Sorcerers vs. dual classed Mages:

Remove all ads!

I know the Sorcerer is a totally bad-ass spellcaster, and with spells like Project Image can beat just about anything in the game, but is a Sorcerer a better character than a dual classed Mage who begins as a Thief (for a few skills, like dealing with locks and traps when not casting) or as a Fighter (who has a lot of HP to play with as well as the ability to fire a longbow when spells run out) or even a Cleric (who will still have more HP than a Mage as well as some very different magicks to play with)?

Let the debate begin!

 

I think it comes down to the situation, in a party it can be mighty handy to have access to high level spells early. It also depends how early you dual; Nalia's 4 thief levels cost almost no xp, allow her to use thief weapons (so in this case she'd be better than a pure class mage), but prevent her from the extra spell/level that a schooled mage or sorcerer have access to.

Of the combinations you gave I'd rate the sorcerer and the Fighter/Mage as most powerful, but for very different reasons. The F/M as an absolute tank; to wade into mellee with a longsword or two and cast an offensive spell every round or so (whilst keeping his stoneskin, mirror image, improved invis up).
The sorcerer I feel has a huge advantage in terms of spell casting as he'll have access to more higher level spells faster than a dualclass mage and won't be restricted to the spells he memorised the night before. Since your primary caster should be kept out of the fray the lower hp/weapon proficiency isn't too much of a restriction.

 

As always, it depends what any particular player enjoys. Most of the tactics I've read about for Sorcerers (and Blades, for that matter) that make people gush over how powerful they are, are things I'd never let myself use. You mentioned Project Image. I believe I have read that combined with SI: Abjuration, this combination renders the Sorcerer 100% invulnerable to everything. Literally. Brilliant tactics or boring cheese? You can guess which side I come down on, but I don't blame players for taking advantage of what the game will let them do.

I find comparisons of absolute power hard to do, but I'd certainly find a F/M's versatility more fun than any pure spellcaster.

 

Cleric/Mage is nice for extra spellcasting possibilities allowing to combine divine and arcane spells. A Sorcerer is best if you know what you are doing with spell selection and don't want to micromanage.

In games like BG2 I don't like them (but in NWN that's another story) but -and sorry if I drift a bit- a Wild Mage will most probably be more powerful than any Sorcerer. Provided wild surges are not unlucky ones. A Wild Mage can convert all first level spells to high level ones (who needs to spam Magic Missile?) and with lucky wild surges the spells can be even more powerful.

 

Cheap high level spells or an unlucky surge and becoming a female?

Tough call.

 

Anyway, unlucky surges are much less frequent at higher levels and when you experience a lucky surge your spell gets much better.

Sorry for being off-topic.

Back on topic, I always liked to play a Cleric/Mage even DC. I remember dual classing Xzar in BG1. Good times.