Ooh fun, comments on other folks’ parties!
Yes, for damage warlocks are great. I personally don’t like playing a brute force style at all in D&D, so it’s not my thing. They’re definitely powerful, though.
A druid makes sense to me because they can turn into a bear for more armor and health while still casting if they get that one feat, which should reduce my reliance on gear.
Bleh. Bear AC is roflawful. My experience has druids better off with a shield and some decent armor rather than shifting. It’s neat as a crappy emergency heal I guess. In my experience druid shifting is pretty useless until the elemental shifts, and even those are situational.
Besides, I feel like clerics don’t hit hard enough and don’t have enough utility spells and skills to be worth losing a character slot. I’d be giving up a useful class mechanic (bear mode) for a useless one (turn undead) without gaining anything in the healing department.
Wha, wha, wha? Really? Clerics are silly. Also, I couldn’t disagree more on the merits of turning and shifting…a cleric with good CHA and maybe a feat or two utterly trivializes any undead encounter, which there are plenty of. Plus being able to spontaneously cast heals is awesome, though certainly druids’ ability to spontaneously cast summons has its own draws.
By the by, I’m not trying to hate on druids here. I really like the class; animal companions are great and they have more “fun” spells than clerics do. You’re not gimping yourself with a druid by any means. Plus, better skills.
Barbarians seem to have less reliance on armor and more on whatever weapon they have, but I’ve never used one before. How well do they survive being smacked around? Would a monk be a better pick?
Barbarians are all right. More damage (usually) than a fighter, some neat skill stuff along the lines of what rangers get, crappier defense and less combat utility than a fighter due to the lack of bonus feats. They do beat the absolute piss out of any type of rogue, though, due to not taking sneak attacks. Monks I personally despise in D&D, so I can’t give any useful commentary on that.
I’m unsure about whether a rogue or a ranger would be a better pick for the last spot. I want a class that has a lot of skill points to use, wears decent armor, and doesn’t need to be in the front line to kill stuff – but can move into the front should things get hairy. Is a rogue with a bow effective? And if I choose to go with a bow, should I multiclass the rogue for a couple levels of warrior to get some weapon focus things? And, more importantly, is there another class that can fulfill this role better than either of these two classes?
Here’s the thing. You need someone with rogue levels to disarm traps and open locks past a certain point (DC 25 I think? It’s fairly low). Think Tranq Shot in Molten Core. However, it’s perfectly feasible to multi Rogue with just about anything with the Able Learner feat (which in this implementation makes every skill that’s a class skill for any of your classes a class skill whenever you level up). I picked Bard, because bards are awesome. I’d suggest it for your party as well given its makeup – some of those arcane support spells will come in really handy with a warlock rather than wizard/sorcerer as your blammo caster.
Personally I think ranged combat in NWN blows total butts, so I avoid it at all costs. Damage sucks, mobs peel off and attack ranged dudes constantly, and it’s yet more micromanagement. Bleh. Both rogues and rangers can be good to excellent melee combatants if used properly, though.
