Another beauty of the Mage is that they can handle any situation. They have the most number of spell protections and spell counters. They have ways to lower Magic Resistance and have spells that ignore Magic Resistance.

[ADD]
Mordenkainen's Sword should be quite a handful against a Cleric too.
[/ADD]

There are so many ways to take down a Mage it's not even funny. Low HPs and a crappy AC. The ONLY time they truly shine is when they know what's coming so they can plan ahead...other than that, their lack of versatility makes them a joke (which is why you have other party members). Drop a Cleric and a Mage into an unknown scenario and the Cleric will survive more often than the Mage.

The thing is, the Mage can adapt better in the game because he/she has so many options to choose from. AC and Hp are not really an issue because as you should know, a Mage can become a metaphorical hard nut to crack. I rarely drink Health Potions in the game, I usually end up selling them because I ran out of space in my Potion Bags, so a Mage is not reliant on a Cleric for healing.

You say a Cleric have many ways to kill? Well a Mage have far more ways than the Cleric. Remember, a Mage has 9 levels of spells, excluding the high level abilities. A Cleric only has 7 levels of spells. So lack of versaltility is definitely not an issue with the Mage.

[ADD]
There is a reason why it is widely accepted that a Mage is very easy to solo with. Do not even get me started on Sorcerers.
[/ADD]

This is going nowhere.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Yggdrasil:
This is going nowhere.<hr></blockquote>
Ladies and gentlemen the first half-way true thing said in this arguement.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dundee Slaytern:
I hated to do this, but so be it. By the way, Cloak of Non-Detection does work against True Sight, if yours does not, then you got a bug.

Contingency: Spell Immunity

Chain Contingency: Protection from Magical Weapons, Stoneskin, True Sight

Both set to cast on self when enemy sighted.

Equipment:
----------

Armour: Robe of the Good/Evil/Neutral Magi
Gloves: Anything
Helmet: Anything
Amulet: Amulet of Power
Rings: Ring of Free Action, Ring of the Ram
Cloak: Cloak of Non-Detection
Boots: Boots of Speed
Belt: Anything

Weapon: Staff of Magi

The moment you go hostile, there is nothing that you can do but wait and die... or run away.<hr></blockquote> You SHOULD use the robe of Vecna.

Your assuming the mage and cleric both know the battle is coming otherwise the cleric would probably have all healing spells memorized a few attack spells and a bit of summoning. The mage would probably have time stop no contingencies and probably a spell sequencer. Say I come in invisible and attack close range you have the abi's horrid withering on your trigger your dead(Clerics get boots of speed too) if you have spell immunity as a trigger your dead if you have the detect invis trigger on how would you know to cast it? How would the cleric know how to cast invisibility. I'll say this mages are more powerful in a clean cut you know what your fighting big open field battle that is what makes them great suppourt characters the awesome power they have. Clerics they a great at keeping things glued together they have pretty much every type of spell and summoning to even out numbers in a pinch that is what makes them great suppourt characters. Your arguing this as if it were BG2 which is wrong BG2 would depend on the circumstance.

Now D&D a powerful Mage and a Cleric fighting that would be worth arguing the cleric could have a manner of extra powers such as but not limited to his god's favor, holy relics, and more clerical spells. As the mage could have much more too! But in the end every battle is on circumstance and circumstance alone. My dwarven warrior gulvak probably could clean the floor with a mage just because he is gulvak he had like -6 saving throws vs death 0 vs magic he is just a cool character not to mention with gauntlets of blinding strike he would of been at your mage first and boom it is over. BUT you mage might have the immunity your mage might be prepared for a thieives backstab attack and have no contingencies for weapon immunity rather true sight. This is why it is circumstance ... it only matters on the occasion sure mages are better in clerics in alot of way but they still need the enemy to be totally known they need to not be in a small area due to abi's horrid withering. Clerics are great in a pinch because they double for a fighter and well tensers transformation is well and good it still takes time to cast!

Just stop it guys this isn't going to go anywhere.

When I play a mage, he always has stoneskin on. So a cleric doesnt seem to be able to sanctuary, come up and hit. A cleric wants to summon? Throw in a death spell. A cleric wants to come in and hit? Cast stoneskin, summon planetar. Even better, just cast inprisonment. HAHA, nothing you can do now huh cleric? Do clerics get to cast freedom? DONT THINK SO! HAHAHAHA.

A mage can handle EVERY situation, a cleric cant.

If a cleric has MR, its not like summons need to bother with summoned creatures right????

And in the early stages, lvl 1-10, its still the mage, cuz he could just do hit & run tactics with offensive spellcasting, unless a cleric has boots of speed and the mage doesnt, he is as good as dead.

But ofcourse, a cleric COULD do the cheap santuary, globe of blades tactic. Could work, but it is the only thing that could take a mage down, but chances are its not gonna work to to stone skin, or area spells such as fireball.

Now here are some more ways that mages are way better than clerics.

Clerics dont have as much offense spells as mages.

A mage can cast imprisonment, game over.

A mage can summon a fighter cleric anyways, Summon Planetar.

A mage can probably beat a cleric in melee combat anyways with a tensors transformation spell.

A mage can use a instant kill spell.

A cleric cant instant kill a mage due to protections.

A mage obviously has better summons than a cleric. NO CONTEST! Planetars and Mordenkainen sword. rule! BTW, my Mordenkainen Sword is Immune to all physical contact, only magic can hurt it, is this a bug?

A cleric cant hurt a mages Mordenkainen sword very well can (s)he?


The only way a cleric can even get close to hurting a mage if hes lvl 30 and the mage is level 10. But then a again...

Of course, even if you are using stoneskin, elemental damage still gets through. Yep, that 10 damage from the FotA gets to hit you still. Cleric can gate in a Pit Fiend pretty darn fast. Thats quite a distraction.

OR AS I SAID BEFORE, CLERIC COULD USE ANTIMAGIC SCROLL AND THE MAGE CAN'T DO ****. Its all circumstance.

Mages aren't more flexible, as they have to know whats coming more than clerics do. You can't give a mage a contingency without having given the cleric time to cast spells before the fight as well, and say the cleric gates in 6 or 7 pit fiends and beefs them up? Your mage won't last very long against all that (send them in 1 at a time to make you waste your horid wiltings ect).

It is obvious, that since we can both find a circumstance when the other would win, that neither is more powerful.

I agree, lets end the bickering part.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by toriuxik:
Of course, even if you are using stoneskin, elemental damage still gets through. Yep, that 10 damage from the FotA gets to hit you still. Cleric can gate in a Pit Fiend pretty darn fast. Thats quite a distraction.

I don't think daemon summons are all that useful, since it cannot be controlled.... I think we can all agree that NPC melee AI is pretty cruddy.

OR AS I SAID BEFORE, CLERIC COULD USE ANTIMAGIC SCROLL AND THE MAGE CAN'T DO ****. Its all circumstance.

Then the mage summons whatever he likes to melee you, or does it himself with tensers, some of the nice staves, and spells like MMM or energy blades... The scrolls of Protection from Magic leave a cleric helpless... All they can do then is use items.

Mages aren't more flexible, as they have to know whats coming more than clerics do. You can't give a mage a contingency without having given the cleric time to cast spells before the fight as well, and say the cleric gates in 6 or 7 pit fiends and beefs them up? Your mage won't last very long against all that (send them in 1 at a time to make you waste your horid wiltings ect).

I agree, but you CAN actually memorize several different spells per spell level... And sorcerers always have a choice of any spells they know of the particular level. I personally know that I could handle 7 pit fiends, and then a cleric... And I would only have to use one level 7 spell to do it too ;)

It is obvious, that since we can both find a circumstance when the other would win, that neither is more powerful.

I agree, both are very powerful.. So are ranger, thieves, bards... Every class is powerful. What people don't seem to understand is POWER DOES NOT EQUAL PVP ABILITY!

I agree, lets end the bickering part.

Darn right, no more bickering... That is, when people stop trying to refute the obvious truth that mages are better than clerics in PvP... Not PvM, not any other situation... but set them against each other, and in BG2: ToB, the mage will beat the cleric.
<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tom:
When I play a mage, he always has stoneskin on. So a cleric doesnt seem to be able to sanctuary, come up and hit. A cleric wants to summon? Throw in a death spell. A cleric wants to come in and hit? Cast stoneskin, summon planetar. Even better, just cast inprisonment. HAHA, nothing you can do now huh cleric? Do clerics get to cast freedom? DONT THINK SO! HAHAHAHA.

A mage can handle EVERY situation, a cleric cant.

If a cleric has MR, its not like summons need to bother with summoned creatures right????

And in the early stages, lvl 1-10, its still the mage, cuz he could just do hit & run tactics with offensive spellcasting, unless a cleric has boots of speed and the mage doesnt, he is as good as dead.

But ofcourse, a cleric COULD do the cheap santuary, globe of blades tactic. Could work, but it is the only thing that could take a mage down, but chances are its not gonna work to to stone skin, or area spells such as fireball.

Now here are some more ways that mages are way better than clerics.

Clerics dont have as much offense spells as mages.

A mage can cast imprisonment, game over.

A mage can summon a fighter cleric anyways, Summon Planetar.

A mage can probably beat a cleric in melee combat anyways with a tensors transformation spell.

A mage can use a instant kill spell.

A cleric cant instant kill a mage due to protections.

A mage obviously has better summons than a cleric. NO CONTEST! Planetars and Mordenkainen sword. rule! BTW, my Mordenkainen Sword is Immune to all physical contact, only magic can hurt it, is this a bug?

A cleric cant hurt a mages Mordenkainen sword very well can (s)he?


The only way a cleric can even get close to hurting a mage if hes lvl 30 and the mage is level 10. But then a again...<hr></blockquote>You acting as if each mage can cast any spell at anytime with out having to memorize them.


*PUKE*


It is all circumstance mages never have a 100% win rate as clerics do not.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Worm:
You SHOULD use the robe of Vecna.<hr></blockquote>

I wanted to avoid the argument that it is the Robe of Vecna that kills the Cleric. Mages can still defeat them in the BG2 game without the Robe of Vecna.

I do not know of PnP, but frankly, I find it ludicrous that a Cleric can be more powerful than a Mage in the BG2 game. A Mage will always have an easier time in the game than the Cleric because the Mage can handle any situation that the game throws at him/her easily. Thanks to his/her spell selection, there is nothing a Mage cannot do in the game.