Hello all.

Could I have constructive criticism of this party please? Any race/clas changes needed? My two favourite classes are the Bard and Alchemist so definitely want these in. As I see it I will have four melee fighters and all spell books covered twice. Or am I over extending them and will suffer later?

Dwarf Lord
Human Samurai
Rawulf Monk
Hobbit Bard
Elf Bishop
Gnome Alchemist

Any advice gratefully received.

Thank you.

Looks like a very good party to me.

What I'd do (but not why, I'll be posting a guide for that in about a week), looking at your areas of interest.

(in order of initial recruitment, not placement formation.)

Female Felpurr alchemist dualed to bard at about 9th level. Max out speed while leveling up; dexterity and strength as well. Level up minimum attributes for bard by about level 9.

Female Mook alchemist dualed to ranger at about 9th level. Max out dexterity and senses while leveling up (strength and then speed afterwards). Level up minimum attributes for ranger by about level 9. This is a good character to have two of.

Elf or Farie Bishop.

Dwarf priest dualed to lord around 15th level (which allows for 6th level spells early on.) Max out vitality and strength (while leveling up) and bring up lord minimum attribute levels near time to dual (15th level).

Lizardman rouge swordsman and dagger fighter. Max Vitality, Strength, and Dexterity. Add two if you like this.

You will have to initially calculate your levels and PLAN OUT when you will increase each level so that you can dual at the proper time.

Note: their are numerous reasons for the list I've presented - an example of one is: your lizardman rouge will far surpass a samurai (in damage and critical kills) while dual wielding stilletos and latter Fang (sword) and stilleto while having a vastly superior armor class. Add. note: those attributes should be leveled up as mentioned here NOT as mentioned in the manual.

Krull, that sounds like an excellent party to me.

I'm afraid, after a year and a half of playing this game, that I cannot concur with any of ScotG's dual-classing advice, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. There are new things being learned about this game all the time.

Dual classing works very different in this game than Wizardry 7, and most players recommend it rarely if at all. The experience to go from level 1 to 2 in the new class is the same as if no class change. So if you change at level 9, from something else to say a Bard, the experience to go from Level 1 to 2 as a Bard will be the same as from Level 10 to 11 if you had started as a bard. All that class changing does is mix approximately the same total number of levels between two or more classes. That can be appropriate in some parties, but generally most players find a character with 10 Levels in two different classes is much weaker than 20 Levels in either one.

Most of the class changes I see recommended are two cases. One is single levels in another class (such as one level as a Mage for a Bishop, to get a realm-magic boost) or one level of something with Stealth combined with training Stealth to high levels (I never do such training but many players do). The other time is smaller parties, like 3 characters and no RPCs, where you will get a lot more levels by end of game to play with. Even then most players do not do too much class changing, because many skills and capabilities are level-dependent, based upon levels within that class.

[ 06-27-2003, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: EEWorzelle ]

Yeah, I'll certainly be interested in seeing the explanation for some of these. Some of them seem pretty straightforward, like the Alchemist->Ranger to get a spell-heavy Ranger. Well, except that Krull pretty clearly chose to leave ranged-attack capability out of this party. Others are much less clear: for example the Alchemist->Bard thing. The "obvious" logic is that since the Alchemist book has the fewest spells that are duplicated by Bard instruments (like, 1 exact match, though the Dulcimer of Mending effectively duplicates Heal Wounds, and the Renaissance Lute covers 4 Alchemist spells), this change gives the Bard better Alchemist-book coverage, producing a Bard that can cast things like Element Shield, Ring of Fire, and Fire Bomb. However, the game will be over before this AlcheBard is able to use the top 3 instruments (including the Renaissance Lute)--a pretty expensive trade-off.

Yeah, that was yet another problem with dual-classing: the game is too short to make it worthwhile in many cases.

As it is, dualing is hardly worth the effort because you lose so much of the special class abilities when you change. The only time I did that was when I experimented with the 3-step bishop (going from priest to mage to bishop). Otherwise, I just kept everyone the same class.

<center>Nightowl2</center>

Thanks for all the replies.

I don't like dual classing much for the same reasons that EEWorzelle gave. By the way, EEW, can I say how much I enjoy your posts both here and on the VN Boards, lots of insightful advice and good reasoning.

I have toyed with class changing when the Bishop gets all her spells. Snag is, what to? I tend to go for maces with my Bishop so perhaps change her into a Fighter. Not enough time to get dual weapons up so also spend some points on Shield. Plus, of course, she can then wear an Infinty Helm. Snag is her strength will be low and so probably won't reach Power Strike. What do you think, leave her as a Bishop or class change to a Fighter?

I've never dual classed any of my bards, basically as I've never reached level 18 with any of them! Anyway, I've seen both arguments for and against dual classing Bards to Rogues (or Fighters).

Good point about the lack of ranged combat early on, I did worry about that but then they can use their magic instead once they have a few points under their belts.

The Lord is dual wielding maces. Can't see a Dwarf using a sword, and axes seem weak in this game, whereas I can see Dwarfs using Maces. There's the Mauler and Diamond Eyes to look forward to, this seems an awesome combination to me.

Samurai will get Bloodlust until Fang comes along and then perhaps give Bloodlust to the Bard until something better comes along. Would like a Light Sword but, like most of you I suspect, haven't seen one yet.

The Monk will use Martial Arts but will put some points into Staff in case I get the Zatochi? Bo.

I'm putting points into Staff for the Alchemist for the Staff of Doom eventually.

For the Bishop, I started her as a Bishop, gave her a level of Mage at level 2 for the extra spell points, and then back to Bishop for the rest of the game.

By the way, I picked a Rawulf for a monk as I read on the VN Boards that they could use the Ring of Beasts or whatever it's called which gives a boost to their Senses which seems logical to help with Psionics. Snag is, I've got a magic heavy party going as well, which includes a Rawulf Psionic, and I'm in the last third of the game (I think) and, to perpetuate the conspiracy theory, haven't got one yet. Needless to say, I have got it when I have no Felpurrs or Rawulfs in the party.

What do you think?

Thanks.

Interesting. Why not the other way around?. Start as a mage & switch at lvl 2 to a bishop? You get powercast 3 levels earlier (75 Int verus 65 Int). Granted you'll loose 2 HP, is that your reason? For me this is offset by the fact, that the mage only needs 1200 xp to get to lvl 2.

Time limit again. In a full party, a Bishop won't usually be ready for a class change until about 6 levels past the end of the game. In a reduced party (and when planned from the start) changing a Bishop to a melee class can work. On the extreme "reduced party" end, my solo Bishop is now level 26, and is about ready to change to either a Lord or a Monk. But she was built with that in mind: current stats/skills include SPD=100, STR=96 (on the way to 100; had to spend a few levels' worth of points on VIT), Staff=73, Mace=94, Stealth=100, Shield=98, Locks=92. So a Lord with The Mauler+Shield or a Monk with the Zatoichi Bo will work fine.

Instead of a class change, just build a Bard that can fight: see EEWorzelle's excellent analysis at

http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...=003175#000013

That wasn't criticism of the lack; just an observation on how you chose to structure the party. Choosing to forego physical ranged attacks and use magic for non-melee opponents is a perfectly legitimate option.

Same here; I've seen the Ring of Beasts two or three times in 15+ games played to various stages (rarely to Ascension), and of course none of those times were when anyone in the party could actually use the thing. There are a few "guaranteed" Race/Class combos to use based on equipment (Mook Ranger, Faerie Ninja), but not many.

Thats around level 25-26, if you learn level 1-5 spells only from books. Aside from this, the ability to overcome enemy resitances is dependent on you caster level vs monster level, so even in a small party, its better to stay bishop.

I have a fighter/bishop party, where i intended to switch (after having all the pells skills at 100). I decided its better not to change. And with 8 rechargable mana stones in his inventory, and the might to magic spell, there's no need for the infinity helmet.

The Zatoichi Bi is a fix item (Rapax castle)

No need to put points into weapon skills with pure casters. At least not until you have all realm skills at 75. Raising earth, fire and water is much better IMO.

Closer analysis:

3 (and possibly 4) of the characters Krull mentioned are good at melee; this poses the question: how many are really required (especially for the first 20% of the game)? Hint: the game isn't called Melee 8.

both a dwarf priest and a lizardmen rouge will act as meat shields quite nicely for the initial 20% of the game, the others (non-bishop) will become very good at melee by about the 40-50% marker - and Krull wanted 3-4 melee'ers in his party.

Next question: when do you need protection spells and who can provide them? Hint: notice the level I mentioned (now check back and see what a pure caster can select, if properly developed, at this level).

Dual classing is usually more effective than pure hybrids (non-dualing hybrids) when considering stratgic development of your party, (refer to the questions above). In particular (beyond those mentioned by EEWorzelle) dual classing allows for a strong magic caster (4th level spells or better) to become good at melee by choosing a class that is "aligned" with their mage class, (look at my recomendations again). Alternativly it can allow stong magic casting and strong stamina casting with a Bard/Gadgeteer mix with a mage-type class (and additionally allow for ranged and melee participation as well). (Also note the attributes needed for both classes - they overlap.) Yes ChaosTheorist has done much better analysis here, you will in fact loose the ability to stamina cast those higher level spells - but so what? What are your other members in your party capable of (and how many are there)? Additionally, how much stamina do these higher level spells take? (As the Isuzu add says: go farther......at least in your analysis - but don't go over that waterfall.) You'll see that the pure Bard route is far more expensive. Additionally, I really only suggested the bardtender becuase Krull wanted a bard. And NightOwl, the ONLY special class ability I've found to truely be worthwile is stamina regeneration (beyond of course berserk and backstab), the others just don't cut it. They can be easily replicated by magic or wearable items (and bettered, as mentioned with the samurai analysis). Moreover they can be replicated at a time in the game when they are really needed.

Hope this helps!

....and nice analysis ChaosTheorist! You picked up on several key elements to a Bardtender - now why the Felpurr, why the Speed attribute, and why the recruitment position? (the gender is just to common/easy.) And yup, I realize that Krull left out a physical ranged attack element, frankly I see that as more of a bonus. The emphasis was as you assesed magic to magic and physical attack, (of course there is a lot more to it than this alone). A mook and a giant sword for the last 50% of the game makes a rather compelling melee'er, ranger or not.

[ 06-28-2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: ScottG ]

Get lots of beer and pizza.. and don't forget to invite friends!

[ 06-29-2003, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: Variol (Farseer) Elmwood ]

(blush) Gee, thanks! ;)

Yeah, that's one of the (OK, minor) irritating aspects of the game. Sure, we take advantage of it--put the Bless'er/Haste'r(s) in slot(s) 1/2 and use fake move--but it still irks me that the engine just throws away the entire concept of Initiative in that situation.

whats a "fake" move?

I assume a fake move is when you hit the walk/run button then, when it's your turn to move you cancel it?

CT, I don't understand what you mean putting the haster/blesser in the top two slots. I've never heard of this before.

Thanks.

Dat's it.

When you schedule a move on a turn--even if you don't actually go anywhere--the game completely ignores the relative Initiative ratings of the party members for the remainder of that turn. Instead, they take their actions in straight (Western) reading order, i.e. left-to-right, top-to-bottom, or 7/8/1/2/3/4/5/6. So, put your character(s) that cast Bless and/or Haste in the top slot(s). Then, on any combat where you can afford to schedule a move (and thus let at least some of the opponents go first) on round 1, your buff-caster(s) get to cast Bless/Haste at the start of the round, so all the other characters benefit from the buff(s) immediately. Not a tremendous advantage, but it's free simply by recruiting the characters in the appropriate order when creating the party.

I keep saying Bless/Haste because they're the most obvious choices, but it could be anything. That's why the Bard is a good example of the value of this technique: depending on the situation and the opponents, you might want your Bard to cast an immediate Bless, Haste, Insanity, Silence, or (if it's Saxx) Soul Shield.

[ 06-29-2003, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: ChaosTheorist ]

It sure depends on the party. In my latest game I played only with the four casters priest, alchemist, mage and psionic in a party of 6, and for the first time I developed an alchemist that focused primarily on melee combat, i.e staff and wands and close combat. She turned out to be almost as good as any hybrid I have developed by level 15, and was way better with magic than any hybrid would be. Her realm skills were about 30-40 at level 20, but alchemy skill was 90+ (decluding bonus), while her combat skills were 80+. She could still cast power 5 acid bombs, power 5 body of stone, power 5 quick sand, level 3 tsunami etc at green-yellow. The ac was 20+ after armor shield, and about 26 after a power 5 body of stone.

Also, my psionic was very good when I put 3 points into ranged combat and 3 into throwing every level up. Psionics have a tendency to run out of spell points very quickly, so with a wrist rocket in one hand and medusa stones in the other, they can still do good damage. Or perhaps they could use powders or potions. It's nice when the psionic can join in the surprise attacks by using cherry bombs or stink bombs, fire bombs et.

[ 06-29-2003, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: el_kalkylus ]

Interesting. I always fail when I try to develop a battlemage type. My problem is not, that he/she won't hit the opponent, my problem is crappy armour & crappy HP. My current party (4 bish, EM/IM) realized in the sea caves, that they forgot the helm of serenity, went back to Trynton, faced 5 rattkin thieves (lvl 7: puny), I got cocky & didn't cast GA/BoS, result: after the first round my gnome bish (73 hp IIRC, AC 20) was left with 21 HP. Of course GA/BoS makes all the difference, but permanently babysitting my two semi-tanks kinda defeats the purpose of a magic heavy party for me. Fior this party it's nearly always better to summon some elementals or rely on offensive magic.
So I would be interested: how do you get an AC 20+. The best I can get is AC 20, with Armorplate 7, ComC, 2x Amulet of Healing, Flak Jacket etc. Is there an item I'm missing? And did you invest in vit?
Thanks in advance

Yes, with the +3 ac cape that you can buy from Ferro and Bela for 60,000, it's possible to get 20+ ac. Then there is the cape of stealth that gives you +5 ac. I think my Alchemist wore snakespeed boots, robe of rejuvination (+5?), stud chaussets, chamois gloves and the +3 cape worth 60,000 gold and 2 Amulet of Healing. No vitality invested except the start 50 vitality, race mook. I only invested in strength and intelligence, then speed and senses.

It's true that you have to keep the front line alchemist buffed up with GA and BoS. But I do that to a fighter too in hard fights. Most of the times, only BoS is enough protection for the alchemist. But I know that Goons have great to-hit and are strong, so against these you have to use GA too, then fire away with all the effect spells. Elementals are usually very good to divert attention too though, but not always necessary.

Interesting on the fake move thing - I've often wondered (with recruitment of melee'ers first) why those fighters would loose their first attacks (as the monsters had not arrived yet in their charge to my party). I'd definitly consider the fake-move to be cheese (and not even cheese I'd recomend - roqfurt, stillten, ect.).

No, acctually the reason (for the 3) is of course related, but more "honest". Recruitment position seems to effect initiative regardless of a fake move - but not relative to other party members, rather it seems to be important relative to your opponents (as does initiating combat versus being "surprised"). Furthermore (like the fake move) party formation and "sensing" a monster also seems to effect initiative marginally (i.e. who sees the monster first has a slightly higher initiative).

It is of course in this logic to have Bless/Hasters first (although I'd say its important to have soul shield and element shield up first). Speed then is the attribute of choice and is the underlying element in initiative coupled with weapons initiative or spell type, spell level, and spell power. Furthermore when looking at an alchemist who will dual to a bard and have speed as the primary attribute, (to beat-out high initiative monsters), to unlock snakespeed (and further your ability here) - two choices pop-up. Faeries simply have the best speed attribute (especially for unlocking snakespeed the fastest), Felpurrs run a modest second. But we need to look further of course: Faeries have pitiful starting attributes in strength and vitality whereas Felpurrs are better in both (more so in strength). Because a bard can also be a melee'er or a ranged fighter they will need both attributes - particularly strength. Additionally of course there are several nice armours available early on that only a non-faerie bard can wear.

On a different note.

I think el_Kalkylus has nicely highlighted why pure hybrids are weak. Of course the solution to overcoming ZarahNeader's problem is dual to a magic related hybrid later in the game for different weapons choices and armor capability (or course he could always go the rouge/stealth route).

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 ]