> Secondly, during the process of my first game I realized that it was a lot more exciting when I only had three characters active. I forget exactly when this occured, but it felt more intense and strategic to come up with a battle plan when you've only got three people to work with. So I was planning on doing a second game with only three characters, and minimizing the amount of class-switching if possible. I'm just not sure which classes I should use, though. I think that Knight/Rogue/Wizard would offer me the best chance of survival for the beginning of the game, but that means that either I have to do without a Sorceror until my wizard completes his spell set, or I wind up with two Sorcerors (after I change the Knight and Wizard to Sorcerors), both of which seem like Bad Ideas. Any thoughts?


There are several things you could do. I think the game has been won with every possible combination. However, here are a few things to keep in mind, based on my own experience.

1. It is very helpful to have 3 or more characters know all the Wizard spells. This way you can reserve 1 of them exclusively for healing between battles.
2. It is also very helpful to have at least 2 characters know all the Sorceror spells.

The reason for these two is that during certain times, there is a real risk that at least one character will be paralyzed before he can do anything.

3. Knights and Assassins lead from the front for a reason. There are times when it is very painful to have a Wizard or Sorceror in the front.
4. With less than a full party, you tend to do more class changing to get the full range of capability.

In my opinion, by the time you get near the end of a 3-character game, you would want all fighters. Be prepared to do a lot of class changing.