Worst arcane class: diviner? EDIT: Abjurer?

[Knight]

How common are diviners? In terms of rarity, we will compare them to other specialist mages.

Throughout the series there's 77+ conjurers, 17 necromancers, 12 illusionists, 9 evokers, 4 diviners, 3 enchanters, 1 abjurer, and 0 transmuters.

Here's the list of diviners you'll see.

BG1->
Galileus[baldursgate.fandom.com]-He'll briefly predict bad times are upon us, and be on his way.
Pallonia[baldursgate.fandom.com]-She'll throw out a possible prediction for Neverwinter Nights and Shadow's of Amn.
BG2->
Rabiah[baldursgate.fandom.com]-Beamdog addition for Hexxat's quest.
Sukayna[baldursgate.fandom.com]-Beamdog addition for Hexxat's quest.

Even the actual character in BG1 called "diviner?"

He's actually a generalist mage lol.

https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Diviner_(NPC)

Now how good are they?

Like all specialist mages, they can scribe with a 15% bonus to odds of success their preferred spells and are able to cast 1 more spell per level relative to unspecialized mages.

Their disadvantage is not being able to scribe conjuration spells, a 15% loss on odds of succussfully scribing any non diviner spell.

What advantages do they bring that other specialists do not?

Unlike other mages, they get a minimum ability score for Wisdom at 15. Wisdom doesn't offer much bonuses throughout the series, and borderline nothing in bg1. In fact, one of the very few uses high wisdom offers isn't beneficial in bg2, the limited wish spell isn't available to them, which utilizes wisdom. However it is great for the wish spell, at least. Tome of understanding is available 3 times in bgee, and if you're good you get a +1 bonus from a hell trial. As well as an increase from things like machine of lum the mad.

They technically do have a specialist advantage roll on a single spell, "Know Alignment." No, the arcane version of the spell says there's a saving throw in the description even though there isn't.

They only have a unique saving throw advantage to a Cleric casting "Know Alignment" which can be saved from. However no enemy in the entire series uses that spell on any priest.

The only means by which this will ever be tested is if you control a cleric to memorize Know Alignment and cast know alignment on a diviner. Only in that case will such a saving throw ever be tested, but even if it is, it won't benefit you or the enemy in any way, because there's no programming meant to alter the behavior of a character based on whether or not the alignment is shown.

Keep in mind, diviners themselves are exceptionally rare, and before beamdog added 2 in, there was virtually none in bg2. That is to say, if you were playing shadows of Amn, you could only ever test this saving throw by having a cleric in your own party use the spell on your own diviner.

In other words the "specialist bonus" is lost on them and they will neither defend nor cast spells with any practical advantage.

Which is the rough equivalent to Abjurers, who also gain nothing from the specialist saving throw advantage.

However... Abjurers miss out on Time stop, which is worth consideration. They also miss out on shapechange, While the level 9 spells diviner miss are the "power word kill"

TLDR;

Honestly, I think they did the diviner class wrong... it locks you out of useful spells in conjuration, requires you to have 15 WIS (as opposed to conjurer's 15 CON), they have no real bonus from the specialist class bonus to saving throws. Though as others have said Abjurers are probably worse than diviners. They get all the negatives of diviners, and at the same time miss out on what's likely a better pool of spells.

[Sstavix]

I've actually considered the role of a divination specialist mage in the tabletop version as well. They wouldn't be that useful in a combat-heavy campaign. But if there are adventures that require a lot of skill checks or investigation, they really could be over-powered.

Not really relevant to Baldur's Gate specifically, but in the broader context of D&D, it works.

[Peter]

I've played a diviner. It's the best specialist mage in my opinion. Diviner has access to all protection spells so saving throws do not matter. The lack of conjuration spells is not that important either.
The cool thing about diviner is that you can recruit Edwin very early in BG1, SoD and BG2. Now you have two opposite specialist mages, so the only spell you may miss is Find Familiar.

[Teratus]

Through the powers of Divination I will see into the future and predict the enemies next attack.

Of course, our mage is going to be felled by arrows.. typical.

Wait a sec...

[Knight]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Peter:

I've played a diviner. It's the best specialist mage in my opinion.

I don't mean to be rude, but this is bait right?

[Peter]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Knight:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Peter:

I've played a diviner. It's the best specialist mage in my opinion.

I don't mean to be rude, but this is bait right?

No. You asked about the worst arcane class. Diviner doesn't belong here.

[Knight]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Peter:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Knight:

I don't mean to be rude, but this is bait right?

No. You asked about the worst arcane class. Diviner doesn't belong here.

ok, do you see my big wall of text detailing the issues?

The reason you pick a specialist mage over a non-specialized mage is for 2 major benefits
-additional spells to memorize and thus make them a bit more combat ready at the cost of versatility
-advantages on casting and defending against spells.

Here are the bonuses unique to the class->
-able to scribe divination scrolls with 15% more likelyhood of success.
-can roll a +2 advantage against a spell no one in the game will ever cast on you.

here are the disadvantages
-No access to conjuration spells, this includes some protective spells, like armor.
-15% less likely to scribe all other scrolls

To put this in perspective, conjurer is considered the best specialist, save for maybe wild mage. The reason is because it only misses out on divination spells.

But what if a conjurer is up against an invisible enemy? He can cast a level 2 spell, "glitterdust." He also has an advantage on that cast and if enemies ever use this spell on him, he has an advantage saving throw here against that spell. When he gets summon planetar they can even see invisible enemies, and if I recall correctly can cast true sight, which is the most valuable spell they lose.

Info on the wiki:

Conjurers get advantages on grease, glitterdust, flame arrow, prismatic spray, symbols of death, fear, stun.

Enchanters also have quite a few advantages to spells, such as Charm Person, Sleep, Ray of Enfeeblement, Dire Charm, Hold Person, Confusion, Emotion: Hopelessness, Chaos, Domination, Feeblemind and Hold Monster.

Necromancers also... Chill Touch, Ghoul Touch, Horror, Hold Undead, Skull Trap, Contagion, Control Undead, Finger of Death, Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting and the Wail of the Banshee.

Although Necromancers miss out on quite a few useful illusion spells like project image, mislead, spook, etc... so many of these spells they cast are both incredibly useful, as well as often casted by enemies, so they're often regarded as second place for specialty to conjurers.

Abjurers and diviners are the only classes that miss out on advantages here. However, a couple of spells abjurers really take a hit on is not being able to use stoneskin and timestop.

Wheras diviners miss out on less bad spells I suppose. Diviners might not be worse than abjurers, but I think it's a pretty close race between them to the bottom.

[Peter]

I'm not interested in wikipedia theories. You did not played a diviner ever. So create one and play.

[Wicket W. Warrick]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Knight:

The reason you pick a specialist mage over a non-specialized mage is for 2 major benefits
-additional spells to memorize and thus make them a bit more combat ready at the cost of versatility
-advantages on casting and defending against spells.

the point is that you are both right, because all depends on playing style, so there isn't a specialist stronger or weaker, it depends on how you play. Furthermore the difference between specialist type is not so important if you have another mage in the party.

All the bonus of a specialist becomes irrelevant if you really need the spells of the opposite school. And that's depends on how you play. In fact the only bonus that always applies is the +1 spells, while the saving throw bonus is not really relevant, the scribe scroll bonus is totally irrelevant, the bonus against oppoents' saving throw depends on how much you like to use spells with saving throws and tend to lose importance during the game.

[Knight]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Peter:

I'm not interested in wikipedia theories. You did not played a diviner ever. So create one and play.

They're not wikipedia theories.

Give me ANY advantage that comes with divination.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Wicket W. Warrick:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Knight:

The reason you pick a specialist mage over a non-specialized mage is for 2 major benefits
-additional spells to memorize and thus make them a bit more combat ready at the cost of versatility
-advantages on casting and defending against spells.

the point is that you are both right, because all depends on playing style, so there isn't a specialist stronger or weaker, it depends on how you play. Furthermore the difference between specialist type is not so important if you have another mage in the party.

All the bonus of a specialist becomes irrelevant if you really need the spells of the opposite school. And that's depends on how you play. In fact the only bonus that always applies is the +1 spells, while the saving throw bonus is not really relevant, the scribe scroll bonus is totally irrelevant, the bonus against oppoents' saving throw depends on how much you like to use spells with saving throws and tend to lose importance during the game.

They do not lose importance. On the contrary, because they are both defensive and offensive and every point counts. I've played necromancer and I can say the loss of quite a few useful spells is an issue, but 3 horrid wiltings in a sequencer removes most enemies from the game, and remains useful even through ToB. It's also a spell enemies will cast at later levels, so you'll always benefit with that saving throw bonus.

Saving throw advantages work as a perma greater malison to a degree. You get +2, they get -2. And they're extremely useful throughout BGEE.

And I can't see any reason to pick a divination to play in any style, save for masochistic. About half the divination spells don't offer anything, (infravision? clairvoyance? Detect evil?) Clerics and summoned devas can use true sight, limited wish (conjuration spell) can give you an item to replace identify, and even if you're some solo conjurer and can't identify in bgee, you only need to take items to shops to identify.

[Centurion]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Wicket W. Warrick:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Knight:

The reason you pick a specialist mage over a non-specialized mage is for 2 major benefits
-additional spells to memorize and thus make them a bit more combat ready at the cost of versatility
-advantages on casting and defending against spells.

the point is that you are both right, because all depends on playing style, so there isn't a specialist stronger or weaker, it depends on how you play. Furthermore the difference between specialist type is not so important if you have another mage in the party.

All the bonus of a specialist becomes irrelevant if you really need the spells of the opposite school. And that's depends on how you play. In fact the only bonus that always applies is the +1 spells, while the saving throw bonus is not really relevant, the scribe scroll bonus is totally irrelevant, the bonus against oppoents' saving throw depends on how much you like to use spells with saving throws and tend to lose importance during the game.

There is a lot of truth to this. It does come down to play style. I cannot fathom the use or value of Blades at all. But legions of people love them. Likewise, I am not a fan of single-class mages at all. I will take the combat and HP bonuses of dual/multi over the bonus castings any day of the week. (And I get ALL the spells then!) Plus I just don't have the patience to wait for that mage to scale up to where they are really powerful.

That said, I will defend the OP a little here. Diviners have a small school of spells, so you lose little without them. Only "True Sight" is genuinely useful. Many of the others are just for role-playing, and only then if you can pretend you don't know what's behind the next door or that a particular NPC is evil. I think what is lost in the whole argument of how much you can make up for the deficits on Conjuration/Summoning is the simpler question of what exactly are Diviners good for? Here is my summary:

-You have never played the game and want to figure out things on your own
-You don't use a walkthrough (related to item above) and don't remember what's behind the next door
-You are really cheap and refuse to pay a merchant 100 gp to ID your items for you

And here's the issue: With the exception of True Sight, all of these things can be circumvented in most situations. Stealth, Lore, etc. Sure, you can overcome all the deficits and even have a winning strategy without C/S spells. But who really wants to give up all those spells for a bonus casting of Detect Evil?

[wendigo211]

Wild mage exists*, so obviously Diviner is not the worst class. Of the specialist mages, I think Abjurer is worse. Like Diviner, they don't benefit from the -2 penalty to enemy saves/+2 bonus to their own saves. But losing Alteration means losing: (Improved) Haste, Stoneskin and Timestop. Honestly, I'd rather lose Conjuration. I'll miss Grease, Flame Arrow and Summon (Fallen) Deva but I can live without them. IMO the best summons are: Animate Dead (Necromancy), Mordenkainen's Sword (Evocation), Simulacrum (Illusion) and Project Image (Illusion).

In BG2, Enchanter might be the worst, because there are some really good Evocation spells you'll be missing and Enchantment spells don't do that well against the high level monsters even with the specialist mage bonus. However, In BG I do think it's the strongest specialist mage.


*=Yes, I know in ToB Wild Mages are awesome. But there is a ton of game between BG and ToB where Wild Mages are simply wretched, unplayable excrement.

[Knight]

Oprindeligt skrevet af wendigo211:

Wild mage exists*, so obviously Diviner is not the worst class. Of the specialist mages, I think Abjurer is worse. Like Diviner, they don't benefit from the -2 penalty to enemy saves/+2 bonus to their own saves. But losing Alteration means losing: (Improved) Haste, Stoneskin and Timestop. Honestly, I'd rather lose Conjuration. I'll miss Grease, Flame Arrow and Summon (Fallen) Deva but I can live without them. IMO the best summons are: Animate Dead (Necromancy), Mordenkainen's Sword (Evocation), Simulacrum (Illusion) and Project Image (Illusion).

In BG2, Enchanter might be the worst, because there are some really good Evocation spells you'll be missing and Enchantment spells don't do that well against the high level monsters even with the specialist mage bonus. However, In BG I do think it's the strongest specialist mage.


*=Yes, I know in ToB Wild Mages are awesome. But there is a ton of game between BG and ToB where Wild Mages are simply wretched, unplayable excrement.

Wild mages have 1 advantage early game, their level scales well above the cap if you're lucky.

As an example, if I cast magic missile at level one, and get a lucky "your casting level increased by 5" I get nice bonus missiles.

Another advantage is that while no, you will be better off not using NRD, you get a bonus spell per level without losing any castable spells. IMO conjurer is effectively a better wild mage, at least until you nab thayan circlet. Edwin being insane early game for an extra spell per level over normal conjurers in BG1 and 2 in BG2.

To give a correction, you can summon planetar as any mage.

As for your point about abjurers, I do bring this up in my posts. They probably are a bit worse, though it's a close call, I think.

Early enchanters IMO are also a bit on the bad side too... no magic missile, no chromatic orb, scorcher, fireball, web, etc... web isn't particularly noticeable unless you're playing on higher difficulties where it's essential. However they have MASSIVE bonuses when cast advantages are concerned, charm person, dire charm, hold person, etc. I'd categorize them honestly as mediocre-bad. People have pointed out Xan is pretty bad, even with his cool moonblade. Still, charm is pretty fun to use in this game.

I still maintain conjurer is insanely good and there is no real loss on it.

[Teratus]

One thing that could spice up specialist mages would be to add the appropriate priest spells, or variations of them to their cast list as well, preferably as limited use special abilities rather than spells in your spell book.

Would be kinda fun to see Necromancers with access to healing spells, Holy Smite (if they were not evil alligned) Aid, Cause Critical Wound etc.

Likewise with the other types, Conjurers with Bless etc.

They are "specialists" after all right, so you'd think their keen preference towards a specific spell type would include all spells of that type, not just that of the Mage school.

[Wicket W. Warrick]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Knight:

They do not lose importance. On the contrary, because they are both defensive and offensive and every point counts. I've played necromancer and I can say the loss of quite a few useful spells is an issue, but 3 horrid wiltings in a sequencer removes most enemies from the game, and remains useful even through ToB. It's also a spell enemies will cast at later levels, so you'll always benefit with that saving throw bonus.
.

You still don't get the point. All that you say is correct, but applies to YOUR playing style.

I try to explain in another way: you can't say what class/kit is stronger than another if you don't define what "stronger" means. Who is stronger between Legolas, Aragorn and Frodo? Harry Potter, Hermione and Hagrid? Han solo, Chubecca, Wicket W. Warrick ( :-) )? Iron man, Captain America and the Wasp?
First define the criteria, then discuss.

That said I dont' think that diviner is the best class, that sound more like a provocation, but in your analisys you forget to consider that what you lose (spells) is more important of what you get (saving throws). A diviner don't get advantage in important spells, but don't lose important spells either.
I would never play a mage that can't cast invisibility, mirror images, stoneskin, improved haste. So for my playstile a necromancer, for instance, or an abjurerr is worst than a diviner. But that applies to me, maybe not to you and to other player.

So first define better what you mean for "stronger" than you can pretend your argument to be objective. Otherwise they are just opinions.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Knight:

And I can't see any reason to pick a divination to play in any style, save for masochistic.

Peter explained very well: you take Edwin (for many people the strongest NPC mage in both games) and you have 2 specialist covering all the schools.
Again, It doesn't suits my playstyle, but maybe it suits his.

[Knight]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Wicket W. Warrick:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Knight:

They do not lose importance. On the contrary, because they are both defensive and offensive and every point counts. I've played necromancer and I can say the loss of quite a few useful spells is an issue, but 3 horrid wiltings in a sequencer removes most enemies from the game, and remains useful even through ToB. It's also a spell enemies will cast at later levels, so you'll always benefit with that saving throw bonus.
.

You still don't get the point. All that you say is correct, but applies to YOUR playing style.

I try to explain in another way: you can't say what class/kit is stronger than another if you don't define what "stronger" means. Who is stronger between Legolas, Aragorn and Frodo? Harry Potter, Hermione and Hagrid? Han solo, Chubecca, Wicket W. Warrick ( :-) )? Iron man, Captain America and the Wasp?
First define the criteria, then discuss.

That said I dont' think that diviner is the best class, that sound more like a provocation, but in your analisys you forget to consider that what you lose (spells) is more important of what you get (saving throws). A diviner don't get advantage in important spells, but don't lose important spells either.
I would never play a mage that can't cast invisibility, mirror images, stoneskin, improved haste. So for my playstile a necromancer, for instance, or an abjurerr is worst than a diviner. But that applies to me, maybe not to you and to other player.

So first define better what you mean for "stronger" than you can pretend your argument to be objective. Otherwise they are just opinions.

Idk if it's your intent or not, but you are coming off a bit upset at me. Idk why. So I'll go ahead and explain I guess what I think stronger is here even though I think obviously nothing on this subject is going to be perfectly objective.

Stronger requires you to offer something to the table. And the most I've read as far as what a diviner brings to the table is that "at least they're not abjurers" which again, as I've already admitted is a fair point. They're probably both at the bottom, maybe roughly tied.

To try to drive my point home: a conjurer will eventually do everything a diviner can do. Need to see invisibility? Glitterdust. Need to identify? Limited wish for it. Need to detect illusions/oracle/true sight? Summon Planetar. Therefore the divination spell school is obsolete, (save for cheesey far sight/summons combo).

So in my personal experience at least, a conjurer adds both a diviner and a conjurer to the table but the diviner just adds a conjurer without conjuration spells.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Wicket W. Warrick:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Knight:

And I can't see any reason to pick a divination to play in any style, save for masochistic.

Peter explained very well: you take Edwin (for many people the strongest NPC mage in both games) and you have 2 specialist covering all the schools.
Again, It doesn't suits my playstyle, but maybe it suits his.

That doesn't answer my question.

Every other spell school can cover all spells, as long as it's not a conjurer. In fact, one of the most common classes in BG2 is mage although most are unspecialized.

So yes you could cover all spell schools with edwin by playing diviner, but you could do the same with abjurer, necromancer, or even a few of the dozens of characters you can pick up. A diviner isn't particularly adding anything here another specialist could do. So what unique advantage would I get out of a diviner besides it not being abjurer?