To start a necromancer or a sorcerer?

Remove all ads!

i need help i want to start a sorcerer or a necromancer witch is better and what spells should i get and what weapon profisencys should i get?

[I suggest you improve your grammar and spelling or you'll be the next GMOTW.] -Tal

[ August 14, 2002, 22:23: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Daggers - both Melee and ranged

I prefer Necromancers though others might diagree, Dexterity and intelligence are what you really need, the rest are pretty un-needed

With necromancers you can't get illusions (IIRC) but many creatures can see through them anyway

 

There are necromancers in this game? I was remembering when i was playing Might and Magic III. Sorcerers can be affective but remmeber:
Pro:
-Don't have to memorize spells
-Can cast spells more often (thier capacity of spells is usually higher than a regular mage)
Con:
-They suck
-one cannot pick spells for them to learn in their repertoire (which means you are not as easily able to see all the cool spells that mages can learn)
-any spell not memorized you have to buy and then use in the quick slot
-acquire spells more slowly
-know fewer spells
Necromancers: are specialty mages dealing in death,
Pros:
can memorize an extra spell per level of that particular school, in your case another necromancy spell every level that it applies to
Cons:
-most restrictive of all spell schools
-they can't use any magic that deals with illusion(which is very effective, i.e. blindness, reflect image, spook,blur, deafness, INVISIBILITY, Mirror Image, Invisibilty 10' radius, shadow door, mislead,mass invisibility, projected image,simulacrum) whicare good spells if you don't want your mage target by another mage.

So in other words don't pick either of those mages. I would go with an abjurer because most of the spells that are restricted by that class can be picked up by a priest/cleric(i.e. strentgh and haste)

 

Sling most wizards are not melee attackers but the staff of rynn is quite good and if you mage runs out of spells the sling of ?arcabane? a +3 sling with +2 bullets packs a good punch

 

Quarterstaff and sling for weaponry.

 

Start with a sorcerer and use slots for quarterstaves and slings. As far as I can see sorcerer is easier to play with a mage however is a bit more challenging. I think saw quite some posts about which class is better and which spells to chose. Look around a bit and you should find them.

 

well i started both of them and the necromancer was ok.. but i tryed the sorcerer and i am INVINCABLE it rulez i like verything i come by with one or 2 magic misslesim currently at lvl 10 and im in chapter 2 going on 3 and im in the castle with all the trolls i just started him this morning and i've played him for about 2 or 3 hours... and i think i could take on irenicus right about now. only if that whimp would show up instaead of hiding.

 

A level 10 sorcerer vs. Irenicus? You'd get slaughtered. Anyway, if you're going to go with a specialist mage, go with either conjurer or invoker. Trust me on this. The spells that they lose are not that useful.

The extra spell per level does not have to be spent on the specialist's school. It can be used for any spell. You can pick the spells the sorcerer gets, and they can use scrolls in addition. They get spells at the same speed as the wizard (are you thinking of 3rd edition D&D Arathorn?).

Why do sorcerers suck? You said that in your description, but failed to give a reason. We established in an earlier thread that the sorcerer is the best mage.

[ August 15, 2002, 16:21: Message edited by: Rastor ]

 

Staff of Rhynn for a sorcerer or mage ?? Not for the whole game, I hope- the Staff of the Magi is *MUCH* better

Yes one can.
You choose the spells for them to learn each level up. Surely you`re not saying "they suck" based on playing one for only the first 5-10 minutes of Irenicus` Dungeon ??

 

If you have not yet played with mages go for a mage or specialist mage, for a sorcerer you need to be able to pick the spells. Although you can use a guide for this, it's much more fun if you can pick them yourself (in other words if you have a little experience with mages)

 

- Sorcerer or Necromancer.
I would definitely take Sorcerer. Of course you must put some effort into spell selection.
Either find a good guide with spell selection or put a lot of thought in the spell selection yourself, or preferably both!

Check this link for a discussion on sorcerer spell selection (in ToB forum but valid nevertheless):
http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=001136
and an older one:
http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=000366

- Weapon choices.
Start with: Dart, Quarterstaff.
Take Sling as your next proficiency at level 12.

[ August 21, 2002, 17:46: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]

 

I'm just going from what i read in the manual.
Although I have played a sorcerer but only till level 9 or so. "Do they suck" no, that's a hint of my sarcasm. I believe their spells are quite possibly more powerful and they can hold more spells than a mage. But the one thing I don't like is that you can't memorize spells with sorcerers. A sorcerer is a true wizard. A mage has the ability to dual-class if you have the right class, which makes the mage probably less sophisticated or less-wizard-like than the sorcerer. But in the time that I had a sorcerer I would say that it is fun, it's just nice to know that you can dual-class mages, yet if you aren't going to dual-class a mage than you might as well have a sorcerer.

In the manual it says that sorcers learn spells less wuickly so at any given time or experience level the mage could be at level 7 magic while the sorcerer could be at level 6 magic. But then again the manual doesn't work through experience it works through paper.
PAGE 71: 1st paragraph so. They (sorcerers) know fewer spells than mages , and acquire spells more slowly, YET they cas spells more often and don't need to memorize them from scrolls. Yet you can always buy scrolls and use them in your quickslot.

[ August 22, 2002, 01:06: Message edited by: Arathorn ]

 

ey, sorcerers are superior to mages (and specialist mages such as the necromancer) in many ways. I won't tell u all here, follow this link instead ;

http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/BCsorc.zip

 

Take a pure mage or specialist mage, so you can test almost all spells in the game. On a second run you'll know which spells work for you.

 

Ignore that. This is a description in a D&D book. It's not this way in game.

 

And how is it not this way in the game if I may ask?

 

In game, they attain spell levels at the same rate as mages, so therefore, depending on level, they can actually cast more high level spells than wizards.

The rest of the quote is accurate.

They do not acquire spells more slowly.

[ August 24, 2002, 17:24: Message edited by: Rastor ]

 

Rastor, I think you may have misunderstood it.

At early to mid levels a sorcerer gain new spell levels slower than a wizard.
For example, a Wizard-9 can cast level 5 spells but a Sorcerer-9 cannot.
This is very temporary and from level 12 and on they are once more equal.

So there is nothing wrong with that quote:

 

Even when they can cast high level spells the wizard still cannot learn yet.
The total amount of spells they can put in their spellbook is still less than that of a wizard,
in other words the quote is correct.

[edit]
I fixed it now (I hope)
Thanks Earl Grey for noticing my emberassing error before everyone read it.
I've made enough blunders the last few days
[/edit]

[ August 25, 2002, 20:26: Message edited by: StressedE ]

 

@StressedE
I don't think your latest post is correct.

- You memorize spells every day.
So: A sorcerer can "memorize" (read: number of spells castable/day) more spells than a wizard.

- You learn spells.
So: A wizard can learn more spells than a sorcerer.

Edited an embarrassing error.

[ August 25, 2002, 13:48: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]