[Aerich]

Well, (in response to Roboghost's post) this party wasn't meant to be balanced, it was meant to let me experiment with as many priest spells as possible. Otherwise, yes, I would have a better mix of warriors and mages.

I do cast DUHM right before I move forward to engage. Sometimes I also spend a 2nd lvl mage slot on Strength, to bring the F/C up to 18/00 before I cast DUHM.

I would agree that evil clerics aren't really worth it, but I wanted to try. Loss of higher healing/raising spells is not compensated for by sub-par or difficult-to-use offensive spells.

I use the pure Druid (18 Cha) for my buying needs.

You can dual to Cleric/Necromancer in IWD (I checked). I'd never played one, and it seemed like a good roleplaying combination, so I'll keep it. With the Cleric's undead summons, glyphs, Cloud of Pestilence, etc weakening the opposition and providing a distraction, I should be able to use the necromancer to cause some serious damage, once it gets going.

And if you've never tried out having two druids before, give it a shot! They really do have amazing spells that hinder, weaken or just plain damage the enemy, and some of the combinations you can come up with are deadly. For example, you can divide the summoning, hindering, healing and attack spells. One spends its 3rd lvl slots on Spike Growth, the other spends them on Mold Touch. The first one spends 4th lvl slots on summons, and the second on Smashing Wave, Static Charge, or Produce Fire. Cast Spike Growth, then summons, Mold Touch them and send them forward to devastate the enemy, and then finish it off with area-effect spells.

If druids aren't handicapped by having to spend all their slots on healing/protective spells, they give mages a run for their money in terms of offensive ability and versatility. Also, their summons are better, especially in the mid-game.