could having two bards in a party replace having a mage?

Ruscoe

say one melee and the other one ranged weapon. You can inflict more damage through weaponry plus cast spells. thoughts?

ghostowl

high level spells damage output >>>> any damage you gain through low level spell damage + 2 weak thaco rubbish damage weapons

ghostowl

But yes, they can replace. It just doesn't seem to be an efficient choice

Eudaemonium

In BG1, maybe, though they get less slots than specialist mages, for example (they also might get them slower, but I am unsure), and they are also unable to use items like the Ring of Wizardry, which is something worth factoring it.

In BG2, however, I would not think so. Bard spell progression stops at level 6, so you would be missing out on every spell at level 7 and above, which includes an lot of really awesome spells.

elminster

Sure I guess. I mean you get much faster level progression (great for dispelling) and eventually spike traps and UIA. But I don't really feel like its a particularly efficient replacement. Unless if they were both blades I don't see it being worth it.

JLee

I think it depends on your style. Because I tend to only use mages for the big battles and feel I mostly drag them around for 90% of the game, your idea would work well for me. Although, I would use ranged attacks for both bards.


Bards are more effective when not casting as compared with mages, so I appreciate them in that regard.

Ruscoe

JLee said:

I think it depends on your style. Because I tend to only use mages for the big battles and feel I mostly drag them around for 90% of the game, your idea would work well for me. Although, I would use ranged attacks for both bards.


Bards are more effective when not casting as compared with mages, so I appreciate them in that regard.

yeah that was exactly my point. I mean sure tough shit for me when the big battles come around but at least for the rest of the game they wont be such a drag. Im playing a Blade in the game and Im thinking off replaceing neera with garrik who can at least for now use a crossbow

nano

Is this for BGEE? I think you'll be fine. Make good use of wands and you won't even miss having a mage. But note that Garrick kinda sucks, he has a hard time learning spells and mediocre combat stats.

Corvino

I'd say that having a bard in the party can definitely replace the second (usually multiclass) mage that gets brought along. Bards will always lack access to high-level spells though, which does limit them. They also don't get mage-only items until UAI so they can't use the ring of wizardry, and there's only one elven chain in BG1.

A mage and a bard in a party is great. Just two bards - it's doable but you'll notice the relative lack of arcane power.

Ruscoe

thanks for your imput guys, ill probably get xar to join the party, i just can't be fussed to get mages to level up at the first stage of the game if I can possibly avoid it

ljbo

I suggest installing Rogue Rebalancing if you wish to pursue that route: that will get you 7th and 8th levels of spell in BG2, a better THAC0 thanks to the ability to put 3 pips in dual-wielding. Not to mention a working bard song for the vanilla bard.

ZanathKariashi

Yeah, RRB is a must for using bards. While they didn't fix EVERYTHING, they greatly improved the bard's level of power more to where it's supposed to be. For some reason, Bioware left out the bard's actual 2nd Ed HL spell-casting progression, which makes them much weaker then they should've been at higher levels.

KidCarnival

Eudaemonium said:

In BG1, maybe, though they get less slots than specialist mages, for example (they also might get them slower, but I am unsure), and they are also unable to use items like the Ring of Wizardry, which is something worth factoring it.

Thing is, you will only have one Elven Chain and bards can't wear robes. So one won't be able to wear any armor, and not get natural AC like other armor-restricted classes or kits. You'll have to depend on spells or amulet charges - using spells would already defy the purpose of more spell power if one bard uses most of his slots for self protection.

Ruscoe

nice how do I install rougue rebalancing? is it too late if I've already started the game?

Ruscoe

ljbo said:

I suggest installing Rogue Rebalancing if you wish to pursue that route: that will get you 7th and 8th levels of spell in BG2, a better THAC0 thanks to the ability to put 3 pips in dual-wielding. Not to mention a working bard song for the vanilla bard.

nice how do I install rougue rebalancing? is it too late if I've already started the game?

Kneller

There are certain spells a bard can actually pull off better than a mage/sorcerer. Almost any spell with a duration based on level, any spell with an attack roll, skull trap, and dispel/remove magic to name a few. They are definitely a good supplement to an arcane caster.

But the whole one ranged, one melee thing won't really work. They'll both be pretty rubbish at combat compared to a real fighter.

LordRumfish

KidCarnival said:

Eudaemonium said:

In BG1, maybe, though they get less slots than specialist mages, for example (they also might get them slower, but I am unsure), and they are also unable to use items like the Ring of Wizardry, which is something worth factoring it.

Thing is, you will only have one Elven Chain and bards can't wear robes. So one won't be able to wear any armor, and not get natural AC like other armor-restricted classes or kits. You'll have to depend on spells or amulet charges - using spells would already defy the purpose of more spell power if one bard uses most of his slots for self protection.

Having beaten BG:EE with a jester, and without ever having gotten the elven chainmail since Dorn wasn't in my party, I can safely say you don't need it. I only took my armor off to cast spells when either 1.) My lore wasn't high enough to identify an item and I wanted to cast Identify, or 2.) A mage duel was coming up. Think about it: in mage duels your AC rarely matters. Maybe in BG2 mages do a lot more summoning, but you can make do without armor for most mage battles in BG1. The rest of the time, I was pleased to wear some badass-looking chainmail +3 from Durlag's Tower. She can shoot Deadshot +2 or swing The World's Edge +3 with the best of 'em, at least for BG1. If you must make an NPC bard in BG1 go into melee, slap the Dex bracers on Eldoth since he has some Str and Con bonuses. Garrick can be quite competent with Deadshot +2 if you have a party composition where no one else wants it or is able to use it. Neither NPC bard will be good at learning spells.

Southpaw

...well, can two calculators replace a PC?

Duron

For BG1 yes, for BG 2 hell no. No level 7 or higher spells just won't cut it for Throne of Bhall. You can do Shadows of Amn without it but at Baltazzar and Mel you need those 7+ spells to keep up with the unlimited scores of foes and damage of the enemies. IF not in the quick disposal of them department than in high protection spell output, just think of Wishes and entire party healed/restored

velehal

Mages aren´t necessary, even in ToB. Yes they make game much easier, but the game is beatable without them. Modded game is something different, in Ascension battles mages are indispensable. At least for me but I would bet that someone has beaten even Ascension finale or Abazigal without a mage.

badbromance

Any self respecting Blade would love a personal buff bot Skald

recklessheart

The plain answer is no. They can fill the same role half-heartedly while compensating with other strengths, but they can't replace them. Having two characters cast pierce magic is not the same as having one cast spellstrike, nor is two fireballs the same as a dragon's breath spell. When I play, I always have at least one mage, though I often have two or at least a bard if I don't. In BG2, arcane magic is as good as it gets, so capping yourself at level 6 magic for the sake of a few extra lore points and another person to make use of the myriad of magical weapons you can find isn't ever going to fully repay you the cost.

nano

Kneller said:

There are certain spells a bard can actually pull off better than a mage/sorcerer. Almost any spell with a duration based on level, any spell with an attack roll, skull trap, and dispel/remove magic to name a few. They are definitely a good supplement to an arcane caster.

Most spells are capped at a certain level, usually 20. Dispel is not (afaik) though the inquisitor is still the king of that.

Duron

Only spell that I can think of that works on bard is tanser's transformation, but that will make your bard into another mean fighting machinem prolly better then a carsomyr weilding paladin but still...

LordRumfish

nano said:

Kneller said:

There are certain spells a bard can actually pull off better than a mage/sorcerer. Almost any spell with a duration based on level, any spell with an attack roll, skull trap, and dispel/remove magic to name a few. They are definitely a good supplement to an arcane caster.

Most spells are capped at a certain level, usually 20. Dispel is not (afaik) though the inquisitor is still the king of that.

You wouldn't argue that an inquisitor replaces a mage though, right? If bards are better at dispelling than mages it's valid to this argument.

Ultimately, what @recklessheart said probably holds true. Bards compensate with other strengths, but they don't serve the same role. My jester plans on making use of some upper-level mage scrolls to compensate for this (and pickpocketing them rather than buying them where possible), but that's because she's my CHARNAME and I love her, I'm not going to tell you that it's just as efficient as having a mage because it's not.

So, would a pair of bards be "good enough" to stand in for a mage? Probably. It'll be more of a challenge but the basic tools you need are there (Lower Resistance, Breach, Contingency) so you can probably get the job done in a seat-of-your-pants half-assed sort of way. I admit I enjoy doing just that sometimes.

nano

@LordRumfish I'm not making an argument, I'm just pointing out facts.