Fighter-types vs caster types

Remove all ads!

As i see it, BG1 is NOT geared tward casters. in BG2 a fighter practicly cannot solo most encounters, and the mages/sorcerers/clerics are SO much more powerful. in BG1 the mages/clerics are pitiful in comparsion to fighter-types of equal level. There anrt that many good spells in BG1. this is just what i have noticed and feel free to disagree.

 

I agree, and I love it. However, several of the mage spells like fireball and haste are very useful, and I also use the cleric's healing and animate dead alot. I always play with a cleric and a mage.

 

I agree, At some point the spellpowers and creativeness of Spellcasters exceeds the brutal force of warriors, but that is not in BG1.

Of course in BG1 spellcasters (clerics and mages) hold a great "group value". I wouldn't want to play without healing-slow poison-dispell magic-haste-hold and a less noticed one "charm"

[This message has been edited by ArchAngel (edited April 09, 2002).]

 

In bg, all the enemies are still fairly low level, so all those neat spells you wouldn't want to waste slots on in bg2 are pretty effective. (Hold, charm, etc. Just watch out for web and other area effect things, they have a bad tendency to hinder you more than the enemy.)

 

A bard beats them both in my opinion. At low levels it's a bit pants but, it inproves brilliantly.

[This message has been edited by Z-Layrex (edited April 12, 2002).]

 

yeah. The good thing about a bard is that he gains levels faster than Jaheira can swear "slave driver" when she's tired. 6th spell level max? no problem. Not enough XP in the game to go up there anyway. So only one weapon proficiency? Well, there is always the light crossbow of speed. Then there is no need for a scared look at that permanent "one attack per round."
Sadly the shiny tale of a bard could end here. The high Thach0 must be dealt with from high Dex, which is rather essential, since the armor off and on show can be rather frustrating. When to cast spells? when to fight?

A constitution of 16 can patch up a lot. a little above half the fighters' max HPs. Not bad. And almost twice the mages' HPs. Not bad either.

So if you can settle with a HP-tower mage who is a little behind in spells or a low Thach0 warrior with a cronic one attack per round, all patched into one, then the bard is your bargain. Personally I would. But of course I have to plan ahead for the sequals too. And I have just the right fighter/mage/(thief) itching to see combat. Why settle with one when you can have two.

[This message has been edited by ArchAngel (edited April 12, 2002).]

 

You don't actually need armour if you just use the crossbow of speed... Problem solved

 

*hehehe* nice one.

Even better than "I'll stick to the fact that the only way my bard can be a decent fighter is to use that darn crossbow and only use mage spells before combat, since I have played the game so many times that I know when I must fight and not". Problem solved.

 

If you play "Dark Side of the Sword Coast" there is a bard that can cast spells in her special armour! A wonderful addition indeed

 

That's all true, but in BGI you don't really need magic until the end (I killed Sarevok and his buddies with about 40-50 summoned monsters milling about *heheheheh*). Until then I only used magic when I was outnumbered or went up against basiliks. Also, there's no need to get charm spells, just get the two cloaks of charming. (One in BG and one in Beregost [for more info look for the walkthroughs at the main sorcerers place games page]).