POLL: Party size

Remove all ads!

Well this one is about ... yes , the size of your party! How do you prefer to play the game? Take all six members who are bound to walk in each others way? Or a little less - say four - so they are easier to manuever and gain power faster? Or maybe just one?

Well to be honest I haven't finished the game so far , but I intend to this time. Just created a 3 member party (barbarian(x)/fighter(4) ; cleric(x)/fighter(4) ; sorcerer(x)) and bound to go all the way this time.
I have already played with 1,4,5,6 sized parties , only got to dragons eye with the 6-size and then there I got stuck (was a bug , have patched since then).
Just so you know , I voted for three!

[ January 07, 2004, 13:12: Message edited by: Hellheart ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 22 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Party size (22 votes.)

Party size (Choose 1)
* one - 9% (2)
* two - 9% (2)
* three - 23% (5)
* four - 32% (7)
* five - 5% (1)
* six - 23% (5)

 

Well I don;t have IWD but I have BG so I guess that counts well anyway... the most powerful party I've had is myself (Kensai/mage multi) and Imoen sk edited to Sorcerer (all legit spells, stats etc.

But three might have been fast enough leveling up and offer more versatility, the way I look at it is

full party= more versatilility but no super uber characters
solo= less versatility but far more powerful then any single party character.

So my idea would be three is the best in terms of power potential since it's enough to be able to do anything and level up the fastest.

FMT and FMC combo can also do everything skill wise but probably level up at the same rate as two or three characters with one or two multi classes among the three.

(btw this is speaking for BGII so let me know if typing this was a total waste of time or not)

 

Four plus one non-leveling svirfneblin monk. He's the best of them, earns most XP, I think.

 

I like starting with only 4, maybe five members. After finishing Chapter 1, then I add one more. If that makes only five members, then after Chapter 4, I add the sixth. The first group levels up fairly quickly because the exp is not spread out. By adding lower level characters throughout the game, the avg. level of the party stays low, very nice.

This also goes into my method of play that along the way, a paladin or monk (these are my favorite characters) will take on an apprentice. So the lower level characters are fit this very nicely.

 

@Casey :

This was surely not a total waste! OK so BGII is 2nd ed. and IWDII is 3rd ed. , altough there can be differences for party-formation (as christopher_c_pitzer has made clear).
The main thing here was the easy/difficult use of small/large parties and of course the versatility that goes along with it (or not).
And that means ANY party , be it from BG , BGII , BG(ToB) , IWD , IWDII , ... etc.

 

I started out having parties of 6 but eventually got annoyed by the slow levelling, the clumsy path finding, and the micro-management required (deciding who to cast what spell, balancing out inventory, protecting the weak members etc).

So I gradually reduced party numbers, until now I tend to do the following:
- start out with my main character doing the Prologue and maybe Chapter One solo. This results in some quick levelling and one powerful lead character
- add a new Level 1 character around Chapter 2 - this brings the average XP back down again, plus adds some the diversity that makes the higher levels easier.
- maybe add another Level 1 character later on in Chapter 4.

This allows the first character to carry on to a high level by the end of the game.

I don't think I would have the patience to manage a 6 person party again.

 

I used to use 6 member parties until I realized that the 6th member is always some sort of experimental character that's less useful than the others. Now I just stopped using the experimental character. Five members for now, though this party levels up slower than my usual 6 member party because it consists of 4 drows and a smurfblimp.

 

I found solo was the way to go in IWD2. A party is only fun when there are NPCs around bickering. You get all the best gear if you go solo.

 

I go with three all the way. That way I have a Cleric, a Tank, and a Wizard/Sorcerer. I've finished the game with many versions of this build and it is very effective.

Having more than four characters makes gameplay and the interface clunky, IMHO, since you have to micro-manage each chacaracter.

 

I personally prefer either 6 or 2. Big gap inbetween, I know. 6 I find good for getting an all round feeling for the game. Get to taste a lot of different class combinations, and the characters don't reach their level limit to fast. 2 characters is the power gamer side of me coming out. The PCs quickly gain levels so they are pretty much unharmable until after the monks.

 

I say I have to agree with Vengeance Incarnate , that's how I decided to play with only 3 , in just the same way you describe.

btw. [UAE = United Arabian Emirates , right?]

 

I always go with 6, you'll have more options available to you, a wide range of strategies, and low risk of getting stuck in a particular fight. Of course if I was straight out powergaming I'd go with 4, a pure Fighter, a Cleric X/fighter 4, a Rogue X/fighter 4, and a pure Mage.

 

I find that 3 chracters are enough to have to have a pretty all-round gaming experience......unless you want a rogue or full-time bard.

Having three characters is the bare minimum for an effective party. You can have the same effectiveness with any party above that number, it's just that I prefer less PCs since I don't have the patience or time to manage each of them.

@HellheartOff-topic) Yes, you're right but it's United Arab Emirates. I'm not from here though, I just live here.

 

I find it really strange people don't go for a full party of six. I can see the experience benefit of running fewer and possibly a closer association with less party members but what about the items you cannot use and the joy of protecting those weaker party members... It leads to a number of challenging and humourous occasions trying to keep them protected and now and then they do something amazing.(ie. Kill the most powerful opponent by a lucky strike or save a party member.)

 

The reason I perfer smaller parties is not because of micro management, in fact I actually enjoy controling each individual move in combat, out of battle however is different, I guess I just enjoy been able to have all these choices and I can control each one of them, so I'm probably just extremly patient then.

 

Maybe my choice of words wasn't clear. By micro-management I meant the act of buffing/preparing a party before battle. With large, low level parties, buffing is a must. (Sorry, my mistake)

I'm not a patient person. Buffing before battles (other than large scale ones) just isn't my thing.

[ January 08, 2004, 16:54: Message edited by: Vengeance Incarnate ]

 

Shame there aren't more 'mass' buff spells (like Improved Haste and Champions Strength). That would make a large party much more manageable.

 

Four has worked best for me.

One high-AC protector character, one sorcerer/diplomat, one cleric (or druid) and one rogue/wizard.

As the protector character can be made into either a Cleric or a Wizard, three works pretty well too. Although in that case I prefer to include a Rogue/Bard/Druid to take on all the miscellaneous skills & needs a good party has.

 

Altough I voted for three I have to admit in the game I'm playing now I added a forth. It's just needed to have another , I added a rogue (will be multiclassed to Demarch of Mask). Really needed someone to handle the traps and to use up all of those arrows I got!
I did also take her Because my xp I got from killing monsters was dropping and sometimes even Zero. I even consider taking a fifth when the same happens and for going to HoF mode.

Btw. my party is completly chaotic evil aligned , can't help it I just hate those Baatezu!

 

By virtue of creature Challenge Rating and player character level XP adjustment, a soloer doesn't get six times that experience. 27 levels is the most you can get without Heart of Fury. Sixes get 16 levels, per average. I suppose removing one character from the six wouldn't push your levels up much, nor would adding a second character hold your soloer back considerably. Perhaps two levels difference. Maybe three. People go around challenge ratings by adding a level 1 character and keeping it even dead in the party. Average party level changes from X to (X+1)/2, which in case of a level 15 soloer means level 8 XP rates.

I think it might be refreshing to get like two characters, perhaps something like BG2 demi-solo with only charname and his girl/guy.