Clerics vs. Wizards

[Jim]

Originally posted by White Lancer: Mages have other types of spells for fire-immune enemies... finger of death comes to mind.

I'm not just talking about fire resistant enemies, but magic resistant enemies that are immune to fire damage. Finger of death can be resisted, fire breath, fire storm and sun fire cannot. There aren't many more spells that will bypass MR.

While I'll agree that AC is important, it is less so for a mage. PfMW and stoneskin will handle most situations, and when you add mirror-image ontop of that... Not to mention the mage's lovely ability to obliterate almost anything before those protections wear off/are broken. But even with those gone, mages still get Spirit armor, which acts as full plate mail (AC1). I'd like to see any cleric that can get a lower AC than a mage.

Exactly, they will handle most situations but not all. Mages are not quite invincible. Having a heavily enchanted weapon to hand as well as a normal one solves the PfNW and PfMW defenses (the heavily enchanted one solves mantle too). Illusionary protections can easily be dispelled via an adjuration or divination spells. Are you kidding about the cleric not having a lower AC than a mage? Spirit armour has a *base* AC of normal Full Plate. Clerics can of course wear enchanted full plate, that then has AC modifiers that further lower AC against most weapons by at least 3. We can then add shields and helmets to the equation, and then cast some AC improving buffs. A mage can get no where near the AC of a mage, even with the +4 bonus from Tensors.

In terms of healing, there is absolutely no contest at all. Mages dont get any healing spells... at all. If you're lucky (or unlucky depending on how you look at it) you'll get some cure light wounds ball-spawn abilities, but thats it. But then, the mage's overwhelming offensive power means that you will take less damage as well.

And that's partly why clerics are far from useless [img]smile.gif[/img]

I guess its just a matter of preference. Personally, i'm all for mages, i dont really like clerics.

Each to his own. [img]smile.gif[/img] Nice contribution White Lancer.

I like sticking up for the less popular classes, even if it means I'm fighting a losing battle. A think all classes have there advantages and can be used to great effect if played correctly.

Hey, at this rate, I'll be an Emerald Dragon by the end of the decade [img]smile.gif[/img] .

[ 06-12-2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Jim ]

[Alson]

Originally posted by Jim: Excellent reply! I feel obliged to respond to these

Let the fun continue! [img]smile.gif[/img]

No, althought the fact cannot be overlooked that a lower AC is better than a higher one, and more HP is better than fewer HP.

True!

If you're protected from abjuration, then divination will still prevail and remove your mirror images and blur effect.

Luckily, Spell Immunities are stackable.

As for pro magical weapons/mantle, sure you can protect yourself from 99.99999% of enemy attacks, but you're not invincible. Normal weapons will always get through PfMW and a +5 weapon will always ingore mantle effects. All it needs is a smart enemy with a large weapon range that watches what you cast. Spirit armour is useless against an emeny with anything above a reasonable THAC0 and stoneskins will disappear quickly once the enemy has found a weapon that you're vulnerable too.

Luckily, Pro-Magical-Weapons and Pro-Normal-Weapons are stackable. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
*gasp, shock* Yes, they are indeed - when triggered via a Sequencer-type spell. And that's without mentioning Hell's bonus.

Agreed. But PfU may not be available at the time, and even if you are protected, you still need to wait an age to lower the resistances of the liches and skeletal warriors before casting/beating them down. The simple click of a button with a (high level) cleric will obliterate all undead in seconds. Combine this with the fact that PfU scrolls are finite.

Pro-Undead scrolls are sold at almost every temple, and by almost every other merchant. That's a non-issue, though, as Pro-Undead scrolls have this wonderful ability called: "Area: 1 Creature" (or somesuch), as opposed to: "Area: Caster", which allows them to be casted on *you* by your *clone*. This practically means that a Mage will never be short of Pro-Undead scrolls if (s)he really wishes to.

Mass invisibility gives +4 to attack bonuses, saves and AC. I guess this is slightly more powerful than being blessed, chanted and defensive harmonied and protected from evil. Haste definately tips the balance in favour of the mages summons, but once worn off, fatigue will take its toll.

Haste's duration isn't all that bad - 3 rounds + 1 round/level, IIRC. That's enough for a very long battle when casted by a high level Mage - and there's usually no more than 1 tough battle per area.

The cleric can still however heal its summons if things get a little too close for comfort. In the end, all summons are susceptible to having their defences dispelled by either the cleric or the mage, so this becomes a stalemate situation

Let's call it even, then.

Well, if we're talking about protection scrolls here, then MfM will be our protection. Spell immunity will only make you safe against one school, so again, your not 100% protected.

You mean PfM, I assume.

Spell Immunity may confer protection from one spell alone - but come to think of it, just how many damaging Cleric schools are out there? Evocation, Necromancy, and? Add Enchantment if you're worried about Charms and the like. Plus, SI is stackable.

The clerics saviour!

Hear, hear!

In the game, few (although the threat is still there). Rather than viewing the cleric/mage battle as restricted to the encounters present in SoA/ToB, I'm trying to think much more globally about these 2 living out their lives in Faerun.

I disagree with this. We're not judging whether your everyday Cleric in the Sword Coast in stronger than his Mage colleague - but whether a *player controlled* Cleric or Mage is stronger vs. the game's creation. Otherwise, we could just as well compare PnP Clerics vs. Mages.

Hmm, didn't think that one through very well lol! Although potions are still in finite supply, and you might just not have the one you need at the wrong moment. There's still always the curse.

This isn't a foolproof statement, but I dare to say that the number of potions that cure illnesses and the like is bigger than the number of enemies that deal these effects - thus making the "finite supply" claim a moot point.

MS may have excellent defense, but are still vulnerable to magic damage, and in terms of offense, I have to favour the aerial servant and mountain bears.

MS are vulnerable to magic damage. Aerial Servant are vulnerable to just about every type of damage - although their AC isn't shabby. I would say that MS are still the dominant tank summon. [img]smile.gif[/img] They're offense is quite lacking, I have to agree.

On a side note... have you ever actually lost an MS in a battle? I think it only happened to me once - and it wasn't even from magical damage, but from a STR drain by a spider.

If the cleric so wished, he could cast free action on his aerial servant and watch in joy as the spiders produce nothing but "weapon ineffective" messages and get splatted by a damage range of 25-35 each hit.

Why "weapon ineffective"? Sword Spiders hit with a +1... er... sting , while Aerial Servants are only immune to normal weapons.

At this point, I feel that my earlier post was trying to put the cleric head to head against the mage, where I have already admitted that the mage will always win (in ideal circumstances). I am merely trying to prove that the cleric is not useless, and the fact cannot be denied that in certain circumstances, clerics can be more effective than mages.

This may be true... but these certain circumstances are a very minor part of all the battles in the game.

This highlights another aspect. ToB. [img]smile.gif[/img] Since this is a SoA forum, I won't open this up for discussion... but the case here is clear, I think. ToB's shaft it even longer the SoA's. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Decent enough to resist the statement that clerics gets shafted?

Heh... no, not yet. In an effort to put my thoughts in an analogic fashion:

Some classes are more useful than others in your average BG2-battle scenario. As a result, these classes can be considered "stronger". If we have "stronger", surely we have "strongest" - and thus, we have "weakest". The "weakest" class is, in my opinion and according to my playing style, the pure classed (or kitted - as the Cleric's kits are... ridiculous) Cleric.

Regeneration items are pretty redundant in the heat of battle.

The average regeneration items (Ring of This, Axe of That) are definitely more suited for "regenerating from battle to battle" purposes (which is not bad!).
The stronger regeneration items, however, such as a certain ToB Bastard Sword - are far from being useless in the heat of battle.

I strongly disagree with healing spells being redundant in the heat of battle. The tanks will take the front, and the cleric can stay back and watch the HP levels of fellow party members. Greater Restorating is classed as a healing spell IMO and we've already proved how useful that can be. If 4 of your warriors are near death, they will all quickly be returned to 100% health. Rinse and repeat as necessary. Healing in battle in essential.

Yeah, we agreed that Greater Restoration is a strong exception. It's really a "turn the tide" spell. I agree the healing in a battle is essential - but unless one likes to rest after every battle, he can't count on GR on a regular basis, and practically has two options:
(1) Rely on healing potions/items.
(2) Rely on healing spells.
I just claimed - and I still hold by my opinion - that (1) is much more useful and practical.

While I agree with many of your points, clerics and mages will always have advantages and disadvantages. Rather than saying mage x is better than cleric y but only when mage x is of level z and has spells a-e memorised with protection f, g and h up.

I agree. A Cleric have some advantages over the Mages - otherwise, why would people bother with Clerics at all (other than "handicapping games")? However, I refer you to my vaguely-understandable analogy above - Mages are just more useful in more situations.

Where would a mage stand if he had no spells memorised or he had an empty spell book? Or in an area of dead magic?

Exactly where the fighter will stand if he has no weapons whatsoever. Every class needs tools to be powerful. Mages are just given better tools than Clerics in BG2. Sad, but true.

[Indemaijinj]

In the imagined cleric-mage head to head contest with an assload of summons and buffs the mage will still have an advantage that the cleric can do little about.


Sure the cleric can undo a lot of the mage's handiwork almost instantly, but if the mage is smart he goes for instakill on the summons. After all greater restoration is only good if the targets are still alive.

[Jim]

Originally posted by Alson: Let the fun continue! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Good [img]smile.gif[/img]

Luckily, Spell Immunities are stackable.

Didn't realise this. So you could release a Spell Sequencer and a Chain Contigency loaded with SI's, and select immunity to all spells? If this spell is stackable, then one must ask if it was right to patch the cumulative AoF and like spells bugs?

Luckily, Pro-Magical-Weapons and Pro-Normal-Weapons are stackable. [img]tongue.gif[/img] *gasp, shock* Yes, they are indeed - when triggered via a Sequencer-type spell. And that's without mentioning Hell's bonus.

Then surely this is a bug that needs sorting [img]tongue.gif[/img] These two spells were never meant to be used in unison. I was trying to stay away from the Hell bonus, as this is limited by progression in the game, and alignment etc.

Pro-Undead scrolls are sold at almost every temple, and by almost every other merchant. That's a non-issue, though, as Pro-Undead scrolls have this wonderful ability called: "Area: 1 Creature" (or somesuch), as opposed to: "Area: Caster", which allows them to be casted on *you* by your *clone*. This practically means that a Mage will never be short of Pro-Undead scrolls if (s)he really wishes to.

Point taken, although the hassle still remains of dispatching of the undead once you've protected yourself, and in the event of tackling multiple Skeletal Warriors and Liches at once, this will take time.

Haste's duration isn't all that bad - 3 rounds + 1 round/level, IIRC. That's enough for a very long battle when casted by a high level Mage - and there's usually no more than 1 tough battle per area.

True. Even it is then (provided the Cleric has access to GR)

You mean PfM, I assume.

Yes. Slight type there!

Spell Immunity may confer protection from one spell alone - but come to think of it, just how many damaging Cleric schools are out there? Evocation, Necromancy, and? Add Enchantment if you're worried about Charms and the like. Plus, SI is stackable.

I wasn't so much refering to damaging spells, more that if protection from divination is in place, then the physical protections can be dispelled, or if protection from abjuration is in place, the illusionary defences can be displelled. But since SI is stackable (an outrage!) that blows this out the window.

I disagree with this. We're not judging whether your everyday Cleric in the Sword Coast in stronger than his Mage colleague - but whether a *player controlled* Cleric or Mage is stronger vs. the game's creation. Otherwise, we could just as well compare PnP Clerics vs. Mages.

This is where our differences in opinion lie. I'm not trying to compare with PnP, but the BG universe on a more global scale. Consider an arena, where duels can take place, and every combination of tactic and spellcast is permissable. That's how I'm trying to contrast the two. I'm considering every eventuality, no matter how small, within the gaming limits.

This isn't a foolproof statement, but I dare to say that the number of potions that cure illnesses and the like is bigger than the number of enemies that deal these effects - thus making the "finite supply" claim a moot point.

Agreed, although in my past games, I can't say I've always had a potion of antidote/elixir of health to hand in times of need.

MS are vulnerable to magic damage. Aerial Servant are vulnerable to just about every type of damage - although their AC isn't shabby. I would say that MS are still the dominant tank summon. [img]smile.gif[/img] They're offense is quite lacking, I have to agree.

They are definately the ultimate tank summon, but for pure offense from flanking positions, you'll need a summon that can dish out punishing damage over a small period. MS does not shine here.

On a side note... have you ever actually lost an MS in a battle? I think it only happened to me once - and it wasn't even from magical damage, but from a STR drain by a spider.

Hmmm, I think I lost MS when ADHW has been cast at my party, but losing them is rare. Ah yes, the insane STR drain from Wraith Spiders! If only these could be summoned.

Why "weapon ineffective"? Sword Spiders hit with a +1... er... sting , while Aerial Servants are only immune to normal weapons.

I didn't realise that spiders had +1 enchanted stings (is this for all spiders, or just the more powerful ones?), but never the less, due to some impressive saves, the Aerial Servant should still easily pummel 1 (of not 2) spiders at once with ease. A spider would be very lucky to survive more than 2 rounds against an AS.

This may be true... but these certain circumstances are a very minor part of all the battles in the game. This highlights another aspect. ToB. Since this is a SoA forum, I won't open this up for discussion... but the case here is clear, I think. ToB's shaft it even longer the SoA's.

True, but clerics still remain powerful, just not as powerful.

Heh... no, not yet. In an effort to put my thoughts in an analogic fashion: Some classes are more useful than others in your average BG2-battle scenario. As a result, these classes can be considered "stronger". If we have "stronger", surely we have "strongest" - and thus, we have "weakest". The "weakest" class is, in my opinion and according to my playing style, the pure classed (or kitted - as the Cleric's kits are... ridiculous) Cleric.

We've already proven than they're invaluable in the heat of battle to heal, and it can't be denied that party's need buffing. Against undead there's no competition, and to round things off, we can use the cleric as a front line tank and backup offensive spell caster (albeit it wilh a limited selection of good spells). I think they can only be classed as "weak" when pitched against a mage in a spell casting fight only. This spell casting is only a small role of the cleric. I guess this comes down to opinion now. You're playing style has little room for a cleric. Mine feels that clerics are versitile and a useful addition to a party. Each to his own.

The average regeneration items (Ring of This, Axe of That) are definitely more suited for "regenerating from battle to battle" purposes (which is not bad!). The stronger regeneration items, however, such as a certain ToB Bastard Sword - are far from being useless in the heat of battle.

I agree that it's not bad between battles, but we're talking about in the heat of battle here. When fighting an iron golem/improved boss/any difficult foe, a single hit can account for well over 100 damage (assuming insane diff). A few hits and you're agonna. The regeneration provided by Foebane will not stop the characters imminent death when facing such such huge amounts of damage. The cleric can use GR to maximum effect here.

Yeah, we agreed that Greater Restoration is a strong exception. It's really a "turn the tide" spell. I agree the healing in a battle is essential - but unless one likes to rest after every battle, he can't count on GR on a regular basis, and practically has two options: (1) Rely on healing potions/items. (2) Rely on healing spells. I just claimed - and I still hold by my opinion - that (1) is much more useful and practical.

Well, provided the cleric has rested before the battle, he/she can have up to 7 castings of GR (admittedly this would render the cleric next to useless for fighting purposes due to the huge build up of anti luck this would incur). Something would have to be seriously wrong if more than this was needed. Whilst I agree that point 1 is useful and practical (and indeed should be implemented even when having a GR casting cleric), healing potions will heal up to 40 damage per round only, and like I've said, when facing multiple foes on insane diff, this 40 won't necessarily save you.

I agree. A Cleric have some advantages over the Mages - otherwise, why would people bother with Clerics at all (other than "handicapping games")? However, I refer you to my vaguely-understandable analogy above - Mages are just more useful in more situations.

But not in others...i.e. healing a party that's near death towards the end of a huge boss battle, thus turning the tide, or fighting in melee, or battling undead. Like I've said above, I'm not trying to say a cleric is better than a mage in general, but a cleric is a far from useless addition to the party.

Exactly where the fighter will stand if he has no weapons whatsoever. Every class needs tools to be powerful. Mages are just given better tools than Clerics in BG2. Sad, but true.

This is an advantage that shouldn't be overlooked. A mage needs tools to be powerful. A fighter with no weapons can still fight to some effect, a cleric with no weapons can still cast spells, a mage with no weapons and an undernourished spell book will be next to useless. The cleric will always have a full compliment of spells. This is going off topic a bit, but in BG1 and IWD, solo mages have a very hard time, simply because there isn't the supply of spells. I had a mage in IWD with HoF mode on have plenty of 1st,2nd and 3rd level spells, but have completely empty slots all the way up to 7th level. I had to wait until the later chapters to aquire the spells. This is an area where clerics can sit back and relax.

[ 06-12-2003, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Jim ]

[Alson]

Originally posted by Jim: Good [img]smile.gif[/img]

Nobody likes to be a party-pooper, so...

Didn't realise this. So you could release a Spell Sequencer and a Chain Contigency loaded with SI's, and select immunity to all spells?

I'm quite sure you can't place SI within Trigger-type spells... but you can sure use Improved Alacrity to gain immunity to spells! A favorite overkill tactic of mine, actually.

If this spell is stackable, then one must ask if it was right to patch the cumulative AoF and like spells bugs?

Heh... replace "one" with Kevin Dorner, perhaps?

Then surely this is a bug that needs sorting. These two spells were never meant to be used in unison.

True. It's just as cheesy as x3 PI in a CC, for example.

I wasn't so much refering to damaging spells, more that if protection from divination is in place, then the physical protections can be dispelled, or if protection from abjuration is in place, the illusionary defences can be displelled.

Oh... strong point, then! However, ...

But since SI is stackable (an outrage!) that blows this out the window.

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

This is where our differences in opinion lie. I'm not trying to compare with PnP, but the BG universe on a more global scale. Consider an arena, where duels can take place, and every combination of tactic and spellcast is permissable. That's how I'm trying to contrast the two. I'm considering every eventuality, no matter how small, within the gaming limits.

OK, accepted. Let's assume a dueling pit of a sort. My stake's on the Mage, then.

That's actually unfair towards the Cleric - as the Cleric's specialities are, as you said more than once, healing & buffing (and, to a lesser extent, summoning and tanking). None of these will help him when battling One on One vs. the Mage.

Agreed, although in my past games, I can't say I've always had a potion of antidote/elixir of health to hand in times of need.

That's a result of laziness on the player's side, however. Couldn't say I havn't felt Laziness' agonizing touch, myself.

They are definately the ultimate tank summon, but for pure offense from flanking positions, you'll need a summon that can dish out punishing damage over a small period. MS does not shine here.

Agreed. The Swords have one purpose, and one purpose alone - take as much cr@p as possible.

Ah yes, the insane STR drain from Wraith Spiders! If only these could be summoned.

We can always compromise on Improved Kitthix. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

I didn't realise that spiders had +1 enchanted stings (is this for all spiders, or just the more powerful ones?),

In comes the Infinity Explorer!

Giant Spider: +0
Huge Spider: +3 (!)
Phase Spider: +1
Sword Spider: +1
Small Spider: +1
Vortex Spider: +1
Wraith Spider: +1

As you can see... the little bugger have surprisingly well-made stings.

but never the less, due to some impressive saves, the Aerial Servant should still easily pummel 1 (of not 2) spiders at once with ease. A spider would be very lucky to survive more than 2 rounds against an AS.

While the IE is open, I might as well check the AS's saves.
...
Not so impressive, actually! Only 7 vs. spells - which means he's more or less bound to be webbed with 3 or so Webs stacked together. Go Web, the spell of ultimate mastery!

True, but clerics still remain powerful, just not as powerful.

Everyone's grama is powerful in ToB. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

In general, I think that Cleric are even more discriminated against in ToB than in SoA. Whilst in SoA they were capable of holding on their own in combat, ToB features -15 THAC0 muggers. In addition, their HLA pool is pathetic in comparision to the Fighter's (GWW, CS, Hardiness...), the Thief's (UAI, Spike Traps, Time Traps...), the Mage's (IA, DB, Planetars...) and heck, even the Druid's (as Elemetal Princes trump the Devas)! Outrageous, I tell you, outrageous!

We've already proven than they're invaluable in the heat of battle to heal, and it can't be denied that party's need buffing.

There's no need for healing if you're not taking damage. Also, a single Mage can buff the party just as good as a single Cleric - if not even better! The Mage will probably left with very few spells, though.

Against undead there's no competition, and to round things off, we can use the cleric as a front line tank and backup offensive spell caster (albeit it wilh a limited selection of good spells).

Don't underestimate the tanking ability of a Mage.

I think that in general, the difference lies in their purposes. A Mage is more specialized - stay in the back, and wreak havoc. In some occasions, buff the party up the wazoo or slap on Pro-Magical-Weapons and tank ahead. A Cleric, on the other hand, can do all of this without as much preperations as the Mage(having the AC & HP naturally, and a plethora of spells, to boot), but just not as good. Do you agree? This also explain the difference of opinions between us - as I really dislike having so-called "jacks-of-all-trades" in my party - instead, I prefer more specialized characters.

I think they can only be classed as "weak" when pitched against a mage in a spell casting fight only. This spell casting is only a small role of the cleric. I guess this comes down to opinion now. You're playing style has little room for a cleric. Mine feels that clerics are versitile and a useful addition to a party. Each to his own.

Well put - we seem to be getting closer to an agreement. Woot! (argh... damn smiley limit!)

I agree that it's not bad between battles, but we're talking about in the heat of battle here. When fighting an iron golem/improved boss/any difficult foe, a single hit can account for well over 100 damage (assuming insane diff). A few hits and you're agonna. The regeneration provided by Foebane will not stop the characters imminent death when facing such such huge amounts of damage.

Not true, from my experience. Foebane, when combined with a high ApR, can heal the user up to 40 (!) HP per round - which can surpass the character's maximum HP!

Well, provided the cleric has rested before the battle, he/she can have up to 7 castings of GR (admittedly this would render the cleric next to useless for fighting purposes due to the huge build up of anti luck this would incur).

... and the fact that GR takes a long time to cast.

Something would have to be seriously wrong if more than this was needed. Whilst I agree that point 1 is useful and practical (and indeed should be implemented even when having a GR casting cleric), healing potions will heal up to 40 damage per round only, and like I've said, when facing multiple foes on insane diff, this 40 won't necessarily save you.

If one's taking more than 40 points of damage per round, one should think if he's doing something wrong.

But not in others...i.e. healing a party that's near death towards the end of a huge boss battle, thus turning the tide, or fighting in melee, or battling undead. Like I've said above, I'm not trying to say a cleric is better than a mage in general, but a cleric is a far from useless addition to the party.

OK, I agree. It's just not the optimal one. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Keep it coming!

[ 06-12-2003, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Alson ]

[Omicron]

Um, lets face it, we've already established the fact that Clerics may be all that (which IMO they're not), but they are not AS powerful as the wizard. Nuff said, since both of you guys have already pointed this out.

My extra 4 cents: I think clerics are fine in parties, but Mages seem more inclined to be soloers. Mages are like, 1 vs all, while Clerics are like 1 heals all. So if you got a party, thats dandy, but if your a Mage, and your alone, you dont got a party, so no need for a mage! Plus, given any party, and you had to choose between taking a cleric or a mage, I would take the mage anyday. Offense is the best defense they say, cause if you offense their butts off, theres nothing to defend against!

Wee...

[Russ]

Look at your spell slots, and how many of them you have... the mage has kick-ass spells, because those slots are all they've got going for them. So a mage can tank, or he can play artillery, or he can play thief (kinda), or he can summon (sorta)... but on an intense basis, he can really only do one of those things really well per day. Forget ToB, forget judgments based on being absolutely high-level, or owning "best items in game..." and look at what they do irrespective: the mage is a specialist, and fighting him on his own terms is a sure loser... get him off his track, and he's fast meat.

The cleric is a generalist. He can turn, heal, buff, summon, blast, or simply kick out Sanctuary and stand in the doorway like the Wall of God(tm) while the bad-guys pathetically try to get at the archers and spell-chuckers in the hallway...

[Xen]

Yes but still if a mage casts Project Image and starts summon Skeleton Warriors or Mordekainen`s Swords it will be a tough time for a Cleric. He does not have PfMW,or PfMA or Stoneskins...(see the pattern? [img]tongue.gif[/img] ). And becuase of this factor a mage will win sooner or later.

And if he is a decently high level he can use bunny nuke tactics.(altough this is more suitable to Sorcerers)

[Rataxes]

Originally posted by Alson: Such a large document is bound to have its errata

Which is why it's important that the community tries to contribute to it. The Spell Reference is after all, the spell guide of the BG2 community.

The sole purpose of Silence is to prevent enemy spellcasters from casting their spells. Mages have much better ways to do it than any silence spell in the world. Breach + frontliners, MAA, Skull Trap - you name it.

Silence is something the Cleric gets practically for free though. It's obvious enough that Breach is a more powerful anti-mage weapon than Silence, but it's a Lvl 2 vs Lvl 5, 10+ spell slots vs 5 slots. Silence is one of the most cost-effective anti-mage weapons there are. MAA and Skull Trap are both practically useless against Smarter Mages, with their auto-cast elemental protection spells.

So the Clerics' version is better because Wizard have better spells generally?

Not at all [img]smile.gif[/img] It is better because there is less competition in the 3rd level of the clerical spellbook, than in the 5th level of the arcane spellbook. Look at it this way, wouldn't Time Stop be much greater if it was a Lvl 1 spell? (ignoring the obvious advantage of being available earlier)

Yes, Pro-Evil-10'-Radius is powerful. However, if a Mage really wants to protect his whole party from evil, all (s)he'll need is 5 scrolls of Pro-Evil (easy to obtain), and a Clone spell that is not Mislead.

That's true, and when I think about it, there's no need for no stinkin' mage to cast Mass Invisibility. I'll just use a Thief with the Vhailor's Helm and 10 scrolls of Imp Invisibility to prebuff my entire party + summons before a big fight Seriously though, who the fudge is going to want to go through all that trouble before every single big encounter, just to get his party + minions protected from Evil? There simply isn't any substitute anywhere near as quick, convenient or effective as the original in this case. I'm not going to argue that Clerics are crucial to the party and have many special powers that are completely irreplaceable. There are very few things a Cleric can do that cannot otherwise be accomplished, but the same thing can be said about the mage, making this a moot point. A Thief with UAI can do pretty much everything a mage can do, with the exception of 10th level spells and triggers.

Exactly. Not quite

Holy Smite really is among the best direct-damage spells in the game. Harm is much superior to PWK and Symbol Death, neither of which do diddly-squat against anything more powerful than an Umberhulk. That it, as a single lvl 6 spell, loses to a combination of two level 9 spells, isn't really a surprise

I agree - the original is better. But then again, with low saves, Potions of Clarity and a Greenstone Amulet, the original is far from being crucial.

Neither is Dragon's Breath, Planetar, ADHW, Imp Alacrity or Time Stop Like I said, saves low enough to give you immunities are really problematic to attain for parties, and even for soloists in the early/mid-game. Potions of Clarity don't exactly grow on trees and their duration makes them battle-specific as well, and the bugged Greenstone amulets with permanent psionic protection are just about as cheesy as items come. The regular amulet doesn't only have a very short duration, but is also found pretty late.

... or to have an army of Planetars. Heck, a Planetar is about as good as any high level Cleric (with Druid spells, to boot!).

Planetars didn't have GR last I checked And where's this "army" going to come from without exploiting loopholes or bugs? Planetars are the greatest minions, no doubt about it, but they're really not even a half-decent substitute for a proper High level Cleric, they're temporary good fighting power with a few useful priest spells, nothing more.

Yep, that would explain the difference of opinions, probably. ...and would serve me wonderfully to demonstrate the vast versatility of the Mage. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

No doubt about that, mages are amazingly versatile.

... and the fact that GR takes a long time to cast.

GR actually has a very short casting time.

[ 06-12-2003, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

[Jim]

Originally posted by Alson: Nobody likes to be a party-pooper, so...

It would be rude not too so....

I'm quite sure you can't place SI within Trigger-type spells... but you can sure use Improved Alacrity to gain immunity to spells! A favorite overkill tactic of mine, actually.

Would you like some cheese with that sir

Heh... replace "one" with Kevin Dorner, perhaps?

Hmmm, this guy has done some excellent work, but multiple castings of the same spell to cumulate the benefits should be stamped out altogether IMO. This should apply to spells launched through triggers/sequencers/contingencies.

True. It's just as cheesy as x3 PI in a CC, for example.

Again, should be removed.

OK, accepted. Let's assume a dueling pit of a sort. My stake's on the Mage, then.

Mine too . Provided the mage has some something in his/her spell book and is above a certain level. There must be a point within the mages career where he/she will become the dominating class, because at lower levels, then can suck! While I agree that mages have the potential to become the most powerful class, this (IMO) is far from the truth at the start of the game.

That's actually unfair towards the Cleric - as the Cleric's specialities are, as you said more than once, healing & buffing (and, to a lesser extent, summoning and tanking). None of these will help him when battling One on One vs. the Mage.

Same situation regarding levels. I think a low level cleric/mage battle could be very close indeed. They are certainly more use as backup tanks and party protectors.

That's a result of laziness on the player's side, however. Couldn't say I havn't felt Laziness' agonizing touch, myself.

Absolutely Especially when I'm trying to blitz the game in as shorter time as possible. I tend not to be overly organised for many encounters.

Agreed. The Swords have one purpose, and one purpose alone - take as much cr@p as possible.

Agreed.

We can always compromise on Improved Kitthix. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Does the improved Kitthix have STR drain? I thought it just had poisonous and hold attacks. STR draining aside though, this remains an awesome summon (something that I'm almost tempted not to upgrade when I play the game).

In comes the Infinity Explorer! Giant Spider: +0 Huge Spider: +3 (!) Phase Spider: +1 Sword Spider: +1 Small Spider: +1 Vortex Spider: +1 Wraith Spider: +1 As you can see... the little bugger have surprisingly well-made stings.

Ahh, good old IEEP. Strange how the Huge Spider (the 3rd from bottom in terms of power) has the highest enchantment.

While the IE is open, I might as well check the AS's saves. ... Not so impressive, actually! Only 7 vs. spells - which means he's more or less bound to be webbed with 3 or so Webs stacked together. Go Web, the spell of ultimate mastery!

Hmm, thought they would be better than 7's, although that's not too bad. Is it 7's all round, and is the save vs death lower (to avoid the poison). To avoid the webbing, the cleric could always cast free action on the AS. Now we're starting to go around in circles

In general, I think that Cleric are even more discriminated against in ToB than in SoA. Whilst in SoA they were capable of holding on their own in combat, ToB features -15 THAC0 muggers. In addition, their HLA pool is pathetic in comparision to the Fighter's (GWW, CS, Hardiness...), the Thief's (UAI, Spike Traps, Time Traps...), the Mage's (IA, DB, Planetars...) and heck, even the Druid's (as Elemetal Princes trump the Devas)! Outrageous, I tell you, outrageous!

This is where they should have included Avatar, to allow the cleric to take the form of his/her deity. I can't remember the bonuses this gives, but I think it grants immunity to damage and timestop for several rounds. Still, globe of blades remains the ultimate tank spell, and is even more effective when combined with blade barrier. To top off the clerics defenses, an Aura of Flaming Death should suffice (although these protections are more for melee protection - still they're quite impressive IMO).

There's no need for healing if you're not taking damage. Also, a single Mage can buff the party just as good as a single Cleric - if not even better! The Mage will probably left with very few spells, though.

Yes, but if you have a party of 6, some members *will* take damage. 1 mage doesn't make a party invincible, he only has the ability to make himself invincible (almost). A cleric is guaranteed to have buffing spells to hand (especially with high wisdom, clerics tend to have more spell slots although they have fewer casting levels). Like you've pointed out, a mage has to sacrifice some of his arsenal of spells in order to buff, and even then, the ultimate buff spell isn't available until level 7 (mass invisibility). A cleric will have defensive harmony, 10' evil protection, strength buffs etc much earlier.

Don't underestimate the tanking ability of a Mage. I think that in general, the difference lies in their purposes. A Mage is more specialized - stay in the back, and wreak havoc. In some occasions, buff the party up the wazoo or slap on Pro-Magical-Weapons and tank ahead. A Cleric, on the other hand, can do all of this without as much preperations as the Mage(having the AC & HP naturally, and a plethora of spells, to boot), but just not as good. Do you agree? This also explain the difference of opinions between us - as I really dislike having so-called "jacks-of-all-trades" in my party - instead, I prefer more specialized characters.

I do agree yes, although I'd say clerics were more specialised rather than being Jacks. There is certainly no substitute for undead slaying, healing and (to a point) buffing. I guess their weaker abilities then include melee combat and combat spell casting, although they certainly have their strong areas. Now a Bard is a Jack of all Trades, excelling in neither thievery, fighting or spell casting, but they still make excellent characters because of their versitality. This basically comes down to personal preference again.

Well put - we seem to be getting closer to an agreement. Woot! (argh... damn smiley limit!)

LOL tell me about the limit. You normally leave me room for a single smiley (and there it goes). I think we've exhausted this debate now, since it has basically boiled down to specific circumstances and playing styles.

Not true, from my experience. Foebane, when combined with a high ApR, can heal the user up to 40 (!) HP per round - which can surpass the character's maximum HP!

But Foebane can be blocked by an enemy's magic resistance, and if you're surrounded by 2 dragons and 2 Wyverny type things (and a few frost salamanders for good measure) (think Improved Abazigal), taking over 40 damage per round is very common on insane. I certainly agree that the HP gained from both this an potions help, but it doesn't compare to insta heal magic

and the fact that GR takes a long time to cast.

Certainly no more than a round though, which is a good compromise for the full restoration of your party. What is the casting time? I don't have it to hand.

If one's taking more than 40 points of damage per round, one should think if he's doing something wrong.

This is surprisingly common is some of the boss battles though (I'm referring to a party here. A soloist has an easier time in many ways). A single hit will deal well over this on insane.

OK, I agree. It's just not the optimal one. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Keep it coming! [/QB]

Well, I'm fresh out of material now. I think the closing remarks can only me...mages *can* be supremely powerful and clerics *are* a useful *party* addition. Phew!