Charisma doesn't really matter, if it's not completely awful. As a ranged pure mage, you will probably not be the party leader anyway; you'll take a frontliner with high charisma. In BG1, that's Ajantis or Dorn, depending on your alignment; in BG2 Keldorn or Dorn. Plus there's the ring that sets charisma to 18 early in BG2, and in BG1, a tome and a cloak for a total of +3 charisma. In doubt, you can also use the Friendship spell. In other words, dump charisma; it's a waste to max it even for classes that have a high charisma requirement.
For weapon profs, I'd say Quarterstaff, Dagger and Darts. This may sound like a a bit of a drag with 2 melee weapons, but in BG2, the best ranged weapons for mages are the returning daggers and dart, and in BG1, darts are incredibly effective and can make up for your pitiful THAC0 and APR. @Pecca also has a wonderful mod to add wizard staffs with ranged/melee ability (and some other neat mage stuff you may want to take a look at). In BG1, you'd focus on Darts (various magical versions sold in High Hedge; once you can afford them; Stunning) and Quarterstaff (if no frontliner or thief uses it, you'll have the +3 staff in BG1 and +4 in BG2); in BG2, you switch to (Throwing) Dagger as main weapon and once you get the returning dart, it's a matter of taste; both is very effective.
you'll take a frontliner with high charisma. In BG1, that's Ajantis or Dorn, depending on your alignment;
Nah bro. Kagain. TANK YOUR WAY TO VICTORY
@nano TOTALLY with you on the Halfling thing. I @#$%ing love Halflings, they're my favorite race, them being so limited is frustrating. I don't get why they can't at least do Fighter/Cleric and especially Cleric/Thief. Try Halfling Barbarian if you haven't though, that shit's amazing!
If you're ok with kits, I'd go with an elven wild mage. No prohibited schools, extra spell slots, and going with elf means slightly better THAC0 with missile weapons and virtual immunity to charm spells.
If you're ok with kits, I'd go with an elven wild mage. No prohibited schools, extra spell slots, and going with elf means slightly better THAC0 with missile weapons and virtual immunity to charm spells.
The character with the highest lore in that group was Viconia, who beat out Edwin by 1 point as of 6th level (Eddie was only 5th) prior to picking up Baeloth. She couldn't even identify Fire arrows.
My mistake. Clerics get crap lore bonuses; I should have said Mages and Thieves.
In the original game and Tutu, I never had a problem identifying low level magic items based on other NPC lore scores (for things like fire arrows, bullets, +1 swords, etc).
Vendor trash and low level magical ammo requires between 20-30 Lore. By 6th level, Edwin has 28 lore. Your own PC, being a thief, would be able to identify some items with an 18+ lore.
Anyway, this seems largely a matter of playstyle. What seems a hassle to you isn't to me. I always wait until I return to camp to identify items. I don't think it hits 200 over the course of the game. I don't find it inconvenient in the slightest, and I never want for money past the Naskel Mines. Until you brought it up, I had forgotten that Edwin doesn't have access to the Identify spell. *shrug*
@Brude - the whole Edwin thing is a red herring really. My point was that the loss of a school of magic (or sometimes two) for the benefit of an extra spell per level isn't 'Necessarily' a guaranteed win as that other poster seemed to think.
Are there ways around each loss of a school? Yes, but the fact that you can get around it, doesn't mean that it isn't a loss. And at least early on (say below level 5), the loss of Identify is quantifiable in it's loss. Even significantly above that level, there are items that (based on that chart) are beyond the ability to identify through lore short of having a bard in your group without removing the level cap.
And given the plethora of scrolls, wands and ability giving items in the game means that any wizard is not going to be bereft of things to do in any given situation or combat. So the 'Benefit' isn't all that much. So little or no gain for little loss (you can't say no loss because even a minor annoyance is still a loss), doesn't net out to 'non-kitted mages are bad'.
I personally don't see either way as being game breakingly bad. It is down to flavor in my book.
I'm not sure why some folks think that a pure mage is somehow "weaker". Generally speaking, a non-specialized mage will do the same damage with their spells as a specialist will. Specialists get extra casts for giving up access to certain schools of spells. Of course in BG the mechanics don't exactly play out properly how limiting being a specialist should be for most schools. But the non-specialist's primary advantage is precisely why I DON'T go with specialists and that is the fact that I want access to every spell in the game. Now of course only wild mages get wild magic spells but they give up consistency with their spells for wild magic and the randomness that comes with it. I want spells that work as they are supposed to and I want to be able to learn as many of them as I can. Only a non-specialist mage can do that.
I personally don't see either way as being game breakingly bad. It is down to flavor in my book.
Fair enough. I don't think it's a very big trade off at all.
You're talking about the loss of 4-5 spell slots in BG1 for the ability to Identify. I'd rather have an extra Magic Missiles or Fireball in a pinch. To do otherwise suggests a gimped Mage in combat or cheesing rest mechanics.
To be fair, in BG1 how many spells do you really need per fight? You have a huge number of wands of fire and the wand of sleep. There aren't many things I cast from my book - mostly Haste, and the fatigue means you're going to have to rest eventually, probably before all your Hastes are used up.
Let's see, what else do I use... Identify, Invisibility, Blindness, Web and Glitterdust. So for me, Dynaheir is actually a better mage than Edwin.
You're talking about the loss of 4-5 spell slots in BG1 for the ability to Identify. I'd rather have an extra Magic Missiles or Fireball in a pinch. To do otherwise suggests a gimped Mage in combat or cheesing rest mechanics.
Not really. Because that 'extra Magic Missile or Fireball' absolutely exists anyway in the form of several wands of magic missile, at least one wand of fire (and potentially more??).
I could turn it around and say that the first couple of thousand gold would be much better served going to full plate armor or a magic weapon.
It really is six of one and half a dozen of the other.
It really is six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Well, no, because the trade off you're making effects your character at every level starting at level one.
Your non-specialist Mage has 1 less spell slot per level for the entire saga. There are no items or gear that corrects for that across your entire spellbook; there is no Wand of Breach or Potion of Mirror Images.
Hi all, I'd like to try running through 1&2 as a pure Mage.. Any strong reasons why that's a bad idea ? I'd also like to see all the conversation/story dialogue, governed by charisma? For weapon I'd like to concentrate on ranged..
What stats/abilities numbers should I aim for?
What Skills to pick..
If I was pure Mage any advice on best other party members? I'd like them to be strong with ranged weapons
Any help appreciated before I set off :-)
No, playing as a mage, even if one class, is always both nice and powerful (mighty enjoyable on the long run). No strong reasons against your idea, only FOR it! Charisma alone has little impact on conversations, especially the one with choices and secret options; rather, these elusive and tricky lines, in order to appear, require either high of both charisma and intelligence, or high of both charisma and wisdom. Do not remember the details, but certain people analyze these things in and out, seen it somewhere a lot of time ago (probably ironworks forums). About weaponry, though, prefer dagger first and foremost, because there are ranged daggers too, and it can also melee. Plus it is light, quick, easy to use; a mage and druid favorite!
I myself created a mage recently in 1, aiming to get him to 2; but because i am once again running through the originals, i am going to turn him into wild mage. Just ignore that, simple mage needs the very same things! I picked elf (mostly because of dex bonus). You need 19 dexterity, 16 constitution (only fighters benefit from higher constitution, and rangers/paladins), 18 intelligence (main stat), 18 wisdom (for using the 2 wish spells at their fullest potential, this is important), dump charisma ENTIRELY (because near the beginning of 2 you find a ring that gives 18 to it anyway, for elf lowest is 8), and whatever points overflow, put in strength (i myself ended up having 6 strength, and character was able to fill all inventory slots). Total roll, 85. Not a particularly difficult number to roll, needs a few tries...
You need 1 or 2 fighters (by fighters i mean fighter OR ranger OR paladin), an ABLE thief, and a cleric/druid (or both). Good luck! And remember; as a mage, you should dispel your enemy spellcasters' protections, disrupt their casting by throwing at them magic missiles, the very instant their hands glow, and when an area is full of enemies, throw a cloudkill, a web/stinking cloud, and go away.
It really is six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Well, no, because the trade off you're making effects your character at every level starting at level one.
Your non-specialist Mage has 1 less spell slot per level for the entire saga. There are no items or gear that corrects for that across your entire spellbook; there is no Wand of Breach or Potion of Mirror Images.
And likewise that specialist mage can not cast an entire school of spells.
The point is, it IS six of one and half a dozen of the other. In both scenarios, the player looses something to gain something else. This is the essence of the argument I have been trying to put forth. To varying degrees, that something lost might not be a big deal.
From my perspective, there may not be a wand to cover every eventuality in my spell book, but there are enough wands such that I can cover those eventualities within the spells that I am allowed.
From your perspective, the loss of certain spells that I find very useful are not ones you focus on.
Loss and gain in just about equal measure.
Plus, I think there is a wand of breach. I know for a fact that there are scrolls of breach.
The point is, it IS six of one and half a dozen of the other. In both scenarios, the player looses something to gain something else. This is the essence of the argument I have been trying to put forth. To varying degrees, that something lost might not be a big deal.
The problem with your viewpoint is that it assumes all spells across all schools have perfectly equal value. They don't.
Divination is filled with stuff like Know Alignment and Infravision. Those aren't quite the same as Breach and Time Stop.
To argue as if they do is largely non-sensical. Non-specialist mages might play at being a sort of jack of all trades, but in this context that's not terribly useful. They lose out on a tremendous amount of flexibility and robustness over the course of all the games.
For some reason people seem to be using the facts that A) you're part of a party and there are wands and other items to cover many spell as arguments against specialist wizards. I find this weird, because I think these two points are the best arguments FOR specialist wizards. It doesn't matter Edwin misses out on True Sight if your second mage can cast it. You're left with only the advantages of specializing.
Re: the charisma question. If you want to see the charisma specific dialogue, you need 18 or higher. Many many quest NPCs will have different dialogue and/or different rewards if you have 18. I think so many people use charisma as a dump stat that they don't realize how much it changes the game. No the quests aren't entirely different, but dozens of conversations will turn out differently. It's worth doing once.
17 won't cut it, unfortunately, it has to be 18.
Having said that, if you have the Friends spell you can get around this a bit, but you'll need to cast it a lot.
You could always go with an Elf Enchanter who have 16 min stat in charisma so that you're getting a higher roll and have to put points there. I know a lot of people hate enchanter due to loss of invocation spells, but personally I prefer them of all the specialist schools.
Divination also has Invisibility Purge, Oracle, and True Sight, all of which come in very handy. Every spell school has some useful spells.
Useful isn't the same thing as essential, or even necessary.
My only real point was the some schools are weaker than others. All spells are not created equal. Given the choice in endgame, would you rather have an extra Time Stop or ... Access to True Sight? That kind of conflict exists across the entire spectrum, from level one on.
The problem with your viewpoint is that it assumes all spells across all schools have perfectly equal value. They don't.
Divination is filled with stuff like Know Alignment and Infravision. Those aren't quite the same as Breach and Time Stop.
Divination also has Invisibility Purge, Oracle, and True Sight, all of which come in very handy. Every spell school has some useful spells.
These are very useful spells but the Thief "Detect Illusions" ability works very well for this. You only need to pump it to 100 and you'll dispel all Illusion spells every round you've got it active, which makes these spells wasteful since you've got an infinite-use True Sight any time you need it.
Of course... Detect Illusions is usually one of the last skills you start to put points in, so these spells still have their niche until you've got a lot of thief levels in your party.
Conjuration really struck gold with its opposition school. There are easily-accessible redundancies for nearly all of its missing spells.
The problem with your viewpoint is that it assumes all spells across all schools have perfectly equal value. They don't.
Divination is filled with stuff like Know Alignment and Infravision. Those aren't quite the same as Breach and Time Stop.
To argue as if they do is largely non-sensical. Non-specialist mages might play at being a sort of jack of all trades, but in this context that's not terribly useful. They lose out on a tremendous amount of flexibility and robustness over the course of all the games.
You completely miss the point I was making. My point is that specialists mages are precluded from at least one school. Regardless of the relative value of that school (and Divination has VERY useful spells as has been mentioned), it is still a negative. You can't say there are no negatives when there is at least one. And the bonus you get (one extra spell per level) is only a bonus if you cast more than a standard wizard's allotment of spells. Otherwise, it is no bonus what so ever. "Yeah, going to sleep, I sill have 6 uncast spells. Woopie!"
And to use your own example, a specialist mage gets ONE extra Breach. Big deal. It's a nice to have, but hardly game breaking. I'll give you ten extra Breaches, but without True Seeing, you can't land them against invisible or otherwise untargetable opponents. They are useless.
For some reason people seem to be using the facts that A) you're part of a party and there are wands and other items to cover many spell as arguments against specialist wizards. I find this weird, because I think these two points are the best arguments FOR specialist wizards. It doesn't matter Edwin misses out on True Sight if your second mage can cast it. You're left with only the advantages of specializing.
The entire point was, the ability to cast 1 extra spell per level is largely useless if your non-specialist mage never runs out of spells (owing to wands and scrolls and the like). An advantage is only an advantage if you have to use it. Otherwise it is useless.
My point is that specialists mages are precluded from at least one school. Regardless of the relative value of that school (and Divination has VERY useful spells as has been mentioned), it is still a negative.
It seems we are both in the same misunderstood boat, then: Nowhere in my posts did I say it wasn't a negative. Off course it's a trade off.
But the value you get for that trade off enormous. So much so I can't imagine suggesting to a new player not to do it.
With regards to Divination: It's a weaker school because it doesn't focus on combat and doesn't offer many abilities that can't be had elsewhere.
Your example of 6 spells before sleep is exaggerated, but consider how much a single spell could turn the tide and change the course of an encounter. Specialists get that one extra spell on every level. How could anyone argue against that?
And to use your own example, a specialist mage gets ONE extra Breach. Big deal. It's a nice to have, but hardly game breaking. I'll give you ten extra Breaches, but without True Seeing, you can't land them against invisible or otherwise untargetable opponents. They are useless.
Well, if you're looking at it in the endgame, yeah an extra spell on top of five is not a big deal. It's a very big deal at certain points though, like when you first get access to a spell level... like the BGEE level cap, where a normal Mage would only have one level 5 spell. A specialist would have 2, so double the Breach/Chaos/Cloudkill. Edwin has three which is just plain silly.
@Mitchfork - Oh, absolutely. There are advantages to being a specialist mage. I just disagree that those advantages are in any way overwhelming in comparison to a vanilla mage. Nor do I believe that the loss of Divination is inconsequential.
I also disagree with those who were saying that playing a vanilla mage is a bad choice. I have yet to see an argument that is anything other than very minor trade offs of one thing for another.
But therein lies the great thing about this game. We can disagree and yet still enjoy the game in the way that best suits our play style. Which may be as different and varied as our opinions. Cheers to all.
Comments
For weapon profs, I'd say Quarterstaff, Dagger and Darts. This may sound like a a bit of a drag with 2 melee weapons, but in BG2, the best ranged weapons for mages are the returning daggers and dart, and in BG1, darts are incredibly effective and can make up for your pitiful THAC0 and APR. @Pecca also has a wonderful mod to add wizard staffs with ranged/melee ability (and some other neat mage stuff you may want to take a look at).
In BG1, you'd focus on Darts (various magical versions sold in High Hedge; once you can afford them; Stunning) and Quarterstaff (if no frontliner or thief uses it, you'll have the +3 staff in BG1 and +4 in BG2); in BG2, you switch to (Throwing) Dagger as main weapon and once you get the returning dart, it's a matter of taste; both is very effective.
@nano TOTALLY with you on the Halfling thing. I @#$%ing love Halflings, they're my favorite race, them being so limited is frustrating. I don't get why they can't at least do Fighter/Cleric and especially Cleric/Thief. Try Halfling Barbarian if you haven't though, that shit's amazing!
In the original game and Tutu, I never had a problem identifying low level magic items based on other NPC lore scores (for things like fire arrows, bullets, +1 swords, etc).
If you look at this chart:
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/277213/#Comment_277213
Vendor trash and low level magical ammo requires between 20-30 Lore. By 6th level, Edwin has 28 lore. Your own PC, being a thief, would be able to identify some items with an 18+ lore.
Anyway, this seems largely a matter of playstyle. What seems a hassle to you isn't to me. I always wait until I return to camp to identify items. I don't think it hits 200 over the course of the game. I don't find it inconvenient in the slightest, and I never want for money past the Naskel Mines. Until you brought it up, I had forgotten that Edwin doesn't have access to the Identify spell. *shrug*
Are there ways around each loss of a school? Yes, but the fact that you can get around it, doesn't mean that it isn't a loss. And at least early on (say below level 5), the loss of Identify is quantifiable in it's loss. Even significantly above that level, there are items that (based on that chart) are beyond the ability to identify through lore short of having a bard in your group without removing the level cap.
And given the plethora of scrolls, wands and ability giving items in the game means that any wizard is not going to be bereft of things to do in any given situation or combat. So the 'Benefit' isn't all that much. So little or no gain for little loss (you can't say no loss because even a minor annoyance is still a loss), doesn't net out to 'non-kitted mages are bad'.
I personally don't see either way as being game breakingly bad. It is down to flavor in my book.
You're talking about the loss of 4-5 spell slots in BG1 for the ability to Identify. I'd rather have an extra Magic Missiles or Fireball in a pinch. To do otherwise suggests a gimped Mage in combat or cheesing rest mechanics.
Let's see, what else do I use... Identify, Invisibility, Blindness, Web and Glitterdust. So for me, Dynaheir is actually a better mage than Edwin.
I could turn it around and say that the first couple of thousand gold would be much better served going to full plate armor or a magic weapon.
It really is six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Your non-specialist Mage has 1 less spell slot per level for the entire saga. There are no items or gear that corrects for that across your entire spellbook; there is no Wand of Breach or Potion of Mirror Images.
I myself created a mage recently in 1, aiming to get him to 2; but because i am once again running through the originals, i am going to turn him into wild mage. Just ignore that, simple mage needs the very same things! I picked elf (mostly because of dex bonus). You need 19 dexterity, 16 constitution (only fighters benefit from higher constitution, and rangers/paladins), 18 intelligence (main stat), 18 wisdom (for using the 2 wish spells at their fullest potential, this is important), dump charisma ENTIRELY (because near the beginning of 2 you find a ring that gives 18 to it anyway, for elf lowest is 8), and whatever points overflow, put in strength (i myself ended up having 6 strength, and character was able to fill all inventory slots). Total roll, 85. Not a particularly difficult number to roll, needs a few tries...
You need 1 or 2 fighters (by fighters i mean fighter OR ranger OR paladin), an ABLE thief, and a cleric/druid (or both). Good luck! And remember; as a mage, you should dispel your enemy spellcasters' protections, disrupt their casting by throwing at them magic missiles, the very instant their hands glow, and when an area is full of enemies, throw a cloudkill, a web/stinking cloud, and go away.
The point is, it IS six of one and half a dozen of the other. In both scenarios, the player looses something to gain something else. This is the essence of the argument I have been trying to put forth. To varying degrees, that something lost might not be a big deal.
From my perspective, there may not be a wand to cover every eventuality in my spell book, but there are enough wands such that I can cover those eventualities within the spells that I am allowed.
From your perspective, the loss of certain spells that I find very useful are not ones you focus on.
Loss and gain in just about equal measure.
Plus, I think there is a wand of breach. I know for a fact that there are scrolls of breach.
Divination is filled with stuff like Know Alignment and Infravision. Those aren't quite the same as Breach and Time Stop.
To argue as if they do is largely non-sensical. Non-specialist mages might play at being a sort of jack of all trades, but in this context that's not terribly useful. They lose out on a tremendous amount of flexibility and robustness over the course of all the games.
Re: the charisma question. If you want to see the charisma specific dialogue, you need 18 or higher. Many many quest NPCs will have different dialogue and/or different rewards if you have 18. I think so many people use charisma as a dump stat that they don't realize how much it changes the game. No the quests aren't entirely different, but dozens of conversations will turn out differently. It's worth doing once.
17 won't cut it, unfortunately, it has to be 18.
Having said that, if you have the Friends spell you can get around this a bit, but you'll need to cast it a lot.
You could always go with an Elf Enchanter who have 16 min stat in charisma so that you're getting a higher roll and have to put points there. I know a lot of people hate enchanter due to loss of invocation spells, but personally I prefer them of all the specialist schools.
My only real point was the some schools are weaker than others. All spells are not created equal. Given the choice in endgame, would you rather have an extra Time Stop or ... Access to True Sight? That kind of conflict exists across the entire spectrum, from level one on.
Of course... Detect Illusions is usually one of the last skills you start to put points in, so these spells still have their niche until you've got a lot of thief levels in your party.
Conjuration really struck gold with its opposition school. There are easily-accessible redundancies for nearly all of its missing spells.
And to use your own example, a specialist mage gets ONE extra Breach. Big deal. It's a nice to have, but hardly game breaking. I'll give you ten extra Breaches, but without True Seeing, you can't land them against invisible or otherwise untargetable opponents. They are useless. The entire point was, the ability to cast 1 extra spell per level is largely useless if your non-specialist mage never runs out of spells (owing to wands and scrolls and the like). An advantage is only an advantage if you have to use it. Otherwise it is useless.
But the value you get for that trade off enormous. So much so I can't imagine suggesting to a new player not to do it.
With regards to Divination: It's a weaker school because it doesn't focus on combat and doesn't offer many abilities that can't be had elsewhere.
Your example of 6 spells before sleep is exaggerated, but consider how much a single spell could turn the tide and change the course of an encounter. Specialists get that one extra spell on every level. How could anyone argue against that?
I also disagree with those who were saying that playing a vanilla mage is a bad choice. I have yet to see an argument that is anything other than very minor trade offs of one thing for another.
But therein lies the great thing about this game. We can disagree and yet still enjoy the game in the way that best suits our play style. Which may be as different and varied as our opinions. Cheers to all.