> > The only thing I'd have changed is that I wouldn't bother keeping a sorceror and a wizard around. I'd make them druids too, since the spells are the same and druids learn all of them.
>
> That's one piece of advice I have to disagreee with. A sorceror and a wizard in the same party pick up all the spells far quicker than two druids do. It's much more efficient to retrain a wizard with all the spells as a sorceror (and vice versa) than to convert to a druid. And druids are lousy fighters.
>
I think the best use for Druids would be if you are retraining a character who knows no spells and you are deep in the dungeon. Your Druid should learn both sets of spells in no time, and keep the experience you would have lost from retraining.

The fact that Druids are lousy fighters is probably not significant, because your back three should be fighting with spells instead of weapons. I wouldn't trust a Wizard with a sword or a stick.

> Actually, wizards don't add much to a party at the lower levels. My 6-man party of choice starts with two knights, two wizards and two sorcerors. When you have all the spells, retrain the wizards as sorcerors, and one or both of the sorcerors as assassins.

Wizards add light and healing spells at the lower levels. When your fighters are feeble, every little bit of healing counts, and it's nice to be able to find your way back to Perinn.

Still, I would keep a Rogue instead of a fourth caster at low levels. Chests are pretty dangerous at that stage of the game, and Rogues can handle weapons and fend off attacks much better than casters.

^v^:)^v^
FB