Might vs. Magic Debate

I quite agree that fighters have their roles in the game, however I have yet to get the good stuff for them. I use a hacked up sorceror, whith major nasty stuff, but no contingency and triggered spells. since I'm a magic facinated person, I've noticed there are no really good, powerful single target relaible high level monster take down spell. thats why I try ot use tactics and cunning to take on liches and beholders with no serious damage.

fast casting web combined with area effect spells. cast the web at a enemy just out of visual range. most or all will get stuk on the web, (ambush bonus) allowing you to use cloud kill at leaisure. actually, i find incindeary cloud to be more effective in most situations. it sure seems to work better. I'll have to try out that cloudkill from wand tactic.

a 5 squad of skeleton warriors can take on an kill liches without your party taking any damage at all. in the umar hills, I sent a group fo 5 skeleton warriors against the liches, mummies and enemy skeleton warriors. they were almost invulnerable against the lich spells, and ground him up into bone soup. when the lich finally made it to the visual sight of my party, he was too busy to cast spells and I used spellstrike and lower resistance to make him easy meat.

skeleton warriors-heavy armor. using a sledge hammer to crush walnuts is not elegent, but always works. the only time my skeletons have failed to kill and maim is up against 6 beholders. that one i used a cheap trick, not rotating the bridge so there was no way to get at my party, and cloudkill at the extreme visual range. farsight is invaluable for targetting with cloudkill.

spiders-fast light scouts, expendable, and excellent against hordes of lightweight creatures. 2 spiders can tear apart a gobin horde in 3 turns flat. rather chilling in fact.

invisible stalker, I rarely use them

pit fiend-pure fun. unleash a demon from the ninth circle of hell into a middle of some weak monsters is so fun. the problem is waiting until it disappears.

[WOLFGIR]

Well here we have it again.. I don´t say that it is wrong to play this way, but however don´t compare your hacked up mages with the normal characters and NPC´s, with one of these hacks I can get a fighter that has 100% resistance against everything, with a +5 sword that dispells all magic when hit etc.. OK get my point, It is almost like in the first Diablo, when a person could cheat so much you could have a fighter levl 1 that killed everything witj one hit and always hit them.. Maybe you don´t hack ém up that good but that is still the point. Hacked up characters are hacked up, therefor not of interest in comparison. OK?

Furthermore, I´m happy to see that alot of people thinks that a mage and a fighter are well balanced and that they need each other in some sense. THis shows the true DoD motive behind the game, it is to be played with friends and everybody can add there character to solve the problems faced!

Continually the debate about might and magic.
From my gaming experience, fighters can pretty much win any battle with help from mages in major battles. Mages on the other hand cannot due to the limited number of spells they can memorize per day. I have found magic to be useful in some battles particularly in the early parts of the game. Later on, offensive magic become useless or a waste of time to cast because their are powerful enemies with good saving throws or powerful magic resistance. However, a mages defensive spells are sound such as stoneskin. I have found mages to be important to break enemy mages defensive magics they use so that my fighters can hack them to bits.

[Draggor]

As people who have read some of my other posts would know I'm a magic supports might style player. My magic users mostly have defensive or enhancement type spells memorized and lots of remove magic, breach etc so my fighters can hit enemy wizards. Too many of the spells hurt your own party which is a problem when your protagonist is right in the center of the enemy. In terms of situations I thought I'd need magic, I was doing the demi lich quest and just before the second lich I'd stood around and cast all of these protective spells on my party. Right at the beginning of the battle Minsc walks up to the lich with the vorpal sword, hits it and it fails it's save and dies. I didn't need any for Firkraag either surprisingly.

Draggor,
I'm glad to see we share a very similar fighting style. I also find that my fighters have almost singlehandedly won many of the battles that I read others have had major problems with. Such as, "How in the world do you beat the Liches?" I just beat them to death, no great strategy. My Paladin with BoS, and HA is very magic resistant and quite capable of killing liches. I don't even use all the buffs unless I've been tipped off that a major conflict lies ahead..

I found magic indispensable in the original Baldur's Gate. But in Icewind Dale and BGII not really. While in the IWD and BGII the spells are better and useful, I really think you could get by without a mage.

[Zenith]

I mostly agree with Ronn. The only time I have found that you "need" mages is to tear down magic protections via breach, secret word, etc...and to cast haste for really tough battles. I definitely underuse magic, though, and some battles would probably be easier if I used more spells.

yeah, i remember about how easy it was to hack diablo. however, my game has a few limitations that keep it fun...
no contingency or sequenced spells
all my other chracters accumulate experience
and any high level monsters are taken out by my sorceror usually alone.

so since the part of the game i enjoy is using spells to beat nastys, I get the maximum enjoyment out of this,
"hmm...6 beholders, i'll use sorceror alone, no boots of speed."

also i avoid "spell saving" keeping back your most powerful attack for the next nasty or thinking on whether or not to use last farsight in the next room or not.

everyone else in my party is literally backup to my sorceror.