I mean, I know you are purposefully IGNORING the point, but you've been already told that every "six men party" game so far was perfectly playable with less characters.
It doesn't even require any particular scaling, in most cases. In several of these games the mere fact that the same amount of total exp gets parted between fewer party memebers means that a four-men party will just level faster.
It's the same mechanic that allow people to play BG2 solo, in fact: Your solo barbarian/kensai/whatever will level up so fast when he's taking SIX times the amount of exp he well automatically offset the numeric disadvantage.
I think 6 is too much...4 is enough.
Fine. Keep your party as 4.
Explain to me your justification for denying me the ability to have a party of 6.
Yeah, that's an interesting thing, isn't it?
Even if you are someone who HATES the idea of a six-slotted party for whatever reason, it's not that hard to concede that having a six men limit allows to play with four characters anyway, if you wish so, while conversely the other way around just doesn't work; if four is the limit, it's going to be the limit for everyone.
And yet here we are with people who keep repeating things like ""Better not, because Larian doesn't want it anyway". How is that a proper argument, anyway?
