Class builds

Remove all ads!

Before I set off I wanted to have some ideas for my characters. I am really tempted to be a Wizard that specializes as an Invoker; I like the looks and sound of the spells they have access to. But I want to know if they are weak. Whether they are or not, does anyone know of a site that suggests builds for all the classes?

---------- Added 3 hours, 7 minutes and 46 seconds later... ----------

I have no experience whatsoever with D&D. In most other RPGs I role as a Wizard and I like being able to dish out damage. Unfortunately I cannot seem to find any builds specifically for a Wizard. Upon looking around, people seem to state that an Invoker is a terrible choice. I have seen a few suggestions of people saying a Barbarian, a Kensai, and Archers are great choices.

A quote from another user;
"probably best in order of barbarian berserker cavalier archer stalker
next best are multiclass like fighter/thief of elven or dwarven race
or fighter/cleric ranger/clerics or fighter/druids same races
next are clerics/druids
next thiefs/bards
next mages"

 

If you want to play an Invoker, play an Invoker!

Yes, they are weak at lower levels, weaker than most, if not all other classes, being a single class Mage. Low hit points, no armor, poor weapon choices, virtually no melee ability, etc, etc.

At higher levels, when they have higher level friends to stand in front of them while they get off their spells, much more powerful.

Invoker is a problematic choice - you lose access to Ench/Charm *and* Conj/Summ spells. They, Invokers, are the *only* specialist Wizard that loses access to two spell schools. So you are giving up a lot for just one extra spell per level per day.

Any other specialist Mage except for Enchanters can cast Invo/Evo spells, so one can play any of them, get the extra spell per level per day, still cast Invo/Evo spells and only lose out on a single spell school.

For example, rather than an Invoker, one could play a Conjurer - you get the extra spell per level per day, can cast Invo/Evo spells and all you lose is Divination - a spell school which any Cleric can cover for you, in terms of getting rid of illusions and the like.

The point being that there is little reason to pick an Invoker, rather than another specialist - you get nothing extra, compared to another type of specialist, and give up a lot, more than any other specialist, to take this specialty.

As to a "build", in BG there isn't much of the way in "building" a particular character or class that differs a whole lot. As a Mage, you want good Constitution and extraordinary Intelligence and Dexterity - everything else is gravy, really. To play an Invoker, one requires a 16 Constitution, but the game will give you this on character creation anyway, so it isn't an issue. Same for any stat requirement, for any class. The game always gives you the minimum roll needed to play the class/kit you choose *before* the game rolls the dice, in effect.

Although it doesn't apply as much in BG2, in BG1 one of the real disadvantages of the Invoker is that they can't cast Sleep - one of the most powerful low level spells against low level enemies. However, in BG2, losing out on Conj/Summ is a pretty big "hit", since summoning various meat-bags and other fodder is a pretty important part of the Mage's usefulness. IMO anyway.

The Illusionist is another reasonable choice for specialist Mage, since they gain all of the advantages of an Invoker, while only giving up Necromantic spells - most of which are ignorable, save for AB's Horrid Wilting, which *is* a very nice spell.

Bottom line, really, considering how the game works in practice, is that by taking an Invoker, the only advantage you gain over other specialist mages [other than the Enchanter, who can't use Invo/Evo spells] is the fact that you get to call yourself an "Invoker" - which is a pretty meaningless "advantage", all things considered...

Personally, if you were asking advice on which specialist Mage to use, I'd say Conjurer - and get a Cleric or Druid to cast True Sight when you need it...

 

The primary advantage (supposedly) of certain specialist mage types in BG2 was that each had a "favored" attribute. Many specialist mages were also race-specific, so regardless of just how powerful a Conjurer is only Humans can actually play one.

None of PnP bonuses for specialist mages were ever implemented, but they do get an extra spell slot per level.

Any class in BG2 can become pretty powerful. While there is indeed a power hierarchy, the one you posted is inaccurate. Mages may be weaker than other classes in terms of personal survivability/damage potential, but only when they have used up all their spells. A plain mage/specialist mage is one of the most destructive classes in BG2, even at the start of the game. There's no point try to argue that melee/ranged attacks are supposed to be better than a Fireball or Haste.

BG2 is less about character builds and more about tactics. There's not a lot of ways to get a character build wrong as long as you follow the general guidelines posted everywhere in the game, but in order to fine-tune your characters you need experience. And to succeed in the game in the first place you need tactics.

 

Actually, Half Elves can be Conjurers as well as Humans.

I guess that depends upon what one means by "bonus" - myself I certainly feel that getting a "free" minimum roll of 15 for Con as a Conjurer or 16 Dex as an Illusionist is a "bonus" of a sort...

The various power ranking of specific classes or kits are so subjective that it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation about the topic. IMHO at least, so I won't get into such a discussion. Personally, I feel that each class/kit is "one of the most destructive classes in BG2", depending upon what the player knows, and how they play the class/kit. For a new player, getting a Barbarian out of CI on their own is going to be easier [and more likely to happen] than getting a single class Mage out alone. But to each their own, of course.

Totally agree on the above. Personally, I don't think BG, 1 or 2, has *anything* to do with "Character builds", as I understand the term from AD&D 3.0+, since there is precious little "building" going in in AD&D 2nd ed - you roll up the character and choose, primarily, the logical and most useful abilities to focus on. "Building" a competent Mage in BG is vastly different than the hoop-jumping one must go through to "build" a Prestige Class, for example, in a 3.0+ game. You are not being asked when and to what new class you change to upon level up, you are not picking unique skills or assigning new ability stats on level up either. [Not picking skills until HLA's come into play, of course, but even there the choices are rather limited.]

Bottom line is that people should play what they want to play, and play *how* they want to play. They will discover soon enough if their choices work for them, or if they don't. And if they don't, well you change things until they do *and* you are having fun with the game. Unless one has set some personal limitation like "I am only going to play once, as one class/kit", there is no reason not to experiment with different PCs, different party mixes, different tactics even. There's no big down-side to starting the game fresh, with new ideas and plans in mind, after all...

 

Like I said, none of PnP bonuses for specialist mages were ever implemented. Originally when saving against spells within his/her favored school, a specialist mage would receive a +1 to saving throws. The specialist mage's enemies also suffered a -1 penalty when saving against spells cast by the specialist mage from his favored school. Specialist mages also had a +15% chance to scribe spell scrolls from his chosen school. This was pre-epic levels, and ideally should improve the higher the specialist mage's level is.
In comparison the minimum stat rolls are nice but in the end are still more of a convenience (you can get the same rolls if you keep re-rolling long enough) rather than a definite bonus.

Directness/simplicity should not be indication of potential destructive power. Since we're not talking about rocket science vs counting numbers here, there is just no comparison between the destructive potential of a low level Barbarian and a Mage at starting levels. You don't have to be a genius to memorize and cast level 3 spells. That's the whole point of how mages were balanced in this game - awesome destructive potential/survivability for as long as they have their spells, but extremely sub-par staff/sling users, knowledgeable but vulnerable party member and occasional magic item user otherwise.

 

As I said, I don't think that conversations about Class "power" are even potentially fruitful, so I'll neither agree nor disagree with you on this issue. It's simply not a conversation I'm interested in participating in.

 

Then don't reply. I already pointed out that any class in BG2 can become pretty powerful, there was no need for you to repeat it twice.
I'm mostly concerned about the fact that you seem to be implying that a barbarian is supposed to be as destructive as a wizard, which is outright misleading.

 

If you want an easy-to-use wizard-type class, with awesome destructive power (from memorising the same number of spells per spell-level as a specialist mage, whilst having no spell-school limitation, and having immense versatility within a battle) then a sorcerer will be your thing. So much fun. When used in conjunction with a back-up mage or a bard, you'll have the most powerful and spur-of-the-moment-adaptable spellslinger going, whilst maintaining from the secondary spellcaster the variety of the spells not covered by the sorc. One thing to remember is that there is a very specific set of spells you will want to focus on as a sorc, so there's pretty much only one viable sorc "build".

 

I feel it is impolite to not reply to a comment directed at me.

To solve the problem of disagreeing with what you think I am implying, simply don't infer anything from my statements at all. I have made it clear, I had hoped, that I believe that power-ranking classes is too subjective, and too dependent upon situational variables, to be a worth-while conversation.

Can we not leave it at that? I simply don't have the time, nor the interest to discuss it.

---------- Added 0 hours, 8 minutes and 26 seconds later... ----------

This, however, is *the* "problem" with Sorcerers - if a new player doesn't know what these specific, must-have spells are, they can make serious mistakes with their spell choices.

I totally agree that with the correct mix of spells, a Sorcerer is a powerful class indeed, but it is also one of the easiest classes to scr#w up if one doesn't have access to a person or guide that tells you just what the few spells you are able to know are the right ones *to* know!

But as long as someone will tell the new player exactly what spells to know, and why, then yes, it's a powerful and entertaining class to play.

 

Based on sheer destructive capability, adaptability and de-buffing ability, the sorcerer has my vote as the single most powerful and useful class available in vanilla BG2. However it can become fairly boring, due to the limited selection of must-have spells. (Although I remember a thread from some forum involving a discussion of a "non-standard" sorc build---one where the standard list of spells is purposefully avoided, and the best possible use is made of those remaining.) The spell choice can be heavily influenced by mod choice, as well; e.g. with SCS one definitely needs the heavy-weight buffing/de-buffing spells.

Still, for a new player wishing to play a wizard class, a pure mage, conjurer or illusionist are the most forgiving options that retain the greatest straight-up power, and for those of a more experimental bent, one could consider multi/dual-classing a mage with/from a fighter for a greater variety in play-style.

 

Sorcys do not need a standard spell list to beat vanilla SoA & ToB. Choosing spells like Burning Hands, Agan Scorcher, Lightning Bolt, Confusion, etc.... can still get you through the game. You just have to work harder at it. I have beat this game with a Knights of Myth Drannor party and Drizzt themed party. Neither were optimal builds to say the least. But fun to play none the less. The "standard" spell list is for the modded games like Anvil and Tactics.

 

I think everyone here is losing sight of the fact that the OP is a beginner and unfamiliar with AD&D.
Yes, a sorcerer is potentially more powerful, but you have to know which spells to pick. Also, somebody mentioned "getting out of CI alone". A beginner has no business trying to solo. He should be taking Jaheria, Minsc, Imoen, and Yoshimo with him to help.

I'd say for your first play through you need to take a wizard-type instead so you can experiment with the different spells and choose what works best. Make sure he has 18 INT so he can scribe the maximum number of spells into the spellbook.

As for builds, in the P&P version of AD&D 2.0 there is quite a bit more customization, particularly in non-combat proficiencies. None of that is implemented in the Infinity Engine games. You're pretty much limited to choosing spells, weapon proficiencies, and thieving skills.

 

Newbies can play Sorcerers. They are actually easier to manage when first learning the game, as you don't have to worry about memorization or scribing which has failure percentages. They are easily handled as basic Raw damage dealers. Minsc & Jaheira carries the party through CI just fine. Minsc plus Genie sword = dead everything in CI, nothing is that tough. All the basic party bases are covered with Minsc, Jaheira and Imoen. The Protagonist can be of any class and it really won't make a lick of difference when it comes to survivability.

The same goes for any other mage-type. Yikes, don't scare the new guy. One of the best parts of the game is learning what each class can do. Recommend the various classes to a newbie. Tell them the pros of each class.

 

Well, what people "should" do, and what they try to do, can be quite different things...

I've been involved in numerous threads over the last decade where new gamers want to "get out on their own", without even Imoen! Which I consider sort of sacriligious, but no matter....

Some new gamers find managing a party more difficult and frustrating than managing a single character, especially if they have come from primarily a single person type game background. Of course, they "should" learn how to use their party members effectively and they "should" learn how to use the interface such that managing even a party of 6 is *not* frustrating and off-putting, but again, what people "should" do is not always what they want to do...

 

My first RPG was Final Fantasy Legend II on the Gameboy and Curse of the Azure Bonds for my Apple II as Christmas presents. Yeah, I know they were both sequels but beggars can't be choosers. They made me seek out the originals, but I wouldn't find Final Fantasy Legend I until years after Final Fantasy Legend III.

Because of that, I learned to use parties. Other early games I got were Bard's Tale I and II and Might and Magic II.

If anything, I find games like Neverwinter Nights where you only get one henchman to be strange to me. At least for a Dungeons and Dragons game. I thought the entire D&D series was designed specifically to require multiple party members and to make sure that no character can do it all.

 

For beginners..

Ok, for party tactics in a battle you should think of 3 basic types of party members.

Upfront fighters, ranged (mages OR bow & arrow-though mages are better, only ranged bow/crossbow character I'd take seriously is a Archer specialist type of ranger), and healers.

For noncombat (usually, though there may be times when you do this during combat) stuff it is good to have a thief who can unlock stuff and deal with traps).

You have room for 6 people so you can have at least one of each of these in your party.

Plus a good multi-class can handle more than 1 role.


You like mages? Go with a mage. I agree with the notion that they get very powerful. Depending on the situation they *usually* are more powerful than a barbarian of the same level. With experience you get an understanding of which spells are the most useful-which impacts the situation a lot.


Paladins, Barbarians, Fighters, & Rangers are more of your upfront fighters-both a lot of hitpoints and the ability to use some hard hitting hand to hand weapons.

Give them or a thief a ranged weapon and they can do ranged support too-though a mage is usually much better at this.

Clerics and druids *can* fight though not as well as an upfront fighter but they heal-vital during the battle sometimes.

Also look at if there are specific advantages of each individual character. I often have Nalia and/or Imoen in my party and each of them is thief dual-classed to a mage. I would have arranged their thief skills slightly differently to concentrate on what I mentioned but since they were thieves, unlike a pure mage, they can use more types of weapons, such as short bows when they run low on spells.


I'm not sure but I think my most common choices for a main character were either mages or paladins. They fight battles in different ways but each are powerful in their own way.

Also check out the special kinds of each class to see if there is anything you may like. There is often a powerful bonus for each kind (though I'm not totally sold on some types of specialist druids or bards).

For me each of the specialist kinds of paladin is better than a generic paladin because they get bonuses above and beyond a general paladin and what they loose isn't that important comparatively.

If you start as a mage go ahead-thought you may want to consider multi or dual classing as a fighter/mage (fighter to mage for dual) so you have more armor & weapon options as well as hitpoints.

If not then you can specialist mage of any type if you want. Go with a wild mage for some humor- most fun type of mage imo. (and doesn't have to give up a magic school either).

You will have general mages that can join your group. But you have enough spaces in your party that you can add them even if your main character is a specialist mage.

It is your main character so do as you will.

I like mages and paladins more than most other class.

Though I did have a half-orc fighter/cleric at one point..



Oh, this is kind of a cheat but there are things you can do to make it so mages are more likely to write a spell from a scroll in their spellbook. Potions help with this or-for the really nitpicky-saving the game right beforehand does wonders (if the spell doesn't copy then go back to the prior save and try again-though this is..)

 

If you want to play a completely overpowered spellslinger, play a sorcerer. Basically an invoker with no prohibited school

 

Thread Necromancy.

I agree that a sorcerer is more powerful, but it is NOT for a newbie.
A sorcerer depends on knowing which spells are most useful for your play style and the challenges of the game.
A newbie is going to be presented with a myrid of choices each level and not going to have a clue which one is the best pick.
A wizard on the other hand, can buy scrolls for all those choices and gives the newbie a chance to try them out and find out which works best.
Then on his next play through, he can try a sorcerer, picking the best spells he used during his first run with a wizard.

Note that Imoen, Edwin, and Nallia can serve as excellent test beds if the newbie chooses to play a thief type, or a fighter type as suggested by the manual (but who RTFM?). Jan can work to a lessor extent, but said newbie would have the same problem once they start getting high level spells as Jan can't use them due to the XP cap.