Playing without a mage in party Your thoughts.

PentiumD

In my current play through i went without a mage i dunno wanted to try something different. Seems like dorn hack ns slash is OP.

Current Party.
PC - Oozemaster Druid
Dorn - Blackguard
Vynd - Assassin
Finch - Cleric
Safana - Thief
Faldorn - Druid

Any idea who i should change might get Tiax or Alora over Safana. the lack of haste is not really a issue as Dorn hits hard.

I just finished the cloakwood mines and off to baldurs gate or should i level up more before i go there, i'm level 5 atm close to level 6.

Gallenger

Playing without a mage in BG1 is totally doable - especially because Clerics have plenty of decent CC abilities - and you can make up for a lot of the lost CC of a mage through items.

As far as level requirement(s) - I wouldn't worry too much about that the only stuff that is going to be like hitting a brick wall (in some circumstances) is the TotSC content.

Nightingale

I'd definitely say that playing without a mage in BG1 is doable. There aren't many battles in the first half of the saga where a mage is necessary (i.e. battles that require you to strip enemy combat/spell protections) and you wouldn't have easy access to the crucial arcane spells even if there were. You might miss Haste and Fireball... possibly even Cloudkill at later levels. But since you seem to be doing just fine thus far, I doubt you'll have too many problems without them.

Between Tiax and Alora, I'd choose Alora. Tiax has some utility thanks to his unique "Summon Ghast" and the fact that he's a cleric. However you've already got plenty of divine spell users in your party. And since he's a dual class, Tiax will gain thief levels much slower than Safana or Alora would. To make matters worse, he only has a 13 in Wisdom, meaning he won't gain any bonus spells and since Clerics can't use any bladed weapons, the only weapon types Tiax can use to backstab are the club and the quarterstaff. Alora on the other hand is a pure thief, meaning she gains levels like nobody's business and her unique item, her lucky rabbit's foot, gives her bonuses to her thief skills (at least in EE). If you plan to play through SoD as well, I would recommend keeping Safana until she gets her find traps skill to 100%. If you recruit her during the course of BG, she'll return in SoD exactly as you left her. While we're on the topic of team comps, have you considered dropping Faldorn for someone else? Between your PC Druid and your Cleric, I think you've got more than enough divine spell support. Kaigan, Kivan and Shar-Teel are all good options that are singular NPCs. If you really like having extra divine spells, you could also go with Yeslick. As a Fighter/Cleric he could give you the some additional bulk while still having access to cleric spells.

Also, all of my party recommendations are from a powergaming perspective. I'm a firm believer in using characters you love over creating the perfect team. So if you love Tiax for the utter insanity he brings to the party, by all means use him. Just giving my 2 cents on his combat abilities.

Gallowglass

Yes, of course it's do-able. It's not powergaming-optimised, but you could eventually win with pretty much any possible party composition, if you know the game well (although if you tried it blind without foreknowledge, then you'd likely hit some sticky situations).

Yes, Safana's a good Thief, but if you want a change, then Alora is the best Thief in the game (whereas Tiax's additional Clerical support would be little benefit to a party which is already strong on divine casting).

Yes, Dorn's a good warrior and you could surely win with him as sole warrior, but the late stages of the game might prove more challenging than necessary. With a protagonist Druid and an NPC Cleric, you don't desperately need Faldorn as well, even with no Mage support. Also, with Safana (or Alora), you probably don't really need an NPC Assassin as well. Thus you'd have an easier time if you swapped either Faldorn or Vynd for another front-line warrior, although it's not essential. If I were in your shoes, I'd probably take Kivan, since you're currently looking a little lightweight on ranged attack (for which Kivan is excellent) and he can also do melee pretty well.

Francois

It seems redundant to have 2 rogues and 2 druids. You could also consider taking Eldoth. This would allow you to at least use arcane wands. I think it's doable without, but Durlag's and werewolf Island are much easier with a good wand of fire.

AdaJ

ToTSC stuff isn't too bad. What you really need for the Werewolf Isle is a couple of guys who can not only tank Karoug but be able to hit him reliably with whatever weapons that can hurt him (hope your guys have profficiency points in those or you are pretty much hosed). Other than that, it is pretty much a cake walk. Durlag is a lot harder because of the end boss, but still doable with just Druid and Cleric spellcasting, and knowing what to hit first and what to look out for.

JDow

If you're playing without a Mage, sorceror, etc. you can, right at the start of the game, pick up the Ring of Wizardry from outside the FAI and sell it for 9,000 gold. That's a lot of money to have available that early.

Southpaw

Perfectly doable. Actually, in BG1 (and partially in BG2) I'd say it's more difficult to go without a Thief, than a Mage.

Just going thru BGEE with a friend as multiplayer. He's a Blackguard, I'm a Fighter-Thief dual-class. No problems, just mage fights have to be a bit more tactical (heavy use of poison and off the mages asap and then it's just a cakewalk to clobber everyone else )

UnderstandMouseMagic

JDow said:

If you're playing without a Mage, sorceror, etc. you can, right at the start of the game, pick up the Ring of Wizardry from outside the FAI and sell it for 9,000 gold. That's a lot of money to have available that early.

I did a solo run with a swashbuckler, pure joy trading in that ring so early.

But to the OP. a good archer in BG is far more valuable than a mage.
Arrows of biting/dispelling/detonation take care of all the later game fights where you might consider it more difficult without a mage.

gunman

I sell the ring of wizardry even if I play a mage. Having the full plate mail or the light crossbow of speed has more impact at the beginning of the game than having two memorized spells instead of one. Later in the game when the money is not an issue, I can buy it back if I can't wait until Baldur's Gate.

Teo_live

Yeah Blackguards are OP as hell, each attack deals +12 interrupting stacking damage with NO SAVE... they are the ultimate cheese killing mages as even a 0 damage hit still stacks poison.

Playing without a mage in BG1 is an ADVANTAGE I reckon, mages are useless in the general grind, they always need babysitting and protecting, their non-aoe damage per round is below par (unless you somehow successfully play a gish using attack/spell cycling), and a low- level mage in big battles are luck reliant for their devastation hoping to pull off a successful save or suck/die spell.

Imho druids make much better "mages" than actual mages in the first game. Mages start to shine and become op in BG2, and finally taper off slightly balancing out in ToB.

ThacoBell

My mage in BG1 is usually just a sleep slinger

sarevok57

I've beaten bgee multiple times with 3 berserkers ( or dwarven defenders) 1 fighter, 1 kensai and one swashbuckler, so completely doable, the less spell casting you have the more potions you are going to need, there are LOTS of temples around with healing potions, so buy up, and plus, if you have no spell casters, no doubt that is being back up by some heavy hitting ranged characters ( or at least I would think it would be) so that more than makes up for it

CrevsDaak

Clerics are the best spellcasters in BG1. You have no need for Mages except for Sleep (maybe Slow later on but still, Clerics can just use Hold Person) at low levels, but just trade the Wand of Sleep for the Ring of Wizardry and you should be good.

Teo_live

@PentiumD Any reason why you want yet another priest class?

I know priest classes in general are insanely powerful in BG1... but at the rate your going you might as well replace your assassin with another priest and parade around as a pure divine party

BelgarathMTH

Priest power does taper off compared to mage power in BG2. Buffs and protections are nice, but once they're cast, a cleric can't do much in the hardest battles, especially if all the spell slots were used for the buffs with none left for summons and offensive magic. And a cleric or druid is never going to match a mage for sheer fire power or a berserker for sheer melee power.

Skatan

You don't "need" anything in BG1, it's perfectly doable with any combination of classes. I tend to go mage heavy nowadays but that's just because I think it's funny to start a battle with ie 4 fireballs. The fireworks is beautiful, hehe.. Other times I go fighter heavy and use Kagain, Dorn and Shar-teel + charname + thief + cleric (or Tiax) and then you can just go autopilot for 95% of the fights.

So yes, you can go without mage. I like both haste and slow with mages, but they aren't a must.

WarChiefZeke

Totally doable and even recommended, what you need a magic missile for when you can pick up another bow jockey?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.