Magic Based Party

[darkmage]

I've been playing a fighter based party. This time round, I'll try a magic based party:

1) Paladin (Bows, Hammer, LS)
2) Gnome Fighter (Axe & Mace)
3) Elf Fighter (Bows, LS)
4) DC Fighter>Cleric dual at level 9
5) Elf Druid
6) DC Thief>Mage dual at level 7

I would prefer a 5-man party than a 6-man party anytime. If I want to remove a fighter, shall I take out the Paladin or Gnome? My Elf Archer has the highest kills in all my IWD games, so ....

Would a DC Thief>Cleric be more effective than a DC Thief>Mage? That would mean making a DC Fighter>Mage and a DC Thief>Cleric. I have not played a Thief>Cleric before so I would not know it effectiveness.

[Marty4]

Well, first off I don't see why you didn't make the fighter a ranger. Rangers are AWESOME sword users, and just as good archers. If you wanted 5 people, I would ditch the gnome, though thats just me. I have never really liked thief-clerics, so stick with your current dual classes.

[Aerich]

Erm, is that your magic-based party? [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

Looks pretty heavy on grunts to me - three single-classed warriors isn't a whole lot of magic.

I'd ditch the gnome as well, but that's a tough call. Go with the Thief/Mage over the Thief/Cleric.

You could always switch out one of your fighter-types for a straight mage or a bard - that would give you a little more of a "magic-user party" feel. As is, with 3-4 fighter-classed characters (even if one of them is dual), you will be able to mulch through monsters just as well as you did before.

[darkmage]

Sorry ...
Being magic based is that - I want to use all the spells from the realms of cleric/mage/druid.

That's why i wanted a 5-man party instead of 6.

Oh, well, lets how things go ...

[NobleNick]

darkmage,

Do you have HoW? Are you going to do the expansions? If the answer to both questions is, "Yes," then I have a suggestion: Make yourself and Marty4 happy and trade in your Gnome F for a DC Good Cleric(10 to 12)/Ranger (Mace, Sling). ADVANTAGES: You still get your Warrior in that slot. The extra Cleric will come in very handy in the expansions. ALso, the Cleric will build up lots of spell slots; then the Ranger will give you access to fill up those slots with Druid spells. DISADVANTAGES: The only big drawback is a Ranger having to use blunt weapons and a sling; but it is still a rockin' character.

Here, compare portions of the spell progression charts for a Cleric and a Ranger:



CLVL|______Cleric (WIS=18)______ |
____|____________SLVL__________ |
____|_1_|_2_|_3_|_4_|_5_|_6_|_7_|
____|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
_09_|_6_|_6_|_4_|_3_|_1_|___|___|
____|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
_10_|_6_|_6_|_4_|_4_|_2_|___|___|
____|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
_11_|_7_|_6_|_5_|_4_|_2_|_1_|___|
____|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
_12_|_8_|_7_|_6_|_4_|_2_|_2_|___|
____|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
_13_|_8_|_8_|_7_|_5_|_2_|_2_|___|
____|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|


CLVL|______Ranger (WIS=18)______ |
____|____________SLVL__________ |
____|_1_|_2_|_3_|_4_|_5_|_6_|_7_|
____|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
_09_|_1_|___|___|___|___|___|___|
____|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
_10_|_1_|_1_|___|___|___|___|___|
____|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
_11_|_1_|_1_|___|___|___|___|___|
____|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
_12_|_1_|_1_|_1_|___|___|___|___|
____|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
_13_|_1_|_1_|_1_|___|___|___|___|
____|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
_14_|_2_|_1_|_1_|___|___|___|___|
____|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
_15_|_2_|_1_|_1_|_1_|___|___|___|
____|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|

A lime number or skill means that number has increased from the previous CLVL (the row above).

C11 = 675K XP
C12 = 900K XP
R12 = 1200K XP
R13 = 1500K XP
R14 = 1800K XP

So, you could have a DC Cleric(12)/Ranger who, for a good part of the game, would have a 3 point THAC0 penalty relative to a Single Class Ranger; but who would have access to Cleric and Druid spells and have a massive number of slots to stock up on them. The loss of 3 points THAC0 is significant; but, in my book, the spells (some of which enhance the entire party's THAC0) more than make up for it. You could do Cleric(11)/Ranger for an equivalent THAC0 penalty of only slightly over 2, and slightly fewer Cleric spells. Both options give you access to SLVL 6 spells.

--------------------
What's a party,
without a song?
Bards ROCK!
Party On!!


[ 05-16-2005, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: NobleNick ]

[Soothsayer]

Personally, I never have a character who cant cast spells, even if its just a Paladin. I never have a pure fighter or theif, their just not worth the bother.

IMHO, Rangers make better tanks then fighters anyway, as long as you give them a decent long sword with no shield.

[Neo the Warrior Cat]

Heh, I used to have a magic based party, forgot the particulars because it was lost when my computer went kaput but I remember having very many multiclasses.

I think I had:
Fighter/Mage
Fighter/Cleric
Fighter/Druid
Thief/Illusionist
Druid
Mage

Every last character a spellcaster from the start >.> Stats were a bear to roll with the Fighter/Druid. They tore through the Vale of Shadow like nobody's business. (Moonblades rock)

[Aerich]

My priest-heavy party looked much similar, Neo.

The fighter multiclasses were the same as yours, as was the druid. My last two characters were a DC thief/cleric and DC evil cleric/necromancer.