<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(azraelck @ Jul 10 2007, 02:19 AM) [snapback]298724[/snapback]</div>
Quote:
The Druid is pointless, because most of the Druid spell book is easily covered by a Cleric and Sorcerer. A Ranger would do here, and give you Pathfinding for free at level 1, plus giving you a fair fighter.
My preferred party is Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Robber, Cleric, Sorcerer. Alternately, trade the Paladin for an Archer for extra offensive magic and a utility caster (keeping your Sorc's SP for the all-important Implosion). this hurts your non-magical combat abilities though. The ninja usually lags behind in thievery (with no significant advantage in combat), so I go with the Robber. The Ranger provides Walk on Water.
[/b]
|
Druids are not pointless, the decision druid or ranger is imho an even one. The advantadge mixed casters have over pure casters in dealing out physical damage is very little compared to the gap between mixed caster and barbarian, the ability to use bows and slings is the biggest advantadge.
A druid advantadge is that there's a shrine near fountain head where druids can get all stats which are lower than 25 raised by 10 for some gems, which imho makes the decision druid/ranger as even as paladin/cleric or sorcerer/archer.
The ninja has a very significant advantadge in offensive combat over the robber, he gets an extra attack per round every 5 (like a knight) instead of 6 (like a paladin) levels.
The less barbarians/knights are in the party, the more important this gets.
The ninja has also the advantadge of being able to use the weapons barbarian/ranger/archer can't use which gets extremely useful in a party without paladin and knight.
In your suggested party with archer instead of paladin I'd definitely pick a ninja.
An archer is good in offensive combat as a paladin btw since both get an extra attack per round every 6 levels, he just can use every weapon and armor like the paladin can. But both are much weaker than the knight/ninja who's much weaker than the barbarian.