Party composition for a first run of EE

Comments

• jsaving Member Posts: 1,083

  April 2020 edited April 2020

  In IWD there is nearly no role-playing so it barely matters who does the talking in your party. There are a couple of lines of dialogue and a couple of small XP awards you can get only by having someone who is a paladin, druid or bard but that is probably 45 seconds of content over the course of a 45 hour game.
  
  In IWD there are hardly any conversations so INT, WIS and CHA almost never matter. Every guide I've ever seen recommends every warrior dumping all mental stats to 3 unless they have one that is needed for casting.
  
  In IWD thief skills are less useful than they are in BG/BG2 nor do single-class thieves have the hope of eventual redemption through the UAI and spike trap HLAs (because HLAs do not exist even if you reach 3 million XP). Nor do you even receive XP for unlocking locks or disarming traps. Absolutely no reason to use a pure-class thief.
  
  In IWD most guides recommend zero pure warriors but plenty of fighter/clerics, ranger/clerics, and fighter/mage/clerics. Doesn't mean you personally shouldn't include one as the game is fairly easy regardless of party composition, though.
  
  To elaborate a bit on the last point, if you are a longtime BG2 player you might well be thinking it would be a great idea to have an inquisitor and a berserker in your party. But because IWD's battles are exceptionally dumbed-down compared to BG2, there are none of the intricate mage battles you remember and hence little need for an inquisitor's uber-dispel ability. Along similar lines you are nearly never afflicted with any control/disable effects so there is little need for berserker immunities.
  
  

  0
• Djasko_Amsterdam Member Posts: 47

  April 2020 edited April 2020

  I'd like to weigh in with a nearly finished run fresh in my head.
  Being a Paladin has some possibly unintentional results. Paladins are good at detecting evil and can turn a npc hostile. This may end up costing you access to certain other npc's like healers and vendors, had you not called the npc's out. So be careful if you see some Paladin specific dialogue.
  
  Other than that, a Paladin makes for a great tank. Most people opt Undead Hunter, but to me the Cavalier is perfect. You already get disease immunity as a Paladin and the Cavalier adds poison immunity and fear immunity. Add a certain ring you'll get later on, and your Cavalier is a bundle of immunities with some fire and acid resistance besides. I'd recommend putting points in Axes so you can wield a certain weapon meant for defensive types.
  
  As for thieves, a shadowdancer isnt that bad of a choice if you're not using 3e sneak attack. Hide in Plain Sight is pretty big.

  0
• chevalier Member Posts: 51

  April 2020

  Thanks, guys.
  
  I liked the Cavalier from BG2, though I certainly don't like the 'no ranged' aspect of it for just one reason — my preferred style has always been to equip the whole party with as good (and long-ranged) ranged weapons as possible for exploration, only going melee when approached up close or when having to approach someone up close. The goal is, among other things, to avoid running up into a pack after pack after pack of enemies on a new map and avoid triggering story-related/scripted encounters too early or at unconvenient times. Still, the kit is great. And chances are I would dual-wield it rather than going sword & board or two-handed.
  
  So far, after taking a look at other classes, I've been thinking about:
  
  - Swashbuckler. Essentially getting a piece of Fighter/Thief without reduced/delayed progression.
  - Skald. Obviously a bit of a more warlike bard. Not that I consider bards mighty useful in D&D cRPG, or at least in my playing style.
  - Dwarven Defender. Obviously if you already include someone with a beard and axe, you might as well take this, for Supreme Roadblock Capacity™.
  - Wizard dualled from something else, notably fighter (better weapons, better proficiency, more attacks perhaps specialize in whatever type conjured weapons happen to be, if any are available). Alternatively could take two Fighter-Mages — delayed progression but plenty enough spell slots and two semi-decent combatants.
  - Cleric dualled from something else, notable fighter (slightly stronger physical punch), but perhaps too much hassle for the gain. Alternatively could take two Fighter-Clerics — delayed progression but plenty enough healing/buffs and two decent combatants.
  
  So, theoretically, I could have one paladin, one Fighter-Thief (being able to select Swashbuckler would make much sense), two Fighter-Mages, two Fighter-Clerics — delayed access to the best stuff but plenty of punch.
  
  I wouldn't be above making more than two multiclassed Mages, though I suspect good Mage equipment could become a problem, right?
  
  All in all, I can't resist the nagging thought that 'unkitted', base versions may in fact be superior, followed by classic multi, where in multi it becomes delayed access vs pure performance for me — actually a tough choice to make, no matter that either version will probably work.

  0
• Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367

  April 2020

  Druids are far better in IWDEE than BGEE. There are a lot of useful level 2 and 3 spells added that aren't in BG or BG2 making them much more useful at lower levels. The higher level spells have much more variety as well. On the other hand, insect plague isn't as powerful as in the other games (where it was a game-changer against enemy mages). If you really want to have some fun choose a Totemic Druid or an Avenger for even more party usefulness.

  1