Skip to content

Having no mage in party

Hi,
I recently created a bard who now have a party consisting of: Kagain, Dorn, Imoen and Viconia. I really like this setup for my neutral bard. And since i don't want Imoen to be surrounded by four evil party members i would like a "good" character to take the final slot. But since Dynaheir won't join without Minsc, and don't you even DARE to propose to kill him, i wonder if it is viable to have no mage in this party? Since my PC is a bard i figure he can take on some duties an mage usually do.

And if you do think this is viable who would you suggest to take the final slot in the party? Both from a utility and RP perspective.

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,675
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • SouthpawSouthpaw Member Posts: 2,026
    You don't have to kill Minsc.

    ..accidents happen, you know...

    It won't be your fault that Minsc gets petrified. Or impaled by arrows, while you were eating your breakfast half-a-map away. You did not send him there. Maybe.
    Or that he is so stupid, he can't even open doors...

    Your bard can be our only arcane mage. It is advisable to bring a normal mage, but still... not that necessary in BG1. And you can turn Imoen into a mage after 5-6th level. Still a very viable mage, so you can fill the last spot with someone else.
    If you don't want to dual Imoen - and need a mage, I would add Xzar.
    He is good, isn't he?
    Isn't he?
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
    edited May 2013
    What about Xan instead of Dyna? He's LN. Or perhaps the opportunity has come and gone... (You could CLUA him, even so.)
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,857
    edited May 2013
    You don't require an arcane caster. Archers are an excellent substitute. As far as I remember, there is a viable longbow, comp longbow, 2 good crossbows (one comes late) and 1 good short bow late. The good throwing axe is late, but darts can be used early. Slings should only be used by clerics. But seriously, if your party relies on ranged, has 1 tank, and has a good scout, you do not need a wizard.
  • StafStaf Member Posts: 1
    Xan could work. He is extremely entertaining to have in a party as well! How about Rasaad? Or is a monk over-doing it in a party with Kagain and Dorn?
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    In BG1 you can make do without a mage quite well. In later episodes of the saga it gets harder.
  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    Or dual Imoen to mage early and find another rogue? I'm just trying to think of alternatives.
  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    in later they added carsomyr and this inquisitor guy that destroys all magic faster than cleric
  • lunarlunar Member Posts: 3,460
    A mage is not really required for Bg1. Bards with wands can take care of %90 of the party's arcane spell needs.

    It changes dramaticaly in BG2 and ToB, where bards can still 'I can cast two or three lvl 6 spells! And I can sing! Yay!' And mages are like 'I can stop time, incinerate hordes of enemies with the power of a red dragon, summon a frickin Planetar that has a dispelling vorpal sword of doom and can employ nearly the whole priest scroll, and I can unleash hell with improved alacrity if you make me angry..or I'm bored.'
  • OzzyBotkinsOzzyBotkins Member Posts: 396
    My present party is
    CHARNAME Elf priest of Talos
    Dorn
    Kagain
    Viconia
    Baloth
    Shar teel ( dueled to thief)
  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    lunar said:

    A mage is not really required for Bg1. Bards with wands can take care of %90 of the party's arcane spell needs.

    It changes dramaticaly in BG2 and ToB, where bards can still 'I can cast two or three lvl 6 spells! And I can sing! Yay!' And mages are like 'I can stop time, incinerate hordes of enemies with the power of a red dragon, summon a frickin Planetar that has a dispelling vorpal sword of doom and can employ nearly the whole priest scroll, and I can unleash hell with improved alacrity if you make me angry..or I'm bored.'

    yeah
    balance~
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455

    My present party is
    CHARNAME Elf priest of Talos
    Dorn
    Kagain
    Viconia
    Baloth
    Shar teel ( dueled to thief)

    Yeah, Baeloth is the only Mage that can rival Edwin.
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    zur312 said:

    lunar said:

    A mage is not really required for Bg1. Bards with wands can take care of %90 of the party's arcane spell needs.

    It changes dramaticaly in BG2 and ToB, where bards can still 'I can cast two or three lvl 6 spells! And I can sing! Yay!' And mages are like 'I can stop time, incinerate hordes of enemies with the power of a red dragon, summon a frickin Planetar that has a dispelling vorpal sword of doom and can employ nearly the whole priest scroll, and I can unleash hell with improved alacrity if you make me angry..or I'm bored.'

    yeah
    balance~
    The original concept wasn't to 'Balance' individual players against each other. It was to balance the party against the challenges that they were to face. In that, I think 2E does a really good job.

    Sure there are inequities, but then a really significant one is when a 3rd level Fighter is a killing machine when it comes to kobolds and level appropriate monsters, while 3rd level wizard hopes and prays that he gets off his one web spell without dying, and then hopes and prays that he won't need another one for the rest of the day. Balance??
  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    edited May 2013
    imba
  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    maybe project infinity ...
  • KilivitzKilivitz Member Posts: 1,459
    edited May 2013
    At low levels, Warriors rule. This is true to your typical AD&D campaign and also to BG1, due to the different power curves between the Warrior and Wizard class groups.

    In BG1, Wizards are useful but not really necessary. You won't be facing too many Mages, and even those will be on the lower levels, meaning there won't be too many instances when you'll have to counter those pesky magical protections or nasty spell effects.

    So a Bard is more than enough, and arguably better than a Mage, because he will gain access to higher spell levels sooner, due to the Rogue classes' faster level progression. He can also use wands and cast from scrolls, so in that regard, there's nothing a Wizard can do that the Bard can't - except wearing robes and but one magic item I can think of (Evermemory, the Ring of Wizardry, which doubles your 1st level spells per day).

    Another advantage Bards have over Mages is that they keep being useful after running out of spells, with their (limited, of course) fighting ability and Bard Song. Having a high Lore score also means you won't be needing Identify spells for too long.

    Of course, we're talking BG1 here. If I ever suggest you can run through BG2 without at least one Mage without pulling your hair out in frustration, I'll probably be under the influence of illegal stuff. Or very very drunk, in which case I won't bother talking about, much less playing BG.

    Seriously, have you ever tried to play this game while drunk? I did, and it's very frustrating because you have a lot of difficulty pointing the mouse and before you know it you're clicking the wrong dialogue options (that is, if you manage to concentrate for long enough to read them), casting Cure Light Wounds on your foes and accidentally hitting quicksave after half of your party was killed by a lone Xvart.

    True story.

    But I digress.
  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    Kilivitz said:

    At low levels, Warriors rule. This is true to your typical AD&D campaign and also to BG1, due to the different power curves between the Warrior and Wizard class groups.

    In BG1, Wizards are useful but not really necessary. You won't be facing too many Mages, and even those will be on the lower levels, meaning there won't be too many instances when you'll have to counter those pesky magical protections or nasty spell effects.

    So a Bard is more than enough, and arguably better than a Mage, because he will gain access to higher spell levels sooner, due to the Rogue classes' faster level progression. He can also use wands and cast from scrolls, so in that regard, there's nothing a Wizard can do that the Bard can't - except wearing robes and but one magic item I can think of (Evermemory, the Ring of Wizardry, which doubles your 1st level spells per day).

    Another advantage Bards have over Mages is that they keep being useful after running out of spells, with their (limited, of course) fighting ability and Bard Song. Having a high Lore score also means you won't be needing Identify spells for too long.

    Of course, we're talking BG1 here. If I ever suggest you can run through BG2 without at least one Mage without pulling your hair out in frustration, I'll probably be under the influence of illegal stuff. Or very very drunk, in which case I won't bother talking about, much less playing BG.

    Seriously, have you ever tried to play this game while drunk? I did, and it's very frustrating because you have a lot of difficulty pointing the mouse and before you know it you're clicking the wrong dialogue options (that is, if you manage to concentrate for long enough to read them), casting Cure Light Wounds on your foes and accidentally hitting quicksave after half of your party was killed by a lone Xvart.

    True story.

    But I digress.

    6 tanks with paladin and ranger would tear up everything just fine
  • The_Shairs_HandbookThe_Shairs_Handbook Member Posts: 219
    you don't need to kill minsc or have minsc to get Dynaheir

    just reqruit Dynaheir without ever talking to minsc and wholllaaaa you have Dynaheir and no killing killing minsc here...
  • TaylorTwerkTaylorTwerk Member Posts: 79
    I feel like mages for the majority of bg1 is just dead weight, it's easily doable but since you have a bard you can't really say you have no arcane.
  • OzzyBotkinsOzzyBotkins Member Posts: 396
    mages are high maintenance, I have no problem not having a mage in the party
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
    Hold on now, y'all. I have no trouble maintaining wizards and they make quick work of most enemies. And I'm not even a particularly good powergamer!
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,857
    Yeah, but a party with ranged gear (I made shar and kagain archers last) makes very quick work of everything. And my character was a halfer barbarian. But then, I was using tutu, and I did not feel bad about dropping the idiotic dual wielding proficiency. Rarely do you take much damage, especially since Xzar and viconia scan use command.
Sign In or Register to comment.