Hey why does everyone say that the mage is the most powerful i would say priests are jsut as strong as a mage in terms of spells, and there Thac0 are good having better range in weapons choices then mages plus they also can wear any armor as well. Clerics have some of the best defensive spells in the game.

Mages do not rule hehe.

Clerics are more necessary then mages, and so there isn't much point in discussing them. Parties are very expensive without any healing spells. Clerics are basicly defensive, while mages are supposed to be basicly offensive. Clerics are pretty tough though if played well. I like Cleric of Helm... ;) My fav cleric kit (talos sucks in comparison). He only has problems killing off the biguns when he has no seeking swords left. ;)

Mages have two major advantages over Clerics,

Contingencies and Spell Triggers.

By the time your Cleric mumbles his/her first spell, a Mage can easily have up till 7 spells set up already.

Oh, and welcome to the Ironworks Forums. ;) http://www.plauder-smilies.de/wavey.gif ;)

I feel there is no fair comparison that you can make between the priest classes and magic users. Each has his/her own specific areas of expirtise in which they shine... and compairing the overlapping areas is not very fair.

This game was meant to be a group adventuring game, so can't we all just get along? Proper division of labor in groups is essential to have a efficient party... ;)

I myself know that a cleric/druid will always have his rear handed to him by a mage, but I would rather have the priest in a non-boss combat situation.

All good points, Eldoran, but you should know that when you're talking to Dundee, you're talking to a player who has beaten the whole game, solo, TWICE. That's right, not even Imoen. See his other posts. ;) Besides, that's the way we get along: we argue minutae.

Depends on what you want really, in the bg2 forum there was a knd of simialr debate and we decided mages or sorcerers wee best to solo with but clerics were very good too. I still wouldnt do it though. Basicaly when soloing as a magicuser you dont need healing but with a party a cleric is absolutly necessary

;) I am well aware of who Dundee is Galadria... I have been lurking here for quite some time.

Lately I have lost interest in Everquest, and I have shifted to playing the BG games again and DAoC.. So I came out of lurkerness on this board to compensate for the lack of all my EQ boards... If that makes any sense.

What I feel is hurting the priest classes in BG is the lack of specialization that is a mainstay of the class in 2cd and 3rd edition... It would be very nice to be able to have the specialty priest classes and spheres of worship like in 2cd/3rd... But I guess I will wait for neverwinter nights (assuming it comes out ever :( )

I guess what I am just trying to say is that the priest classes didn't translate as well as the mages... But the priest classes are still really nice in their own niches. (Spluts a Lich) [img]graemlins/microwave.gif[/img]

Hey Galardria i've beaten the game solo 3 times!!!
Yes 3 times:1st with a monk, then with a sorcerer and the with a blade(yes a blade!!!!). Its not that hard with the blade actually and its quite fun!!!

Hey Galardria i've beaten the game solo 3 times!!!
Yes 3 times:1st with a monk, then with a sorcerer and the with a blade(yes a blade!!!!). Its not that hard with the blade actually and its quite fun!!!

But back to the original question:"aren't preists as powerful as mages" I would have to answer yes. Sure a mage has got contingencies, he's got sequencers but has he got healing spells fissure summon deva(yes he's got summon planetar)or even (my favourite)divine ray? Sure is a duel the mage would anihalate the cleric but against a dozen demons(i trust you arn't using prot from evil) the clric need only cast devine ray once at each of them and their dead: d-e-d ded!