It is a computer game that is adhereing to the D&D rules as closely as possible.
It's also supposedly the sequel to an established franchise, in which a party of 6 is a core element. Both "4" and "6" are in your "rules", and there's no rule that says "4" is closer to the rules than "6", so your "adhering to rules" argument is completely meaningless. Not to mention Larian has the ability to change the rules if necessary.
Oh man, critical role.
I wish people would stop thinking critical role is an accurate representation of DnD.
one of the biggest blights on the hobby, next to Sir bearington greentexts.
Ah here we go again with the hate and the "my opinion is superior compared to yours" attitude. What's the word again? You can have your canned opinion, that's fine too. By this point everyone on the forums knows that aside from your worship for "TB combat in general" you hate practically everything else. We got that, loud and clear. Do let us know when you're about to announce you
like something.
I mentioned Critical Role just for the "party size" argument. The point was that, there isn't any real "rule" in regard to that. As long as it is manageable and it works for the scope of the game. And there's no reason why a party size of 6 would not work or would be unmanageable in BG3, because it has been done in 20-year-old games to which it claims to be a sequel.
No one has claimed "critical role is an accurate representation of DnD" yet, but some people just can't resist showing off their hate and bitterness every chance they get. It's truly an amazing world we live in.
