Weaklings in my team aka magick users.

I have a couple of questions regarding those physically handicapped characters:

1)Okay I do realize I will open a pandora box with this but: wizard or sorcerer, or perhaps both of them as maybe a single magick user is not enough.

2)Druid or cleric. Personally I always had a cleric in my party as he basically seemed more powerful to me.

3)Which magick school should I choose? I know that divination only restricts you from learning a single other school not two of them. Hence it would be my choice bu t perhaps you know better. And (maybe even more importantly ) whoich magick school should i give up on?

I htink that's all I have to ask for now.

 

You can always just run as a straight sorcerer or mage. You don't HAVE to give up on a school if you don't specialize. Illusion is only really good for invisibility, if you must give something up. If you have a cleric, you won't need abjuration for your mage at low levels, though certainly extra protection spells are nice to have. I never end up using necromancy spells in any DandD game as long as I have evokation and/or conjuration, so you might want to get rid of that. I, though, would pick a straight sorceror. That's a lot of firepower, and INT is generally less useful a prime stat than CHR in a game. But you lose item making...

As far as the ceric/druid, pick the cleric. Necessary. More turn undead. Better heals. Generally better spells, especially if you are dungeon crawling (which you are).

If we were talking tabletop, I might advise differently, but in a video game, I think this is the way to go.

 

All specialisation does for you is give an extra spell of that school for you, which is slightly more effective, while ruling out two others. Personally, I don't think it's worth it, unless you have two dedicated casters in there, in which case, why not?

As for druid vs cleric, druids get some pretty nifty spells/abilities that a cleric won't (produce flame is a great low level spell for instance, and barkskin is handy as well) and the animal companion/shapeshifting abilities are pretty cool as well. That said, clerics get more healing spells, and because they don't have as many item restrictions, are better in combat in the long run. Although, if you managed to find some really good druid-compatible gear then I'd flip a coin or something. Really depends what you want out of your casters and party.

 

Not really sure about the sorcerer/mage conflict, but when i play real dnd with a party of about 5/6 i've found its usually good to have a mage or sorcerer, a druid and a cleric. the cleric can focus on healing abilities, the mage can focus on magick offense and defense, and the druid is always a really useful mix of healing/offensive magic and makes for a really good fighter to boot. that said all you need after that is a fighter and a thief.

If you have six players me and my buddies always opt for a ranger, a fighter and a thief, with 5 we go for a fighter/thief and either another fighter, or a ranger. in terms of party versatility it might seem redundant to have two nature oriented party members, but then again it makes sense from a roleplaying point of view.

please dont think this means i know anything about the game ToEE, i just had to throw my two cents in because it was just such an interesting question, and im sure its a relevant answer considering the game was designed to reflect DnD gameplay.

 

Thanks for the answers, I'll have my usual Wizard/Cleric combo though I just might throw in a Sorcerer as well. I think i'll just give up on Paladin then (besides the only reason I kept one in BG2 was because of +5 Paladins only sword). Besides I need to try a new party scheme and leave the good old Figher/Paladin/Thief/Ranger/Wizard/Cleric aside.

 

like i said, why not try throwing in a druid? they're really fun characters.

did i mention that charm animal is also a very useful ability? i played the game at my friends house and went on a rampage with a charmed giant toad or frog or something, very cool stuff.