Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post - Specialist mages, which is best? (Debate)

01-21-2001, 09:27 PM

Hello,

el_kalkylus, first of all, I think you should
change your name to el_algebra, since the el-prefix gives it such an Arabic touch/ring and Algebra is a word of Arabic origin.

Anyway, secondly, I think you are mistaken: dualled mages do not get as many spell slots as specialist mages. You are right, though,
in this game using a non-dualled mage is just a waste even if you hate fighters and have no intention of ever getting into melee. For instance, if you dual from fighter to mage at level 9 instead of going for a pure mage from the start, under the cap, it will not even make a difference as to which is the maximum
mage level you can reach. But, of course, it will make a huge difference with respect to almost everything else: as a fighter/mage you have a much better thacO, much better saving throws and your hitpoints will at least double - a pure mage will most likely be dead if he fails his saving throw when being hit by a Abi Dalziim's while the fighter/mage will still be left with more hitpoints than his healthy pure, poor colleague. So, here we have something I really do not like about the rules as they are now: from a practical point of view somebody who wants to play a true mage is almost forced to play a dualled one. On the other hand, dualled mages do not work as they should, either: I am someone who plays a fighter/mage because he really likes the versatility of being able to choose between fighting and casting according to my
mood and to the situation. From mage level 10 to around 15 a fighter/mage really works that way, is fun to play, but too powerful (270plus hitpoints plus advanced specialization plus a fighter's number of attacks/round with Tenser's early on in the game !?).
But later on, they tend to fall behind so much in
thac0 and saving throws compared to true fighters that they just become what I have described above, an enhanced pure mage that is not really effective in melee. Yes,there would be the alternative of playing a multiclassed fighter/mage, but multiclassed
characters are so slow in levelling up, that's just painful. Maybe, the new, more flexible multiclassing rules in the 3rd edition will make multiclassing more attractive.

But for me the perfect solution would me an enhanced pure mage class, reformed and improved specialist mage classes and a new combined fighter/mage class (just as the bard was designed as a combination of mage and thief). Let me explain: this new combined fighter/mage class should use the fighter thac0, have xD8 hitpoints, a favourable combination of fighter and mage saving throws, the same spell progression as a mage now, just normal specialization, but also the highest exp. points intervals of all classes (let's say: 3k, 6k, 12k, 25k, 50k, 100k, 200k, 400k, 600k, 1000k, 1400k, 1800k and so on). That way the fighter/ mage would not have quite as many hitpoints, which he does not need if he uses protective spells properly, while staying fun to play as fighter or mage throughout the game.

The reformed pure mage class should get double the amount of spell slots they got now, and on top of that their exp. points intervals between higher levels should be reduced from 375k to 350k. So, would that not completely unbalance the game in favour of mages ? I do not think so. What really limits
the power of (high level) mages is not the limits to spell memorization, it is the fact that spellcasting is very slow compared to the multiple attacks a round a high level fighter can use. Do not forgot that the use of sequencers for pcs/npcs is much more limited by the rules than the scripted extra abilities of many of the spellcasters you encounter in the game ! But the extra slots would give mages more versatility, making them more fun to play. The rule change would also help solve a problem of pure mages that is not related to this game: their very limited playability at low levels. In BGI, did anyone think a level two mage with his two level one spells and prone to die from the frown of a foe, let's say a cobold, was fun to play ? I know it is supposed to be a trade-off for the power they get later on, but still ... . Is not a well-rounded class meant to be fun at every level ? That is also why I love the idea of the "Find Familiar" spell. In BGII the familiar only matters for the extra hitpoints and as a pet, but early on those hitpoints would really be crucial and the familiar just the bodyguard/scout the mage desperately needs at that point.

No, I have not forgotten that this thread was originally meant to be on specialist mages. I do not like the concept of the specialist mage as it is, RE:Specialist mages, which is best? (Debate)

01-21-2001, 09:27 PM	#6
Ramon Guest Posts: n/a	Hello, el_kalkylus, first of all, I think you should change your name to el_algebra, since the el-prefix gives it such an Arabic touch/ring and Algebra is a word of Arabic origin. Anyway, secondly, I think you are mistaken: dualled mages do not get as many spell slots as specialist mages. You are right, though, in this game using a non-dualled mage is just a waste even if you hate fighters and have no intention of ever getting into melee. For instance, if you dual from fighter to mage at level 9 instead of going for a pure mage from the start, under the cap, it will not even make a difference as to which is the maximum mage level you can reach. But, of course, it will make a huge difference with respect to almost everything else: as a fighter/mage you have a much better thacO, much better saving throws and your hitpoints will at least double - a pure mage will most likely be dead if he fails his saving throw when being hit by a Abi Dalziim's while the fighter/mage will still be left with more hitpoints than his healthy pure, poor colleague. So, here we have something I really do not like about the rules as they are now: from a practical point of view somebody who wants to play a true mage is almost forced to play a dualled one. On the other hand, dualled mages do not work as they should, either: I am someone who plays a fighter/mage because he really likes the versatility of being able to choose between fighting and casting according to my mood and to the situation. From mage level 10 to around 15 a fighter/mage really works that way, is fun to play, but too powerful (270plus hitpoints plus advanced specialization plus a fighter's number of attacks/round with Tenser's early on in the game !?). But later on, they tend to fall behind so much in thac0 and saving throws compared to true fighters that they just become what I have described above, an enhanced pure mage that is not really effective in melee. Yes,there would be the alternative of playing a multiclassed fighter/mage, but multiclassed characters are so slow in levelling up, that's just painful. Maybe, the new, more flexible multiclassing rules in the 3rd edition will make multiclassing more attractive. But for me the perfect solution would me an enhanced pure mage class, reformed and improved specialist mage classes and a new combined fighter/mage class (just as the bard was designed as a combination of mage and thief). Let me explain: this new combined fighter/mage class should use the fighter thac0, have xD8 hitpoints, a favourable combination of fighter and mage saving throws, the same spell progression as a mage now, just normal specialization, but also the highest exp. points intervals of all classes (let's say: 3k, 6k, 12k, 25k, 50k, 100k, 200k, 400k, 600k, 1000k, 1400k, 1800k and so on). That way the fighter/ mage would not have quite as many hitpoints, which he does not need if he uses protective spells properly, while staying fun to play as fighter or mage throughout the game. The reformed pure mage class should get double the amount of spell slots they got now, and on top of that their exp. points intervals between higher levels should be reduced from 375k to 350k. So, would that not completely unbalance the game in favour of mages ? I do not think so. What really limits the power of (high level) mages is not the limits to spell memorization, it is the fact that spellcasting is very slow compared to the multiple attacks a round a high level fighter can use. Do not forgot that the use of sequencers for pcs/npcs is much more limited by the rules than the scripted extra abilities of many of the spellcasters you encounter in the game ! But the extra slots would give mages more versatility, making them more fun to play. The rule change would also help solve a problem of pure mages that is not related to this game: their very limited playability at low levels. In BGI, did anyone think a level two mage with his two level one spells and prone to die from the frown of a foe, let's say a cobold, was fun to play ? I know it is supposed to be a trade-off for the power they get later on, but still ... . Is not a well-rounded class meant to be fun at every level ? That is also why I love the idea of the "Find Familiar" spell. In BGII the familiar only matters for the extra hitpoints and as a pet, but early on those hitpoints would really be crucial and the familiar just the bodyguard/scout the mage desperately needs at that point. No, I have not forgotten that this thread was originally meant to be on specialist mages. I do not like the concept of the specialist mage as it is, RE:Specialist mages, which is best? (Debate)