C/M(I) vs. WM: Which is the most fun in a party and why?

Kneller

Pretty much just that. Have you played both? With which did you have the most fun and what made it so fun?

jsaving

Each wild mage surge has a chance to vaporize 80 percent of your gold, which I find so un-fun that I wouldn't consider carrying one in my party. Cleric/mage on the other hand has some interesting spell synergies and you can even pick whether you a PoL dualed to mage for burst melee DPS and improved alacrity, a mage dualed to cleric for a high-powered dispeller/turner who can also cast breach, or a standard-issue gnome CI.

borntodie

jsaving wrote: »

Each wild mage surge has a chance to vaporize 80 percent of your gold, which I find so un-fun that I wouldn't consider carrying one in my party.

Yeah. My feeling is that Wild Mage forces you to reload. I'm not a strict no-reload player, but I try hard to avoid doing anything that relies on it. Although the "cow drops from the sky" effect sounds pretty cool.

Also +1 to fun combinations for the C/M. Doom + greater malison in a sequencer, and so much else to try.

Blackbɨrd

Wild Mage. Just for the chaos and if you want something different it is perfect. Cleric/Mage or Mage/Cleric are kinda standard and boring. Wild Mage on the other hand has the opportunity to throw stuff at you.

Blackbɨrd

Side note, I wish so much that Wild Mages could dual-class. That would make the class even more unpredictable and I feel that Wild Mage dualed into a thief would be a lot of fun.

Khyron

Depends on partysize.. if full party, then a C/M Multiclass would be a bit tame.. a dual class would still work though, in any number of lvls/order of things.. and i guess that could be fun.

But i think for a bit of flare and shenanigans a wild mage would be better..

Balrog99

Truthfully, I have yet to play a Wild Mage or take Neera along for more than a brief stay. The randomness doesn't appeal to me a whole lot. If you have patience I hear it pays off in the end with an almost unbeatable monster-mage that never has to rest. Unfortunately, for 9/10 of the game you have a ticking time-?.

ThacoBell

Multiclasses are just more fun.

VanDerBerg

I was contemplating between these two classes for one of my playthroughs and I decided I didn't like either. Both are, to me, end-game powerhouses that are outclassed by other similar classes before the end. C/M has potential for some wicked combos in sequencers and contingencies, but it takes forever to get there. Sounds meh to me to have your full power only for the last few battles in ToB. Wild Mages, similarly - at the end game, they are possibly the most powerful class in the game, but before your wild surges become more reliable, they sound like a liability.

If I were to chose between the two, I'd go for C/M. But I'd much rather do C -> M and dual at level 9 or 11.

jsaving

The main problem with wild mages is that once you know how to play the game, you can more or less do it without reloads except when the dice go wildly against you. By adding variability, wild magic increases the odds of those random setbacks and hence makes you weaker rather than stronger, even if you eventually reach a point where the "average" surge becomes more reliable.

Of course, a lot of people like wild mages precisely because they win more or less automatically without them and are looking to shake things up a bit. If that's what you are looking for, then wild mage may be just what the doctor ordered. But that is a separate argument from whether wild mages are strong/strongest overall.

Kneller

jsaving wrote: »

But that is a separate argument from whether wild mages are strong/strongest overall.

Well, it's not so much about strength as it is fun factor. Between the two, I would think the question is if sacrificing some higher level mage spells for a full complement of cleric spells is more fun, and does the fun of wild surges (if you consider them fun) and more higher level mage spells make up for the extra options you get as a cleric/mage. But there could be other variables I haven't considered, so I wanted to open up discussion on it.

VanDerBerg

'Fun' is quite a subjective category, but I wouldn't sacrifice highest-level mage spells for the highest level cleric spells. In terms of raw power, there is no comparison - I consider mage spells of level 7 or so and above miles ahead of anything that clerics can do. In terms of fun, I would also consider mage powers more fun - Time Stop, sequencers and contingencies allow for some very fun combinations and mage fencing is also quite fun. As opposed to that, level 7 cleric spells and HLAs are quite meh considering when you get them. There is undoubtedly some good stuff there, but nowhere near as useful as on lower levels (again, taking into account the point in the game when you get these spells). Hence, Cleric -> Mage wins.

DinoDin

Just my own experience of course, but I've never found the cleric-mage combo useful from a combat role perspective.

Because of the pecularities of the infinity engine, it's much better to have a strong weapon-based class (thief or fighter) combined with one of the spell-based classes (mage, cleric or druid). Because you can use attacks and spell-casting in the same round, within some limitations. But you can't stack spell casting into the same rounds, with the exception of using some higher level abilities/gear. And a number of cleric spells have especially long casting times.

Even the addition of weapon types isn't all that useful, as you are limited to one point in two-weapon style, and the mage weapons have plenty of adequate options -- quarterstaff and dagger. The only real gain in terms of gear is the use of a shield. But even that might lose out to some great quarterstaff options like Magi.

The only way I see this class as useful is if what you build a party where you stack an unusually high number of fighters or some other odd combination, and this efficiency of cleric-mage lets do that without worrying about being deficient in healing or in mage-piercing. Nonetheless, the character is always going to have a somewhat underwhelming role in combat, imo.

Balrog99

DinoDin wrote: »

Just my own experience of course, but I've never found the cleric-mage combo useful from a combat role perspective.

Because of the pecularities of the infinity engine, it's much better to have a strong weapon-based class (thief or fighter) combined with one of the spell-based classes (mage, cleric or druid). Because you can use attacks and spell-casting in the same round, within some limitations. But you can't stack spell casting into the same rounds, with the exception of using some higher level abilities/gear. And a number of cleric spells have especially long casting times.

Even the addition of weapon types isn't all that useful, as you are limited to one point in two-weapon style, and the mage weapons have plenty of adequate options -- quarterstaff and dagger. The only real gain in terms of gear is the use of a shield. But even that might lose out to some great quarterstaff options like Magi.

The only way I see this class as useful is if what you build a party where you stack an unusually high number of fighters or some other odd combination, and this efficiency of cleric-mage lets do that without worrying about being deficient in healing or in mage-piercing. Nonetheless, the character is always going to have a somewhat underwhelming role in combat, imo.

There's also the interesting meta-magic contingency/spell-trigger combos to consider though...