Subject line, basically. What I really mean to ask is, does a fighter/mage sufficiently satisfy the party's need for an arcane caster? Or must you also have a dedicated single-class arcane caster (such as Edwin or Neera)?

People have completed the entire saga with a variety of seemingly underpowered, and sometimes undersized, parties. If you know what you're doing (or are willing to reload enough times to figure it out the hard way), you can get by with almost anything.

To fully answer your question, we would need to know:
- At what difficulty level are you playing?
- What is your tolerance for reloading? If you want a hardcore playthrough where you give up when CHARNAME dies, you need to be more cautious and pick an easy party. If you plan to reload to the nearest savepoint when CHARNAME dies, you have more opportunity to make mistakes, learn from them, and do better next time.
- What other characters are in your party?
- Is your Fighter/Mage a Human who dual-classed from Fighter to Mage (and if so, at what level) or is it a non-Human multiclass Fighter/Mage? A multiclass advances more slowly than a dual class since experience is split between the two classes.
- Are you planning to complete both Shadows of Amn and Throne of Bhaal?
- Are you planning to clear all optional areas, or only complete the quests required for the main storyline?

Sorry. I think I phrased the question improperly.

I realize that anything is possible. I know that people play a solo character on insane difficulty with no reloads and mods to make the game even harder.

What I meant to ask is this:

Situation 1: I am playing a sorcerer or mage. Therefore, I most likely will not need (“need” meaning that it is a matter of redundancy rather than strict do-or-die necessity) to take a pure caster such as Edwin or Neera. I would be better served taking another fighter, or druid or something else to diversify the party.

Situation 2: I am playing a fighter/mage (either a dual-class human, or a gnome or elf fighter/mage).
I need to decide whether it’s necessary (in the aforementioned definition of “need”) to take another pure caster, in order to make the party more diverse and fun

Hopefully it makes more sense

first of all which game are you playing?
in Bg1 a fighter\ mage has the edge because hit points are low and a few bits of armour really counts... really the point of any caster is using wands and identify items so its much of a muchness

in Bg2 and of course tob Edwin or Neera both become gods of the battlefield single handed killing dragons and its all about the spell power... the key is keeping them alive until they reach those dizzy hights

I'd be playing the full saga - BG1 as fighter, BG2 dual to fighter/mage

Isn't it redundant to take another mage if you already have a fighter/mage? I guess that's the crux of the question. It's maybe silly to have 2 thieves, or 2 clerics. So if you have a fighter/mage already, would you take Edwin or Neera?

lol y ppl won't even say what game they are playing smh

Here's the gist anyway: BG1 it doesn't really matter, BG2 - can't really say =D

PS for importing the char from BG1 into BG2 play as a fighter/mage multi, put stars into flail or katana

Because there are 4 parts to the Saga

Bg1, Siege of Dragonspear, Bg2 Shadows of Amn, Throne of Bhaal

Majority of people start from the beginning until the end and basically the entire series can be treated like 1 game

well ppl play all sorts of weird ways. Like those insane mods that somehow tie the two games together (wonder with what content? but I digress), even tho they are two very different games if you ask me. And there's no need to twist and mend them in various strange ways.

Can't comment on SoD, have never played it. Judging by some new content by BD that ended up being included in the BG1 proper and that I've tried out, I think I can live without it. The two games and their respective add-ons provide enough of gameplay hours for me. (Even tho TotSC is a complement of far greater quality to BG1 than the boring underdeveloped appendix that is ToB to the second game).

There's no "saga" if you ask me. That's just a fancy term. There's BG1 + TotSC and BG2 + ToB, plain and simple.
If you're going this "canonical"/official way (which I can only support), then see my post and the postscriptum. That's basically all there is to it.

1) BG2 story was already planned pretty much at the same time as BG1.
2) You import your BG1 character into BG2. Not only your experience, level, and skills, but also many items are retained.
3) Certain characters even remember things that you've done to them (ex. Drizzt)
4) The consequences from BG1 carry into BG2 (for ex. high/low reputation, the abilities you gain from dreams etc)

The story is not one continuous flow?

Let me ask you this - would you consider Tales of the Sword Coast and Throne of Bhaal to be standalone separate games, separate stories, unrelated to BG1/BG2?

In BG1 when I play I tend to play a pure Wizard character. Never felt the need to recruit another one.

In BG2 (which I only played once) I started the game as a Kensai Fighter. I saved every spell that I found and shortly after I got to Athkatla I switched class to Wizard. Expelled everyone but Imoen from the party (because she would take off if you dismissed her) and learned all the collected Wizard spells.

Did not look back from there.

1) Yet has little to nothing to do with it. Anyway, I'm not sure how this factoid is related to anything in my post.
2) Thanks, I know, cos I did just that. BTW, I wouldn't say it's exactly "many" items. Per https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Importing
3) So? How does it warrant any sort of a full-blown bridge between the too completely separate story arcs? You mean to justify that aren't you?
4) Duh.

No.

No idea why's the Q, but the two addons are different in their nature. TotSC is just a couple of side quest (even tho two thirds of them, or exactly 2 of the three you get in the addon) are the best quality for BG1 IMO.
ToB is nominally tied into the arc of BG1, and not exactly BG2, but it just sucks. It's just a vehicle for some unreleased material hastily put together. And a show room for +100500 items of course. Nothing else to see there.

True, but they are sold separately, so we cannot assume you have or will play all the parts. You can buy and then play any combination of:

- Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition (only; stop after defeating Sarevok)
- Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition + Siege of Dragonspear (and then stop, never reaching Amn)
- Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition + Baldur's Gate 2: Enhanced Edition (skipping directly from the end of BG1:EE to Amn, bypassing Siege of Dragonspear)
- Baldur's Gate 2: Enhanced Edition (start in Amn with a newly created character of a level appropriate to having finished Baldur's Gate 1; stop at the end of Amn without playing Throne of Bhaal, or continue from Shadows of Amn into Throne of Bhaal and play to the end of the saga)
- Baldur's Gate 2: Enhanced Edition (only; start in Throne of Bhaal with a newly created character of a level appropriate to having finished Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn)
- All components, in order

Since you may not even own all the components, you might be forced to skip certain content. Which content you skip, if any, affects the answer, which is why I asked how far you plan to play.

More generally, any time you are in a forum for a game which offers major choices like this, you should tell us which choices you made. Otherwise, you may get responses that assume something else. In my case, I would have assumed you skip Siege of Dragonspear since it is sold separately, so you may not have it.

Also, I note that I asked whether you planned to dual class, and it was only when someone else reminded you again to tell us what game you are playing that you addressed my question.No, it is not redundant. A party of multiple mages can offer the opportunity to specialize, allowing you to cast more spells per round. In my opinion, the main drawback to a party of multiple mages is that some useful spell scrolls are rare, so you may not be able to have every member learn every spell at the same time. This gets worse as you increase the number of mages. If you had a Fighter/Mage CHARNAME and a pure mage companion, the Fighter/Mage could concentrate on spells that improve his fighting ability (Stoneskin, Haste, Blur, Mirror Image, etc.) and on those that can be quickly cast before closing to melee the enemy. The companion can concentrate on spells that are slower to cast, but more powerful.

Mage is the apex class in endgame so having two is fine... Personally if I play mage it's normally my sister Imogen

As for fighter dual to mage you get more if you dual before you reach the transfer point (adjust if you intend to play Sod) and the means you will need an extra mage to cover the slack... Personally Edwin is less impressive in this early game so I'd take the wildmage (because Imogen is still my thief at this time)

I guess my question was really badly phrased.

The whole basis of my question was wanting to play a good character, and therefore Edwin being out of the question. Also, I can't stand Neera and Wild Mages.

So I'm wondering if it is more optimal for my main character to be a Fighter/Mage or a pure mage, since I won't be having any mages in my party.

Or if I should bite the bullet and take Edwin even though he will probably leave unless I start murdering civilians to keep him happy.

What it comes down to is, am I really handicapping myself by not having a pure mage in my party?

if only there was a Lawful Good Invoker you could take for your party... and if she could come with a Ranger to protect her that's even better right?