So, I was just wondering: do you think having a wizard in the party is an absolute necessity to beat the game comfortably? My party consists of two dwarf paladins, an elf thief and a bobbit cleric. I thought a cleric would be more useful because of their healing abilities and they also have a multi-death spell just like the wizard.

That party will do you good. The game can be completed with four Dwarf Paladins, if you so desire. But the thief will be helpful for stealing food, and the cleric will definitely be a lot of help when it comes ti fighting undead and healing. The game can be done without wizards. :3

True, but who doesn't want a wizard? They start off weak (just like in D&D) but later become virtual killing machines capable of destroying all of the enemies on the combat screen. Just something to consider.

Yep, those are OLD games, and back then 1st level wizards(and clerics) would EASILY use up all their mana(or spells per day) LONG before ANY of the other chars needed to rest. At least clerics usually had decent melee and so weren't totally useless, and I seem to recal that in 3 onwards you could use slings/bows on wizards again allowing them not to be totally useless.

At later levels, pretty much like every RPG back then Wizards RULED the game once they got to a certain level. The rest of the party(if any) was just an extended meat shield for the wizard(s).

(TILTOWAIT FTW. Christ! I still remember that one after all these years... (Wizardry 1 spell of doom, from the character of doom, a Bishop(wiz + cleric). Free cheat if you ever play that one try to have them (I)dentify slot 9, the Apple // version at least gave you billions of xp if you did, but it'll make the game UBER dull but might be useful to help level up the rest of an early party, then swap back to lower level wiz... sorry don't remember anyrthing like this for the Ultimas or other RPGs other than just grind it out until the casters hit that certain sweet spot starting point...)