Krull, thank you for the complement. You're certainly welcome.

Wereboar, I wanted to add some more on the point El-kalkylus responded to. I get so much out of your posts that I would like to give you something to consider, in your expert way. It kind of falls under the "party advice" umbrella and I was hoping maybe Krull wouldn't mind. Of course your statement literally interpreted is correct. It is not "necessary" to apply the techniques El-kalkylus speaks of above and I below.

In my current EM IM party, which just died at Level 9 (by Trynnies, of all things, after a backfire), I applied several extremes to give combat skills to magic casters early. El_kalkylus and I are both running Magic-Heavy parties, side by side (in a sense), and having a blast! There are a lot of similarites, but also major differences. He has only pure single school casters while I include the Bard and Gadgeteer. My parties are much easier to play, and I'm kind of going for maximum power in the party. He is doing that and also pushing the edge by not having any natural specialist in Melee (Bard) or Ranged (Gadgeteer). (El_kalkylus, correct?)

In line with making the characters as powerful as possible, I decided to take some principles to the extreme... just for giggles. Probably some sort of balance short of these extremes will turn out to be optimum, but I thought that examining this extreme, and it's weaknesses, would be a good first step.

1) Priest Piety level at starting Level of 60. Period. It turns out that Divinity Rockets up fast anyway. The direct and indirect effects of Piety on Spell points are real, but small. Piety is a good thing, but Attribute points are so precious...

2) All other Characters in the party with ultra low Piety. Two Mooks (Bard and Alchemist), Two Felpurs (Mage and Psionic) and a Hobbit (Gadgeteer). The Priest is Human. Intelligence is pushed ASAP to Powercast in all four single school specialist casters. The realms grow at about the same rate, increasing in almost every battle used. Why go to this extreme? So there are more Attribute points for other things. The starting levels of Strength, Dexterity and Senses for the Mook, for example are awesome.

3) Adding exactly zero points in Realm Magics at character Creation and Level Up. Increase then through use only. This takes advantage of the fact that they can only go to 100 and do so quite rapidly. At 90, the Realm Magics rise much less rapidly than 70, so even if they lag behind slightly it is a temporary disadvantage, which is worth it or not depending upon what you get in exchange for it.

4) Only putting 12 points at Level-Ups (plus Max at character creation time)into the major school ability (Wizardry, Divinity, Alchemy and Psionics). Again the reason why is because they rise rapidly to the top on their own, only slowing down when they actuall approach the maximum. From my observation, these increases are parallel to and in addition to Realm Magic increases, one not directly affecting the rate of increase of the other. The points I put in there are the minimum to guarantee they get all spells at the earliest levels possible. They rise slowly through use at first, then faster and faster then slower and slower as they approach 100.

5) Make everyone "Slow", no more than 55 Speed, except for the Soul and Element Shield Casters. There are long discussions elsewhere on this. It is to make maximum use of the Haste Spell. In the round it is cast, the Haste spell will not change the casting order so those shield casters have to be independently fast to guarantee (EM only) no dead parties by enemy casters getting there first. Then everyone will fight most battles at Speed = 125 by round 2.

6) For the Bard I decided to go to the extreme of leaving her starting Speed at 35 and using a Bard Item and one other Item (+10 Speed each) to get to to 55, then Haste from there to get it to 125. My Bard is also my Haster so this lets me "put my money where my mouth is" on a slow Haster being okay.

Overall, the point is to develop maximum Magic capabilities and also do more. This is based on the idea that maximizing magic capabilites of a pure, single school caster is too easy by itself. You can do that and more, if you wish. Note that the game is not that difficult, just making casters great casters is enough to win. It is only when attempting to Powergame (but without cheats/training) by best strategic design that this becomes fun to try.

The key principal is that, by the time Magic is Maximumized, it is generally (or at least I have found it so in full party games) too late to develop any fighting skills in the caster. If, on the other hand, these are planned and developed from the beginning, they can become quite powerful later, with Powerstike in the Priest and Alchemist and Eagle Eye in the Psionic. This is done with no major sacrifices in magic capabilities. Fewer magic spell points (and only slightly fewer) does not decrease power in a single battle. They can still Powercast as hard as any other caster, but they also have these other skills. There are ways to replenish quickly, when moving to the next battle or almost instantly if needed, so there is a "diminishing return" in increasing spell points above a certain level.

ScottG, I am reading your posts with great interest. I have developed Magic Caster, Bards, and sometimes Gadgeteers in all of my parties. I have found that 80-90% of the power of a class comes from the highest level spells. The only thing that makes the Alchemist the best offensive caster in the game (well, some of us think that), is his or her Level 7 Alchemist spells. The same goes for Gadgets and Instruments. Also, the point is not just to barely get them at character Level 18, but also to be able to cast them with full effectiveness (Power Level 7) a few levels later. Then the game ends (unless in a reduced size party or intentionally delaying end of game).

Have you had a chance to test these dual classing strategies in your actual games, yet? If so, please share, if or when you would like, some of your battle strategies and why you found particular combination effective in your parties.

If not, please give it a shot and see what you think. If the game doesn't act exactly the way you expect, according to experience from earlier Wizardries and sound RPG principles, don't be surprised or alarmed. Many of us tried things that were logical, only to find that the underlying game design, while generally excellent, was simply different than what was logical or expected in that respect. A good example is Piety. You would think it was necessary to maximize it, wouldn't you, at least for a Priest? I did exactly that in many games, but when I actually experimented, it was not all that important. Wierd. One would think, logically, from other RPGs, that Powercast for a Priest should come from maximizing Piety instead of Intelligence, but such is not the case. Actually, I like the current design the way it is... but that's another story.

Early players of the game, about a year and a half ago, recommended dual classing at mid-levels but then they changed, at least for all but one or two rare cases, according to their later posts I saw. You speak with certainty and authority, so maybe you know some things they didn't.

Looking forward to your posts.

[ 06-30-2003, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: EEWorzelle ]

Correct. But I don't invest in realms for spell points. Let's say, I develop mage A & you develop mage B. I put 3 points in the fire realm at every lvl-up, you don't. It's an irrefutable fact, that, by lvl 10, my mage will have 30 more points in the fire realm than your mage, resulting in 2-3 rings. It's also an irrefutable fact, that, sooner or later your mage will catch up & my investment seems wasted.

So it comes down to:

I have found that 80-90% of the power of a class comes from it's level 3 spells. [img]smile.gif[/img] . Seriously, there're two philosophies: late game efficiency versus efficiency over the course of the game. The former is fun -blasting your way through AP - & I'd go with it in non-IM games any day. However the most difficult encounter in the game isn't soul eater, the most difficult encounter is Gregor. I've never lost an IM-party on AP, I've lost one party - the first one - after lvl 16, but I've lost many parties in the bermuda triangle monestary-UBC-LMB.
For that reason I invest in realms. I want fireball, rocks & fumes maxed asap. I want my alch being able to cast flash at character level 3 in the green etc. Your approach gives a powerful char somewhere after lvl 10, but my problem is getting there in the first place.
As a side note, I never, ever would cast a spell if it's even slightly yellow. Except as a last desperate measure when the party is going to die anyway. If one wants a prove for murphys law: one word: IM. That's why I don't like the bard so much: yes, they have spiffy items, yes, they are so versatile, yes, they have those cool instruments, and yes, they are completly unreliable: they will fumble thier instrument in the worst possible moment.

And now to something completly different: Yesterday I discovered the formula for instant kills. Finally! The chance for an instant kill is maximum, if the opponent is a webbed, nauseated, insane, paralyzed forest mite with 3 HP left.

nayyyy, my posts aren't that interesting - in fact they are material that has been repeated (a lot). The only dif. is the spin I apply (the case of same song second verse, same as the first). You and most others actually know a lot more about the game than I do, (the fake move was certainly new to me). My perspective is rather one of optimal party creation based on combat strategy (taken pretty much to the limit). (I do however try to temper this with roll playing value.) With this perspective most would no doubt come to similar conclusions. As you have often stated, its all about the way you play your party (and of course most of the game is combat related so its the way you engage in combat). The REAL differance (to me at least) is that you appear to try an optimize a character as a character, not as a party member. I'm not really concerned with creating the best offensive caster per se. In fact you could say either that I'm interested in "power" gaming or that I'm not, depending on your perspective for this game. (very odd.)

I'm finding that with an optimized party there is little need for high level spells at full power (or high level spells at all except teleportation). In fact for a party's mage casting I can sumptuously suffice with two bishops utilizing 4th level spells or less close to full power for the entire game (excepting teleportation). I can get nearly the same results with alchemists instead of bishops (though no other pure magic class suffices). (Note however that I typically take one level in rouge for all of my party members, even then however I'm far more circumspect in how I achieve stealth, the level of stealth I achieve for a particular type of character, wether that character will use armor and when, ect.. This is more to balance out the ac vs. hit detriment that I've found - which is further weighted with the substantial negative associated with "spending" additional attribute points for superfulous attributes needed for the one level of rouge.)

I have utilized alchemists and bards in groups, but never the bardtender (it was purely a point of analysis for me). (In fact I've tried every class except the ninja which just looks to pathetic beyond the absurd cane of corpus "meta" character.) The reason for this is that I find bards and gadgeteers to be useless for an optimized party - so why include them dual or not? Like pure hybrids they don't do anything real well until later in the game - even then everyone else does their specialty better. (Excepting of course a Bard for the first 10 to 15% of the game which again can be better acomplished with a bishop. Also excepting the "meta" hunt for instruments or gadgets.)

As for the alchemist to ranger or the priest to lord, yes I have tried them and they work VERY well (but proper planning is critical for their attribute point distribution). In fact if I had the ambition for a solo character it would no doubt be the dwarf priest to lord (though I'd loath giving up element shield) - he or she would be a proper little knee-caper. (even single wielding maces purchased from Crock's can be quite deadly.)

Actually no (about the piety), I look at attributes VERY heavily and what they will do for a character and what the character is needed for in the party. But thats not to say that piety isn't worth while - it actually makes sense for the dwarf priest to lord (at least as the 3rd attribute to max). I find that Ironwill is the second best special skill from the various attributes. Additionally the stamina bonus is rather nice and fits well with a meatshield melee'er, which in turn fits well with an optimum party. However, this is the only character that I have utilized with a maxed attribute in piety. Most of the others increase this skill the last.

As for dual classing generally, I'd definitly argue against it (beyond the one level rouge). But it can make sense, ESPECIALLY when comparing to a pure hybrid.

All that said however, a FULLY optimized party for an experienced player is rarely the party that is the most fun. (i.e. its usually the case of being toooooo easy.) I may well try the bardtender next (but for me thats more than a month away). Perhaps you or others might like to experiment with this oddity the way I mentioned (or some derivation thereon). I'm fairly confident that in the right party they will be more usefull than a pure bard/gadgeteer when developed and utilized properly.

and yup, I'll provide more analyis for the forum - its just that editing the 23 pages takes awhile.....figure it'll be posted in a week.

ZarahNeander, I do not fault your logic. In fact you are very correct that the points I am trying are "too extreme" for optimum party development. My intent is and was to test those extremes and see if and how they might be weak.

That catching-up process is quick, but as you say, sometime after Level 10, which I would say is the late opening, just before mid-game (that begins at Level 11 - that's my own arbitrary designation, marking a major shift in play once pure casters get Portal - FYI I put end of mid-game beginning of end game at about Level 18-20. The idea is that each is about a third of the game.).

In these parties it is the balance of the characters and complementing of each others abilities that allows them to safely negotiate what you call the triangle. The reason I am playing EM IM games with this party and these extremes is to prove that. There is no lack of magic capabilities in these parties, they are very strong with it. It is just that a couple key spells, such as Soul Shield, Element Shield and possibly Fireball would be better to cast at higher level earlier. For the first year and a half of playing this game I never tried IM. I tend to be bold as I play. I fear Juggarnaughts in the game because, after many battles with them, I have come to rationally know that they are dangerous for magic-heavy parties at the point in the game when they are first encountered. That boldness has been interesting, and informative, but it needs to be tempered for IM play. I have lost IM parties to Crusher Crabs, a battle I could have avoided, two Bull Picuses, a battle I initiated when I didn't have to, and carelessness when fighting with allies in Trynton. It sounds like you are an experienced IM player, so you know there are certain attitudes and skills which are necessary to succeed in any IM game, and I am green to those attitudes and caution. I am finding the party on the other hand, due to their incredible chemistry together, much more than sufficiently powerful even following these extremes. For example, that Level 9 party took on two Level 12 Widowmaker groups (eleven of them in all) and had no problem defeating them.

There is no intent to just play for the mid and end game, because the opening is important too, but it is amazing how little is needed to optimally negotiate that period. Rather what I am trying to prove (or test) with this is that the Party is powerful early, middle and late, and that the short-term, temporary sacrifices are no big deal.

99% of the time the party negotiates every part of the Monestary, Trynton, The roads, UBC and the Mine Tunnels, with considerable ease. By the time LMB is reached, accelerated increases through magic-use have gotten pretty close to caught up (versus my games where Piety and/or realms were also pushed), so casting most spells at higher Power Level is not a problem by then.

What I believe will end up as optimum development for a balanced magic-heavy party is some targeted Realm Magic increases targeted at particular spells. I suspect that just a few skill points will go a long way and intend to test this.

There is no need to fear backfires or fizzles, in general. They are mostly dangerous at the very beginning (like Level 1 and 2) and when using allies. In the later case, at least in IM, it might be better to defend rather than target ranged attacks against enemies in the midst of friends. Single target magic spells, such as Energy Blast or Crush are pretty safe (won't turn allies). There is also a proximity effect to spells. If your enemies are actually in contact with the party, spells against them are a lot more likely to succeed in the Yellow or Orange. Even spells cast in the Red can succeed, but succeed or not that red rapidly changes to orange and then yellow through use. I will risk spells in the orange or red at first, cast at PL 1, but only if the caster at full health. I have never lost a character due to early backfires, other than casting powerful potions or powders (Like a Level 3 attack potion used used by a Level 1 party. Even then, waiting until monsters are close and casting it right up against one's nose can greatly increase the probability of success.)

The Bard is not a backfire problem, or at least I have not found her so, even if no points are put into Music at character creation or Level-up. With the Bard, I develop her for optimal Melee capability so Dexterity is always very high and maxed-out early. That might be why I see almost no backfires and few fizzles.

Does the party need all the extra combat capability that these optomizations allow, probably not, but it's fun!

ScottG, you have a unique and interesting perspective on the game. Thank you for sharing the depth of some of your concepts. It's amazing how many interesting and varied ways there are to approach this game effectively! I'm looking forward to your contributions.

[ 06-30-2003, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: EEWorzelle ]