Skip to content

How perfect is this 6-person party?

vladpenvladpen Member Posts: 88
edited April 2015 in New Players (NO SPOILERS!)
Inquisitor (Paladin kit). Our Charismatic leader. A Mage-smasher who is very handy in some tough spots, and is generally a competent front-line fighter.

Mage. The Inquisitor's sister; he was appalled as a child at the way she was being treated by people close to them, which helped motivate him to become an Inquisitor, to bring justice to his society's treatment of Mages.

Dwarven Defender (Fighter kit). For when someone needs to stand toe-to-toe against the toughest of foes.

Archer (Ranger kit). Logistically easy damage. Him and the Dwarf are a pair of mercenaries who were once hired by the Inquisitor and eventually became his friends. They have worked together many times in the past, they all know and trust each other, and their relationship tends to be professional and congenial. They have similar views of how the world should work, and they are happy to work on it together.

Barbarian. The most recent member to join the party, his job is to get behind enemy lines and quickly take out VIPs. He seems fascinated by the Mage, as if she were some unfamiliar phenomenon from another world. She is puzzled by his fascination.

Cleric/Thief. This reclusive and reticent Half-Orc is a scout and trap-handler, and a long-time friend of the Inquisitor. He has been in love with the Mage for years (which she knows), but he understands that nothing can be done about it. She admires his Wisdom and trusts him as a friend, but is physiologically incapable of being attracted to a Half-Orc. A thief tends to get himself in trouble, and the Cleric's Sanctuary spell makes his job safer, and the self-buffs can add to his effectiveness as a Thief. Cleric and Thief are both fast-growing classes.

This makes the Dwarven Defender, Inquisitor, Barbarian, and the Cleric/Thief as viable front-line fighters, with the Archer dishing out damage from the back, and the Mage.
«1

Comments

  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    For Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale? In either case I'd say you're a tad light on spellcasters. Maybe swap the DD or the barbarian for a cleric/mage in BG, or maybe a druid in IWD. Also, the Inquisitor isn't as strong in IWD, but I still wouldn't say it's *bad*.

    Having said that, I do like your party lore, and the party doesn't look weak. If you like what you've got, go for it.
  • HeindrichHeindrich Member, Moderator Posts: 2,959
    edited April 2015
    As @Jarrakul alluded to, a lot depends on which game you are playing. But in general, although the IE games are challenging compared to most modern RPGs, they are not so tough that you cannot beat the core game in a style that you enjoy.

    Given that you are posting in the "New Players (NO SPOILERS)" part of the forum, Am I correct to assume that 1) you haven't completed BG1 yet and 2) you care about the story in the game?
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,164
    If Icewind Dale, I'd maybe go Cavalier or Undead Hunter instead of Inquisitor, but that would spoil your wonderful backstory :neutral: so I'd keep it that way!

    I'd say you were missing out a bit on a druid in IWD, since they are incredibly fun to play, but if this party fits your preferred style (and the characters are great!) then go for it, you'll be just fine!
  • vladpenvladpen Member Posts: 88
    Jarrakul said:

    For Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale?

    To answer your question, it doesn't matter which game. If the answer depends on the game's content ("are there more undead or mages?"), then it's not really (NO SPOILERS). Or maybe it's better to say that this is for all of the games, including future ones.
  • joluvjoluv Member Posts: 2,137
    You want to know how perfect your party is for future games? That seems difficult to answer.
  • vladpenvladpen Member Posts: 88
    Don't make this unpleasant.
  • HeindrichHeindrich Member, Moderator Posts: 2,959
    The answer to your question does depend on context though. There are significant differences in game mechanics between BG:EE, BG2:EE and IWD:EE that makes the party you described more or less effective.

    Anyways I love how you have already developed the back-story for your party, and I'd say "go with it" for IWD:EE.

    However, for BG:EE and BG2:EE... those two games revolves around a single protagonist with a somewhat pre-determined backstory, there is a lot of room for interpretation and you can choose to ignore it, but if you cared about plot continuity and experiencing the Baldur's Gate experience to its fullest, you really ought to just create one Charname for your first playthrough and fill up your party with the NPC companions. The interactions between your protagonist and his/her companions, and between the companions themselves, are a big part of the enduring appeal of the BG games. BG2 companions also come with associated quests that you might miss out on with an entirely custom party.
  • joluvjoluv Member Posts: 2,137
    I wasn't trying to. There are a lot of really knowledgeable, helpful people on here who would presumably be happy to answer your questions, but it wasn't clear to me what you were asking. If the question was rhetorical and the point of this thread was to show off your party, that's cool. It's a good party; I think you'll have fun playing IE games with it.
  • YupImMadBroYupImMadBro Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 347
    The Inquisitor kills mages because his mage sister got picked on for being a mage?
  • vladpenvladpen Member Posts: 88
    edited April 2015
    He knew that in order to change his society, he needed to be a credible and important part of it. Becoming an Inquisitor was a way of doing that. Inquisitors don't indiscriminately kill Mages. They kill evil Mages, the ones who give all Mages a bad name. Plus, his sister was in a position to help him learn how to handle Mages effectively, which made his becoming an Inquisitor an even more compelling choice. It also wasn't lost on him that having an Inquisitor brother would help her in their society, which was rife with irrational fear and distrust of Mages. The career choice was also well-suited to his temperament. He always was a Paladin at heart, but his sister and his society affected some of his choices, such as becoming specifically an Inquisitor.
    Post edited by vladpen on
  • WowoWowo Member Posts: 2,064
    As people have mentioned context does matter. In BG1/2 Inquisitor is undoubtedly the best paladin kit while in IWD it is undoubtedly the worst (better to be kitless) due to a number of factors.

    Cleric/thief is a fun character that fills needed roles but honestly each class synergises so much better in any other combination.

    Barbarian and DD have very similar functions in a party so there is redundancy in having both.

    A perfect party in IWD for me will have a Druid and a Bard in the team. A perfect party in BG1/2 will have at least 3 characters that can cast arcane spells (multi, dual or single class).
  • vladpenvladpen Member Posts: 88
    Wowo said:

    Barbarian and DD have very similar functions in a party so there is redundancy in having both.

    What function do you mean? I regard the Dwarven Defender as a tank and the Barbarian as a fast-moving damage dealer.
  • GodGod Member Posts: 1,150
    The only perfect party is a party of two.
  • vladpenvladpen Member Posts: 88
    Wowo said:

    Cleric/thief is a fun character that fills needed roles but honestly each class synergises so much better in any other combination.

    I'm interested in hearing more about how "each class synergises so much better in any other combination".
  • HeindrichHeindrich Member, Moderator Posts: 2,959
    edited April 2015
    vladpen said:

    Wowo said:

    Cleric/thief is a fun character that fills needed roles but honestly each class synergises so much better in any other combination.

    I'm interested in hearing more about how "each class synergises so much better in any other combination".
    @Wowo will probably have other examples and reasons. But I can offer a few:

    1) One of the major benefits of a Thief is using their stealth to launch backstabbing attacks. If you use some variety of Fighter/Thief, this significantly boosts the potency of the backstab, thanks to better fighter THAC0 and damage bonuses, scaling with Thief backstab multipliers. Also a Fighter's improved survivability will help the thief to survive the retribution following the opening attack.

    2) A pure thief lacks a punch in battle, especially in high level combat in BG2. A mage is pretty much the most powerful class in the game once you reach BG2. A dual-classed Thief/Mage can do important things a Thief needs to do (open locks and disable traps), but also become a powerhouse in battle. There's also various invisibility and evasion spells to help a Thief/Mage with stealth beyond just his innate Thief skills.

    3) Clerics have various self-buffs that can significantly improve their fighting capability. A Fighter/Cleric can become quite the melee powerhouse, marrying good Fighter proficiencies, THAC0 and Health with Cleric buffs.

    As an example of "ultimate synergy", consider a Kensai=>Mage dual-class. The weakness of a Kensai is an inability to use any armour or ranged weapons, in return for slightly improved base THAC0 and AC. Once he becomes a mage, the downside becomes nearly irrelevant, since he can use ranged spells and mage protections to mitigate the weaknesses of a Kensai, whilst retaining all the benefits of a hard hitting warrior.
  • vladpenvladpen Member Posts: 88
    Can't the Cleric/Thief self-buff and become a good backstabber and a melee powerhouse?
  • HeindrichHeindrich Member, Moderator Posts: 2,959
    vladpen said:

    Can't the Cleric/Thief self-buff and become a good backstabber and a melee powerhouse?

    No, because neither the Thief nor the Cleric have good base THAC0, APR or Weapon Specialization. Also Clerics have pretty severe weapon restrictions, so (I think) a lot of ideal backstabbing weapons cannot be used.

    Oh another problem, a Cleric/Thief cannot wear heavy armour if he wants to use any thief skills, if he does not wear heavy armour, he cannot go toe to toe in melee combat against half-decent enemies. You need neither heavy armour or mage protections to be a survivable melee combatant. (Except the Monk, they get crazy AC at high levels).
  • HeindrichHeindrich Member, Moderator Posts: 2,959
    I suggest the following website for a look at game mechanics and powergaming considerations.

    http://playithardcore.com/pihwiki/index.php/Baldur's_Gate
  • WowoWowo Member Posts: 2,064
    vladpen said:

    Can't the Cleric/Thief self-buff and become a good backstabber and a melee powerhouse?

    Main problem is lack of Attacks Per Round (APR) as cleric buffs can give decent THAC0 and damage. The best you'll do as a cleric/thief is to be able to attack half as often as a fighter multi and probably even less (the best backstabbing weapon for a cleric/thief is a staff which puts you at 2 attacks per round with haste when fighters can do up to 10).

    Dual or multi versions of Mage/Thief, Mage/Cleric, Fighter/Thief and Fighter/Cleric all have vastly more synergy.

    In IWD it isn't so bad as there are Fast Flails but they are so much better utilised on a fighter/cleric dual or multi.

    Barbarians and DD's are similar in practical terms. There ability to tank is similar and their ability to deal damage is also similar.
  • vladpenvladpen Member Posts: 88
    If the main problem is lack of APR, and Cleric buffs can give decent THAC0 and damage, then the Cleric/Thief is a good backstabber, no?
  • vladpenvladpen Member Posts: 88
    edited April 2015
    I agree with the people who said that the party could use more casters. So I'm thinking of making the Mage start off as a Priest of Tyr and then immediately dual-class to Mage. I figure this won't take much experience away from the Mage, while letting her cast a couple of level 1 Cleric spells. The narrative rationale is that the Mage was initially brought up to be a Cleric in her society. While being a Paladin suited her brother's temperament perfectly, she had to find her own way.
    Post edited by vladpen on
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    vladpen said:

    If the main problem is lack of APR, and Cleric buffs can give decent THAC0 and damage, then the Cleric/Thief is a good backstabber, no?

    Cleric/thieves are fine backstabbers. They're just pretty mediocre warriors. Honestly, I have no real problem with cleric/thieves, but they're definitely a support class. They get lots of abilities that are nice to have in a group, but they aren't personally going to shine very often. Of course, in a group, that's not so much a problem.
  • vladpenvladpen Member Posts: 88
    Jarrakul said:

    Cleric/thieves are fine backstabbers. They're just pretty mediocre warriors.

    If they make good backstabbers, they have a useful specific job (which I assume only the Assassin can do significantly better), on top of being able to cast Cleric spells (and handle traps, of course). Granted that they're not melee powerhouses, which means the party needs some muscle as well. Well, there's already a Dwarven Defender, an Inquisitor, and a Barbarian in this party.

    Both Thief and Cleric are important to a party, but neither is worth single-classing. Which means to have both of them, without having a Cleric/Thief, you need to have two multi-classed characters. That means one less character that can have a kit.
  • WowoWowo Member Posts: 2,064
    vladpen said:

    Jarrakul said:

    Cleric/thieves are fine backstabbers. They're just pretty mediocre warriors.

    If they make good backstabbers, they have a useful specific job (which I assume only the Assassin can do significantly better), on top of being able to cast Cleric spells (and handle traps, of course). Granted that they're not melee powerhouses, which means the party needs some muscle as well. Well, there's already a Dwarven Defender, an Inquisitor, and a Barbarian in this party.

    Both Thief and Cleric are important to a party, but neither is worth single-classing. Which means to have both of them, without having a Cleric/Thief, you need to have two multi-classed characters. That means one less character that can have a kit.
    Every thief makes a good backstabber for most of the game. Backstabbing is a perk that generally gets limited use though in a party.

    Illusionist/Thief - multi class with a kit, ability to backstab 8-10 times/round and a very strong Mage in it's own right.

    Kensei/Thief - dual class with use any item to bypass kensei restrictions and 10 APR with an offhand speed weapon

    Swashbuckler/Mage - important thief skills covered and some back up melee in a Mage with almost full levels.

    Berserker/Cleric - strong kit ability on a high level cleric

    Fighter/Mage/Thief - backup magic (great for buffs), good archer and melee character, thief skills covered

    Fighter/Mage/Cleric - like a fighter/cleric but with wizard spells instead of a kit

    Illusionist/Cleric - combine cleric spells into your metamagics for devastation

    All of these combinations have some amazing and fun synergies which the cleric/thief just doesn't compare to (IMO).
  • vladpenvladpen Member Posts: 88
    edited April 2015
    I suppose a pure Swashbuckler and a Cleric/Illusionist could replace the Barbarian and the Cleric/Thief. So that's:

    1. Inquisitor
    2. Priestess of Tyr (very briefly) -> Mage
    3. Dwarven Defender
    4. Archer
    5. Swashbuckler or Fighter/Thief or Assassin (decide how much you want backstab)
    6. Cleric/Illusionist

    I think I like that better.

    How perfect is this party?
    Post edited by vladpen on
  • WowoWowo Member Posts: 2,064
    vladpen said:

    I suppose a pure Swashbuckler and a Cleric/Illusionist could replace the Barbarian and the Cleric/Thief. So that's:

    1. Inquisitor
    2. Priestess of Tyr (very briefly) -> Mage
    3. Dwarven Defender
    4. Archer
    5. Swashbuckler or Fighter/Thief or Assassin (decide whether you want backstab)
    6. Cleric/Illusionist

    I think I like that better.

    How perfect is this party?

    A Wild Mage or Sorcerer would be stronger in slot 2. If you did like the dual is recommend going to level 11 cleric which is quite strong and will give you the extra healing spells that are so useful in BG1 but the powerhouse Mage in bg2 (Priest of Lathander is the best kit choice for this as the +APR power is very strong).

    A Dwarven Barbarian would be more fun and useful unless you need a DD due to difficulty enhancing mods.

    The thief slot is very open. A truly optimal party might skip a thief entirely and let the barbarian smash the locks and tank the traps. Otherwise I'd lean towards a FMT.

    Mind you, the important thing is to have fun and play what you want, perfect or not.

  • vladpenvladpen Member Posts: 88
    Wowo said:

    If you did like the dual is recommend going to level 11 cleric which is quite strong and will give you the extra healing spells that are so useful in BG1 but the powerhouse Mage in bg2 (Priest of Lathander is the best kit choice for this as the +APR power is very strong).

    The Priestess -> Mage needs to be dual-classed ASAP, because this character is trying to maximize Mage spellcasting. One level of Cleric is insignificant in the ocean of XP required to reach high levels, and practically doesn't interfere with the Mage, but 11 levels would. The Cleric/Illusionist instead adopts the strategy of having a lot of different spells available, but she can't cast the best spells as early as the Priestess -> Mage. I figure between the two of them, that's all the spellcasting we need (I believe the Archer has some druidic spells too).
  • joluvjoluv Member Posts: 2,137
    If you want to use this party for all IE games, remember that Priest of Tyr isn't currently in BGEE or BG2EE. Also, I don't think a single level of Cleric is worth the tradeoff of having to play a human and have an unkitted mage, if you're trying to maximize power.
  • WowoWowo Member Posts: 2,064
    By the time the cleric 11 build regains it's spell casting in bg2 as a cleric 11/Mage 12 a pure Mage would be level 13.

    Lower levels of cleric just doesn't seem to offer anything substantial compared to the benefits of Sorcerer, Wild Mage or Elf.

    It's certainly worthwhile to have 2 characters that can cast heal and the archers Druid spells count for very little (except in IWD but as mentioned you'd want an actual Druid in IWD as they are super fun).

  • vladpenvladpen Member Posts: 88
    edited April 2015
    I'm convinced about Sorcerer rather than Cleric -> Mage. Thinking about Druid, I have the feeling that there isn't enough muscle once you get all the casters in. Admit it, having a Dwarven Defender, an Inquisitor, and a Barbarian holding the front line makes you feel pretty damn safe. Don't we need muscle to deal with mundane threats without wasting spells getting to the important bad guys?
Sign In or Register to comment.