What's your favorite formation?

Remove all ads!

What's your favorite formation?

I have been using the line formation recently, with the decoy at the front and the tank at the back. As long as I remember to right-click-rotate the formation in the right spots, it seems to maximally ensure that the decoy gets targetted with a minimum of hassle for me, and also protects against sneak attacks from the back. Denser formations like 2x3 were less successful at that, even when I had both decoys in the front rank.

-Max

 

I prefer the cone, 1 up front, 2 in the 2nd row, 3 in the 3rd row, with my tank or scout leading and my mage in the middle of the back row.

 

I am pretty much stuck to the default 2x3 formation, with tanks in the front and casters in the back. If/when expecting a tough combat, I'll micromanage more. IWD2 had some nasty surprises for this style..especially Hook horror caves gave me a few of those classic "Yikes!"-moments.

 

The default 2x3 formation is the most compact. Since many areas in IWD2 are cramped, this formation offers the best chance that my 2 frontliners will actually be in front.
I only tried the other formations briefly, but didn't like how my characters ended up bunched together.

 

I like the 2x3 one because it's the only one that gets consistently maintained (probably due to the factors coin mentioned). Whenever I tried some of the others, my PCs invariably end up all over the place or in a completely different order, which spells trouble in cramped spaces when my spellcaster ends up ahead of the warrior.

 

Hmm... depends on the party for me, I guess, but the T shaped formation usually, or the 2x3 standard, with the occasional "gather 'round and cover the mage" one (the one that vaguely looks like a flower).

I like the T shaped one best - Char 1 flanked by a pair of tanks, or a tank and an archer (if char 1 is tanking him/herself) with a healer, mage and rogue type following, in that order.

The 2x3 one I use if the group gets too broken up on tight turns, though it becomes dominant when I only have two chars suitable for front lines.

(For some reason, I strongly dislike shifting the order of char portraits in the party (char 1 always leads, even if they are a mage that should be hiding in the back), so the formation usually gets picked after the personalities of the people in the party, rather then having the party adjusted to a formation.)

Cone is too widespread for my taste.

If I had to pick one... definitely T shaped.

TBH, once the fights start, I usually end up moving each char manually in various degrees of panic, so the formations are more for show then use.

 

How many people use the Rotate Formation command? I didn't even know about it the first couple of times I played through the game, but it has made my life a lot easier. I wonder if some of the difficulties people mention with formations getting broken up/disordered/etc. could be fixed by using Rotate Formation.

For example, I may decide that the current battle is too tough, and I want to retreat and regroup. If I just left-click behind me, everyone will retreat exactly BACKWARDS (my main tanks 1-2-3 will wind up further from the enemy than 4-5-6) whereas if I right-click and rotate formation everyone retreats in an orderly fashion (1-2-3 are still pointed at the enemy).

-Max

 

I'd always use the rotate command if I'm exploring a new area and my direction might get messed up.

My formation has one factor that has to be obeyed: The talker has to be the one at the front for those times when you walk into a conversation and don't get to choose who speaks. Not ideal when your talker is a sorcerer, so it's as follows:

___________________Sorcerer
Paladin
___________________Druid/Monk (Tank)
Cleric/Fighter (melee)
___________________Wizard
Cleric(ranged)

It's the 2X3 with the stepped placement as opposed to being in line. This way the sorcerer gets out in front of the Paladin without being exposed too much. Each fight begins with him running away straight to the back! The three behind pile in and get in the way of the monsters chasing. I also like the way I have the ranged cleric at the very back. She's not optimised for fighting but for those fights where you're ambushed from behind or all sides she does a decent job of holding her own usually.

I don't like the line because it spreads out a bit too much and also the characters can start bumbing into each other quite a bit. The stepped one is a bit of a compromise between the line and the 2X3.

 

I admit I haven't experimented with the formations in IWD2 much. By the time I got to this game, I'd already gotten frustrated in BG1, BG2, and IWD1. I found that they party doesn't stay in the formation well enough while moving, especially in confined areas; and all too often it's the mage that winds up walking smack into the enemy instead of the warrior. Thus, I tend to leave it on default and micromanage them. I rarely change it unless I'm trying to set them up to make a stand at the endpoint rather than move in formation.

 

My experience with micromanaging is that they are more likely to trip over each other than if I use a formation. I think the pathfinder maybe only takes into account others moving at the exact same time as you, which means if you move them one-by-one it tries to go around people who won't be there by the time you get where they are.

YMMV, but I would MUCH rather occasionally move my talker to the front when a talk is coming than have to lose aggro on my talker on every single fight. Of course I also tend to scout ahead with my decoy, and I worry less than some people about getting every single bit of quest XP...

-Max

 

Gotta agree with spmdw45 here: since dropping aggro isn't as straightforward as just dashing to the back ranks, the ONLY person showing up for the enemies is a tank. Which, of course, leads into problems if the encounter actually requires a talker -- but it ain't half as bad after you've been through it a couple of times to know where such places are.

 

After giving things some thought, and playing devil's advocate: I guess you could lead with your talker IF your talker had good Hide skills and was thus constantly invisible to hostiles. It doesn't stop you from talking anyone but will prevent you from getting aggro.

Still, I wouldn't bother. Too much hassle both at character creation time (scraping up the points for Hide) and at play time (making sure you're Hidden, running back to the tank every time you see a hostile, etc.). Just lead with the tank.

-Max

 

Forced talks don't seem to be defining for quests or other important choices. And if anything, your character's class(es) give access to more dialogue options than actual talking skills (for forced talks). So perhaps your dreadmaster up front will have cooler stuff to say, than the singleminded, lame paladin dialogues...
Oh, I just remembered Phaen's dialogue in Targos; you need diplomacy to get him to expose his allies. So there are forced talks that require talking skills. But Sir Rechet's suggestion of moving your diplomat forward for known talk points, is a good idea.
Mostly you get a moment before dialogue kicks in, and if you're fast enough, you can move your talker a few steps forward (pause is necessary).

 

I think the priestess in the Ice Temple (Cathin?) is also a forced talk who requires diplomacy skills. At least, I think you're supposed to get an option for getting her to (almost) change her mind or something, but when I ran into her with my CHA-1 scout yesterday I didn't get that dialogue tree. I just killed her instead. Probably missed out on 1000 quest XP but oh well, killing monsters is more fun than quest XP.

-Max

 

I never said it was a good idea! I just wanted to try and get whatever options I could, even if they gave no experience. I don't expect other people to do the same. My brother is always making fun of me for how long it takes me to go through games, stopping to talk to each and every person in case they had something to say.

It's not as bad as it sounds. The sorcerer is using a crossbow. Once I see an enemy at the other side of the map and click for everybody to attack the 3 melee guys will usually end up blocking the way. If the monster does make it through the sorcerer just fires off a mirror image.

 

Still, you should consider spending some skill points in Hide, even if it costs you some points in Concentration or Spellcraft.

-Max

 

I like the cone for the reason that you can put either the tank, the decoy or the scout in the 1st position. I prefer the scout, who is usually my rogue, who is usually my speaker. But since we all have replayed the game, the Tank or Decoy goes up front when I know I will be needing them.

 

I tend to use the T-formation. The reason is that my party consists of 3 melee characters and 3 ranged characters. Having the three melee characters in a line in the front enables all of them to get at a target without getting in each other's way.

I recently restarted with another party and still use the same formation. This time I have 4 melee characters. One of them has a reach weapon, so I put him in the 4th spot. This enables all melee character to move to the same enemy and get attacks in without getting in each other's way.

I do sometimes use the 2x3 formation in areas that are narrow. When I get some space, I go back to the T-formation.