at the beginning of the game id say bard is the best caster because you lvl up faster and those spells that scale on lvl like skulltrap is far more powerful with bard than mage or sorcerer
at the beginning of the game id say bard is the best caster because you lvl up faster and those spells that scale on lvl like skulltrap is far more powerful with bard than mage or sorcerer
This is a good point. Even getting those five missiles with Magic Missile faster is a huge boon in BG1.
@Raywind : agreed. Same with Tenser's Transformation (showing its real use here actually, not nearly as useful for Mages and Sorcerers, even less so for multi-classes)
Heck, even scroll cast spells like Abi-Dalzim's horrid wilting will have abnormal bonuses with bards! (is there a limit to the damage per level btw?)
Sorcerers only because BG1/2 don't use the full rules for Int/Cha and spellcasting, a Wizard with 9 int and one with 18 int cast the same, and Sorcerers just get more spells, abit slower.
Hell If bard could go past lvl 6 spells, they would be better then Wizards to in BG :P
On one hand, you pretty much need to know the game fairly well to not mess up your spell choices with the sorcerer (I remember doing my very first BG2 playthrough as a sorcerer - *sigh*).
But then, when you do know the game well enough, you should be able to plan ahead sufficiently with your wizard to make up for the lack of short term flexibility...
The wizard is more powerful as a traditional arcane caster, IMO, whereas the sorcerer may be better enjoyed with a more alternative spell selection: more reaction and spontaneity. Mmm, this makes me want to do my first BGEE run with a sorcerer...
This seems to have been covered pretty well. I guess I could add that another aspect is how much you tend to rest. A mage ends up having less of most spells, so if you go through 10 battles before resting you can't expect the mage to have a couple of awesome spells for each one of them. If you rest whenever you feel like it though you can basically refresh their entire arsenal ahead of every fight (this is the advantage AI mages have). If you roleplay a bit more and only rest when your party has done a day's work and been awake for at least 16 hours or so then mages may end up with not much left to do but use slings/wands. Sorcerers tend to be a fair bit less vulnerable to this.
So, the more you rest, the bigger the advantage for mages.
I also agree with earlier posts that as sorcerers can't learn anything from scrolls, the feeling of going through the game and discovering new magic is diminished.
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.
I'm seriously confused by what you mean here. Wizard is universally considered more versatile and typically accepted as the stronger of the two in PnP. Check virtually any forum that discusses D&D. Versatility is even more exceptional in PnP, because there is less emphasis on combat than in Baldur's Gate I & II. In actual PnP, the ability to swap spells around is massive.
@xLegionx: If sorcerer is great for you, then that's wonderful. However, I've never felt a lack of spell slots, and if you know what you're doing (which is clearly required to not screw up a sorcerer forever), then I've never felt a need to have an excessive amount of spells prepared. However, it actually makes me happy that the sorcerer has pros, since they lack versatility, multiclassing, use for ability scores, spell progressions, and ability to adapt to different situations. I suppose it's also a big pro in the sorcerer's favor if you have some sort of patch removing XP gains from learning scrolls.
If you know BG inside and out, then Sorecerer would probably be more powerful, because there is rarely more than 5 good spells you can't live without in any spell level. On 9th spell level you get enough HLAs to offset the low amount spells you can pick. And any spells you can't afford to pick on any level, use project image + scrolls for infinite amount of whatever spell you'd like to cast.
But why Mage vs. Sorcerer? Are you playing solo? You have a party of 6. It is much better to have Sorcerer+Mage instead of Mage+Mage or Sorcerer+Sorcerer. This gives you both the freedom of Sorcerer to cast anything at any time and the large versatility of Mage being able to use all spells. If your mage is wild mage or just plain mage then she/he'll have all spells while Sorcerer has the raw power.
Now that we have the new wild mage NPC (and Edwin) the obvious choice is Sorcerer, since there aint those as NPCs and the NPC mages are better than CHARNAME can ever be.
Sorcerers only because BG1/2 don't use the full rules for Int/Cha and spellcasting, a Wizard with 9 int and one with 18 int cast the same, and Sorcerers just get more spells, abit slower.
Hell If bard could go past lvl 6 spells, they would be better then Wizards to in BG :P
A Wizard with 18 Int gets a lot more spells, though, and a Wizard with 9 Int can't cast spells above 4th level, IIRC.
When the caster is an extra in your party, a sorcerer, to kill quicker, no need of buff/debuff spells When the caster in an important part of your party, mage, you need a lot of buff/debuff/dmg spells.
I like sorcerers, but I tend to be the kablooey magic user of the group. I hide behind the meat shields and throw fireballs at things until they die. The no XP from scrolls thing IS kind of a drag, but that's why I usually have some other mage around.
Sorc to me was always a walking artillery platform while Mage was for more tactical options like crowd control and monster summoning. A party with both has quite the arcane arsenal.
I think that i prefer mages, because buying scrolls to get new spells was awesome, and they somehow felt more diverse. On the other hand, I also like sorcerers because they don't need to prepare spells, they can just fire away once they've rested.
The Sorcerer is stronger though the Wizard might be preferable:
Neither the Sorcerer nor the Wizard are more versatile than the other, one's versatility is different. The Wizard is better suited for many roles of foreseeable spell-use - the Sorcerer is better for less roles (most likely Combat) with unpredictable spell uses.
But, then again, many (non-combat) roles that a arcane spellcaster can serve in a party in PnP have never even been implemented in DnD CRPGs, more so in Baldur's Gate. Furthermore, it is my understanding that blasting away with Fireball in the Sorcerer's actual editions is not as effective as it is in Baldur's Gate's.
In the end, the only things that matter are combat blasting and combat buffing. If the Sorcerer focuses in either (and its very likely that its blasting, since you want your character to be the party's star) he'll be better than a Wizard that tries to do both without relying in more impractical spells for those non-combat moments.
This without considering how game-breaking spontaneous spellcasting and BG's implementation of Project Image (which calls a summon that, from what I understand, actually casts off of your spellbook/spell points, instead of its own).
But there's something else to consider: a well-built sorcerer won't learn redundant and eventually useless spells. Sleep is King in Baldur's Gate, but its not very useful in Shadows of Amn, so you might not pick it while a Wizard should.
Lastly, two things break the equation. Edwin's damned necklace and a, potentially, Wild Mage.
Edwin's necklace is a bad debuff actually because it prevents him from using the Amulet of Power which is an absolutely critical item for any arcane user of gamebreakingly power if coupled with the Robe of Vecna. Doesnt change the fact that he is by far the best vanilla NPC arcane caster though and the only one who should be able to legitimately cast level9 spells.
Versatile means able to perform many roles, so yes, the Wizard is more versatile than the sorcerer. I prefer a mage because of this point, as a sorcerer somewhat diminishes my fun in the game.
Although as an aside, I pick neither and choose Edwin because he has more of the sorcerer's brute strength of casting with a mage's versatility. I would never pick pure mage because Edwin will always be better. Being able to multi-class with a mage really does tip the scales. For me at least.
Personally I'm not much of an arcane magic user in the game but I always have a mage in my party to learn scrolls for the extra experience points. :P
But if I had to play either one as my main character then I'll go for sorcerer and I would pick my spells very carefully. As mentioned before, there's not a whole bunch of must-have spells for every page so it shouldn't be a problem for me.
I don't know if we are talking about pure arcane magic casters, but because I am selfish bastard, I prefer fighter / mage with self-buffs and few offensive spells.
The Sorcerer is stronger though the Wizard might be preferable:
False assumption. This statement is only true on a very narrow set of criteria, in the long run a Wizard would be far more preferable and useful than a Sorc...the Sorcs would be the cannon fodder, sort of like the Mage group from Cormyr....their name escapes me..battle mages? they were all about sheer destructive power but ultimately just the peons to throw into battle while the real Mages Were in charge. To Survive a Sorc would by necessity learn the most awesome damage and protection spells but would be useless in day to day operations.
The day-to-day operations for arcane casters in the BG games almost exclusively consist of destructive spells and dismantling the defenses of enemy casters though.
Meh. I disagree. Martials excel at dealing damage. Dropping spells on enemies who almost always save, or are loaded with spell resistance -- or both -- and hoping to kill them? Meh, maybe. I prefer adaptability. Fighter/Mages can definitely deal damage, because instead of dropping blasting spells that will be resisted or saved against, Fighter/Mages will slaughter things old-fashioned style.
If you know the game, the sorcerer will be more powerfull. Most of mage spells is useless or have limited usage. All you need is protection spells and offencive spells and you can cast more of them. But sorcerer is just a retarded mage for lesser intellegence level players. Thanks stupid MMORPGs, you force new generation lose their imagination
Sorcerers only because BG1/2 don't use the full rules for Int/Cha and spellcasting, a Wizard with 9 int and one with 18 int cast the same, and Sorcerers just get more spells, abit slower.
Hell If bard could go past lvl 6 spells, they would be better then Wizards to in BG :P
A Wizard with 18 Int gets a lot more spells, though, and a Wizard with 9 Int can't cast spells above 4th level, IIRC.
@Schneidend Except that doesn't work in BG 1/2, it should be it doesn't. Intelligence only effects chance to learn spells from scrolls and how many spells you can learn, NOT Memorize, also the rule on highest spell level cast doesn't work either.
So again, Wizard with 9 and one with 18 Intelligence is VERY small, and can usually be made up via potions when you need to...
Comments
Heck, even scroll cast spells like Abi-Dalzim's horrid wilting will have abnormal bonuses with bards! (is there a limit to the damage per level btw?)
Hell If bard could go past lvl 6 spells, they would be better then Wizards to in BG :P
But then, when you do know the game well enough, you should be able to plan ahead sufficiently with your wizard to make up for the lack of short term flexibility...
The wizard is more powerful as a traditional arcane caster, IMO, whereas the sorcerer may be better enjoyed with a more alternative spell selection: more reaction and spontaneity. Mmm, this makes me want to do my first BGEE run with a sorcerer...
If you roleplay a bit more and only rest when your party has done a day's work and been awake for at least 16 hours or so then mages may end up with not much left to do but use slings/wands. Sorcerers tend to be a fair bit less vulnerable to this.
So, the more you rest, the bigger the advantage for mages.
I also agree with earlier posts that as sorcerers can't learn anything from scrolls, the feeling of going through the game and discovering new magic is diminished.
@xLegionx: If sorcerer is great for you, then that's wonderful. However, I've never felt a lack of spell slots, and if you know what you're doing (which is clearly required to not screw up a sorcerer forever), then I've never felt a need to have an excessive amount of spells prepared. However, it actually makes me happy that the sorcerer has pros, since they lack versatility, multiclassing, use for ability scores, spell progressions, and ability to adapt to different situations. I suppose it's also a big pro in the sorcerer's favor if you have some sort of patch removing XP gains from learning scrolls.
But why Mage vs. Sorcerer? Are you playing solo? You have a party of 6. It is much better to have Sorcerer+Mage instead of Mage+Mage or Sorcerer+Sorcerer. This gives you both the freedom of Sorcerer to cast anything at any time and the large versatility of Mage being able to use all spells. If your mage is wild mage or just plain mage then she/he'll have all spells while Sorcerer has the raw power.
Now that we have the new wild mage NPC (and Edwin) the obvious choice is Sorcerer, since there aint those as NPCs and the NPC mages are better than CHARNAME can ever be.
When the caster in an important part of your party, mage, you need a lot of buff/debuff/dmg spells.
A party with both has quite the arcane arsenal.
You will be casting like 4-5 lvl 9 spells in comparison to a regular mage when you hit the levels!
Neither the Sorcerer nor the Wizard are more versatile than the other, one's versatility is different. The Wizard is better suited for many roles of foreseeable spell-use - the Sorcerer is better for less roles (most likely Combat) with unpredictable spell uses.
But, then again, many (non-combat) roles that a arcane spellcaster can serve in a party in PnP have never even been implemented in DnD CRPGs, more so in Baldur's Gate. Furthermore, it is my understanding that blasting away with Fireball in the Sorcerer's actual editions is not as effective as it is in Baldur's Gate's.
In the end, the only things that matter are combat blasting and combat buffing. If the Sorcerer focuses in either (and its very likely that its blasting, since you want your character to be the party's star) he'll be better than a Wizard that tries to do both without relying in more impractical spells for those non-combat moments.
This without considering how game-breaking spontaneous spellcasting and BG's implementation of Project Image (which calls a summon that, from what I understand, actually casts off of your spellbook/spell points, instead of its own).
But there's something else to consider: a well-built sorcerer won't learn redundant and eventually useless spells. Sleep is King in Baldur's Gate, but its not very useful in Shadows of Amn, so you might not pick it while a Wizard should.
Lastly, two things break the equation. Edwin's damned necklace and a, potentially, Wild Mage.
Although as an aside, I pick neither and choose Edwin because he has more of the sorcerer's brute strength of casting with a mage's versatility. I would never pick pure mage because Edwin will always be better. Being able to multi-class with a mage really does tip the scales. For me at least.
But if I had to play either one as my main character then I'll go for sorcerer and I would pick my spells very carefully. As mentioned before, there's not a whole bunch of must-have spells for every page so it shouldn't be a problem for me.
To Survive a Sorc would by necessity learn the most awesome damage and protection spells but would be useless in day to day operations.
So again, Wizard with 9 and one with 18 Intelligence is VERY small, and can usually be made up via potions when you need to...
The sorceror is getting the magic from his/her blood/ancestry, and the mage is getting it trough study.
For some reason the study approach suits me better