I need a mage (or do I?)!

Remove all ads!

I'm thinking of using Garrick (a Bard) as my arcane spellcaster in this game. Are Mages needed?

Maybe I should dual Imoen as my mage.

I'm trying to play a (mostly) good aligned party, and Dynaheir doesn't really do it for me.

 

You dont need one actually. Garrick will do just fine.
Although, it´s more fun with a mage or two

 

Mages aren't necessary but they'll make the game a lot easier. Sleep can render half a dozen enemies defenseless; Fireball can kill every enemy on the screen; Haste is a must for your fighters as it allows them to zip around so much faster than your enemies. And their summoning abilities will be a godsend when you face Sarevok.

 

I've never used a Bard so I don't know if they can use all the Mage's wands.

They are great!
From sleep to paralize to fireball.
They make life so easy...

 

Bards can use wands, so monster summoning wont be a problem if you choose to use that tactic on Sarevok. A pretty boring one if you ask me though.

 

Sure, summoning monsters is a bit boring when you're fighting Sarevok. For a more even battle, you should drop all your armour, weapons and potions on the ground then run up and headbutt him.

But I think boring might just have the edge in getting the better of him.

 

I think it is better to start out your self as a mage- my character is Val Kallesh, and I am kicking butt now- almost done with Cloakwood.

 

i cannot make a good mage, never could, never really think that i will, because im the kind of guy who thinks standing back and hiding is being a panzy, so i always screw up and have my character melee all together, or solo character, and mage dies

 

Take a fighter up to level 7 then dual him to a mage.

 

If you did that, the mage wouldn't have time to advance very far before the end of the game.

If you want a mage who can also handle himself physically in a fight, just have a fighter/mage. It'll be hard going to begin with - less fighting abilities than a fighter of comparable level and less spellcasting abilities than a mage of comparable level - but as he advances through the levels and gets Haste he'll turn into a real powerhouse.

 

You obviously haven´t played BG enough david

As for the topic, create your fighter and go with the Bard.
Just save those Monster Summoning wands just in case you can´t beat him in a fair fight.
BG1 can easily be beaten without a mage, or a bard for that matter aswell.

 

I've gone through the game without a mage or a bard. Actually, a lot of people solo the game, and unless they are taking a mage or a multi-class mage, they get through the game without a mage. So is it possible? Absolutely. I have found that parties work better with a mage, and if you go on the BG2, two mages are even better. However, in BG1, taking a whole lot of melee characters certainly works. If you're playing a good party take: Minsc, Ajantis, Khalid, Imoen, and Kivan, and make your PC a multi-classed Ranger-Cleric. You will kick a lot of butt, trust me.

 

Actually, I find that the easiest way to powergame in BG1 is to have all your party members use ranged weapons. Everything will fall before it even reaches you and you'll barely ever get hurt. It's extremely boring though.

So no, mages are definitely not necessary. Just go with the NPCs you think are the most fun to play with, and enjoy!

 

i havn't been playing for long, but i no one thing!!!! u do need a mage! i don't reckon anything will be easy (or fun) without a kool mage to back you up all the way!!!

 

It will actually be easy. Give it more time and you´ll learn the tricks
I agree that it wont be as fun though.

 

So do I, Eltan. In an evil party, I like Edwin. However, I started fresh with a good party and I am a mage named Val Kallesh. I agree- mages make a great party.