a character he is.) He has a poor specialization, but that does not ruin a Mage, it just makes him weaker than one with a better specialization.
Unless you wait to dual-class until you have more than 25,000 XP, you can easily start out as a different class and still hit 9th level as a Mage. 9th level mages = most powerful characters available in BG1.
Imoen and Safana make great Thief/Mages, for example (though Safana needs the Int book to qualify).
My point is that this is a soild choice for Xzar because he doesn't really feel much of the strain from dualing out of a casting class due to the low XP cap. If he were to be progressing much higher than a 6/7 split I would agree it wouldn't be worth it. That's not the case and as others have stated, including myself numerous times, it makes for a more versatile character.
I'm not saying that Xzar becomes useless if you dual-class him to a Cleric, but if the idea is to make him more powerful, then there is no point.
Versatility matters only if you cannot achieve the same net worth otherwise. You have to judge characters in their context, not as sole constructs.
For example, the following Evil party: CHARNAME, Dorn, Edwin, Xzar, Montaron, Kagain. Dual-classing Xzar makes sense; you have another Mage to pick up the lack of Xzar's higher level spells, and you're short a Priest (unless CHARNAME is one). Replace Kagain with Yeslick, however, and suddenly it doesn't make sense any longer. If your CHARNAME can substitute Kagain as the tank, you can also bring in Viconia instead. If CHARNAME is a Thief, you can get rid of Montaron and bring in one of the clerics, or if he is a powerhouse like Dorn, he can be substituted... and so on. If CHARNAME is a Mage, then honestly I'd dump Xzar over Edwin any day of the week. Imoen (even though she isn't Evil) can be my thief instead of Montaron, and a backup Mage to boot.
In short, out of a number of different party combinations, only one in which you deliberately avoid picking up clerical support does it make sense to dual-class Xzar.
This is anecdotal, which basically means it is not proof. Unless you can demonstrably prove that the average player will have enough gold to waste on scrolls, it is about as useful as saying you can just use the CLUAConsole to spawn them.
Yeah, you're right. This is all dependant on whether the player is smart enough to pick up and sell items throughout the course of the game. We shouldn't just assume something like this. So, lets take assumptions away.
Xzar is now IMMENSELY more powerful than Edwin because we can't assume the player will be able to afford any 5th level spell scrolls for him to scribe. It's also very possible that the player wont do any of the quests that lead to them finding any of those scrolls. So, an Edwin with lots of unfilled spell slots vs. an Xzar with a lot of unfilled arcane spell slots but an arsenal of cleric spells? I vote Xzar.
Complete bullshit. Do you know how to play any other class besides Conjuror?
Short answer: No. Long answer: Nooooooooo.
Anyway I applaud your efforts for attempting to reason with him.
Also Xzar caps out at Necro 6/Cleric 8 idk if you were saying 6/7 to make a different point or whatnot but yeah, worth saying it.
You can dislike me all you want, but please stop pretending you know me well enough to answer questions on my behalf.
At this point there's really nothing left to be said. You keep screaming "this is my opinion but take it as fact" and I am more than likely guilty of the same thing. You have you preferences for wizards and I have my own preferences. Those are shaping how we feel about the power level of the character. Xzar is more versatile being able to cast more spells from a wider list of spells, that's my opinion, I suppose. Take it for what you will.
I wish you intelligence in all your future endeavors. I'd wish you luck but it has a funny habit of running out.
@vuki makes a good point about weapon protection. Not sure this was fixed from Tutu/etc. but in a vanilla Tutu/BGT, weapons don't have an 'enchantment' meaning if Werewolves worked right, you could take out any non-mage.
No idea if this was fixed in EE, but not having PfNW (or Missiles) is a huge loss for one who's been rolling 1d4 (with no con bonus) every level.
Xzar is more versatile being able to cast more spells from a wider list of spells, that's my opinion, I suppose. Take it for what you will.
That is not true. Xzar is not able to dual to a cleric. Unless of course you spend a very valuable magic item (con+ Tome) on him. That is a very big sacrifice to get that small advantage when there are a lot of other options (other cleric npc to consider, protagonist).
@Vuki you have to use a wis tome not a con tome. How valuable that is depends entirely on what class you are and who else is in your party. Based on who's in your group it might be a small sacrifice to get a decent advantage.
@Vuki you have to use a wis tome not a con tome. How valuable that is depends entirely on what class you are and who else is in your party. Based on who's in your group it might be a small sacrifice to get a decent advantage.
Oops, you are right. I do not know why I mentioned con Tome. Ok, I know, in my solo run I plan to get that one, so that could be the possible reason.
Also one thing worths to mention: you can get it only in Candlekeep Catacombs. Your level depends on your playstyle but I could imagine that you could get it a little bit too late.
Yeah I think the tome's location is the bigger issue. As for that Con tome I have it sitting in my pack currently because the point literally would give no advantage to any of my current team. But I can't bring myself to sell it either. Meh.
edit: wait isnt it the str tome in the catacombs? Wis one is on priest in Baldur's gate I thought. Or am I completely misremembering that?
With all due respect to the topic creator and the people that have replied in this thread. It appears this thread is continuing to go in circles that just continue to get more aggressive as the pages go on. I think both sides have presented a fair argument on why they believe their opinion is correct.
If possible could @Tanthalas close this one down before it gets any worse?
Comments
You cannot compare Kagain to Yeslick without realizing that if you don't SK Kagain into a fighter/cleric you're giving up cleric spellcasting.
No where did I say I "didn't realize" that I was trading arcane casting for cleric casting. What is your point here? You can compare two characters to one another that are of different classes. I don't see any where in the rule book that you can't. And like I did earlier, when I compared Xzar as a necro/cleric i felt what he gained was more than what he lost.
Xzar is better as Necromancer6/Cleric 7 than Xzar as Necromancer 9 EVEN if the rest of your group is made up of Ninja Donkeys. 9th level mages aren't the be-all end-all of power in BG1. Myself, and others, have mentioned this many times. It might not be what you believe but saying something to the contrary over and over in an exasperated tone doesn't mean that we'll change our minds withut any sort of statistical proof. A 5% chance of a wild surge (which are sometimes beneficial) including the bonus and not the negative of being a specialist mage has too many "drawbacks?" It seems it really only has 1 drawback and two positives. And apparently 1 is "too many good schools" therefore Xzar sucks, hmm? Ok. Complete bullshit. Do you know how to play any other class besides Conjuror?
My point is that this is a soild choice for Xzar because he doesn't really feel much of the strain from dualing out of a casting class due to the low XP cap. If he were to be progressing much higher than a 6/7 split I would agree it wouldn't be worth it. That's not the case and as others have stated, including myself numerous times, it makes for a more versatile character. Yeah, you're right. This is all dependant on whether the player is smart enough to pick up and sell items throughout the course of the game. We shouldn't just assume something like this. So, lets take assumptions away.
Xzar is now IMMENSELY more powerful than Edwin because we can't assume the player will be able to afford any 5th level spell scrolls for him to scribe. It's also very possible that the player wont do any of the quests that lead to them finding any of those scrolls. So, an Edwin with lots of unfilled spell slots vs. an Xzar with a lot of unfilled arcane spell slots but an arsenal of cleric spells? I vote Xzar.
Don't be silly.
Long answer: Nooooooooo.
Anyway I applaud your efforts for attempting to reason with him.
Also Xzar caps out at Necro 6/Cleric 8 idk if you were saying 6/7 to make a different point or whatnot but yeah, worth saying it.
Whereas with the Illusionist, these two overcompliment each other for the very reason that Illusionists can't learn necro spells.
Yeslick is far better than Jaheira stats wise. And I must confess, I hate only relying on spells when the belt has prmanent effects.
Thus: would it be better to have a Necromancer 6/Cleric 7 and another character, than it would be to have a Cleric 8 and a Necromancer 9? That is an HONEST comparison.
Kagain and Yeslick do not fulfill the same role. Kagain can never cast healing spells (unless you cheat, but cheating ruins everything, so that is entirely beside the point). You cannot compare Kagain's efficiency as a healer to Yeslick's; the latter wins every time. But Yeslick is more versatile than Kagain, and can fulfill the same role that Kagain can. His Cleric spells make up for what he loses by splitting his XP and being a lower level Fighter. The same cannot be said for a dual-classed Xzar: Nothing he has makes up for losing 4th and 5th level Mage spells. It has been proved over and over and over again. "Quadratical Wizards and Linear Fighters" was made for AD&D 2nd Edition.
A multi-class Mage/Cleric (NOT a dual-class) is more powerful than a single-classed Mage. They never give up their Mage spells, and they get Cleric spells on top of it.
But a Mage dual-classed into a Cleric loses out on spells. 4th level spells and 5th level spells ARE that powerful, even if you refuse to see it. Stoneskin alone is practically worth it by itself. I haven't said Xzar sucks, he's still a Mage. (I don't care for his personality--in fact, he straight up gets on my nerves-but that has nothing to do with how effective a character he is.) He has a poor specialization, but that does not ruin a Mage, it just makes him weaker than one with a better specialization. I tend to play with the full array, though I freely acknowledge I rarely play Thieves to their potential (at least not in Baldur's Gate).
Yet I will maintain that I could run circles around a 7th level Cleric and an 8th level Thief working together with a 9th level Conjurer. I'm not saying that Xzar becomes useless if you dual-class him to a Cleric, but if the idea is to make him more powerful, then there is no point.
Versatility matters only if you cannot achieve the same net worth otherwise. You have to judge characters in their context, not as sole constructs.
For example, the following Evil party: CHARNAME, Dorn, Edwin, Xzar, Montaron, Kagain. Dual-classing Xzar makes sense; you have another Mage to pick up the lack of Xzar's higher level spells, and you're short a Priest (unless CHARNAME is one). Replace Kagain with Yeslick, however, and suddenly it doesn't make sense any longer. If your CHARNAME can substitute Kagain as the tank, you can also bring in Viconia instead. If CHARNAME is a Thief, you can get rid of Montaron and bring in one of the clerics, or if he is a powerhouse like Dorn, he can be substituted... and so on. If CHARNAME is a Mage, then honestly I'd dump Xzar over Edwin any day of the week. Imoen (even though she isn't Evil) can be my thief instead of Montaron, and a backup Mage to boot.
In short, out of a number of different party combinations, only one in which you deliberately avoid picking up clerical support does it make sense to dual-class Xzar. You are arguing a strawman. You can dislike me all you want, but please stop pretending you know me well enough to answer questions on my behalf.
That said... I do have a soft spot for Xan. Always did, even in BG1, but there was an excellent BG2 mod for him which, like many of the BG2 mods, really fleshed him out as a character. Not to mention a totally badass scene where he threatens to kill someone with the power of his mind.
Xzar is amusing as hell too, but the loss of illusion does make him a little squishier, and mages don't need to be any squishier than they already are. Larloch's Minor Drain is a damn good first level spell, and can mitigate the mage hitpoints issue (in addition to being an excellent counter-mage spell, given its casting speed), but by the time you've gotten to Nashkel you should have picked up a couple of the scrolls anyway. He's not terrible, but plays better as a support caster to Edwin.
sssslllurrrp
Now, to weigh in on the Xzar vs. Edwin vs. Everyone debate... Mr. Daniel Holm, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment. Specialization is powerful, but versatility is also power. If my party consisted of all dual-classed or multiclassed characters, it would be powerful indeed. No matter who got hit by a hold or a fear or an entanglement, I can still heal whoever is taking damage. I can perform whatever thief task I require, and early in the game. Everyone is relatively competent at fighting (except the mage/clerics, who are dedicated casters). You just don't have a weakness in such a party aside from lacking over-the-top specialists who can't do a lot of other things (so perhaps make room for at least one or two such people, such as Minsc, Dorn or Edwin). Even if you didn't, the party would be effective and would not require shoring up in practically any circumstance.
Further, let me state that when I beat Sarevok the first time, I did so on the backs of gibberlings and hobgoblins and skeletons. I didn't muck about with a bunch of mirror images and stoneskins, I summoned the whole world of Baldur's Gate 1 into that room with various spells. Those creatures rolled occasional critical hits, and with the efforts of my team added to the brave tanking of all the summons I didn't need a complex chart of spells to beat the game. Between the two versions of Xzar presented, I would say the necro/cleric version is not only the more versatile, but the more powerful of the two. He would possess a larger number of raw summoning spells, even if the creatures individually were a little less powerful. That doesn't matter to Sarevok: everything dies in one hit, but a gibberling still requires one of his attacks. This tactic, btw, is clearly effective for Edwin, but we are discussing two possible versions of Xzar for now.
Before I forget to mention it: I love Xan, and in almost every game (except the most recent one, because I'm trying new characters and tactics) I end up choosing him because he cracks me up. Any of them are effective enough to win the game with, so why nitpick?
*sigh*
Did you HAVE to go here? Really?
I mean how old are you? Twelve?
*Doesn't like something* "Ewwww! Gaaaaayyy!" and "God! I don't like it so it MUST be like totally retarded!"
Methinks someone needs @Nathan to send you on a timeout.
Adding in cleric also takes care of the main difference between Xzar and Edwin. The number of spells he casts per day goes up quite a bit. I'm not saying either route is better than the other, but you're not convincing me in any way that adding in cleric is a bad thing. Even if your team has another cleric.
And also worth pointing out that Dualing Xzar gives you a good excuse to bring Edwin along too. They'd both bring something different to the table.
1. When you dual a character you lost his first class for a period of time. In case of a mage->cleric you have to wait till you collect 55k XP. That is a lot of time even if you optimize (not collecting some XP and take them only after dualling). In practice it means that 25-30% of the time you will miss your 6th level mage and you will have a useless or almost useless low-level priest.
2. Not just you loose 4th and 5th level spells but you loose also damage from level-dependent spells. Xzar in that setup can cast an MM that makes 3D4+3 damage, while Edwin can cast is as a 5D4+5. That is a huge difference, Edwin makes 50%-60% more damage almost in every damaging spell he casts! Additionally Edwin will be much better with Remove/Dispel Magic.
3. Number of spells. Xzar will be able to cast 5/3/3 and Edwin will be able to cast 6/5/5/4/3. That is a real difference.
It could be that Xzar could be better then a single class level 8th cleric but that just means that he is more powerful then a single class cleric. But no one order us to use a single class cleric, there are a lot of multi class cleric possibilities. And do not forget that in practice Xzar have no protection spell at all (against weapon damage)! He cannot cast MI or Stoneskin. So, he is there without any really useful protection and he could have maximum 40 HP at the end (if you maximize HP). 40HP!!! Just compare it to Edwin's 54 HP (plus MM and Stoneskin) or to a single class 8th level cleric 80 HP. Better if you do not compare it.
So, Xzar only advantage as a dualed character compared to a single class mage (Edwin or even himself) is that he is able to cast clerical spells. On the other hand his drawbacks are:
- has to use a very valuable item (Tome of Bodily Health) that could be way better useful for other characters (the only thing he gets from it is to be able to dual to cleric)
- not able to cast 4th and 5th level mage spells
- no good protection against melee and he will have only a small amount of HP, so he will die very often
- his mage spells will last for a shorter period of time and he will have only pathetic damage with most of the damaging spells (compared to a 9th level mage)
- he will be useless in 25-30% of your adventure
- Special weaknesses against Edwin:
--- missing of important spells in illusion school (mirror image, improved invisility)
--- very low HP
--- small amount of spells
To be honest I do not see how can be they compared. Edwin is _way_ bettter than Xzar. I think it could be not a totally bad idea to take Xzar as a cleric replacement but even that is a borderline decision (consider the awful HP and that you have to use the Tome on him).
I wish you intelligence in all your future endeavors. I'd wish you luck but it has a funny habit of running out.
No idea if this was fixed in EE, but not having PfNW (or Missiles) is a huge loss for one who's been rolling 1d4 (with no con bonus) every level.
Also one thing worths to mention: you can get it only in Candlekeep Catacombs. Your level depends on your playstyle but I could imagine that you could get it a little bit too late.
edit: wait isnt it the str tome in the catacombs? Wis one is on priest in Baldur's gate I thought. Or am I completely misremembering that?
If possible could @Tanthalas close this one down before it gets any worse?