What bothers me is not why a Mage/Wizard learns spells but how he memorizes them.
The Vancian magic is pretty silly. Instead of using points or mana or stamina, the Mage memorizes each spell individually and then when he casts it, he forgets it. Which is a pretty weird system.
I understand how someone can learn magic. The same way someone learns "science" or to play an instrument with notes, or programming etc.
Though I like the Sorcerer more as it's more intuitive to pick a few spells and use them as you wish until you run out and need to rest. You can rationalize that as getting tired and losing focus as it takes a toll on you. Like if you're working for hours and you cannot think straight unless you go to sleep.
You are pretty much arguing past me, and with some rather absurd points. Debates can be fun but it would be a nice gesture if you exercised a little more careful thought before you loosed your points.
I don't write the lore of D&D, but I don't think Mages make more sence than Sorcerers. Why could you "learn" magic ? Okay you could learn some incantations, but why would it produce anything
In PnP, spells have verbal (spoken), somatic (gesturing), and material components. Most spells need two or three components to pull off. Learning spells involves speaking the chants correctly, gesturing correctly, and using the material components at the right time.
This is also a reason why sorcerer spellcasting is absurd - their magic is innate and does not require components, so why do they have to be tied to a mage class? There is no reason why they should have more spell slots than a mage or a dragon/fiend.
They often have the blood of Dragons or Fiends in their veins which give them innate magical abilities.
Nobody is denying the veracity of your point. The real point is that dragons and fiends do not have even half as many spell slots as a sorcerer - how does a sorcerer, whose innate magic derives from his ancestry, acquire more powerful and advanced innate magic than his innate-magic-using ancestors when that very ancestry is watered down?
Considering the balance issue, I really think the Wish strategy is completely overrated and sucks. It isn't the real power of Sorcerer, Timestop + Alacrity isn't either. You can cast 4-5 spells per round without Improved Alacrity as a Sorcerer, and Wish only has about 10-15% chance of giving you the rest option with 18 Wisdom which is terribly bad (About 20-25% chance with 25 Wisdom). Sorcerers are awesomely stronger than Mages because of their flexibility, If I want to regain my spells mid fight, I know some other, 100% reliable way, to do so without Wish, and I could do so with only 3-4 spell per level.
Shrugs. The gaming community has probably become so advanced that players have become very good at tapping into the various versions of infinite spell loops.
I've derailed this thread enough, so I'd better get my behind down to answering your initial question...
Both mages and sorcerers are good in their own ways, and are relevant in a party.
Sorcerers are most efficiently used as specialized casters with more frequent use of a few select spells. In BG/BG2, this typically means spamming damage (ADHW or the L10 spells, but usually the L9 slots are better used for spells like Improved Alacrity, Time Stop, etc.) and abusing infinite spell loops (Spell Trap variants, Wish, etc.). When you aren't spamming damage, you can spam disabling spells, assuming you chose the latter spells.
Mages are more utilitarian - they can usually pull off similar spell sequences as the sorcerer but with a shortened run due to fewer spell slots. If you can beat the toughest of opponents with a shortened run, you won't really miss much. Mages can be great as support casters with their wider spell access, especially for casting spells that your sorcerer did not take up. Mages also can be part of a dual or multiclassed character, allowing for spellsword builds (Fighter/Mage variants) or magic jack-of-all-trades builds (Cleric/Mage variants) - this allows you to deviate from the brain-dead-sorcerer strategy.
However, the choice of a mage should be partly based on your general party lineup - mages need scrolls to be effective and you don't want a party full of mages to fight over a limited number of scrolls. Low to mid-level (up to L6) scrolls are aplenty, but L7+ scrolls are quite rare, especially in SOA. Sure, you can get some L7-L8 scrolls as random drops, but it's not reliable and you might get spells that aren't very useful.
My preference is to take one sorcerer and two mages in a party. Three or more mages if you are planning to build specialized utility casters (e.g. a mage that focuses on casting select buffing spells) and/or you are importing a mage type character with a full spell book.
As for the equipping, Robe of Vecna and Amulet of Power can be used by a sorcerer or a kensage - an argument can be made for either case. A sorcerer can make use of these items to pull off his strongest spell sequences quickly, but a kensage can also use them to cast strategic spells quickly at the front line and start swinging away to buy time for the sorcerer to pull off his spell sequences afterwards - in fact, a strong party with multiple spellsword builds can actually smash the opposition on their own without needing any assistance from the sorcerer, just as a sorcerer can take out parties on his own. In my party, my kensage wears the robe and amulet, and after a first round Timestop or two, what's left of the opposition tends to be a few stragglers, which I would then take out in melee to conserve spells. In really hard fights when consistent area bombardment from the sorcerer is preferable, I'll get the sorcerer to equip the robe and amulet and use my spellswords to engage enemies to buy breathing room for my sorcerer to pull off his spells.
For reference, a L13/28 Kensage has max spell progression (includes slots from HLAs but not items) 5/5/5/5/5/6/6/5/4 compared to a sorcerer's 6/6/6/6/6/7/7/7/6, so he can actually make good use of these equips compared to a multiclassed caster - a Fighter/Mage at max spell progression only has 5/5/5/5/5/5/4/4/2. From experience, the minimum number of L9 slots required for a mage to function at near-par level with a sorcerer is four (three is manageable, but very tight). It never hurts to have as many L7 and L8 slots as you can.
Fellow members, please add on if you have insights I missed. No fanboyism please - give credit to both classes where it is due and take time to explain how both of them can be used at their best.
@Archaos I read in my PnP books that infact, when mages awake and prepare their spells, which take them 1 hour, they cast every spell of the day at this moment. But a spell has a casting time of about 10 minutes, and mages learn to speak 99% of the incantation at this moment of the day, and tell the last few words during a fight for example, that's why the spell is exhausted and cannot be used again.
The more experienced the mage is, the faster he can recite his incantations, leading to more spells being recited during this 1 hour of preparation every day, leading to more spells per day. RP wise, a mage should be able to cast any spell in his book at will, but it would take 10 minutes.
I hope it makes sense, my english isn't very good and I had trouble to explain it.
@jacobtan My points aren't absurds, they aren't true either. We are speaking about magic, something that has never existed, and will never exist. They are no "truth" when dealing about such subjects. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm weigthing the pros and cons of the D&D system. But in the end, it all come down to our imagination.
For example you said "Try reading a script that is not in any language that you know, and see if you need practice to get it right." but why would you need to get it right ? For some people, reciting an incantation wouldn't produce any effects if you don't speak it with the perfect intonation. For others, it would produce the contrary of what you were trying to achieve, and for some like me, pronuncing an incantation should always produce something, but the more precise you are, the more powerful the result should be. There is no good or bad answers, because it doesn't exist.
I'm leaning towards the Sorcerer point of view probably because I'm biased, I played some games with "mana" and it was similar to how a Sorcerer cast his spells. It seems more fitting to me. I don't get how you can cast spell as a mage, because in my opinion, if you don't have some innate abilities, speaking incantations won't work.
To my mind, the most "logical" way of casting spells would be to practice a lot, to enhance some innate abilities (some kind of multiclass Sorcerer/Mage). Practicing alone cannot make you a mage, but innate abilities alone would make you a very poor spellcaster. But that's only what I find the most logical, D&D didn't choose this approach and I'm fine with it.
The only thing I dislike about the Sorcerer approach in D&D is the fact that you can be depleted of your first level spell, but you can still cast some level 2 spells. IMO, the will/mana that allows you to cast spells should be split between all your spells.
Concerning dragons, in 3E, they don't cast only 2/2/2/etc spells per day, they cast like a Sorcerer of level X, where X depends of the power level of the dragon. And fiends know a very limited amount of spells, but can cast them at will (except some very powerful ones, like Wish for example IIRC), which is a bit similar to the Sorcerers.
Concerning your last post, I agree with everything you say gameplay-wise, good one !
Let me share my opinion. I have played sorcerer before few years and I found it very powerfull, rest of party was superflous in most of battles in SoA. But in middle and late ToB, socerrer sucks. Variety of spells is very limiting factor, expecially when you fight somebody immune to timestop. Mage is a lot more versatile and it is more fun. In SoA you have to use logic in battles instead of 6x fireball. Dont get me wrong, sorcerrer is MUCH more powerfull in this style, but this style become boring very quickly.
For wild mages: They are considered as better specialist than lets say conjuer (but since ee best is INVOKER, miss no spells since level 6 spells, no enchantment spells there) because of ability cast dweomer - level 9 spells in level 1 slot. Here is simple probability: Withouth shield you have probability about 3-7% to cast spell withouth any defects (3-7 good options to 100 options). With improved shield probability grows to 28 - 32% if ex. 107 roll == 100 roll. For me, to unsure effect. So best of mages is probably our favourite specialist (pure mage misses too many spells in my opinion, but ability to dual class).
For Sorcerers: Roleplaying sucks. You dont know what are you doing you just somehow know how to cast spells. Well....???? Moreover they can cast as complicated spells as mages? Well, even if they can, more things are weird. How can they read scrolls? Mage have to study for years some uneasy languages to understand it. And sorcerer can read it withouth this study? Its like mathematical genius that cant read cant read any mathematical book - he will not understand the symbols. They are strongest* yes, but unfunny and roleplaying sucks.
* They are strongest against monsters but will lose to any good mage. Lets think about it. Mage has too versatility and with something like teleport spell he can flee and return when pick good spells, that are weak spot of sorc. To monsters more spells == more dmg and thus sorc wins. Against mages, you need another mage, if the mages in game would be smart, sorc will loose.
Short version: Sorcs are best against most monsters, but also unfunny, suck roleplaying and weak against mages because of lack of versatility. Mages are great, but less spells limith their dmg. I found them more funny.
NOTE1: Sorc can pick spells that are 'wise' and you dont need to play them as fireballmachine. But here, versatility wins.
NOTE2: Argument like sorc cand be strongest arcane is false. If I remember in xp cap sorc have 9 more spells than mage specialist. This means that Edwin has 9 more spells than sorc. For sorc num of spells is everything, and hell loose. But edwin personality sucks and I kill him every time. Unlucky to him, simple improved invisibility is enough to kill him.
So, some thoughts here, coming from a tabletop perspective.
I'm a veteran of D&D 3.0/3.5, and still running campaigns / playing characters in that ruleset. Myself, and most everyone I know, has veered away from playing wizards (mages) and specialist wizards due to the headache of keeping up with not only what spells you prepare in the morning, but also what spells you scribe into your spellbook, how many pages that takes up, how much it costs to scribe the spells in, etc. Count yourself lucky you don't deal with all that junk for a computer game. Sorcerers, on the other hand, have all of their complication up-front when you choose the spell list, and then it's smooth sailing after that.
I don't get the "sorcerers are unfun to roleplay" angle. You have magic in your blood from an unusual heritage, such as being descended from dragons (the most common sorcerer), or angels, or demons, or devils, or aberrations. The magic began manifesting itself when you were a child, whether you wanted it or not, and all kinds of magical accidents may have occurred. You learned magic instinctually, you didn't just wake up one morning and start throwing fireballs. It probably started as a candle flame, or something that caught the drapes on fire. You still had to practice, just not in the same way that wizards do with their rote memorization. Finally, in 3.0/3.5 sorcerers have their spellcasting based on Charisma, so yes, they do need at least one statistic. This can end up making you the face of the party, which is plenty of fun to roleplay. With your strange heritage, innate magic and exotic flair, you have plenty of plot hooks and roleplaying opportunities to grab ahold of.
If you genuinely enjoy the process of spell preparation, then the typical Vancian magic we are all familiar with should be fine and you will enjoy your mage, cleric, druid, etc. Personally, I think being able to cast all the spells you know is much more flavorful and fun. I strongly recommend sorcerers, psions, beguilers, warmages and favored souls in D&D 3.5 for this reason, you can quit worrying about upkeep and get back to roleplaying.
As an adjunct here: I like the addition of the shaman class with SoD. Could we possibly see the adoption of the favored soul class from 3.5? They cast more like sorcerers but are still divinely inspired, choosing spells from the cleric spell list. They also have a couple of side benefits like gaining elemental resistances and gaining bonuses with their deity's favored weapon. They lose turn undead, which is painful in 3.5 but would be an acceptable loss for Baldur's Gate I think.
So, some thoughts here, coming from a tabletop perspective.
I'm a veteran of D&D 3.0/3.5, and still running campaigns / playing characters in that ruleset. Myself, and most everyone I know, has veered away from playing wizards (mages) and specialist wizards due to the headache of keeping up with not only what spells you prepare in the morning, but also what spells you scribe into your spellbook, how many pages that takes up, how much it costs to scribe the spells in, etc. Count yourself lucky you don't deal with all that junk for a computer game. Sorcerers, on the other hand, have all of their complication up-front when you choose the spell list, and then it's smooth sailing after that.
I don't get the "sorcerers are unfun to roleplay" angle. You have magic in your blood from an unusual heritage, such as being descended from dragons (the most common sorcerer), or angels, or demons, or devils, or aberrations. The magic began manifesting itself when you were a child, whether you wanted it or not, and all kinds of magical accidents may have occurred. You learned magic instinctually, you didn't just wake up one morning and start throwing fireballs. It probably started as a candle flame, or something that caught the drapes on fire. You still had to practice, just not in the same way that wizards do with their rote memorization. Finally, in 3.0/3.5 sorcerers have their spellcasting based on Charisma, so yes, they do need at least one statistic. This can end up making you the face of the party, which is plenty of fun to roleplay. With your strange heritage, innate magic and exotic flair, you have plenty of plot hooks and roleplaying opportunities to grab ahold of.
If you genuinely enjoy the process of spell preparation, then the typical Vancian magic we are all familiar with should be fine and you will enjoy your mage, cleric, druid, etc. Personally, I think being able to cast all the spells you know is much more flavorful and fun. I strongly recommend sorcerers, psions, beguilers, warmages and favored souls in D&D 3.5 for this reason, you can quit worrying about upkeep and get back to roleplaying.
As an adjunct here: I like the addition of the shaman class with SoD. Could we possibly see the adoption of the favored soul class from 3.5? They cast more like sorcerers but are still divinely inspired, choosing spells from the cleric spell list. They also have a couple of side benefits like gaining elemental resistances and gaining bonuses with their deity's favored weapon. They lose turn undead, which is painful in 3.5 but would be an acceptable loss for Baldur's Gate I think.
Well this is another perspective. Yet I disagree with middle part. but first things first:
1) How charisma affect spellcasting of sorc in bg series? Just ask, I dont really know. 2) Wake up and cast fireball. Well, you may be right, you start with candle etc. But HOW sorc can learn something like pierce shileld spell? It is not about instints, but about knowledge, knowing the very deep aspects of magic. It cannot be done somehow withouth any clue about magic science. 3) I dont say sorc are bad. I said I found them boring, although they are very powerfull till middle of ToB. 4) Sorc are not supposed to be able to cast spells from scrolls. Just with charisma, they may ant read! I feel it like this: Mages DO have some talent in their veins, but learn to controll it, study it etc. Sorcs have greater unhuman talent, enough strong to make them able to cast spells withouth study. But see my 2nd point. 5) Sorcs have greatest arcane dmg potential. Undoubt. This is their strength. But in fair fight, mage will win. 6) Shammans are great. I found them very funny and strong supporters, very balanced with clerics (druids are weak in bg series, lets face it).
@LordRumfish I wanted to Like, Agree and Insightful your post but alas... @Bobesh Sorcerers use magic as an instinct, their skill is innate passed on by their heritage. It requires knowledge and study for a mage because they are not magical by nature. Sorcerers wield spells the same way many animals have instincts to do things that are seemingly very complex.
@Bobesh You know how some musicians go to college, learn how to sight read from a musical score, and can compose orchestral pieces with 50 different moving parts? Other musicians can be self-taught, learn to play an instrument "by ear" with no formal training, and can sing harmony without knowing what key the music is in or what a jazz scale is?
Imagine for a moment that you are a sorcerer. Sure, you can fling fireballs, but now you're in a mage duel and you need to cast Breach. The wizard knows this spell through painstaking study, learning the effects of his enemies' spells carefully and just as carefully learning how to counter and unravel them through a series of magical processes. You, as a sorcerer, instead feel the magic surrounding your foe, and reach out with your soul energy to start untwisting the pieces by hand. You have not studied in the same way, but you can feel how the magic is woven together, and how best to take it apart comes naturally, like pulling at the right loops in a knotted rope.
A different, more extreme example: you are invested with energy by your heritage, and sometimes that energy was used for specific purposes such as unraveling magic enchantments. By virtue of your nature, the knowledge comes to you unbidden and unwanted, written into your DNA and your very soul in much the same way that angels and demons serve exact purposes with their very existence. Whether or not you understand the significance of the spells you know, they were invested into your ancestors to serve their celestial functions, and now that echoes within you, bringing the same knowledge to bear like a sort of racial memory.
Anyway. It's cool if you prefer mages to sorcerers. I was just hoping to expand some viewpoints.
Thx for your opinios, I appreciate them. Biologically yes, instinct of animals are complex. But, and its crucial, for animals their insticts are giving them very few informations, because animals (with some exeptions like octopus) are not able to accept more complex information. Similar for sorcs. Their magic instint IS coplex. But since they dont need inteligence, their gift has to be smiple in their eyes, giving them just feelings like born reflexes. And thus, they are not suppose to be able to cast spells from scrolls. Period.
Thx for your opinios, I appreciate them. Biologically yes, instinct of animals are complex. But, and its crucial, for animals their insticts are giving them very few informations, because animals (with some exeptions like octopus) are not able to accept more complex information. Similar for sorcs. Their magic instint IS coplex. But since they dont need inteligence, their gift has to be smiple in their eyes, giving them just feelings like born reflexes. And thus, they are not suppose to be able to cast spells from scrolls. Period.
On this point, D&D 3.5 agrees with you. In order to cast a scroll, you not only need for it be arcane or divine, for the spell to appear on your spell list, and for the scroll to be of your caster level or lower (you can cast more powerful scrolls, but it requires rolls and may backfire), but you have to decipher the scroll in the first place. This can be done with a Spellcraft skill check (which sorcerers may learn, just like wizards), or the use of a cantrip spell called Read Magic. This is to say, that a sorcerer cannot automatically cast a scroll in 3.5, there is at least some level of aptitude required. Of course, the skill Use Magic Device also exists in 3.5, and a fighter, however poorly, could train the skill cross-class and attempt to use magic items reserved for other classes. It's just a different beast than 2nd edition.
In Baldur's Gate terms: the spellcaster would effectively need a high enough Lore skill or an Identify spell to be able to use any spell scroll, or even know what it was.
Sorcerers are just easier to play as there no hashle with the spell book. Its like plug & play. You choose your spells as you level up and they are always available. With mage the class you are constantly adjusting his spellbook (which can be fun as you have more room to experiment and hone that perfect magic strategy), but for a new player, it can feel quite taxing as you have likely other npc mages who require this kind of micromanagement.
Sorcerer can still use all those extra spell scrolls you find during your travels. Not to mention magical wands which there is no shortage of. So his spell selection isn't that limiting.
There are plenty of mage companions, but almost no sorcerers (unless you're using npc mods which I kind of recommand. Dynaheir for instance makes an awesome sorcerer ).
There are only few really must have spells in each level, so at the end of day you're not missing much in terms of raw power. And where sorcerer is lacking, you can always bring an extra mage to fill the spot.
Rolelplaying wise, sorcerer is a very fitting backround for a main character as you have these internal magical abilities anyhow.
If you're going with a mage class, I'd choose to be a fighter-mage instead.
@Caradoc This is a little off-topic (and very late), but I'll bring it around to your point about Sorcerers.
I use Shadowkeeper to edit some characters in order to make the game more fun.
I think it's probably better to leave as is the first time through, but by now I've played it so many times I'd rather optimize my party even if it involves tweaking things; I don't consider what I do to be "cheating", because I'm not changing the rules... just changing characters. So, from an RP perspective, I don't consider that a problem; I'm making more fun parties while getting to keep the great characters rather than playing co-op multi-player and having a fully created party (without the fun of the characters' personalities).
I think Minsc would've been a half-orc barbarian had the race and/or class been available in BG1, so... I see no problem with changing either or both. Especially as, when I do, I create a new char to see what talents they would have and I just carry it over, so Minsc will end up having the true skillset, HP, etc of a Half-orc Barbarian; I don't let him keep his Ranger skills, just berserk, or rage, whatever it's called.
I also like Jahiera, but hate druids; from an rp perspective, I'd say a Druid is essentially a ranger/cleric, but I find Ranger/Cleric multi-class to be infinitely more useful than Fighter/Druid, so I typically change her class/skills if I plan on keeping her in my party.
So... in that spirit, sorcerer Imoen seems a very obvious fit.
(I also don't hate Nalia as a mage and/or thief, but her thief skills are so pathetic, I don't see the point. Specialist mage, or make her a true thief - whether or not you plan on dual-classing in Mage after you get her to a high enough level to be useful as a thief - makes sense... but... to me, while Ranger Nalia doesn't seem fitting, Archer Nalia does. Seems fitting that she'd learn Ranger skills living in the Keep surrounded by nature, and imagining a noblewoman trained to use a bow doesn't seem remotely outlandish. Add to that you can give her the racial enemy of Trolls... I love how useful that makes her.
Valygar should probably be a Wizard Slayer, but not being able to use magic items is lame, so I keep him as is.
Anomen to Paladin (Cavalier) makes sense if he passes his test.
Comments
The Vancian magic is pretty silly. Instead of using points or mana or stamina, the Mage memorizes each spell individually and then when he casts it, he forgets it.
Which is a pretty weird system.
I understand how someone can learn magic. The same way someone learns "science" or to play an instrument with notes, or programming etc.
Though I like the Sorcerer more as it's more intuitive to pick a few spells and use them as you wish until you run out and need to rest.
You can rationalize that as getting tired and losing focus as it takes a toll on you.
Like if you're working for hours and you cannot think straight unless you go to sleep.
This is also a reason why sorcerer spellcasting is absurd - their magic is innate and does not require components, so why do they have to be tied to a mage class? There is no reason why they should have more spell slots than a mage or a dragon/fiend. Find some incantation IRL that actually works and then speak it. Don't confuse fantasy with reality, please. Try reading a script that is not in any language that you know, and see if you need practice to get it right. It is indeed you, but you have fellow sorcerer fans here for support. Nobody is denying the veracity of your point. The real point is that dragons and fiends do not have even half as many spell slots as a sorcerer - how does a sorcerer, whose innate magic derives from his ancestry, acquire more powerful and advanced innate magic than his innate-magic-using ancestors when that very ancestry is watered down? Shrugs. The gaming community has probably become so advanced that players have become very good at tapping into the various versions of infinite spell loops.
I've derailed this thread enough, so I'd better get my behind down to answering your initial question...
Both mages and sorcerers are good in their own ways, and are relevant in a party.
Sorcerers are most efficiently used as specialized casters with more frequent use of a few select spells. In BG/BG2, this typically means spamming damage (ADHW or the L10 spells, but usually the L9 slots are better used for spells like Improved Alacrity, Time Stop, etc.) and abusing infinite spell loops (Spell Trap variants, Wish, etc.). When you aren't spamming damage, you can spam disabling spells, assuming you chose the latter spells.
Mages are more utilitarian - they can usually pull off similar spell sequences as the sorcerer but with a shortened run due to fewer spell slots. If you can beat the toughest of opponents with a shortened run, you won't really miss much. Mages can be great as support casters with their wider spell access, especially for casting spells that your sorcerer did not take up. Mages also can be part of a dual or multiclassed character, allowing for spellsword builds (Fighter/Mage variants) or magic jack-of-all-trades builds (Cleric/Mage variants) - this allows you to deviate from the brain-dead-sorcerer strategy.
However, the choice of a mage should be partly based on your general party lineup - mages need scrolls to be effective and you don't want a party full of mages to fight over a limited number of scrolls. Low to mid-level (up to L6) scrolls are aplenty, but L7+ scrolls are quite rare, especially in SOA. Sure, you can get some L7-L8 scrolls as random drops, but it's not reliable and you might get spells that aren't very useful.
My preference is to take one sorcerer and two mages in a party. Three or more mages if you are planning to build specialized utility casters (e.g. a mage that focuses on casting select buffing spells) and/or you are importing a mage type character with a full spell book.
As for the equipping, Robe of Vecna and Amulet of Power can be used by a sorcerer or a kensage - an argument can be made for either case. A sorcerer can make use of these items to pull off his strongest spell sequences quickly, but a kensage can also use them to cast strategic spells quickly at the front line and start swinging away to buy time for the sorcerer to pull off his spell sequences afterwards - in fact, a strong party with multiple spellsword builds can actually smash the opposition on their own without needing any assistance from the sorcerer, just as a sorcerer can take out parties on his own. In my party, my kensage wears the robe and amulet, and after a first round Timestop or two, what's left of the opposition tends to be a few stragglers, which I would then take out in melee to conserve spells. In really hard fights when consistent area bombardment from the sorcerer is preferable, I'll get the sorcerer to equip the robe and amulet and use my spellswords to engage enemies to buy breathing room for my sorcerer to pull off his spells.
For reference, a L13/28 Kensage has max spell progression (includes slots from HLAs but not items) 5/5/5/5/5/6/6/5/4 compared to a sorcerer's 6/6/6/6/6/7/7/7/6, so he can actually make good use of these equips compared to a multiclassed caster - a Fighter/Mage at max spell progression only has 5/5/5/5/5/5/4/4/2. From experience, the minimum number of L9 slots required for a mage to function at near-par level with a sorcerer is four (three is manageable, but very tight). It never hurts to have as many L7 and L8 slots as you can.
Fellow members, please add on if you have insights I missed. No fanboyism please - give credit to both classes where it is due and take time to explain how both of them can be used at their best.
The more experienced the mage is, the faster he can recite his incantations, leading to more spells being recited during this 1 hour of preparation every day, leading to more spells per day. RP wise, a mage should be able to cast any spell in his book at will, but it would take 10 minutes.
I hope it makes sense, my english isn't very good and I had trouble to explain it.
@jacobtan My points aren't absurds, they aren't true either. We are speaking about magic, something that has never existed, and will never exist. They are no "truth" when dealing about such subjects. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm weigthing the pros and cons of the D&D system. But in the end, it all come down to our imagination.
For example you said "Try reading a script that is not in any language that you know, and see if you need practice to get it right." but why would you need to get it right ? For some people, reciting an incantation wouldn't produce any effects if you don't speak it with the perfect intonation. For others, it would produce the contrary of what you were trying to achieve, and for some like me, pronuncing an incantation should always produce something, but the more precise you are, the more powerful the result should be.
There is no good or bad answers, because it doesn't exist.
I'm leaning towards the Sorcerer point of view probably because I'm biased, I played some games with "mana" and it was similar to how a Sorcerer cast his spells. It seems more fitting to me.
I don't get how you can cast spell as a mage, because in my opinion, if you don't have some innate abilities, speaking incantations won't work.
To my mind, the most "logical" way of casting spells would be to practice a lot, to enhance some innate abilities (some kind of multiclass Sorcerer/Mage). Practicing alone cannot make you a mage, but innate abilities alone would make you a very poor spellcaster. But that's only what I find the most logical, D&D didn't choose this approach and I'm fine with it.
The only thing I dislike about the Sorcerer approach in D&D is the fact that you can be depleted of your first level spell, but you can still cast some level 2 spells. IMO, the will/mana that allows you to cast spells should be split between all your spells.
Concerning dragons, in 3E, they don't cast only 2/2/2/etc spells per day, they cast like a Sorcerer of level X, where X depends of the power level of the dragon. And fiends know a very limited amount of spells, but can cast them at will (except some very powerful ones, like Wish for example IIRC), which is a bit similar to the Sorcerers.
Concerning your last post, I agree with everything you say gameplay-wise, good one !
For wild mages: They are considered as better specialist than lets say conjuer (but since ee best is INVOKER, miss no spells since level 6 spells, no enchantment spells there) because of ability cast dweomer - level 9 spells in level 1 slot. Here is simple probability: Withouth shield you have probability about 3-7% to cast spell withouth any defects (3-7 good options to 100 options). With improved shield probability grows to 28 - 32% if ex. 107 roll == 100 roll. For me, to unsure effect. So best of mages is probably our favourite specialist (pure mage misses too many spells in my opinion, but ability to dual class).
For Sorcerers: Roleplaying sucks. You dont know what are you doing you just somehow know how to cast spells. Well....???? Moreover they can cast as complicated spells as mages? Well, even if they can, more things are weird. How can they read scrolls? Mage have to study for years some uneasy languages to understand it. And sorcerer can read it withouth this study? Its like mathematical genius that cant read cant read any mathematical book - he will not understand the symbols. They are strongest* yes, but unfunny and roleplaying sucks.
* They are strongest against monsters but will lose to any good mage. Lets think about it. Mage has too versatility and with something like teleport spell he can flee and return when pick good spells, that are weak spot of sorc. To monsters more spells == more dmg and thus sorc wins. Against mages, you need another mage, if the mages in game would be smart, sorc will loose.
Short version: Sorcs are best against most monsters, but also unfunny, suck roleplaying and weak against mages because of lack of versatility. Mages are great, but less spells limith their dmg. I found them more funny.
NOTE1: Sorc can pick spells that are 'wise' and you dont need to play them as fireballmachine. But here, versatility wins.
NOTE2: Argument like sorc cand be strongest arcane is false. If I remember in xp cap sorc have 9 more spells than mage specialist. This means that Edwin has 9 more spells than sorc. For sorc num of spells is everything, and hell loose. But edwin personality sucks and I kill him every time. Unlucky to him, simple improved invisibility is enough to kill him.
I'm a veteran of D&D 3.0/3.5, and still running campaigns / playing characters in that ruleset. Myself, and most everyone I know, has veered away from playing wizards (mages) and specialist wizards due to the headache of keeping up with not only what spells you prepare in the morning, but also what spells you scribe into your spellbook, how many pages that takes up, how much it costs to scribe the spells in, etc. Count yourself lucky you don't deal with all that junk for a computer game. Sorcerers, on the other hand, have all of their complication up-front when you choose the spell list, and then it's smooth sailing after that.
I don't get the "sorcerers are unfun to roleplay" angle. You have magic in your blood from an unusual heritage, such as being descended from dragons (the most common sorcerer), or angels, or demons, or devils, or aberrations. The magic began manifesting itself when you were a child, whether you wanted it or not, and all kinds of magical accidents may have occurred. You learned magic instinctually, you didn't just wake up one morning and start throwing fireballs. It probably started as a candle flame, or something that caught the drapes on fire. You still had to practice, just not in the same way that wizards do with their rote memorization. Finally, in 3.0/3.5 sorcerers have their spellcasting based on Charisma, so yes, they do need at least one statistic. This can end up making you the face of the party, which is plenty of fun to roleplay. With your strange heritage, innate magic and exotic flair, you have plenty of plot hooks and roleplaying opportunities to grab ahold of.
If you genuinely enjoy the process of spell preparation, then the typical Vancian magic we are all familiar with should be fine and you will enjoy your mage, cleric, druid, etc. Personally, I think being able to cast all the spells you know is much more flavorful and fun. I strongly recommend sorcerers, psions, beguilers, warmages and favored souls in D&D 3.5 for this reason, you can quit worrying about upkeep and get back to roleplaying.
As an adjunct here: I like the addition of the shaman class with SoD. Could we possibly see the adoption of the favored soul class from 3.5? They cast more like sorcerers but are still divinely inspired, choosing spells from the cleric spell list. They also have a couple of side benefits like gaining elemental resistances and gaining bonuses with their deity's favored weapon. They lose turn undead, which is painful in 3.5 but would be an acceptable loss for Baldur's Gate I think.
1) How charisma affect spellcasting of sorc in bg series? Just ask, I dont really know.
2) Wake up and cast fireball. Well, you may be right, you start with candle etc. But HOW sorc can learn something like pierce shileld spell? It is not about instints, but about knowledge, knowing the very deep aspects of magic. It cannot be done somehow withouth any clue about magic science.
3) I dont say sorc are bad. I said I found them boring, although they are very powerfull till middle of ToB.
4) Sorc are not supposed to be able to cast spells from scrolls. Just with charisma, they may ant read! I feel it like this: Mages DO have some talent in their veins, but learn to controll it, study it etc. Sorcs have greater unhuman talent, enough strong to make them able to cast spells withouth study. But see my 2nd point.
5) Sorcs have greatest arcane dmg potential. Undoubt. This is their strength. But in fair fight, mage will win.
6) Shammans are great. I found them very funny and strong supporters, very balanced with clerics (druids are weak in bg series, lets face it).
@Bobesh
Sorcerers use magic as an instinct, their skill is innate passed on by their heritage. It requires knowledge and study for a mage because they are not magical by nature. Sorcerers wield spells the same way many animals have instincts to do things that are seemingly very complex.
Imagine for a moment that you are a sorcerer. Sure, you can fling fireballs, but now you're in a mage duel and you need to cast Breach. The wizard knows this spell through painstaking study, learning the effects of his enemies' spells carefully and just as carefully learning how to counter and unravel them through a series of magical processes. You, as a sorcerer, instead feel the magic surrounding your foe, and reach out with your soul energy to start untwisting the pieces by hand. You have not studied in the same way, but you can feel how the magic is woven together, and how best to take it apart comes naturally, like pulling at the right loops in a knotted rope.
A different, more extreme example: you are invested with energy by your heritage, and sometimes that energy was used for specific purposes such as unraveling magic enchantments. By virtue of your nature, the knowledge comes to you unbidden and unwanted, written into your DNA and your very soul in much the same way that angels and demons serve exact purposes with their very existence. Whether or not you understand the significance of the spells you know, they were invested into your ancestors to serve their celestial functions, and now that echoes within you, bringing the same knowledge to bear like a sort of racial memory.
Anyway. It's cool if you prefer mages to sorcerers. I was just hoping to expand some viewpoints.
Biologically yes, instinct of animals are complex. But, and its crucial, for animals their insticts are giving them very few informations, because animals (with some exeptions like octopus) are not able to accept more complex information. Similar for sorcs. Their magic instint IS coplex. But since they dont need inteligence, their gift has to be smiple in their eyes, giving them just feelings like born reflexes. And thus, they are not suppose to be able to cast spells from scrolls. Period.
In Baldur's Gate terms: the spellcaster would effectively need a high enough Lore skill or an Identify spell to be able to use any spell scroll, or even know what it was.
- Sorcerers are just easier to play as there no hashle with the spell book. Its like plug & play. You choose your spells as you level up and they are always available. With mage the class you are constantly adjusting his spellbook (which can be fun as you have more room to experiment and hone that perfect magic strategy), but for a new player, it can feel quite taxing as you have likely other npc mages who require this kind of micromanagement.
- Sorcerer can still use all those extra spell scrolls you find during your travels. Not to mention magical wands which there is no shortage of. So his spell selection isn't that limiting.
- There are plenty of mage companions, but almost no sorcerers (unless you're using npc mods which I kind of recommand. Dynaheir for instance makes an awesome sorcerer
).
- There are only few really must have spells in each level, so at the end of day you're not missing much in terms of raw power. And where sorcerer is lacking, you can always bring an extra mage to fill the spot.
- Rolelplaying wise, sorcerer is a very fitting backround for a main character as you have these internal magical abilities anyhow.
If you're going with a mage class, I'd choose to be a fighter-mage instead.I use Shadowkeeper to edit some characters in order to make the game more fun.
I think it's probably better to leave as is the first time through, but by now I've played it so many times I'd rather optimize my party even if it involves tweaking things; I don't consider what I do to be "cheating", because I'm not changing the rules... just changing characters. So, from an RP perspective, I don't consider that a problem; I'm making more fun parties while getting to keep the great characters rather than playing co-op multi-player and having a fully created party (without the fun of the characters' personalities).
I think Minsc would've been a half-orc barbarian had the race and/or class been available in BG1, so... I see no problem with changing either or both. Especially as, when I do, I create a new char to see what talents they would have and I just carry it over, so Minsc will end up having the true skillset, HP, etc of a Half-orc Barbarian; I don't let him keep his Ranger skills, just berserk, or rage, whatever it's called.
I also like Jahiera, but hate druids; from an rp perspective, I'd say a Druid is essentially a ranger/cleric, but I find Ranger/Cleric multi-class to be infinitely more useful than Fighter/Druid, so I typically change her class/skills if I plan on keeping her in my party.
So... in that spirit, sorcerer Imoen seems a very obvious fit.
(I also don't hate Nalia as a mage and/or thief, but her thief skills are so pathetic, I don't see the point. Specialist mage, or make her a true thief - whether or not you plan on dual-classing in Mage after you get her to a high enough level to be useful as a thief - makes sense... but... to me, while Ranger Nalia doesn't seem fitting, Archer Nalia does. Seems fitting that she'd learn Ranger skills living in the Keep surrounded by nature, and imagining a noblewoman trained to use a bow doesn't seem remotely outlandish. Add to that you can give her the racial enemy of Trolls... I love how useful that makes her.
Valygar should probably be a Wizard Slayer, but not being able to use magic items is lame, so I keep him as is.
Anomen to Paladin (Cavalier) makes sense if he passes his test.