What sort or party would you put together?

[forgottenlor]

Just from what we know so far, I'm curious what sort of party would people prefer. Obviously this a theoretical exercise, because we may select characters based on their personalities or how the story leads us and not their classes. I suppose I'm asking what classes intrigue you and how you would build a party based around that. Here is what I would take (based on the limited knowledge I have)

 

Fighter

Barbarian

Cipher

Chanter or Ranger (mostly depending on chanter mechanics)

Wizard

Druid (or Cleric if the druid cannot restore Stamina)

 

Obviously I've got 2 front rank fighters and the cipher and chanter/ranger as more utility characters. For my main character I would probably not play a fighter, as I tend more towards utility characters or spellcasters.

Edited October 5, 2013 by forgottenlor

[Kjaamor]

As you say, this is purely theoretical since I'm more likely to base my party around personality and/or story, but nevertheless this is a fun exercise so let's go.

 

My adventurer's hall party would be...

 

Fighter

Barbarian

Paladin

Priest

Ranger

Wizard

 

It's basically the old "Front 3, Back 3" that I generally use in Baldur's Gate. The Fighter spearheads the attack, flanked by the Barbarian and Paladin, and the three of them take aggro and pound on the weak mobs. Behind them, the Ranger dps's the most dangerous target while the wizard cobs AoE over everything. The cleric sits between the two groups healing and/or buffing as necessary.

 

It's not necessarily a powergaming setup, but it's familiar and functional. The beauty of it is that it pounds through trash mobs with minimal micromanagement, but retains scope to shift for more difficult fights. If the build does struggle, then I would shift to a 4/2 setup probably (lose the Barbarian for an extra Ranger or lose the Ranger for an extra Barbarian, plopping the Paladin wherever the dps is)

 

I've never been much of a rogue player - it's just not my style - and so if they're not a utility class I'll just lose them entirely. Equally, the style of druids is never something I've really got on with, and I've always found cleric-types to be much more useful in the role. I'd sooner have someone who can do one thing very well, that two things quite well. Ciphers I'm just struggling with because of the name, oddly enough, but I may yet change my mind on them. Chanters depend on whether they end up as clerics, but right now they look a little too much like bards. Monks have some cool ideas going on, but I've rarely got the best from them in any setup. Plus the whole wounds system doesn't look terribly efficient to me. Either you have the Monk main tank, but they still look squishy for that role and that presents problems, or you put them off-tank/dps but get less wounds which probably leaves them less effective than a Barbarian.

 

But lo! Look upon the classes in my party and feel my Grognardness.

[JFSOCC]

I will probably form my party with a rogue (my character) or rogue/monk (my character if I could multi-class) and the companions written by obsidian of whom I like the character the most. I'll try to make that work, even if it's not particularly well balanced.

 

I think my dream team would be

Rogue (me) (utility, stun-lock debuffing)

Monk (aggressive damage dealer, debuffer)

Fighter (tanking/engaging strongest opponents while the rest of the party deals with the lesser mobs first)

Ranger (extra damage against called targets, animal companion utility)

chanter (buffs party, defensive backline)

cipher (great at breaking up enemy parties into manageable chunks)

 

I imagine this would be a fairly aggressive party, not particularly great at prolonged combat.

 

I would never have priests or paladins in my party because I can't stand fanatics or religious zealots.

Edited October 5, 2013 by JFSOCC

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I'll probably start with a main character of "whichever class has the highest speech skill bonus" (I'm guessing paladin, and if so, I sincerely hope we can be paladins of SCIENCE), and a merry party of "whomever I find most likeable". I'll make it work. Somehow.

 

But I'm seriously thinking about the feasibility of a party in which almost every member can buff - so, a cleric, a druid (heavy on spiritshifting), a chanter (probably ranged) and a paladin; the other two slots are reserved for a fighter and a barbarian. I'd ditch the latter for a cipher or perhaps a wizard, if it doesn't work well enough.

[Leferd]

I'll probably start with a main character of "whichever class has the highest speech skill bonus" (I'm guessing paladin, and if so, I sincerely hope we can be paladins of SCIENCE), and a merry party of "whomever I find most likeable". I'll make it work. Somehow.

IIRC, there won't be any "speech" skills in the game. However, your character traits, ability scores, and individual skills will impact and influence dialogue.

[okkoko]

me=rogue build

fighter

barbarian

wizard

Cleric

[PIP-Clownboy]

Barb

Rogue

Cipher

Chanter

Wiz

Priest

 

If a Rogue isn't required for dungeon crawling (traps and such) then I would probably dump him for a Paladin and focus the chanter/cipher in melee. 

[forgottenlor]

I think its interesting that most everyone included a fighter. I'm not necessarily in love with fighters, but I had noone else in my group who I was sure could take the front, so I included him. I wonder to what degree a monk, barbarian, or paladin could fill his role? I also see the priest and wizard getting lots of love. Again, I think it maybe because we can't see good replacements for what these classes do.

[Keyrock]

Priest (PC)

Barbarian

Ranger

Chanter

Druid

Cipher

 

Very much subject to change.  Barbarian is the main tank Druid can support tank when necessary via shapechange.  Priest and Ranger pelt enemies with arrows and gunfire.  Chanter and priest for buffs/debuffs.  Druids, I imagine will be good for AoE elemental damage (call lightning type stuff), while the Cipher will likely excel at debilitating and taking out single enemies quickly.  Begin battle.  Chanter and Priest lay down buffs.  Ranger concentrates on taking out enemy casters with projectiles, Priest joins him/her as soon as buff is finished casting (preferably cast buff before battle begins).  Cipher concentrates on the one most dangerous enemy.  Druid AoEs smaller mobs before the Barbarian gets into melee range.  Barbarian mops up smaller mobs.  If necessary, Druid shapeshifts and helps Barbarian if there are too many of them.  Chanter keeps laying down buffs and/or debuffs and fills whatever role is necessary for the situation. 

Edited October 5, 2013 by Keyrock

[Keyrock]

On second though, I may make my PC the Barbarian and use Cadegund as the Priest, since we know we're getting a Priest companion, but we may not get a Barbarian companion.  I want to make use of as many companions as possible the first time around, so I can figure out which ones I like.

[Osvir]

I can't say the specific classes yet, but a Party that is diverse and can handle many different situations. I want each character in my party to have at least 2 tasks that they can perform in combat depending on situation*. I want two different types of tanks, that's all I know. One Anti-Magic Tank and one Anti-Physical Tank that can support each other when they are not the "main" situational tank.

* A Fighter who is an Anti-Physical Tank, but can also stay in the back row and shoot arrows with the Archer-type for instance. With the Adventurer's Hall I will most likely stock up on a large diverse mini-army that I can swap around with depending on where I'm going too. Though, I intend to play without the Adventurer's Hall on my first playthrough (which I believe will make it harder).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Party 1

Paladin (PC)

Cipher

Ranger

Druid

Monk

Chanter(if sucks, then Priest)

 

Party 2

Gish Wizard (PC)

Wizard

Barbarian

Priest

Rogue

Fighter

Edited October 5, 2013 by KaineParker

[Labadal]

I'll stick with the characters that I find most interesting on my first playthrough.

 

On my second run, I'll pick some of my favorite companions alongside the ones I didn't use much.

[Pshaw]

Usually I go tank, healer, support, 2 dps and 1 mix of healer/support or support/dps depending on if more healing is needed or not.

Generally I like my character to fill in the role of whatever is missing from NPCs I like. So if there are no tanks I like I will most likely make a tank. The adventures hall will help a bit but most likely I'll only use 1 AH character at a time and only if the NPCs bug the crap out of me in some way. I usually go mage the first time through though.

[Prometheus]

most likely 2 Fighters, 1 Paladin, 1 Priest, 1 Wizard, 1 character that can lockpick(maybe a rogue, if I can play a rogue, that doesn't need stealth). I will play the wizard.

 

On second though, I may make my PC the Barbarian and use Cadegund as the Priest, since we know we're getting a Priest companion, but we may not get a Barbarian companion.  I want to make use of as many companions as possible the first time around, so I can figure out which ones I like.

We don't know if Cadegund is a companion or not. see quote below (source , but SA Forums is at the moment only viewable by members) :

 

Actually, no one illustrated during the the KS campaign is a confirmed companion. Keep in mind that I generated those character ideas on my own without input from anyone else. While some of them will be appearing as companions more-or-less as you saw them in the KS campaign, some may appear in a different guise, some may appear as non-companion NPCs, and some may not appear at all.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Prometheus

[Sacred_Path]

The party I thought about was:

 

Auamaua Barbarian with a two-handed weapon

Rogue (probably Vailian) for DPS

Dwarf Paladin for buffs

Human Wizard specializing in AoE elemental damage

Orlan Cipher for crowd control

Elven Ranger for ranged DPS

 

Then I heard that Barbs probably won't make good tanks, especially without a shield. Also the Cipher seems like an uninteresting melee wizard and is probably better used with more knowledge of the game.

 

After hearing about the archetypes of each class it seems to me there'll be no reason not to go with the standard fighter/ rogue/ priest/ wizard, with the fighter possibly exchanged for a monk and a rogue possibly exchanged for a ranger, and two random additions. I'm somewhat bereft of my high hopes for alternate parties and playstyles in P:E.

[Gfted1]

Hmm, bit of a tough question for me. Im not too hip on the classes that need to charge up their powers by getting beat up or by successful attacks so Ill probably go with:

 

Fighter

Paladin

Mage

Chanter

Priest

Thief

 

Im hoping the NPC pool will have at least one of every class so Im not forced into taking a monk or cipher. Or at least that the strategy guide will inform me of what class isn't represented so I can just roll that one as my main.

[Sensuki]

A costume party

[C2B]

Rogue - my charEdair - FighterSagani - RangerCadegund - PriestAloth - WizardUnnamed CipherI'm not to fond on monks, so Forton is definietly out. I'm waiting for the last two companions, maybe they will switch with one of the above. If there is a Barbarian I will kick out Sagani.

Just mentioning that none of them specific is confirmed as a companion. Each one may just as likely end up an NPC.

[FlintlockJazz]

Well, my first party would go something like this:

 

Me as Cipher

The other Cipher dude who sounds interesting and for maximum cipherness

Fighter/Barbarian

Wizard

Ranger/Rogue (preferably Ranger)

Priest/Paladin/Druid

 

Ideally I'll have stealth for all my characters, and we'll act like a special ops team.  Ninj our way in like Arnie does in Conan the Barbarian, have the wizard cast some sort of silence spell over the area the first bunch of enemies are in, party dives in and assassinates them all with pollaxes to the face while the monsters in the rest of the dungeon get to have a legitimate reason why they don't hear or suspect anything.  Take them out silently.

 

Second party:

 

Me as Orlan Paladin or Barbarian

Fighter

Wizard

Ranger/Rogue

Priest/Paladin

Chanter

 

With this party we then smash the system!!!!

 

 Also the Cipher seems like an uninteresting melee wizard and is probably better used with more knowledge of the game.
 

 

 

I'm thinking the opposite, since there does seem to be quite some differences in the classes to normal I'm thinking I'll be learning regardless and at least with the Cipher I won't have any preconceptions getting in the way of learning the class.

[Messier-31]

Divinations! My most probable party would be inconceivable by those of your comprehension. And by that I mean it would consist probably from every possible companion available (for scientific research purposes's's) just to make sure what are the pros and cons. But I have no idea with what I will stick to for the entire game. Hell, what will my own character will be?

 

So everyone's invited. Except for monks. Wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole. Well, maybe I could pretend to have befriended him, and lead him to his gruesome death later. That would be awesome. Oh, even better: multiple sword cleaning accident (if ya know what I mean). Gotta write that down somewhere...

[Walsingham]

I always choose my party based on the characters and actors used for the NPCs. Have done ever since Baldur's Gate.

 

I can always save and reload any fights I lose. I can't fill my ears with hilarious dialogue on demand.

[forgottenlor]

The party I thought about was:

 

Auamaua Barbarian with a two-handed weapon

Rogue (probably Vailian) for DPS

Dwarf Paladin for buffs

Human Wizard specializing in AoE elemental damage

Orlan Cipher for crowd control

Elven Ranger for ranged DPS

 

Then I heard that Barbs probably won't make good tanks, especially without a shield. Also the Cipher seems like an uninteresting melee wizard and is probably better used with more knowledge of the game.

 

After hearing about the archetypes of each class it seems to me there'll be no reason not to go with the standard fighter/ rogue/ priest/ wizard, with the fighter possibly exchanged for a monk and a rogue possibly exchanged for a ranger, and two random additions. I'm somewhat bereft of my high hopes for alternate parties and playstyles in P:E.

 

I also fear that fighter/priest/wizard will make the most effective party in terms of mechanics. I think the rogue loses out because he is no longer the skill specialist and I'm betting the barbarian and ranger may make good alternatives as damage dealers.

[rjshae]

I always choose my party based on the characters and actors used for the NPCs. Have done ever since Baldur's Gate.

 

I can always save and reload any fights I lose. I can't fill my ears with hilarious dialogue on demand.

 

Yep. Although in games such as IWD and ToEE you didn't have that sort of banter so they devolved into tactical combat systems. In P:E I'll focus on the characters the first couple of times, then fine tune the party's tactical makeup for a hardcore run through.

[forgottenlor]

I always choose my party based on the characters and actors used for the NPCs. Have done ever since Baldur's Gate.

 

I can always save and reload any fights I lose. I can't fill my ears with hilarious dialogue on demand.

Normally on my first go, I try to assemble an effective party, though I will avoid NPCS who I find unappealing in terms of character. If I like the game I will replay with companions I haven't used (and are appealing).