I agree with Nimran on the spell book, as I always feel with a Mage that I either make poor choices on spell memorization, picking a broader array of spells than I might use, or that I rely too much on meta-knowledge if I tune memorizations each rest for what I expect the next day.
That said, I also love the collector's habit of filling in the whole spell book
@GreenWarlock, you have got the point, I agree. If the mage rely an metagame is more verstatile as he can prepare his spellbook using all the spells that he know. And as there is nothing wrong in doing it is the better choice for who like to plan the next day and spend time in optimizing the spellbook for the tactics he will use and the enemies he will met. But people who choose to not rely on metagame or don't like to reconfigure the spellbook before each rest usually have a standard spellbook memorization and usually pick only few new spells for the next day. With the mage they have the advantage that as new spells become available and some spells become less effective (enemies with better saves and increased HP and resistances) they can change the standard spellbook memorization. But for them a sorcerer is better, if the spells known are choose wisely, because the sorc can use all the casting for each level for every spell they know. The mage can have an acid arrow memorized for disrupting, if he is disrupted is screwed, the sorc can cast multiple arrows and disable completely and possibly kill the enemy mage or use multiple times an other spell of that level for another purpose like multiple glitterdust to blind and make visible the enemies.
Why do you say you don't need a mage if you have a sorcerer?
I prefer the sorcerer's way of casting spells over the mage. It's more flexible for someone like me who doesn't care for micromanaging spellbooks.
That's a pretty good point. What spells do you choose? Do you just load up your party with fighters to compensate for those spells you can't cast?
I prefer buffs and debuffs generally, with a few of the more powerful damaging spells thrown in. My sorcs always concentrate on weakening powerful enemies so that the fighters can hack them to bits. I actually use a fighter-centric party most times, with four fighters and either Yoshimo/Imoen or Jan for thieves. That also gives me two arcane spellcasters, which I believe is enough to cover spells. The one mage gets all the scrolls, while my sorc PC relies on his/her natural progression.
In fact, it should be part of the Wild Sorcerer kit! Does anyone know if it's possible to code this as a spell effect? I.e. a spell effect that grants you knowledge of a random spell of some specified level?
Apologies if this doesn't translate into code, but I assume there is a way of setting a variable to a random number? Set number randomly, use spell, if variable = a then give spell a, and so on?
Otherwise, isn't a random effect spell already in place with sphere of chaos and the like? Changing the target to self and the specific spell effects to "Learn Spell A-G" should get you at least part of the way there.
@subtledoctor, can you please explain better what meaning you give to the word cheesy and why you think that sorcerers are super cheesy? I understand the fact that they are supposed to don't have control over their magic and are implemented in a way that let them choose which spells learn. But it seem to me that is one of the many suspensions of disbelief that we players have to do in name of game mechanics and balance. If those suspensions make something super cheesy also the thieves are so. How they can hide in shadows and then walk in front of the enemy in plain sunlight remaining undetected? HiS is a skill, not something magic. And fighters, how they can be damaged multiple times being at 1 HP and still fight at 100% efficiency? Clerics, are we sure that to be hit with maces and flails cause no bleeding? Slings, AFAIK they do a small area crushing damage, not a piercing one. And I stop here, but there is a lot more.... Does those inconsistencies make thieves and all the rest super cheesy?
Don't get me wrong, if you think that sorcerers are dirty scum of the Faerûn and you hate them for me is fine. And also if you play them very seldom (would have been masochistic to do the opposite if you don't like them) . I respect and appreciate the feelings and choices of every other forum member. And I appreciate you even more because you are a modder, a person who use his time, knowledge and effort to give free new content to the players community. I just can't understand why you think that sorcerers are super cheesy and so I ask you. Is good to know other people opinions, to know why they have them is even better, maybe will help me in changing my own opinions.
It's my understanding that sorcerers in PnP don't actually get their spells from levels. They have to travel to some magical being, like a dragon, to learn a spell.
Let's be clear, I did not write the language for this poll. I never said anything about dirty scum. I just clicked the box that best represented the idea "I prefer to play mages over sorcerers."
That was just a little bit of tongue in cheek humor. Sorry if anyone was confused.
There was other 2 options to represent that idea, "Other (explain)..." and "Always bring a mage as your primary arcane spellcaster: sorcerers are secondary", but I was aware that you did not write the language for this poll and I don't think that the OP has worded that way the option you have choose to insult or let people insult the sorcerers. I think that is just a funny (excuse my lack in english knowledge, I hope you understand what I mean) way to say "I don't like them" with a particular emphasis. And I used the same words to express the same concept.
You will not hear from me the old chestnut about 2E and 3E because I never played PnP D&D and I think that a CRPG based on D&D don't have to follow exactly the rules of PnP. As long as is enough balanced in itself and challenging and satisfying for me is fine. The fact that there is people playing it for 15 years and is still played by new players even if is a 2D isometric with a very old and outdated engine make me think that is not so badly coded, unbalanced and unsatisfactory. It can be improved, and the work of you modders have done and do a lot to improve it, I thank you all again for that, but is also great "as it is" as there are players who only play vanilla. Sure the way that sorcerers learn their spells could have been coded in a different way, as the other incongruities I have pointed in my previous post. The fact that in this poll the 70% of the voters choose options that let presume they like as sorc is now implemented make me think that the developers coded it in a good way. And you can mod them for the minority who don't like them as they are now.
If for you the fact that there are powerful classes (and items) is a good reason to call them super cheesy for me is fine. As long as you don't give to the word cheesy a negative connotation but you use it only as a synonymous of powerful. Because what you say about players that enjoy the idea of building a powerhouse character, while other players tend to prefer the idea of a normal mortal character is true. And giving a negative connotation would have been judgmental on other players tastes and preferences, just for the reason that differs from your taste and preferences, thing that imho in not so polite.
Sorcerers are the best class in the game, in my opinion. The only class I've soloed the Black Pits with is a Sorcerer. There are only 5 or 6 vital spells each level anyway, and any that you're missing you can just get scrolls for.
I've never been a big fan of Mages. It always seems to take forever to find the spell you want.....and then it fails to copy! Plus, you only get so many spell slots per level, and some spells you may never even use during a fight, yet they are taking up a vital spot that you could use for something else.
Sorcerers are the best class in the game, in my opinion. There are only 5 or 6 vital spells each level anyway, and any that you're missing you can just get scrolls for.
@subtledoctor, I agree with you that sorcerers, for an experienced player, are more powerful then mages. Because they are just as good as is good the player in choosing their spells and using at the best what they have choose. Thing that you know perfectly (no surprise, you are a modder...), in fact your way to nerf them is preventing the choice of the spells, that in a rebalanced environment like SR is an interesting challenge for the player, with the regular spell system can lead to redundancy and holes in the functions they can cover. Also the original developers where aware of this, but imo this is in line with their concept of balance. In the game there are classes (and items) more powerful then others. As there are classes whose power is immediately apparent to everybody and classes whose power in somehow hidden, you have to get used to them to discover their true potential. For an newbie a cleric is often just a healer (in a game where you have potions, regeneration items, a wonderful cheesy wand, much better then any cleric in battle), and some occasional utility spell. In a game where you can anytime press the rest button to heal. Only when you get experienced and get used to them you discover that they are much more and the healer is the less useful side of them. Or should I talk of blades? That kind of in game balance is maybe not the one you like, but it has some advantages. Because somehow make happy everybody (and everybody unhappy, as every coin has 2 sides). Is good for newbies, is good for people who is improving and discovering also the hidden powers of the classes, and is good for the experienced ones. And is good for powergamers, who love to fill the board pages with calculations about the ultimate damaging weapon or better party compositions, counting each hair of the beard of the berseker thief and of the kensai one and comparing them. But is good also for the roleplayer who don't care at all of those things. And is a balance that you can easily change both rising the enemies power using mods and counter it with optimization or limiting your own power using mods and self restrain. I like this way because is the one that give to the player the freedom to play as he like, can be challenging for a newbie and for who solo with a not OP charname the hard modded game, no reload. Is good for who like to have a God charname and for who like him being a very common person. And even if the sorcerer is probably more powerful than the mage the developers had balanced this in a very good way, the mage can dual class or be a multiclass, the sorcerer has to live all his life with his huge magical power, but only that power. Just the possibility to dual in mage from a berseker or kensai at level 7, with almost no down time and the same mage progression of a single class (just 64k XP behind) is crazy. Because the very experienced player, the one who can make the best use of a sorcerer, can make even a better use of a mage, if he use metagame and spend some time in optimizing his spellbook each rest. Add the fighter part on top and now who is the really OP toon?
The funny thing is, in 3.X PnP, the Sorcerer was always the poor cousin of the Mage due to delayed spellcasting progression, limited flexibility and decreased ability to take advantage of spells from splatbooks due to spells known, and the fact that many very useful spellcasting aids flat out did not work for Sorcerers. Imagine that Sorcerers did not get access to Improved Alacrity or any of the memorization aids in BG2 and you're glimpsing the beginning of their drawbacks compared to Mages. I'm fairly certain the Sorcerer was introduced not to be more powerful than the Mage, but to be easier to play, which is good, because there should ideally be a mix of simple and complex classes across all the archetypes.
a missed opportunity to make different classes more interesting and distinct.
Points of wiew. I find the sorcerer quite interesting and also distinct from the mage. Even if they share the same pool of spells. Also sorcerers with some unique spells and prevented from use of some mage ones, something like druid and cleric for divine magic, would have been interesting. But druid and cleric share the same way of memorizing the spells, the pool is different, for sorcs and mages the pool is the same and the way is different. And as no one compel a player to learn sequencers and contingencies I am really satisfied with the way they was implemented, is the way that give to the player the most freedom. A player can even download one of the mods that add new spells and choose in his game to reserve some spells to mages and other ones to sorcerers.
If you are not satisfied about how the sorcerers are implemented now that is fine, I respect your personal taste as the one of everyone. And if you mod them in a way that you like more is wonderful, as no one is compelled to install your mod, but who share your feelings will benefit from it.
I don't think that any opportunity has been missed, even if a choice has been made. But I suppose that the 70% of the voters of this mod that use them share my feeling that they are an interesting class, and if you want we can start a new poll, but I will be surprised if even more find them quite distinct and different from regular mages.
I don't think that any opportunity has been missed, even if a choice has been made. But I suppose that the 70% of the voters of this mod that use them share my feeling that they are an interesting class, and if you want we can start a new poll, but I will be surprised if even more find them quite distinct and different from regular mages.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The question was if a sorc can replace a mage completely and fill any party's role as the main arcane user, which I interpret more like "do you believe the sorc is as versatile, or at least versatile enough, to be able to handle any situation where arcane magic is the solution?". With this said, and to that I agree, I still agree more with @semiticgod in his/her opinions of their implementation into AD&D. I think the sorc in the game is too versatile and too good and the only real flaw, which IMHO is no real flaw, is that if you don't know which spells to choose you can't rechoose them. That 'flaw' or drawback is to minor considering their very tangible strenghts.
My point being, just because 70% currently feels that with a sorc in your party you don't need a mage, it doesn't necessarely mean all who voted that also thinks sorcs are interresting or well-implemented. It just means that 70% thinks the power of a sorc is equal to or above a mage's. With this said though, of course many probably agrees with you, but by the poll alone you can't draw that conclusion.
@Skatan, I agree that the poll was not about how people like sorcerers or how well they are implemented. But the result that tell that about 70% of who answered (that is not the 70% of the players of the game or a number large enough to be significant for statistics ) use them. As only caster or main caster.
Using that results to tell that the large majority of the players think that they are implemented in the perfect way would be a blatant manipulation of the results, and that was not my intention. Guessing that the majority of the players don't think that they are implemented in a broken and completely wrong way seem to me a more reasonable guess. That was my intention. I still think that the developers made a good work in implementing them for that reason, not because I like them or dislike them. Is very hard or impossible to make choices that make everybody happy, imo with the developers choice enough players are enough happy and some of the unhappy ones can become enough happy without even tweaking the game, just avoiding to learn contingiences and sequencers, PI and some specific spells, or even choosing the spells they learn in a random way, like subtledoctor do.
@Skatan, I agree that the poll was not about how people like sorcerers or how well they are implemented. But the result that tell that about 70% of who answered (that is not the 70% of the players of the game or a number large enough to be significant for statistics ) use them. As only caster or main caster.
Using that results to tell that the large majority of the players think that they are implemented in the perfect way would be a blatant manipulation of the results, and that was not my intention. Guessing that the majority of the players don't think that they are implemented in a broken and completely wrong way seem to me a more reasonable guess. That was my intention.
@gorgonzola: I think I understand your intention, but I still don't agree with you though. Just because "people" (as in the 70% in the poll) use a sorc doesn't necesseraly mean they think they are well-implemented. I've used sorcs many times, especially in IWD where they are truly broken (scarcity of scrolls vs innate learning of spells? Yes please, give me two!) and BP, but I still think they are poorly implemented since they too easily can replace the mage even in BG/BG2.
I still think that the developers made a good work in implementing them for that reason, not because I like them or dislike them. Is very hard or impossible to make choices that make everybody happy, imo with the developers choice enough players are enough happy and some of the unhappy ones can become enough happy without even tweaking the game, just avoiding to learn contingiences and sequencers, PI and some specific spells, or even choosing the spells they learn in a random way, like subtledoctor do.
Implementation of a kit or class should not have to rely upon self-restriction, in my humble opinion. I do it ofc, just as many others I guess, but I would rather see distinctive features in a class/kit wihtout me having to add them myself. Imagine playing GTO and all of the cars you can drive has a max speed of between 100-150 mph with different handling characteristics, each with at least one lower characteristics, but one of the cars has a max of 200 mph and still has the best handling, breaks and durability. It doesn't have the drawbacks of the other fast cars of having poorer handling, breaks or other flaws. Would you use that car? Of course you would, it's a single player game and speed, handling etc is important. Would you self-restrict your usage of that car saying to yourself, no I shouldn't drive faster than 150 mph and I should try to crash every now and then since the handling is almost too good compared to the other cars? Not the greatest of examples, but I hope you get my point, hehe
Sorc are not the only one of course, so I won't start a huge rant about it, but as @semiticgod pointed out quite eloquently in his first post above, they could have had some drawbacks to make them more interresting and less versatile. @Gotural though makes a very valid point about sorcs in PnP (of which I know nothing), saing they are even stronger there, if I interpret him correctly. So thank god sorcs can't unlearn/relearn spells at level up!
Wow ~!! Thank goodness I have a bad memory for spells ^^. I am pretty bad with arcane stuffs X_X but I always admire you guys who are so good at it. But lately I took a liking for Wild Mages (can be quite cute in the thick of a battle when wild surge occurs ^^). Try wand of wonder it can be quite "fun" too ^^.
@gorgonzola -can you send me a list of all the spells a solo sorcerer will learn throughout the whole of BG2+ToB? Thank you (I need spoon feeding, sorry)
@FinneousPJ Yes I am aware, BUT @gorgonzola has quite few extra innovations I recently observed (naughty naughty ones ^^). So I am trying to leech it off him xD
@Bubbles , I will send you the list of one of my sorcerers, that I find good for both solo and in a party, maybe not in a party of 6, as it was developed for solo so certain important spells are learned later and maybe is better to choose alternatives at lower level. Since I play almost every time with small parties I don't have a list optimized for full party, but also with my list a backup mage can cover the holes until the sorc reach the requested level. That list rely on dispell magic, that for a fast leveling soloer is effective very soon, and the first specific magical protection dispeller and magic resistence lowering spell is pierce magic. I disagree with much of the lists I find on the internet, but there are also reasons to disagree with my list. There is not a perfect list, party composition, player style and similar factors are too relevant. But I will also put in some comments, explaining the why of some decisions, so comparing my list with other ones you can build your own list.
@gorgonzola Thank you, for party my mage is often non-offensive and always has 2 bodyguards (his/her purpose is to breach/pierce etc) so I am very bad in defending my mage on his/her own (I only use stones occasionally + mirror image if critical). THAT is how bad I am in using mage (rely heavily on staff of the magi+clock of non-detection to lurk behind X_X).
Comments
That said, I also love the collector's habit of filling in the whole spell book
If the mage rely an metagame is more verstatile as he can prepare his spellbook using all the spells that he know. And as there is nothing wrong in doing it is the better choice for who like to plan the next day and spend time in optimizing the spellbook for the tactics he will use and the enemies he will met.
But people who choose to not rely on metagame or don't like to reconfigure the spellbook before each rest usually have a standard spellbook memorization and usually pick only few new spells for the next day.
With the mage they have the advantage that as new spells become available and some spells become less effective (enemies with better saves and increased HP and resistances) they can change the standard spellbook memorization.
But for them a sorcerer is better, if the spells known are choose wisely, because the sorc can use all the casting for each level for every spell they know. The mage can have an acid arrow memorized for disrupting, if he is disrupted is screwed, the sorc can cast multiple arrows and disable completely and possibly kill the enemy mage or use multiple times an other spell of that level for another purpose like multiple glitterdust to blind and make visible the enemies.
Otherwise, isn't a random effect spell already in place with sphere of chaos and the like? Changing the target to self and the specific spell effects to "Learn Spell A-G" should get you at least part of the way there.
I understand the fact that they are supposed to don't have control over their magic and are implemented in a way that let them choose which spells learn. But it seem to me that is one of the many suspensions of disbelief that we players have to do in name of game mechanics and balance. If those suspensions make something super cheesy also the thieves are so. How they can hide in shadows and then walk in front of the enemy in plain sunlight remaining undetected? HiS is a skill, not something magic.
And fighters, how they can be damaged multiple times being at 1 HP and still fight at 100% efficiency?
Clerics, are we sure that to be hit with maces and flails cause no bleeding?
Slings, AFAIK they do a small area crushing damage, not a piercing one.
And I stop here, but there is a lot more....
Does those inconsistencies make thieves and all the rest super cheesy?
Don't get me wrong, if you think that sorcerers are dirty scum of the Faerûn and you hate them for me is fine. And also if you play them very seldom (would have been masochistic to do the opposite if you don't like them) . I respect and appreciate the feelings and choices of every other forum member. And I appreciate you even more because you are a modder, a person who use his time, knowledge and effort to give free new content to the players community.
I just can't understand why you think that sorcerers are super cheesy and so I ask you. Is good to know other people opinions, to know why they have them is even better, maybe will help me in changing my own opinions.
You will not hear from me the old chestnut about 2E and 3E because I never played PnP D&D and I think that a CRPG based on D&D don't have to follow exactly the rules of PnP. As long as is enough balanced in itself and challenging and satisfying for me is fine. The fact that there is people playing it for 15 years and is still played by new players even if is a 2D isometric with a very old and outdated engine make me think that is not so badly coded, unbalanced and unsatisfactory. It can be improved, and the work of you modders have done and do a lot to improve it, I thank you all again for that, but is also great "as it is" as there are players who only play vanilla.
Sure the way that sorcerers learn their spells could have been coded in a different way, as the other incongruities I have pointed in my previous post. The fact that in this poll the 70% of the voters choose options that let presume they like as sorc is now implemented make me think that the developers coded it in a good way. And you can mod them for the minority who don't like them as they are now.
If for you the fact that there are powerful classes (and items) is a good reason to call them super cheesy for me is fine. As long as you don't give to the word cheesy a negative connotation but you use it only as a synonymous of powerful. Because what you say about players that enjoy the idea of building a powerhouse character, while other players tend to prefer the idea of a normal mortal character is true. And giving a negative connotation would have been judgmental on other players tastes and preferences, just for the reason that differs from your taste and preferences, thing that imho in not so polite.
Thanks for answering my question.
I've never been a big fan of Mages. It always seems to take forever to find the spell you want.....and then it fails to copy! Plus, you only get so many spell slots per level, and some spells you may never even use during a fight, yet they are taking up a vital spot that you could use for something else.
Sorcerers >>>>>>>>>> Mages
Because they are just as good as is good the player in choosing their spells and using at the best what they have choose. Thing that you know perfectly (no surprise, you are a modder...), in fact your way to nerf them is preventing the choice of the spells, that in a rebalanced environment like SR is an interesting challenge for the player, with the regular spell system can lead to redundancy and holes in the functions they can cover.
Also the original developers where aware of this, but imo this is in line with their concept of balance. In the game there are classes (and items) more powerful then others. As there are classes whose power is immediately apparent to everybody and classes whose power in somehow hidden, you have to get used to them to discover their true potential. For an newbie a cleric is often just a healer (in a game where you have potions, regeneration items, a wonderful cheesy wand, much better then any cleric in battle), and some occasional utility spell. In a game where you can anytime press the rest button to heal. Only when you get experienced and get used to them you discover that they are much more and the healer is the less useful side of them. Or should I talk of blades?
That kind of in game balance is maybe not the one you like, but it has some advantages. Because somehow make happy everybody (and everybody unhappy, as every coin has 2 sides). Is good for newbies, is good for people who is improving and discovering also the hidden powers of the classes, and is good for the experienced ones. And is good for powergamers, who love to fill the board pages with calculations about the ultimate damaging weapon or better party compositions, counting each hair of the beard of the berseker thief and of the kensai one and comparing them. But is good also for the roleplayer who don't care at all of those things. And is a balance that you can easily change both rising the enemies power using mods and counter it with optimization or limiting your own power using mods and self restrain.
I like this way because is the one that give to the player the freedom to play as he like, can be challenging for a newbie and for who solo with a not OP charname the hard modded game, no reload. Is good for who like to have a God charname and for who like him being a very common person.
And even if the sorcerer is probably more powerful than the mage the developers had balanced this in a very good way, the mage can dual class or be a multiclass, the sorcerer has to live all his life with his huge magical power, but only that power. Just the possibility to dual in mage from a berseker or kensai at level 7, with almost no down time and the same mage progression of a single class (just 64k XP behind) is crazy. Because the very experienced player, the one who can make the best use of a sorcerer, can make even a better use of a mage, if he use metagame and spend some time in optimizing his spellbook each rest. Add the fighter part on top and now who is the really OP toon?
I find the sorcerer quite interesting and also distinct from the mage. Even if they share the same pool of spells.
Also sorcerers with some unique spells and prevented from use of some mage ones, something like druid and cleric for divine magic, would have been interesting. But druid and cleric share the same way of memorizing the spells, the pool is different, for sorcs and mages the pool is the same and the way is different.
And as no one compel a player to learn sequencers and contingencies I am really satisfied with the way they was implemented, is the way that give to the player the most freedom. A player can even download one of the mods that add new spells and choose in his game to reserve some spells to mages and other ones to sorcerers.
If you are not satisfied about how the sorcerers are implemented now that is fine, I respect your personal taste as the one of everyone.
And if you mod them in a way that you like more is wonderful, as no one is compelled to install your mod, but who share your feelings will benefit from it.
I don't think that any opportunity has been missed, even if a choice has been made.
But I suppose that the 70% of the voters of this mod that use them share my feeling that they are an interesting class, and if you want we can start a new poll, but I will be surprised if even more find them quite distinct and different from regular mages.
My point being, just because 70% currently feels that with a sorc in your party you don't need a mage, it doesn't necessarely mean all who voted that also thinks sorcs are interresting or well-implemented. It just means that 70% thinks the power of a sorc is equal to or above a mage's. With this said though, of course many probably agrees with you, but by the poll alone you can't draw that conclusion.
But the result that tell that about 70% of who answered (that is not the 70% of the players of the game or a number large enough to be significant for statistics ) use them. As only caster or main caster.
Using that results to tell that the large majority of the players think that they are implemented in the perfect way would be a blatant manipulation of the results, and that was not my intention.
Guessing that the majority of the players don't think that they are implemented in a broken and completely wrong way seem to me a more reasonable guess. That was my intention.
I still think that the developers made a good work in implementing them for that reason, not because I like them or dislike them.
Is very hard or impossible to make choices that make everybody happy, imo with the developers choice enough players are enough happy and some of the unhappy ones can become enough happy without even tweaking the game, just avoiding to learn contingiences and sequencers, PI and some specific spells, or even choosing the spells they learn in a random way, like subtledoctor do.
Sorc are not the only one of course, so I won't start a huge rant about it, but as @semiticgod pointed out quite eloquently in his first post above, they could have had some drawbacks to make them more interresting and less versatile. @Gotural though makes a very valid point about sorcs in PnP (of which I know nothing), saing they are even stronger there, if I interpret him correctly. So thank god sorcs can't unlearn/relearn spells at level up!
I am pretty bad with arcane stuffs X_X but I always admire you guys who are so good at it.
But lately I took a liking for Wild Mages (can be quite cute in the thick of a battle when wild surge occurs ^^). Try wand of wonder it can be quite "fun" too ^^.
@gorgonzola -can you send me a list of all the spells a solo sorcerer will learn throughout the whole of BG2+ToB? Thank you (I need spoon feeding, sorry)
Yes I am aware, BUT @gorgonzola has quite few extra innovations I recently observed (naughty naughty ones ^^). So I am trying to leech it off him xD
That list rely on dispell magic, that for a fast leveling soloer is effective very soon, and the first specific magical protection dispeller and magic resistence lowering spell is pierce magic.
I disagree with much of the lists I find on the internet, but there are also reasons to disagree with my list.
There is not a perfect list, party composition, player style and similar factors are too relevant.
But I will also put in some comments, explaining the why of some decisions, so comparing my list with other ones you can build your own list.
Thank you, for party my mage is often non-offensive and always has 2 bodyguards (his/her purpose is to breach/pierce etc) so I am very bad in defending my mage on his/her own (I only use stones occasionally + mirror image if critical). THAT is how bad I am in using mage (rely heavily on staff of the magi+clock of non-detection to lurk behind X_X).
Sorry for side-tracking this thread.