Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Best class to fill out this party?

It's been a long time since I've done an iwd run. I'm using the iwd npc mod which gives me five characters with stories and banter. The five characters it comes with are a Paladin, a ranger, a fighter that I'll likely dual to cleric at level 3, a bard, and a fighter/ thief.

I'm actually playing classic, if it matters. I should probably mention that.

I don't feel the need for more mage than the bard, so I'm thinking the obvious choice might be a druid. However, I wasn't sure if I was overlooking another choice that would be a good fit for the group.

What do you think? Thanks!

Comments

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,278
    A fighter/druid, cleric/ranger, Avenger or Totemic Druid would be my choice if you don't want a mage of sone sort. Avenger has some magey type spells and the Totemic Druid has some excellent summons so I'd go with one of those since you seem to have enough fighter types already.

    ilduderino
  • jsavingjsaving Member Posts: 930
    edited July 27
    Would definitely use the mod options to change the ranger and fighter/thief to ranger/cleric and fighter/mage/thief. Whether you do that or not, I'd go with a sorcerer in the last slot or (since you do not want another arcane character) a fighter/druid.

  • KnellerKneller Member Posts: 432
    Really? I want to multi a cleric (as in the ranger)? I figured single would be better so I can be strong with turn undead (and eventually explode them). Besides, do I need two clerics if I'm going to dual the fighter?

    Also, why a fighter/druid over a plain one? I figure I have a strong frontline with the paladin, ranger, and fighter/thief with fighter/cleric behind that.

  • DanacmDanacm Member Posts: 833
    Hm maybe try a mage/thief and a fighter druid to fill the roles. Fighter dualled to cleric is so good with later turn undead, and ranger-cleric dual is not that awesome. Ranger/cleric multi with old rules (all priest and druidic spells on) is better than pure ranger (if not archer but thats another role) but fighter/druid not bad either.

  • jsavingjsaving Member Posts: 930
    Well, let me first say you can win the game with whatever configuration you choose so you should pick whatever you're going to most enjoy playing. But here's why I suggested what I did.

    I would change the ranger to a ranger/cleric not because turn undead is weak but because the other features of a cleric are strong and synergize nicely with a warrior's high APR (attacks per round). Here I am thinking in particular of their strength-boosting spells which are one of the few avenues in IWD for getting your STR into the 20s on a consistent basis, which your cleric will also be able to do but won't be able to properly leverage because he won't be swinging his mace often enough for it to matter as much. You would then have your dualed cleric as a separate party member to handle turning and other situations where caster level would matter.

    Why fighter/druid over a plain one? In BG2 you might make that choice because you eventually want to use high-level abilities like greater whirlwind which don't exist in IWD. However there are still a fair number of benefits, including being able to wear plate mail, being able to put two pips in any weapon, and having more attacks per round. Then as you get higher level, the ironskins spell gives you same kind of melee survivability that stoneskin provides for a fighter/mage. Probably a dualed character (leave fighter once you hit 7th level) would be strongest here.

Sign In or Register to comment.