The Druid requires both PER and INT for spell points. As I generally focus all my stat increases on the primary casters, this means that my Cleric and Sorcerer lose out roughly 50% of the stat increases they need. More if I actively develop my secondary casters some (which I'll do once my primary ones are over 200 in their main casting stats). I rely on items when available for the secondaries. This means at all levels my cleric won't be able to cast Power Cure or Sparks or whatever is needed as often, nor will my Sorcerer be able to spam Fireballs and Dragon's Breath as much. 10 points in all stats ain't a lot really, when your drawing down two other casters by half.
The Ranger fulfills all the needed things a Druid offers. The Druid/Ranger spell list is split between the other two in function; they don't heal as well as a Cleric, and IIRC they have fewer and less powerful offensive magics than the Sorcerer. What the Druid offers is a few utility spells that are not really required to beat the game, but do make it easier. So a Ranger can cast those spells, and since duration is all day, it won't suffer from not being cast by a pure caster. A Druid is obviously a better caster than a Ranger, but when you already have a Cleric and a Sorcerer, the Druid's usefulness is diminished. Of course, the Ranger is obviously also able to hold their own when spells run out, and can wear down foes from a distance with a bow. They can use most weapons and armor up to Splint Mail. The Druid becomes a target once down on spell points. If you go for a party without one of the other two main casters, then the Druid is good. It no longer detracts from anything major, and can open up a slot for a Archer or Paladin.
As to the Ninja, I've found that the extra attack doesn't help all that much compared to being able to open chests. Combat isn't so spectacularly difficult that a Robber will detract from a party too much there, and being able to open chests and get the better items for everyone pushes the Robber over. The additional damage from a few good, lucky weapons found in a chest outweighs an extra attack on one character. The Ninja also can only use Ring mail, no shield, and has a limited assortment of weapons. None of which save the naginata are particularly powerful. Flamberge FTW!
Archers can't use certain weapons, shields, and only armor up to chain. Which is why I rate the Paladin slightly higher in non-magical combat. Magic, of course, evens it as the Archer gets the good stuff like Dragon Breath as well as many utility spells (saving the important points for the Sorcerer). The Paladin can use any armor, and most weapons (only the ninja-specific ones, IIRC).
There's a significant gap between the Barbarian and everyone, partly because of more attacks but also more HP and IIRC they advance like Robbers do; rapidly. I usually have the Barbarian doing twice the damage as everyone else per round, even accounting for spells like Fireball. They also have twice the HP, and in a bad adventure will be the one left to drag the others back to town.
Between pure/secondary casters, without other party considerations, it boils down to more magic vs more non-magic ability. The Ninja/Robber boils down to 1 extra attack vs better thievery. Barbarian/Knight boils down to massive damage, HP, vs better armor and broader weapon choice. The real considerations come in when you need a main healer, but also need a main offensive caster, someone to deal damage, someone to pick locks, someone to smash things, and you only have 1 slot left to fill.
Of course, it all boils down to playing style. I've ran two characters, ran one character with hirelings only, and ran no spell casters. I've also ran pure casters only, and secondary casters only. I've ran the default party, and a myriad of custom ones. Each one is a little different, but will still do the job.
|