Does a mage need high wisdom?
Flo
Ulrich Wurst
news:bhho1v45332cacm7r...@4ax.com...
>
>Does a mage need high wisdom?
Only to cast wish and limited wish (Baldur's Gate 2, I assume?). But since
there are lots of potions to boost your WIS for this (not too often needed)
spell, your mage will be perfectly fine with WIS 11-12.
Uli
Cix Klamroth
least 13. any less and you get casting failure percentages. if you get 13
or more wisdom, you get bonus spells, which are a help. of course, lore is
good too, if you can get 15 or more. but imo, the best part about high
wisdom is the magic defense adjustments. iirc it reduces magic damage, or
maybe increases saving throws... i forget.
so, a mage should have *at least 13* wisdom. more than that is good.
obviously.
Cix Klamroth
Jonathan Ellis
"Cix Klamroth" <cix_kl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bz8T9.267572$F2h1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> You don't necessarily need *high* wisdom, per se... but make sure to
have at
> least 13. any less and you get casting failure percentages. if you
get 13
> or more wisdom, you get bonus spells, which are a help.
Neither of these are true. Spell failure percentages applies
exclusively to *priests casting priest spells*, i.e. clerics or
druids. Bonus spells also apply exclusively to *priests casting priest
spells*.
Anyone casting *mage* spells (a mage or bard) will have NO spell
failure unless he is actually hit for damage while trying to cast the
spell. Nor will you get any bonus spells. Not even a multi-classed
cleric/mage will get any bonus mage spells, or any chance to fail
casting his mage spells.
Also, anyone EXCEPT a priest will not fail to cast even priest
spells. Rangers and paladins with illegally low wisdoms cannot fail to
cast their spells: Minsc, for instance, will fire his limited priest
spells off successfully every time.
of course, lore is
> good too, if you can get 15 or more. but imo, the best part about
high
> wisdom is the magic defense adjustments. iirc it reduces magic
damage, or
> maybe increases saving throws... i forget.
"magic defence adjustments" improves your saving throws against
Magical Spells. Nothing else. It's the ONLY thing for which wisdom is
useful for a non-priest, apart from the high Lore value - which you
shouldn't need, if you're a mage: you cast the spell of Identify
instead, or use the Glasses of Identification.
Jonathan.
Ragnar
"Jonathan Ellis" <jona...@franz-liszt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:avjkkp$lnf$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "magic defence adjustments" improves your saving throws against
> Magical Spells. Nothing else. It's the ONLY thing for which wisdom is
> useful for a non-priest, apart from the high Lore value - which you
> shouldn't need, if you're a mage: you cast the spell of Identify
> instead, or use the Glasses of Identification.
As far as I know, the magic defense adjustment doesn't work in BG1. It
simply wasn't implemented.
Ryan Atwater
> You don't necessarily need *high* wisdom, per se... but make sure to have at
> least 13. any less and you get casting failure percentages. if you get 13
> or more wisdom, you get bonus spells, which are a help. of course, lore is
> good too, if you can get 15 or more. but imo, the best part about high
> wisdom is the magic defense adjustments. iirc it reduces magic damage, or
> maybe increases saving throws... i forget.
The bonus spells and chance of spell failure apply only to clerics and
druids casting priest/druid spells. (I can't remember how much these
apply to druids though.) There's no effect on mages at all. The Magic
Defense Adjustment affects saving throws against mind-affecting spells
(Charm/Domination/Chaos, for example,) but it's not implemented. (I
wish they had implemented it, though - it could make clerics very
attractive, since they're the main Wisdom-oriented class.)
The only effect Wisdom has on mages is to improve the options available
and end results when they cast (Limited) Wish spells. Since it checks
your current WIS and not your "actual" WIS, you can boost it with
potions, so rolling a high WIS isn't *that* necessary.
--
Ryan Atwater <rya...@u.washington.edu>