Mage vs sorceror

xLegionx

Sooo I'm just curious as to which one is far superior to the other? Mage you get as many spells as you want but limited casting and sorceror you choose but a few spells but you can cast them alot!

So as the title suggests which one is better mage or sorceror?

raywind

Depends on the usage of the caster. Mage is better for buffing stuff in my oppinion more choises but sorcerers make better blasters/summoners.

AHF

I'll take Sorcerer every time.

Jolanthus

Sorcerer. I don't want to be limited in my fireball chucking by having to memorize something else.

O_Bruce

Sorceror is basically stronger, but mage is more versalible. I still prefer the mage, since sorceror is too powerfull for me to enjoy playing him.

elminster

Mage. You can level up quicker thanks to scroll memorisation. Plus you get a greater variety of spells.

As well, mages can dual class.

Space_hamster

Mage, nothing beats the high level spell combos, they become the most powerful characters with a fully stocked spell book.

Sceptenar

I usually do some crazy (and cheap) spell tactics by combining spells so the mage is definitely preferred over the sorcerer. Although the sorcerer is certainly worthwhile, I believe my second or third playthrough of BG2 was with a sorcerer.

Cheesebelly

Sorcerer for me, simply for this simple reason :

Mage - you can't cast any spell you want at all the times you want. You NEED a high intelligence score.

Sorcerer - Cast limited but ALWAYS at your disposition number of spells per day. Intelligence is completely and utterly USELESS, so fill in those points for more useful stats will ya?

Roller12

Mages dont need intelligence. But they suck anyway. The only way they can beat a sorc if party rests after each encounter, giving them the choice of selecting proper spells for the next one.

Mera

This has been debated to death and the answer is every single time (or almost, like 99.9% of the time) the Sorcerer. Basically, there's not that many "must have" spells per level and you have enough choice so that you can take them all. And casting more is obviously better.

I think it comes done more to your knowledge about the game and if you know what you need to choose. I would definitely not recommend Sorcerer for someone who is playing the game for the first time because you can quickly make a mistake and there's no coming back.

Other than that, in terms of raw power, Sorcerer, definitely

Kholdstare

I prefer sorcerers. Of course, like @Mera says, it's not a recommended class for beginners.

shawne

The thing about spells - at least insofar as the BG games are concerned - is that you don't really need to cast all of them. The Sorcerer class lets you focus on those handful of spells you'd actually use in combat, the ones that really matter. For everything else, just add another mage to your party.

Doom972

I'd say that sorcerors and wizards can be compared to engineers and scientists, respectively. Sorcerors are more practical spellcasters (more spells per day), while wizards have better knowledge of magic (learn much more spells).
No class is superior to another, since each class excels at different scenarios.

Lemernis

I like having a wider selection of spells available, so it's mage for me.

Elemental_Evil

The problem I have with the BG sorcerer is that it is a 3rd edition class crammed into 2nd edition mechanics. It creates some weird/wonky issues like no casting attribute.

This seriously depends on what you're going for. If you're just trying to dish out as much punishment in one encounter as possible (going Nova) then sorcerer would be the way to go but as far as utility goes the Wizard wins. If not controlled a wizard could could turn into Batman with the solution to every issue/encounter sitting inside his spellbook/utility belt.

Just realized I didn't answer the OP question. Since simply blasting out every spell isn't always need but being able to solve any encounter is I choose Wizard.

Roller12

BG mages dont have a casting attribute either and are perfectly fine with minimum int. Too bad they cant go below 9 int. Also some spells like stoneskin or breach are an absolute must and have to be memorized, and once loaded up with them a Wizard ends up actually with less spells than a sorcerer, and also less casts per day. I actually like this though, less spells to handle with a Wizard, easier. A sorc just has so much stuff available it confuses me.

Jolanthus

Roller12 said:

BG mages dont have a casting attribute either and are perfectly fine with minimum int. Too bad they cant go below 9 int.

Don't you need an Int of at least 10 to cast mage spells?

immagikman

All other issues being equal, I pick Mage over Sorc because versatility = longevity its why the Dinos are gone, they werent versatile. If on the other hand you know exactly what you are up against and have a limited scope mission....then take the Sorc.

Roller12

Jolanthus said:

Don't you need an Int of at least 10 to cast mage spells?

thats 3ed // although mages still need int to actually learn spells, so need to buy some int potions.

Elemental_Evil

Roller12 said:

BG mages dont have a casting attribute either and are perfectly fine with minimum int. Too bad they cant go below 9 int. Also some spells like stoneskin or breach are an absolute must and have to be memorized, and once loaded up with them a Wizard ends up actually with less spells than a sorcerer, and also less casts per day. I actually like this though, less spells to handle with a Wizard, easier. A sorc just has so much stuff available it confuses me.

BG mages and 2nd edition AD&D rely heavily on INT because is impacts the chance to learn new spells and how many spells they can keep in their spell book. A wizard with an 18 INT can keep 18 spells in her spell book. Far more than what the Sorcerer knows I believe. Also if a wizard doesn't have a high enough INT she cannot cast spells of a certain level. For instance a 9 INT will only get you up to 4th level wizard spells and you only have a 35% chance to learn new ones and can only have 6 spells per level. Now an 18 INT will give you up to 9th lvl spells with an 85% chance to learn new ones and you can have 18 spells in your spells book. IF you manage to get your INT up to 19 (which is possible) you have a 95% chance to learn new spells and can have an unlimited amount of spells in your spell book.

Silence

Sorcerors are more powerful when you know what you're doing and only want a few spells. You also get a spell without even finding the scroll (great for something like Haste). They have no need of stats, you could have all 3s and still rock it.

That said, love mages. It's more fun to RP for me to play a specialist mage - a Necromancer, or Tim the Enchanter (lol). Mages can also dual class and multi-class.

Is there a Barbarian v. Fighter (Berserker) thread?

Roller12

Elemental_Evil said:

BG mages and 2nd edition AD&D rely heavily on INT because is impacts the chance to learn new spells and how many spells they can keep in their spell book. A wizard with an 18 INT can keep 18 spells in her spell book. Far more than what the Sorcerer knows I believe. Also if a wizard doesn't have a high enough INT she cannot cast spells of a certain level. For instance a 9 INT will only get you up to 4th level wizard spells and you only have a 35% chance to learn new ones and can only have 6 spells per level. Now an 18 INT will give you up to 9th lvl spells with an 85% chance to learn new ones and you can have 18 spells in your spells book. IF you manage to get your INT up to 19 (which is possible) you have a 95% chance to learn new spells and can have an unlimited amount of spells in your spell book.

Well it doesnt work quite like that in BG. Whether Beamdog fixes/adds this functionality into BGEE remains to be seen.

Schneidend

I like both, but I prefer mages in Infinity games. I almost compulsively make evil CHARNAME's just so I make sure to recruit Edwin. He's so damn powerful with the right gear. The versatility of a Mage with the raw spell machine gun factor of the Sorcerer. Good times!

Elemental_Evil

Roller12 said:

Elemental_Evil said:

BG mages and 2nd edition AD&D rely heavily on INT because is impacts the chance to learn new spells and how many spells they can keep in their spell book. A wizard with an 18 INT can keep 18 spells in her spell book. Far more than what the Sorcerer knows I believe. Also if a wizard doesn't have a high enough INT she cannot cast spells of a certain level. For instance a 9 INT will only get you up to 4th level wizard spells and you only have a 35% chance to learn new ones and can only have 6 spells per level. Now an 18 INT will give you up to 9th lvl spells with an 85% chance to learn new ones and you can have 18 spells in your spells book. IF you manage to get your INT up to 19 (which is possible) you have a 95% chance to learn new spells and can have an unlimited amount of spells in your spell book.

Well it doesnt work quite like that in BG. Whether Beamdog fixes/adds this functionality into BGEE remains to be seen.

Well BGII works that way, thats actually where I got the numbers from. The table on pg. 226 of the BGII SoA game manual. I know the 2 games handle things a little different but I didn't think Wizards were that different.

I also play BGT so it runs all of the games on the same engine (the BGII Engine).

Ashiel

Mage, all the way. The only drawback to playing a mage is that you have to rely on finding scrolls to add to your spellbook, but I don't think many people have spoken of the fact you also get spells later as a sorcerer. Having to wait an entire level more to get a new spell level SUCKS. Especially since the XP cost to level up doubles every time. You may have to wait an entire chapter before you can cast your precious 3rd level spells, while the Mage in the party has been chucking fireball-like skull traps, using Invisibility to scout, casting Sleep to wipe out mobs of enemies, casting Friends while wearing Alegorn's Cloak to hit a 25 Charisma for dealing with shopekeepers, casting Protection from Petrification on your tank for dealing with Basilisks, and so forth.

Despite having a few staple combat spells, I find that virtually all spells in the BG series have their uses, and quite frankly, being able to change your tactics as needed is a huge advantage for the mage. With a mage, there is no harm in learning a spell that has no direct combat application (such as Friends), and as noted, with a single rest, you can reselect all your spells and re-adjust.

For example, if I'm playing BG Tutu, and I begin my game as a mage, then I can pick like 7 spells. So I might grab sleep, find familiar, prismatic orb, identify, mage armor, friends, and something else (or grab a few scrolls before leaving Candlekeep and get something else entirely). So then I get my +1 dagger, leave the keep, get Imoen, sleep everything on the way to the Friendly Arm, grab two new spells from Xzar, then grab some new spells from the mage outside the Friendly Arm. Rest at the arm, head south, go to Bergost, grab Alegorn's Cape. Sell my looted junk, head to high hedge. Cast Friends, buy scrolls of 2nd and 3rd level, and so forth.

By the time a sorcerer gets 2nd level spells, I've got plenty of spells, and I have spells for getting huge discounts on items, I've got spells for buffing my party, I've got excellent defensive spells (like Mirror Image). I'm going to have strong AoE spells like Horror and Skull Trap, possibly in time for Chapter 3 and the Bandit camps. If you want to talk about high level Baldur's Gate, then I'm going to rock socks in truly unholy ways.

Now if I want to trade my obvious spell-progression advantage, I can go Fighter/Mage or Mage/Thief or even Mage/Cleric and put my awesome ability scores to work for me. I don't need tons of Intelligence to do well, and my great Wisdom gives me lots of bonus spells on my divine casting side and makes me good at wishing. If I'm a Fighter/Mage, I'll have tons of HP, better saves, and can kick butt in melee as well (which is really scary at high levels when you're buffed to hell and back). If I'm a Thief/Mage, I can downright abuse Invisibility and such.

Sorcerer? Well, sorcerer is just a mage who waits too long to get anything good, and is stuck in a rut. He can't adapt, can't evolve, and can't work out of his element. If his magic can't overcome his opponents, then he can't do much to defeat them. A mage has options. Options equal success in adventures. A fighter/mage can cast Stoneskin and dive into combat with magic-immune enemies and kick their butts, while a sorcerer prays his summons can hold out.

Roller12

Elemental_Evil said:

Well BGII works that way, thats actually where I got the numbers from. The table on pg. 226 of the BGII SoA game manual. I know the 2 games handle things a little different but I didn't think Wizards were that different.

I also play BGT so it runs all of the games on the same engine (the BGII Engine).

It doesnt. The manual is wrong, generally a bad place to look for rules. Have you ever wondered how Imoen can cast lvl9 mage spells even though she has only 17 int? Thats because int doesnt have any effect on max spell level and anyone will perfectly cast lvl9 spell with any int. For learning spells just drink an int potion and learn all the spells, they will stay once the potion wears off.

Elemental_Evil

If this is in fact true, then it is a bug. I've always made sure that wizards in my party have a high enough INT before it became an issue.

xLegionx

Well its true that mages have options but so do sorcerors. But to make a good sorceror you have to know what your getting into, basically you need to have planned out what your going to be specializing in before leveling him. It's true that mages can progress faster in spell levels but even so sorcerors are superior in that they have far more casting ability and exercising the right spell composition can make the sorceror outlast the mage entirely. Choosing the best spells for any situation such as contingency, mirror image and the ability to cast protection from magic like 5 times can allow the sorceror to outlast a progressive mage. If my sorceror had dispel, he could cast it like 5 times and just constantly drain the mage of his defenses or cast breach like 3 times. This is why I get so picky when choosing spells for my sorceror. Epic protection spells such as protection from magic and weapons are a must-have! Maybe sorceror is no match against mages at the beginner level but at higher levels oh yeah they can stand a far greater chance!

Just unfortunately to make a really good sorceror your going to have to make sacrifices here and there with your spell composition because your choices are very limited and permanent but for greater benefit! As I said being able to cast powerful spells as a sorceror can effectively enable a sorceror to outlast a mage.

e3r4t5yn

Sorceror with basic spell set, on demand casting particular spells from scrolls, seems to be stronger... BUT there are sequencers which do require wider variety of spells than sorceror can possess.

Phyrax

I basically agree that in BG, the mage rules over the sorcerer. However, when playing PnP, I prefer the sorcerer since it is more versatile there.