Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback 5th Party Member

Currenty play on PS5. It would be nice if we could have just one more party member. I was playing a Ranger the other day and I always feel like I need a Rogue and a Cleric in my party cause there are so many traps and chests around and you WILL take damage. This only leaves one more slot which for me feels like I need a tank of some kind so Lae'zel or Karlach. This means there's no room for Gale or Wyll or any other character that may join later. Also if you play any of those classes it's hard to justify bringing the Origin character with you at the same time.

5th member not really needed.
I got to Moonrise Towers on Tactician with a three strong party without much difficulty.
And I'm not a particularly good player.

Respec the origin characters into something similar, yet playing a different role in the party. Or just don't bring them for that run. Can't really go wrong with two fighters or two barbarians, either. If you feel like you need a cleric and a melee at the same time, do an ancients paladin. Or a storm cleric. Storm cleric with two levels in wizard isn't as strong, but incredibly versatile.

I've done my last run without a dex character. The sorcerer ended up designated lockpicker. Knock goes a long way for what she couldn't do, but traps will just have to occasionally blow up in your face. Use the weak health potions that are not really useful in combat after Level 5 anyway. Somewhat uncomfortable to play that way, but it's not a *struggle*. There's an item with unlimited cat's grace that let me get away with a lot when needed.

You don't need a Rogue. Anyone with high Dex will disarm traps and unlock things just fine (Ranger is easy to play as a high Dex class). You also don't need a Cleric. Anyone with a reasonable amount of Wis can detect them just fine (Ranger is a class that often has decent Wis)

As for a Tank, there's plenty of options to make a tank character. Including Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger (Can go Beastmaster and use Bear too) in addition to the more straightforward Fighter and Barbarian.

In regards to doubling up on classes... It's not really that much of a problem. Each class has several ways to play it and multiclasses open up even more avenues for diversity.

The Smuggler's Ring (gives the Sleigh of Hand skill) along with the aforementioned Cat's Grace/Graceful Cloth did the trick for my necromancer when Astarion was busy elsewhere.

I suppose 4 is just a Larian limit they kept from the Divine Original Sin series. I don't think it's the best number for an RPG with so many classes and races. I would have loved them to balance the game for a larger party.

I did 3 PT's with 4 and now I'm using the mod that increases the number, and the mod that lets you create custom hirelings to make a big party. I love it much more. Finally I can mix whatever I want. Sure, battles are easy now, but I 've already done all the battles with 4, and it gives me the occasion to do things that I would normally not do, because it would increase chances of a TPK.

Just one example, in previous games I very seldomly used the bard's "vicious mockery" spell. It's not very powerwful and seemed like a waste of an action, especially later in the game. Now, i can do this without restraint because I actually can waste an action. You can also try different approaches to a fight, some that would certainly be a disaster in a 4 member party.

But battle isn't even necessarily the most important aspect of the game. Just having this big mix of classes and races creates a great atmosphere.

(My current party is Tav : a Seldarine Drow Monk, Karlach, Minthara, Shadowheart and Lae'zel, a human rogue/assassin, dwarven warlock, a forest gnome wizard, a halfling bard and a wood-elf ranger. Wonderful bunch)

As I understand it, 4 players is considered the "normal" size for a D&D 5e party. I was interested to read from some older material on how to run a game, from around 2000 or so, that they talked about 5-7 being a normal party size for whatever version of D&D was around at the time (I think it was written for AD&D 2e). And I'd heard that Baldur's Gate 2 has a party limit of 6.

To be honest, whatever the limit is, people would be asking for it to be lifted. I figure having a standard limit in the game for what the game's designed and balanced for, and allowing people to lift that either with mods or even an option in the menus, is best. Make sure people know they're nor playing as intended, but hey - if you like it, have fun!

Ah yes I only played ed. 1 on tabletop, and DM'd the G-D-Q modules. The recommended partysize there is 9, and these are high level modules. Starting at lvl 9 for G1. Module U1 which I played was for 5-10 players at lvl 1-3. The famous Ravenloft module was for 6-8 characters.
Maybe that''s the reason why I like my big group.
I don't have access to the DND monstermanual now, but monsters like orcs, typically occurred in numbers between 20-200 or so.

Wait... 9 players for 1e, 5-7 for 2e, 4 in 5e... Are D&D players losing friends over the decades?!

As a ranger you can get Sleight of Hand and don't need an extra rogue for that. I think it comes with Urban Tracker.
You can go with two wizards, a fighter and a walrock easypeasy - or any other combo. Most classes have something to help them - wizards have the Knock spell for example, fighters can just trash a locked chests...
And you don't always need a cleric. Granted, Shadowheart hasa lot going on storywise, but you don't need to have her always in your party. A druid has healing spells too, paladins and rangers get them too.

And if you really need a different role, you can normally go to camp from most, bu ta few places

The most common reason for the lower number of players is because it's more fun in TT when you get your turns more frequently.

Sitting around waiting for 8 other people to take turns before you can do something again takes its toll. (This also bleeds over into video games too, as the more party members the game is balanced around, the more enemies get put in and with the typical TB format, this means you can have to sit around for 10-20 minutes each turn waiting for the 20-30 enemies to all take turns...)

In video games, the lower the party number the more "Replayability" since if you can do literally everything and see every interaction in 1 playthrough, there's less reason to play the game more than once.

Then, maybe it just shows that every generation has less patience than the previous one.

Edit : 1st ed. combat was , of course, simpler than 5th ed. No bonus actions, reactions, less races and classes with all sorts of special stuff and so on, so yea it might get cumbersome with all this included.

I think the encounters in D&D have been based around a party of four since 3.5.

The "need" is irrelevant.
People can finish the game even playing solo if they try hard enough.

It doesn't change the fact that a larger party offers its own benefits in terms of composition versatility and they aren't necessarily tied to the difficulty.

This is irrelevant as well.
Not to mention it's a thing for entirely different reasons: gathering multiple people around a table is hard to coordinate with friends, so the lower they set the basic requirements for a group, the better it is.
This is a logistic obstacle that simply doesn't exist in a CRPG.

There is a massive, occasionally ill-tempered, thread dating from early access discussing larger party sizes over at https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=672266.

I'll not re-hash arguments from there, but for me personally, four party members supplemented by the occasional guest and summon feels like the sweet spot and I'm happy with it. But as the megathread shows, others vehemently disagree.

All I was doing is pinpointing when the change is party size happened. I didn't provide an opionion on whether it should or shouldn't be done, or whether it matters or not. Take your irrelevancy and shove it.

Come on, folks. Please try to discuss constructively and respectfully, and if you think someone else isn't doing that then please take the high ground and avoid escalating tensions further!

There's an advantage to having a 5th, at least from a party comp standpoint. This doesn't perfectly describe the situation in BG3, but its helpful to think about in these terms...

We have 10 recruitable characters. Potential number of combinations in sets of 4 without repetition is 210. According to the combo calc looks like so:

"You have 10 objects: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J

All their combinations with a sample size of 4 objects:

ABCD ABCE ABCF ABCG ABCH ABCI ABCJ ABDE ABDF ABDG ABDH ABDI ABDJ ABEF ABEG ABEH ABEI ABEJ ABFG ABFH ABFI ABFJ ABGH ABGI ABGJ ABHI ABHJ ABIJ ACDE ACDF ACDG ACDH ACDI ACDJ ACEF ACEG ACEH ACEI ACEJ ACFG ACFH ACFI ACFJ ACGH ACGI ACGJ ACHI ACHJ ACIJ ADEF ADEG ADEH ADEI ADEJ ADFG ADFH ADFI ADFJ ADGH ADGI ADGJ ADHI ADHJ ADIJ AEFG AEFH AEFI AEFJ AEGH AEGI AEGJ AEHI AEHJ AEIJ AFGH AFGI AFGJ AFHI AFHJ AFIJ AGHI AGHJ AGIJ AHIJ BCDE BCDF BCDG BCDH BCDI BCDJ BCEF BCEG BCEH BCEI BCEJ BCFG BCFH BCFI BCFJ BCGH BCGI BCGJ BCHI BCHJ BCIJ BDEF BDEG BDEH BDEI BDEJ BDFG BDFH BDFI BDFJ BDGH BDGI BDGJ BDHI BDHJ BDIJ BEFG BEFH BEFI BEFJ BEGH BEGI BEGJ BEHI BEHJ BEIJ BFGH BFGI BFGJ BFHI BFHJ BFIJ BGHI BGHJ BGIJ BHIJ CDEF CDEG CDEH CDEI CDEJ CDFG CDFH CDFI CDFJ CDGH CDGI CDGJ CDHI CDHJ CDIJ CEFG CEFH CEFI CEFJ CEGH CEGI CEGJ CEHI CEHJ CEIJ CFGH CFGI CFGJ CFHI CFHJ CFIJ CGHI CGHJ CGIJ CHIJ DEFG DEFH DEFI DEFJ DEGH DEGI DEGJ DEHI DEHJ DEIJ DFGH DFGI DFGJ DFHI DFHJ DFIJ DGHI DGHJ DGIJ DHIJ EFGH EFGI EFGJ EFHI EFHJ EFIJ EGHI EGHJ EGIJ EHIJ FGHI FGHJ FGIJ FHIJ GHIJ"

And then something more like our current situation. Technically Party of 4 out of 10 is only going to be 3 objects in the set for the mix and match, cause we'd be excluding the player/origin from those comps:

"You have 10 objects: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J

All their combinations with a sample size of 3 objects:

ABC ABD ABE ABF ABG ABH ABI ABJ ACD ACE ACF ACG ACH ACI ACJ ADE ADF ADG ADH ADI ADJ AEF AEG AEH AEI AEJ AFG AFH AFI AFJ AGH AGI AGJ AHI AHJ AIJ BCD BCE BCF BCG BCH BCI BCJ BDE BDF BDG BDH BDI BDJ BEF BEG BEH BEI BEJ BFG BFH BFI BFJ BGH BGI BGJ BHI BHJ BIJ CDE CDF CDG CDH CDI CDJ CEF CEG CEH CEI CEJ CFG CFH CFI CFJ CGH CGI CGJ CHI CHJ CIJ DEF DEG DEH DEI DEJ DFG DFH DFI DFJ DGH DGI DGJ DHI DHJ DIJ EFG EFH EFI EFJ EGH EGI EGJ EHI EHJ EIJ FGH FGI FGJ FHI FHJ FIJ GHI GHJ GIJ HIJ"

Here's how it looks for the other sets:

10 sample size 1 = 1
10 sampe size 2 = 45 combos
10 sample size 3 = 120 combos
10 sample size 4 = 210 combos
10 sample size 5 = 252 combos
10 sample size 6 = 210
10 sample size 7 = 120
10 sample size 8 = 45
10 sample size 9 = 10
10 sample size 10 = 1

Keeping things rough and loose, going from a party of 4 (the player + 3 others) to a party of 5 (the player +4 others) nearly doubles the number of potential combinations, even without increasing the total number of recruitable companions available, but still keeping that at 10.

It's like the jump from 120 to 210 (with some give and take from cross incompatibilities, or the fact that companions have to be recruited in a particular sequence) not everyone is available at the same time throughout, but similar. Still I think it makes an alright case for 5 since that would come closer to hitting the sweet spot split. One of those party members is potentially a Tav/Durge though and this is likely the norm for most. Also not all of the 10 recruitable companions are playable as an Origin, only 6 are, so that complicates the situation a little for the totals, but I think it helps to frame stuff or just to give a sense.

A party of 6 (the player +5) would have allowed for something closer to the max possible without repetition, which is why I kept suggesting that, along with the BG1 legacy, just from the abstract standpoint that it gets us closer to the 252 out of 10 possible companions. You can see that the high end mirrors the low for total combos, so the ideal split for max combos without repetition is when you can ride the middle ground, in this case 5 out of 10 companions for the mix and match. I thought for sure that there would be 12 recruitable companions when BG3 launched, which would have recommended 6 out of 12 companions for the mix and match. In that case using the same sort of analogy to ballpark a party of 6 (player +5) would have allowed for 792 combos. As the pool of companions available goes up the numbers jump massively if holding to a normal sized party, say 3-6 peeps in the core group.

BG1 had 24 companions and a party of 6 (Charname +5), which would be pushing like 40 thousand potential combinations without repetition (though of course BG1 had many incompatible companions and so some party comps would not be possible.) Over the course of the game with dips/climbs in reputation some party comps just weren't viable, but still quite a spread there. If the number of companions was doubled to say 48, while still keeping the party of 6 (player +5) it's over a million potential combos. Clearly there are other factors to the replay beyond just the raw bean counting, and that bean counting here is only ballpark for the reasons mentioned, but it's actually a pretty significant increase in party comp variety if you go from 3 other companions in the active party up to 4 other companions in the active party.

Twice as many comps basically. The reason we don't really feel the scope of the combos is because of the way the camp is organized, since we can potentially have all the companions at camp at once, which tends to overshadow the active party.

I think party of 5 would be a nice touch for whatever final patch. I feel like they were sorta immovable on this issue during EA and we never got to explore it as an option really, although everyone does seem to enjoy all those instances where we pick up a follower temporarily.

I think they could have put more downward limits on the total number of summons and given us a 5th slot without it really unbalancing the campaign. In BG1 and BG2 the downside to the larger party comp was that you had to keep more people alive and distribute that loot and XP across the active party group. It's similar here though, even without split XP and a communal camp, in that managing more bodies can make it harder to game in and out of initiative. I think that's a good thing, though others may balk. I think there's a charm in BG to collecting companions and kitting them out for the long haul, compared to just selling whatever to focus on say the protagonist or only the core party group.

It's probably a bit late now to wow us with a party of 6, but whatever, I'd still go for 5 over 4 hehe

I would have liked Larian to have introduced more incompatible Companions.
And more "I you won't do X" or "you did Y" = "I am leaving" situations.

Haha. While a 5th party member isn't necessarily needed I do think it would help, me in particular, mentally. Maybe they could add a party limit size option to the Custum Difficulty section. I doubt it should go higher than 6 tho. PS5 probably would struggle with more lol.