Non-specialized, single class mages could use a buff
Stormvessel
Member Posts: 654
As it stands, there is no reason to ever be a pure mage. If you want access to all schools without being a wild mage you can just start a fighter or cleric and dual asap. You'll still be a plain mage, but with better HP that can wear a helmet and shield while casting - not to mention a free use of Rage or cleric kit ability.
For instance, you could go Priest of Talos 5 > Mage 9 and get a free lightning bolt and three levels of divine spells out of the deal - not to mention loads of extra HP while still hitting max mage level. Not even an Elf mage w/ extra dex and immunities would be worth choosing a regular mage over that.
IMO there should be some kind of extra incentive to rolling a pure mage. Like special abilities that aren't available with an extra class present of something. Because as it stands right now, rolling a pure mage makes zero sense.
For instance, you could go Priest of Talos 5 > Mage 9 and get a free lightning bolt and three levels of divine spells out of the deal - not to mention loads of extra HP while still hitting max mage level. Not even an Elf mage w/ extra dex and immunities would be worth choosing a regular mage over that.
IMO there should be some kind of extra incentive to rolling a pure mage. Like special abilities that aren't available with an extra class present of something. Because as it stands right now, rolling a pure mage makes zero sense.
2
Comments
And yes there is absolutely no reason NOT to either make a specialized mage or a dual class/multi-class mage. Which is why Multi-class mages RULE in Icewind Dale and there are more Kensai-mages in Baldur's Gate games than you can throw a +1 magical returning stick at.
Yes, but the thing about PnP is that you will probably have stats that look like this:
9
12
15
16
9
10
If you have high intelligence, you go single class mage (best option). If you have high something else but lower intelligence, you specialize because it helps out.
The point is, in PnP you won't have the stats to be able to dual class and if you do, then your character deserves to be more powerful. In BG this is moot because getting an 82 or something is easy AND you get to move them around how you want. You can always choose fighter or cleric and then dual at level 2 even. It would still be better.
Ergo, vanilla mages are utterly useless.
This is one reason why I can only hope if there is ever a BG3 that the D&D system is abandoned and an inhouse system built up instead - like with Dragon Age. Trying to convert a PnP game like that is going to have issues with balance and such.
While pure mages indeed lose +1 spell per level (and thus lose to specialists), there's still a reason to create a pure mage without dualclassing: if you want to have a character that is not a human - and for some reason I like playing other races. For example, an elven mage, with 90% resistance to Sleep, and with Infravision (which will be actually useful in SoD).
One reason Infravision is pretty moot in Baldur's Gate is mainly cus infravision is common among NPCs you can have join you, along with the fact Infravision is an easy to access, low level spell. Granted it's never really useful from what I've seen, but even if it did have some use in the BG games a number of other things would have it covered even if your character didn't. I think if going a single class Mage, a Sorcerer might end up being better especially for a less experienced or first time player, it's much more akin to spellcasters in other kinds of RPGs where you can cast any spell you want as long as it's in the spellbook. Specialist Mages will always hold the power of casting the most total amount of spells, but a Sorcerer means if you don't have the metagame knowledge of most encounters of the game, you'll be able to deal with fights much better and pick what to use on the fly with scrolls and wands taking care of anything not in the spellbook.
Single class Mages that aren't specialized or aren't a Sorcerer just aren't as good unless it's an Enchanter who loses access to the different offensive oriented spells which are always useful.
I agree everything you said until you said Sorcerer was better for a less experienced player. I respectfully disagree, and I speak as someone who tried running a sorcerer when I was still new to the saga. The problem with sorcerer is that a mage w/ 18 intelligence gets 18 spells per level. With 19 int you can learn/cast all spells. A sorcerer can only learn 5! A lesser experienced player might make the mistake of taking spells that don't scale (such as sleep), damage spells that are available in bulk through wands, spells that are redundant with better spells later, important buffs, etc. It is very, very easy to cripple your sorcerer if you don't know exactly what you are doing and have a pretty thorough understanding of fundamental game mechanics.
Personally, I am very methodical in the way I approach magic in these games, therefore the mage I am most attracted to is the generalist. I don't want to play anything that gives up schools and I don't want to spam Powerword: Reload thanks to wild magic. The problem is that right now there is very little reason to choose a generalist mage because dual-classing is exceptionally easy (unlike in PnP).
Specialist mages give up two schools, not one.
Wild Mage no longer gets an extra spell per day (being able to cast any spell as level 1 and random element is good enough).
IMO this would restore balance.