How many tanks in your parties?

[krunchyfrogg]

Whats a good number of tanks? 1, 2, 3?

[Aerich]

2-3.

Your party's tanking capabilities may vary widely depending on the stage of the game you are at. A paladin[2]/sorc[x] can make a very good tank after several levels because of stoneskin and mirror image. Ditto for a cleric who can cast Divine Shell, Holy Power, etc.

Realistically, you are going to need at least one dedicated tank and probably two characters that can jump in after a round or two. I would put a cleric in the latter category, along with barb and ranger builds.

To me, a tank is first a damage soak and second a melee artist.

[Marty4]

I use half a tank [img]tongue.gif[/img] . It's a monk/priest/mage who casts buffs and distracts enemies with an uber AC.

I use less tanks the more I play the game. I solid number is two, if you are going for any noticeable damage output at all, because then they are only hit half as often.

I wouldn't go any higher than three.

[Redcodekevin]

I once played straight melee (all six chars as tanks)... Game was going stupidly easy.

[krunchyfrogg]

Originally posted by Redcodekevin: I once played straight melee (all six chars as tanks)... Game was going stupidly easy.

This really surprises me, because all I've read was that spellcasters dominate IWD2.

[Magness]

I'm sure that it was fairly easy early on. But I'd think that it would become increasingly difficult as the game progressed and the enemies become tougher.

For example, it's hard to imagine taking down the Lich in the Fields of Slaughter without magic.

[Marty4]

A party of six melee characters would be possible, but you'd probably have to use stealth tactics. The Lich in the Fields of Slaughter would be hard with 6 fighters, but it would probably be possible if you backstabbed it with a high level rogue or stunned it with a monk. Also, a paladin or ranger could offer some healing spells, and the paladin could turn undead.

[Magness]

In a party of 6, I'd usually have 2 dedicated tanks (pally, fighter, or barb), a tanking cleric, and often a lightly armored, stealthy ranger-archer who can whip out a pair of swords. And I usually have a rogue, either pure class or MC'd with either ranger or fighter levels.

So it starts with 2 pure warrior tanks, ut I've often had 3 other characters who could take up the sword and join the melee wall at need. This flexibility made for a very balanced and dangerous party.


BTW, I'm not big on thinking of sorc's as "tanks" after a little buffing. At least with my playing style, a sorc or wizzy who isn't casting spells at the enemy isn't doing his or her job in the party. I tend to think that the only excuse for a wizzy or sorc not casting spells is extreme defensive need (i.e. he's personally under attack).

[krunchyfrogg]

If your sorcerers and wizards are casting spells all the time in combat, you must rest a whole lot!

[Magness]

Well, perhaps I was being overly dramatic, Krunchy. I do NOT like sending my wizzies into melee under any circumstances. That's what tanks are for. It's why I *always* arm my sorc or wizzy with a crossbow. Once they get to a high enough level, I'll have'em cast Mordenkainen's Sword and have a powerful ranged attack that lasts for many rounds. (Just do not attack any target with a Fire Shield. The game thinks of Mord's Sword as a verrrrrrry long range melee weapon and your sorc will take Fire Shield damage, even at long range.)

I just hate, hate, HATE putting wizzies and sorcs in melee. Going into melee is doing the enemy a favor by putting them within reach of their swords. I leave them behind the lines where they can use their crossbow when not spellcasting or where they can (hopefully) cast their spells will less chance of interruption.

I admit that this is very much my style of play. I'm sure that other love to send their wizzies into melee with all sorts of protections active, etc. I hate wasting my wizzy's energies on spells to protect him so that he can go places he has no business being in the first place.