Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Axis & Allies 1942 Online is now available in Early Access! Buy it on Steam. The FAQ is available.
New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

I have a confession to make

After playing through BG:EE 1 & 2 for a grand total of four times (not much compared to most of you, I know), it finally dawned on me that I actually prefer not to have mages in my party.

You read it right: I f***ng hate mages.

Also: I f***ng hate having six characters in a party. Three should suffice, four is pushing it, but six is a pain in the ***.

Too much downtime resting, too much maintenance, you only really need one mid-SoA, and their OP spell combos - admittedly game-changing ones - feel cheesy in the end.

A melee-centric party should be able to get the job done considerably faster and in fewer in-game days. Plenty of potions and trinkets to buy with all that extra cash you won't be spending on a mage. Or two. Or three.

Permidion_StarkStummvonBordwehrOrlonKronsteen

Comments

  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,091
    It really depends on your playstyle, but any party that escapes the classic fighter+cleric+thief+mage combination tends to develop tactics that make up for it. Melee centric spends more on potions, mage-centric relies on summons etc...

    ThacoBellAerakarBelgarathMTH
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 2,141

    I kind of agree, magic is a pain. Useful, but a pain.
    And although my favourite NPC is Edwin, one of the big reasons I always take him is because it makes the magic easy. Less management.
    Loads of spells, gets the high levels, learns the spells.

    And I haven't taken a party of six through for ages, probably much the same as most here.

    Aerakardunbar
  • AerakarAerakar Member Posts: 662
    I am running a party of 5 now in BG2 and it is beginning to annoy me. For me a party of 4 is optimal.

    I also don't use mages very often (but I love having clerics). I think this has made me a better player and mage fighter.

    StummvonBordwehrOrlonKronsteen
  • DordledumDordledum Member Posts: 201
    I actually love mages, but agree totally with the 4 character optimal party. Prefab D&D adventures are generally geared for 4 character parties too and for a reason.

    Aerakar
  • dunbardunbar Member Posts: 1,455
    I imagine that one reason why D&D is geared to a party of 4 is that it's a lot easier to get 4 people together on a regular basis than 6. Those 4 would start the game as a party and not need to recruit other members as the game progressed.
    It was only with the advent of BG, where your 'party' starts as a solo character, that the necessity to recruit npcs as you went along came into play (and of course these 'imaginary friends' don't have work or social commitments so are free to join you for a D&D session whenever you feel like it).

    AerakarBelgarathMTHThacoBell
  • SimulacreSimulacre Member Posts: 102
    What's the purpose of this thread ?

    Is this about the legitimacy of your playstyle ?

    If so, you're free to play the game any way you want. There's nothing to "confess" because there's no shame in disliking mages or large parties. You're absolutely right to set aside mages if they bore you and you shouldn't need our consent to be okay with that.

    Is this about strategy, powergaming ?

    If so, mages end up being the superior companions. Arcane casters get exponentially stronger as you progress whereas fighters are at their best at the beginning since most of the fighter's advantages - ability to wear an armor, a shield, a helmet, to use effectively one ranged weapons and one melee weapon et cetera - are available as soon as you start playing them.

    Is this about the legitimacy of high-level mages ?

    Yes, mages have incredibly strong spells. Is this cheesy ? I don't think so. It's tempting to consider those hive-level spells as broken but one should not forget how long and tedious it was to get there.

    Unlike fighters, cleric and druids who were empowered from the start, mages are a pain in BG1 for most of the game. Sure, they have one or two useful spells but most of the time they'll remain in the back of your party doing not much more than what a fighter could have done. For instance, a mage could cast magic missile, sure, but magic missile is not going to be much more effective than a good fighter's arrows. Yet, unlike the warrior who can shoot arrows as long as he has arrows - in practice, that's indefinitely - a mage is not going to have lots and lots of magic missiles when he's low-level, will be almost useless when spells depleted, will have inferior HP, AC, will need to rest more than others and and so on.

    In other words, they're dispensable and tedious. You don't need mages for most of BG1 if not the entire game to be effective. Just pick several fighters and multiply, strengthen the attacks with items : enemies will get crushed and this renders the need of affecting foes will various spells useless.

    So you see, while you're quick to point out how laughably superior mages end up being, you forget how laughably superior fighters start off. If one were to devoid high-level mages of their almighty spells, this would make the whole class a bust.

    Those spells are not the reason why mages are cheesy, they're the reason why a mage is as interesting as a typical fighter. Both are complementary and worthwhile. Remove those spells and fighters become cheesy themselves.

  • NoloirNoloir Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 310
    Ever considerbuying scrolls and letting mage cast them instead of spells from their book? Less resting that way.

Sign In or Register to comment.