Smaller Parties

Remove all ads!

I have noticed on my second run thru of the game (normal difficulty) that it's probably time I try a smaller party and/or a higher difficulty level.

I was thinking a 4 man party: 1 barbarian, shield dwarf fighter, pure bow bard? and a pally sorcerer? Not sure yet

Anyways, is a 3 man party better than a 4? If I do try this should I leave the difficulty the same or go up a bit? If I do to what difficulty would you guys suggest?

 

Interesting proposal. Since bards have healing spells, I guess you could get away with not having a cleric (in normal mode). Who's doing the talking, your bard? Still, I'd personally be really uncomfortable with the lack of a battlecleric in the party, for summons, Heal spells, Champion's Strength, Tremor, and Prayer/Recitation. At minimum I'd convert the dwarf fighter to a fighter/druid (or cleric) after he gets specialization. You'll lose +2 or +3 in BAB over the course of the game, but you'll gain a lot back in buffs (Bull's Strength/Barkskin/Magic Circle Against Evil/whatever).

Normal difficulty is fine IMO, especially since dynamic levelling means you'll only have half or two-thirds the amoung of power of a normal party in the endgame (given a 3- or 4-man party, respectively). But at least you will get to the fun levels (Fireball + Animate Dead) sooner, hopefully before Shaengarne Bridge!

-Max

Edit: On considering, given that you have a full-time bard with War Chant of the Sith, maybe Heal doesn't matter so much after all. You can just run away and heal...

 

If I do decide to go pure bow/bard what seconday class should she be, if any.

Also, you mentioned a fighter cleric. Does that character get str like a pally/sorcere or does it take minimum str?

 

Bard's song also gives 2/- damage reduction which should totally rock with a Barb's one.

The reason i posted a 3ppl party in another thread, has actually nothing to do with efficiency or anything else, but the generally faulty design of all IE engine games i encountered so far. Most encounters are 1 (unbuffed mage) vs 6 (fully buffed). Totally not realistic. I would take a 6ppl party any day if the enemy would actually seriously scale, ie more than a bunch of extra goblins. 1,2 is not really a party, 4-6 vs 1 is already overkill, thus 3.

 

I thought you intended to make the bard pure-class, since you didn't mention another class up front.

A fighter/cleric would probably get maxed STR (all level-up points go to STR) and 18 WIS, good DEX/CON, and tanked CHA/INT. Maybe a couple of points in Spell Focus: Enchantment for Greater Command and/or Banite spells, or Spell Focus: Evocation if you're Lathander, but mostly a melee/buffing focus. I can't imagine why you'd ever give minimum (STR=3) STR to a front-line fighter.

-Max

 

With your party of 4 the difficulty will be challenging enough even in normal mode. A party of 3 would be even more challenging.
If you want a battle cleric maximize strength and get at least proficient in at least one of the damaging weapon types (axe, greatsword, halberd).

 

So I went ahead and formed my first 4 man party and just got past the prologue.

I'm using
Pure cleric, max str decent dex/con max wis
pure bard, bow
fighter 4/barbarian
pure sorcerer (missile)

this seem ok?

 

I played IWD 2 (and BG ToSC, BG2 SoA/ToB and IWD ToTL) with a four char party, and it was very playable (in each of those games). You level up quickly. That helps, and you need it

My favourite and recommended combo was and still is: 2 Fighters (usually paladin + some fighter), fighter cleric, mage-thief. I have also had a pally, fighter-cleric, fighter-mage and a fighter-thief (multi classed for BG, BG 2 and IWD; though the point is moot due to 3e rules in IWD 2).

 

Sure, that seems like it would be fun.

-Max

 

I've got a quick questoin on the Bard I'm playing. she's already hit level 11 around the first sherincal fight.

Is there any reason to advance her any further in it? I'm assuming not. I mean even if she gains SOMETHING extra by continuing in bard I'm willing to do it from a roleplay point of vew, but if not I'm guessing I'm stuck going sorcery? What about ranger?

 

How much spellcasting do you use the bard for? If you use the bard's spellcasting quite often, you might be better off sticking with bard levels to continue improving its spellcasting. OTOH, if you don't use its spellcasting much at all, I can see multiclassing.

Rather than ranger, I'd probably suggest fighter levels. I'm a fan of rangers, but unless you are going to be stealthy with this character, I'm not sure that you'd get much value out of ranger levels except for the value that you'd also get from fighter levels, i.e. the combat skills, extra HP and AB.

 

Well I've found (much to my surprise) that she, at this point pure bard, is quite a capable healer. Expecially since she is always outside the fight singing and shooting arrows, I use her heal spells more than I do my cleric (who is always in the thick of things). I'd like to stick with bard, since I set out to make a PURE bard. So by continuing to advance I'll get more spell selection? I'm trying to not go sorcery if I can help it since I alrdy have a pure sorcerer in the group and I'm finding this certain party almost overkill as it is.

EDIT: also, I thought if I went fighter I couldnt use spells? If there's a way I can get more damage out of my bow while keeping spellcasting I'm all for that

 

Unless you plan on switching to throwing axes/greataxes then I doubt it, unless you get really lucky with your loot. There's no reason why you shouldn't switch (to great axes) tho.

You could still use your spells if you went fighter. Wearing heavy armor is what disrupts spellcasting, if you don't have enough points in armored arcanna.

High level pure Bards are great all-arounders, and since you already have a main healer and nuker then pure might be best.

 

Yeah, I suppose that bards could make for respectable medics, as long as you select the healing spells when it comes time to select new spells for your "spellbook".

There's nothing about fighters that would prevent a fighter/bard from casting spells. It's the armor and its arcane casting penalty that's the issue. Still, if you intend on keeping your bard as mostly a behind the lines support character, singer, and secondary medic, you might as well keep the bard pure to maximize the number of healing spells.

As far as bards being competent warriors, it's worth remembering that they are one of a number of classes that earn BAB at 75% of the standard "warrior class" rate. Clerics, druids, monks, rogues, and bards all earn BAB at this 75% rate. So it's not exactly a surprise that they'll have a pretty decent BAB. Where they're a bit weaker than, say, clerics is that the nature of a cleric build tends to allow them to have plenty of STR and wear heavier armor, whereas bards often don't have lots of stat points to put into STR, and heavier armors often get in the way of their spellcasting. As you progress thru the game, you will find plenty of magical bracers and other items that mages use for improving their AC's which usually also work for bards as well. You may not have the AC of a tank, but it can get pretty respectable. Also don't forget the value of Mirror Image if you need to take the bard into melee.

 

So if I took armored arcana I wouldnt get a spellcasting failure percentage with that particular armor type? Say I took it to 3, I could wear any heavy armor on her I found without taking the penalty?

 

No, that's not how armored arcana works. For each point of AA that you take, you reduce the failure chance by 5% points. Thus, if an armor has a arcane spellcasting failure chance of 15%, you'd need 3 points of AA to offset it. (IIRC, leather armor has a failure chance of 15%.)

You'd probably be better off just casting the Mage Armor, rather than wearing any armor. There are some mage robes that you can wear as well. All in all, it's not really all that big a problem, unless you want to constantly take your bard into melee. And even then you should be able to get some decent protection between various magical bracers, rings, amulets, and robes, as well as various spells, such as stoneskin, mirror image, and mage armor or ghost armor.

 

Sorry, I meant armor proficiency.

 

hootpad
No STR = pointless to go melee = no need for armor. You can increase damage with bow indirectly, by increasing AB(hit probability). AB Feats for ranged are pretty good. Precise shot gives +4 to AB, Rapid Shoot another +3 to AB. Since each following attack is executed at -5 AB penalty, the last attack will have -20 AB penalty. AB boost ensures it hits, which equals more damage. Bard has adequate AB progression and can cast best arcane spells available the game(which all come later), thus there is no reason to multiclass him. More levels also gives longer buff duration, which is another pretty solid reason to not multiclass a caster. Youll want that spirit armor to last. As a bard you can memorize spirit armor&ghost armor, which together will give you better protection than any available items in the game IIRC.

hmm i dont know if rapid&precise shot applies to throwing weapons. Throwing axe is amazing as a secondary weapon on a high str char though.

 

It does. Not sure if the feats also work on slings tho.

At some point (around the time the original campaign ends and HoF starts) enemy AC progression slows down (or doesn't improve at all). Everything else about them though(HP, saves, etc) increases significantly, which is why bows are inferior to throwing weapons at higher levels. Unless you gave your char a strength of 6 or something.

With just the Bull's Strength spell a critical hit on a throwing great axe will do 3x3=9 more damage, and great axes already do practically 100% more damage than arrows base damage-wise.

You should try having a high str char use them as main weapons. Not the tanker maybe, but clerics and bards are pretty good with throwing axes.

 

is there more than one good returning hammer (besides the oria's game room one) found in game on normal difficulty? I don't remember ever seeing another in my 2 previous run thru's