Let's Discuss the Perfect 6-Player party (Spoilers Inevitable)

Remove all ads!

After beating the game with 4 PC's, it's time to mix it up a little bit and go through the game with a full compliment of party members. My last thread got some good feedback, so before I start again, I'm asking for imput.

***

This is what we're looking at so far:

Assimar Paladin (no fighter levels)
Str: 18 Dex: 08 Con: 18 Int: 13 Wis: 10 Cha: 13
Longsword and Shield

Half-Orc Fighter (Barbarian?)
Str: 20 Dex: 10 Con: 18 Int: 08 Wis: 10 Cha: 08
Polearm

Assimar Cleric of Lathander
Str: 16 Dex: 14 Con: 16 Int: 08 Wis: 16 Cha: 10
Mace and Shield

***

Unquestionably, the Assimar Paladin is going to be my main tank. Rather than taking fighter levels, I'm going to let his lay on hands and saving throw bonuses build up. The extra feats and specialization abilities of the fighter don't really make up for the loss of spells and charisma bonuses later in the game. His job is to take hits with 5 Expertise... not to deal damage.

Since our main tank is defensive in nature, a Half-Orc fighter or Barbarian is a natural choice for his partner up front. The only race who can start with 20 strength, he's perfect for two handed weapons and maximized attacks. Leaning towards the figther in a 2-tank lineup, but a barbarian would be a good selection if three tanks were included.

The party cleric won't be called upon to do much fighting, but will need to be the master of healing. A Lathander cleric is a natural choice with the extra Lay on hands skill, and extra healing type spells in their domain. I'm considering giving him the expertise skill as well, in which case his 4 points in dex would be moved over to int. This would allow our cleric to wear plate mail (the dex assumes he'll use chain most of the game), as well as take a few additional skills, like spellcraft and alchemy.

***

As always, the question of where the rogue fits in complicates the other three characters. Do we go with a melee-type rogue and capitilize on his sneak attacks, or do we hand him a missile weapon? Do we take fighter levels, wizard levels, monk levels, or just plain thief levels?

In a 6-player party, your main spellcaster is going to be single classed. The questions are with race and if you go wizard or sorcerer. I'm pretty partial to sorcerers, but I'll listen to arguments in favor of wizards.

The 6th character is the wild card. Given the three we already have, and that we are going to have a single-class magic-user... what two characters would you use to round out this party, and why?

[ October 05, 2002, 02:21: Message edited by: Blitz ]

 

I'm not going to say that this is an awesome group, but it makes the game pretty easy. Sorry, but I can't remember most of the stats, but I'll try, so they probably won't be right. Not only that, but some choices are very bad.

Human Fighter
Str: 18 Dex: 13 Con: 13 Int: 12 Wis: 15 Cha: 13
Axes and Bows

Aasimar Paladin of Mystra
Str: 14 Dex: 13 Con: 12 Int: 14 Wis: 16 Cha: 18
Large Swords

Deep Gnome Bard (Horrible, in retrospect)
Str: 12 Dex: 13 Con: 18 Int: 14 Wis: 11 Cha: 13
Dual wielding Short Swords, or a Staff

Lightfoot Halfling Rogue
Str: 14 Dex: 20 Con: 13 Int: 14 Wis: 12 Cha: 12
Short Sword and Shield

Drow Wizard Evoker
Str: 10 Dex: 12 Con: 12 Int: 20 Wis: 13 Cha: 14
Bows

Aasimar Cleric of Oghma
Str: 12 Dex: 13 Con: 13 Int: 14 Wis: 20 Cha: 14
Short Sword and Shield

I'll check them a little later on, because I can say for sure that some at least are wrong.

 

Well thanks for listing your party, but the purpose of this thread is to find 3 party members who go best with the four above... not for endless lists of party members with no reasons given.

 

Actually, the cleric of Lathander shines more for his ability to dump huge damage firespells all over the place, so you might want to get him enough spellcraft to afford the flame enhancing feat. Sunscorch, Flamestrike, Sol's Searing Orb, Firestorm, etc really put out a lot of damage.

I'd make a tiefling Transmuter as your primary arcane spellcaster. Its a good specialty and there are some specific quests for it.

I think two fighter types is more than enough, so I'd go with a spellcaster in the fifth slot. Any of the three options (druid, sorceror, bard) would be effective, but I'd give the nod to the druid in this case. The other two duplicate spells you would already have available and aren't as sturdy in a fight. A druid in dire bear or shambling mound form is pretty darn hard to beat up.

The last slot goes to a either a rogue or a monk. IMHO, that decision comes down to your trap tolerance. Given that you have a lot of spellcasters, it is very useful to have at least one character that can draw a crowd together. Either a monk or a rogue can do this and evade the incoming effects. A monk is far more survivable, though, due to much better AC, speed, and natural healing ability. The monk can also do the stealth thing. However, taking a monk would mean not being able to disarm traps. The monk I would definitely single class. Frankly, its irrational not to. A rogue could afford 4 or 5 levels of something else. RogueX/Sorc5 would be my choice. Picking spells like invis and mirror image to help with survivability.

 

Yeah that was a definate secondary concept with the Lathander cleric. Spellcraft needed, thus more int needed. Nice synergy with the 13int requirement for expertise. A plate-mail wearing cleric with expertise can very well be the "third tank" I'm looking for without taking fighter levels in my healer... something I don't think I'll ever do.

As for the monk/rogue debate... it's not really a question of wanting stealth. I can easily do without sneak and hide... there's this cool level 2 wizard spell =). Opening locks is a bit of a pain though, although I guess I can always use knock. A rogue/bard might be the answer, something I've been considering. It's a shame BI does not let the hit point regen bardsong work in downtime anymore. That song was so good that it was a reason to take a bard. Now it's getting harder to justify one's addition as I learn the game more.

So your lineup would look kinda like this?

Assimar Paladin of Helm (Longsword/Shield)
Half-Orc Fighter (Polearm)
Assimar Cleric of Lathander
Assimar Monk (Fists)
Moon Elf Druid (Longbow)
Tiefling Transmuter (Crossbow)

It's not a bad lineup... the monk and druid can both melee, giving this party 5 PC's who can dish it out. Do monks work in any class other than assimar? They need so many stats. Even though this party would have four ECL PC's, I don't think it would matter much in the end... a monk with 2 extra AC is probably better than a monk one level higher, wouldn't you agree?

 

Actually, bards are pretty nice. They have a lot of good enchantment spells (both offensive and buff types) and can get all the Cure spells. My bard does archery and casts cure spells and confusion. But it would be hard to argue its an 'optimal' powergaming class, that's true.

As to your question, I am not as enamoured of the aasimar as you are. The extra stat points are nice but you can make a good monk from most any race. Everything about the monk is level dependent, so I'd favor a non ECL class with slightly lower stats. Its entirely possible that you will end the game 16th level in a 6 character party. For a monk, the difference between 15 +1 ECL and 16 is the difference between +2 enchanted fists doing 1d12 dmg and +3 enchanted fists doing 1d20 dmg. Not to mention the extra SR, healing, etc. I'd actually recommend Wild Elf. The bonuses are nice and you don't need the Int. Shield Dwarf works too, but dwarf monks are silly.

And I'd have your tiefling use slings. There are many nice sling bullets in the game and the rate of fire is nice. Rapid Shot doesn't work with crossbows (except a bug with one). And the blunt ranged damage in invaluable against various golem things. Save the crossbow for a someone with decent to hit, since you only get one shot anyway.

I definitely would not mix Rogue and Bard. You lose too much. It is essential to get the Rogue to 10th level for Improved Evasion and Slippery Mind, so you wouldn't have enough Bard to matter. If you did split the classes fairly evenly, you still wouldn't get the best of the bard abilities and you wouldn't have enough skill in Open Locks and Disarm Traps for the later chapters. The worst of both worlds, IMHO.

As for stealth, why waste spell slots on Invisibility when stalk/hide is good enough? Improved Invisibility (when its fixed in the patch) would be nice for fights, but regular invis is a wasted slot.

[ October 05, 2002, 12:06: Message edited by: Vormaerin ]

 

The problem I have with the bard buffs are the nature of the Emotion spells. Where in IWD and BG2 these spells would not buff opponents or cripple allies... now casting Emotion: rage in the middle of the fray ends up buffing the entire fight, not just your own PC's. This means you need to cast them BEFORE you engage, and with a 5 round duration, it's just not worth it. Emotion: Hope is a little better, at 50 rounds, but again, it's a pre-combat buff... so we may as well have our main caster use it. The debuffs are almost worthless... you would be better off just throwing out a fireball.

With that said, confusion is a battle-winner for sure, and even though hold monster only affects one target now, it's still great. I used a lot of the Power Word series in my games... sleep, silence, whatever. They are all super for taking out boss mobs or spellcasters quickly. Their quick casting times are awesome... but I digress.

I think my liking for invisibility is a product of my use of Sorcerers. Unlike wizards, there's no need to "waste" a slot, because you simply cast it when you need it... no need to guess how many castings you will need. I use invisibility a lot mid-fight if my wizard calls too much attention to herself. It's a much better deterrant than mirror image in my opinion. Instead of standing there taking hits, the monster walks over and hits someone he's supposed to be hitting.

Back to the party. I think I'm going to go with a rogue as the party's utility character. He'll be able to take lockpicking, search, disable device, diplomacy, intimidate, and bluff without any problems. Stealth... overrated I believe. Invisiblity costs one spell slot, not multiple skill points over the lifetime of the character.

That leaves the question of a weapon. I don't want to spoil too much, but there are a couple of very nice crossbows out there... one of which is rogue-specific. I definately do want to cover both bows and crossbows in the party. It really comes down to what the sixth class will be. As I recall druids don't start with proficiency in either bows or crossbows... making them good cantidates for a sling. If we go with a monk, obviously no weapons will be used... meaning our rogue will want either a bow or crossbow. Giving a cleric a missile weapon (other than a thrown one) does not work very well. The guardian script generally has your cleric walking into the battle a lot... and I think I would prefer that he be holding a shield rather than some bow.

Working draft of party:

Assimar Paladin of Helm
Str: 18 Dex: 08 Con: 18 Int: 13 Wis: 10 Cha: 13
Longsword and Shield
Diplomacy (4), Concentration (4)
Expertise

Half-Orc Fighter (Barbarian?)
Str: 20 Dex: 12 Con: 18 Int: 08 Wis: 10 Cha: 06
Polearm
Concentration (2)
Power Attack, Weapon Focus: Polearm

Assimar Morninglord of Lathander
Str: 16 Dex: 08 Con: 18 Int: 13 Wis: 17 Cha: 08
Mace and Shield
Concentration (4), Spellcraft (4)
Expertise

Strongheart Halfling Rogue
Str: 10 Dex: 20 Con: 12 Int: 14 Wis: 10 Cha: 10
Crossbow, Short Sword
Disable Device (4), Search (4) Diplomacy (4), Open Locks (4), Bluff (4), Intimidate (4)
Weapon Focus: Crossbow, Weapon Focus: Small Blade

Human Sorceress
Str: 08 Dex: 14 Con: 12 Int: 14 Wis: 10 Cha: 18
Longbow
Alchemy (2), Spellcraft (4), Concentration (4), Knowledge Arcana(4)
Weapon Proficiency: Crossbow, Mercantile Background

You can try to be original, but it seems that the old 2 fighters, cleric, rogue, magic user and one-of-your-choice might just be the formula . The million-dollar question... who fills out the final spot?. Since we've given our rogue talkie skills, we've pretty well eliminated any need for a bard. Our cleric can bring the fire and brimstone when we need it... and will tank as well as any cleric with expertise and shield... which eliminates the need for a second magicuser or third tank. Which brings us to one of three classes it would seem.

1) The archer - A dedicated bowman, be it fighter or ranger.

2) The druid - Back-up healer and utility caster. Extra ranged damage with sling and Wild Shape.

3) The monk - Additional melee damage, can do the stealth tasks our rogue does not.

I'd lean towards the monk... just because I know what a terror they can be at higher levels. I've heard good things about druids though, and you could argue to go that way. As for the Archer. They don't look amazing on paper, but if you've ever used a fighter/archer in one of these games they almost always end up as the top exp getter.

 

Well, I would certainly argue to go the direction of the druid over the others listed. Barkskin is a long lasting buff that adds +5 generic AC to any character. It stacks with everything. They fight as well or better than any cleric (same basic combat stats, but have wildshape). Thorn spray, flamestrike, Static charge, Sol's Searing Orb, Sunscorch, Sunbeam, Fireseeds, Firestorm, and more on the attack spell front. Summons that rock.

That's a lot more than you will get from either of those other two options. Monks are nice because they are hard to kill. They have a lot of foes against which they are largely ineffective, though. Like Iron golems and a wide variety of zombie like undead. +2 Fists of Death don't cut the mustard there.

I think a pure archer is a waste. It is nearly impossible to do enough damage to actually disrupt spells with straight archery, which was the main benefit in the past. You can do solid damage via archery, but not enough that I would spend an entire character on it. Might as well make your druid an elf of some sort and stick him with the archery feats. You get nearly the same offensive output for most of the game (the to hit gap doesn't really widen until high levels) and a lot more versatility.

I agree that stealth in these sorts of games is overrated, particularly since we are not doing a first run. But I'd still rather have it on demand via skill, rather than from a spell I might or might not have available. However, that could be my p&p background speaking.

 

I would think you can keep a quarterstaff around for those rare instances, could you not? You'd lose your wis bonuses, but for once in a while it wouldn't be so bad.

Clearly with the new 3E rules, casters are far more effective with ranged weapons than before. Not only that, but ranged weapons as a whole have become less effective in IWD2 due to the large number of piercing-resistant (and generally resistant) creatures in the game. It's really dumb that rangers can't gain triple-proficiency in bows. I've always seen Rangers as archers, but the D&D system always seems to reward fighters more. The BG2 kit class was nice. Your point about interrupting spellcastng is a good one.

I don't think I'd use a pure archer, but I listed it as one of the options. With improved critical, 20 dex and fighter combat tables, however... the fighter archers do significantly more damage than a rogue or magicuser.

 

You could keep a quarterstaff around for use by your monk in those circumstances. I actually just gave the monk all my darts for those situations. I invariably had some sort of dart that would hurt the bad guys. However, you don't lose your Wisdom bonuses for using a weapon. You lose those for equipping anything in your 'armor' slot. Using a weapon drops the monk to the cleric combat table, whereas they have a somewhat improved one they can use fighting unarmed. Anyway, my point there was just that a monk is a variation on the tank motif and you already have one of those in the party. I don't really see a burning need for another one. Another source of healing and offensive spellpower (who can fight competently to boot) is more useful since you only have one cleric and one wizard. If that character gets disabled, what do you do?

Side notes:

Improved Critical isn't restricted to fighters, btw. The only difference is that a fighter type can get it at 8th level, while a cleric type can't get it until 12th. Obviously, that's a fair difference (about a chapter and a half?).

I don't like the current set up for the ranger, personally. Not because I think its underpowered, but because I think its overly restrictive. Rangers are tied to dual wielding, which is not a core competency for them in myth and literature. I would like some more freedom to focus on other things (whether archery, spears, or whatever). That being said, I think pure fighters *should* still be better archers than rangers if they choose to make archery their thing. After all, that is what fighters are all about. Rangers are all about skills and, to a lesser extent, spells. If you want an archer ranger like the old Dragon magazine class, you should dual class. Its hard to break old time players of the 2e mindset that classes are monolithic things. 3e assumes you will be mixing and matching your classes to fit your characters unique abilities.