4-man group...

Stormweaver · Post by **Stormweaver** » Fri May 25, 2007 1:08 pm

So in the past I've always played IWD with a group of 6, but I think I'm going to try playing through with 4 for the first time. I'm going to go through the main game, HoW, TotL, and Auril's Bane. I'm also using the level 40 rules pack if that's of any interest. So far I'm sure of 2 of the 4 characters, but I can't decide about the latter ones. So far...

1. Human Paladin (who also has 18 Wisdom)

2. Elf Fighter/Thief Multi (who uses Longswords and Bows)

3. Half-Elf Evil Fighter/Cleric (but I can't decide dual vs. multi)

4. Half-Elf Fighter/Druid (and I think I'm going to dual at level 3)

DaveO · Post by **DaveO** » Fri May 25, 2007 3:36 pm

I created a party of 4 for a run-through of the game as well. I'm pretty sure the characters are a Halfling Fighter-Thief, Bard, Cleric-Ranger, and Fighter-Mage. Good luck on your adventures, and please feel free to post your progress thru the game here!

Grombag · Post by **Grombag** » Fri May 25, 2007 3:38 pm

Well you can only dual humans, so you would have to change that for #4 and consider that for #3. Also I think you want a wizard instead of the cleric or the druid.

Stormweaver · Post by **Stormweaver** » Fri May 25, 2007 4:52 pm

I'd forgotten only humans can dual class... Has it been anyone's experience that the additional XP gained with only 4 members warrants multi-classing over dual classing? (I've been more partial to dc). And I had hoped that the druid might substitute for the mage, but I'm probably going to have a tough time without some mage spells. I think a revised party might be...

1. Half-Elf Evil Fighter/Cleric Multi

2. Elf Fighter/Thief Multi

3. Human Fighter/Druid (Dual at 3)

4. Human Fighter/Mage (Dual at 3)

I've noticed that most parties tend to forego evil clerics, and I'm not quite sure why, as they're my favorite class to play. Usually I see Ranger/Clerics or Paladins instead. Any glaring disadvantage of an Evil Fighter/Cleric that I'm missing out on here? And thanks for the reminder Grombag.

kmonster · Post by **kmonster** » Fri May 25, 2007 6:21 pm

If you play a party of 4 at normal difficulty no one will reach 4,000,000 XP, so dualclass casters are superior because of the far higher casting levels they can achieve.

The main disadvantadge of evil fighter/clerics is that they cannot get the extremely powerful druid spells ranger/clerics get.
Evil clerics also can't cast spells like "heal","raise dead" or "resurrection", so if a party member dies you'll have to reload.
The evil cleric only destructive spells are touch spells, you can imagine what a monster will do if your cleric gets into touch range and starts slowly casting a spell afterwards.
With AB good clerics can't cast "animate dead" any more, so that's an advantadge for your evil cleric.

A gnome F/T would be superior to your elf because of the racial bonusses, the helm of the trusted defender and the fact that con isn't raiseable to 20 via a level 2 spell. Elves only have the advantadge to be able to triple class. If you are sick of mage spells dominating the party you can just add the mage class to this character and replace character 4 with the paladin from your first idea.

If you wait with dualing to druid until level 7 you'll get another half attack per round even when shapeshifted, but it's probably not worth spending an extra chapter without druid spells.

But those are rather unimportant details. For an experienced player like you it's probably even better if your party isn't too strong.

Stormweaver · Post by **Stormweaver** » Sat May 26, 2007 7:40 am

Alright, at least no I can reason why most parties don't include the evil cleric. Anyhow, a Gnome Fighter/Thief is probably going to be much more effective, and that Helm is incredibly useful. As it stands my party will be...

1. Half-Elf Evil Fighter/Cleric Multi

2. Gnome Fighter/Thief Multi

3. Human Fighter/Druid (Dual at 3)

4. Human Fighter/Mage (Dual at 3)

One possiblity that occurred to me is replacing character 4 (the fighter/mage) with a bard, because of the very helpful bard songs, like war chant of sith, and the useful high lore. Unfortunately they can't cast nearly as many spells. Also, I was wondering if a Bard might reach the level cap in this play-through, as they tend to level incredibly quickly. I'm leaning toward the fighter/mage, but if the bard has proved a comparable spellcaster for anyone else, i'd considering changing it around. Any recommendations?

kmonster · Post by **kmonster** » Sat May 26, 2007 9:01 am

Mages obviously get more spells than bards.
But with AB bards get level9 spells later in the game, they even get the 3rd level9 spell per day faster than mages. At normal difficulty you won't reach the cap. A bard is sufficient for the game if you want to try out one, although a dualclassed mage is the powergamer's choice.
Remember that your gnome must be good-aligned for the helm.

Stormweaver · Post by **Stormweaver** » Sat May 26, 2007 3:37 pm

It's as I thought then. I'll just stay with the dual-classed fighter mage then. While I'm at it, I think I'll actually go ahead and dual-class the fighter/cleric too (and make it a human, of course). It should allow for much earlier cleric spell advancement, which is always beneficial. Thanks for the help kmonster, its looking like a fun party to play.

DaveO · Post by **DaveO** » Sun May 27, 2007 10:07 am

Looks like you have things covered with dualing the humans to the alternate classes. I don't know when the third point becomes available for weapon specialization, but that's your best time to switch to mage. IIRC, the third point does occur fairly quickly so dual classing to a different class is worth the sacrifice if you're willing accept those temporary party sacrifices. Right now, that party definitely looks to be pretty effective.