Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides Party Size Discussion

I do know that proficiency governs a lot of things in 5E. But saying the proficiency bonus and skills make classes equal? Just no. A class is defined by so much more than the proficiency bonus, especially in 5E, where every level or so classes gain a specific ability.

Just so you know, I'm currently DM of the Descent into Avernus campaign and we lost our cleric during chapter 2 (those who play know what) but we still have a warlock and a druid for healing and we are HURTING. We are usually forced to rest after even an average fight. Their healing just cant maintain the party.

You really don't outheal damage in 5e, the system doesn't support it very well.

This is what I'm finding in the 5e game I'm in as well.

Do you mean there is more damage done than healing capabilities? If so, I agree.

When we had our cleric, we could easily go 2-3 fights without resting. Resting every so often is kind of a problem in avernus...

Yeah, I have to agree that the 4 player party is not good.

I forgot how many companions BG2 had -- 13? 14? Much of the replay value came from mixing and matching parties. One party for maximum dialogue options, power party . . . can I beat the game with the hopelessly weak party? I'm hoping that Larian has more than one unannounced companion up their sleve.

I'll be honest, as someone who has put a ridiculous number of hours into the older games... I really don't like having a full party. Even when I do take a full party, I usually end up with at least one person I dedicate as a spare inventory and buff bot.

I think you are


No offense, but you´re just picking only the party/character choices to back your facts. Try to do it in reverse. Pick the classes you want and give them the skills the party needs.

You can give your druid the criminal background and do not use a rogue, you can train your cleric in perception and survival and your ranger could stay home, you can use a half-elf sorcerer and give him the charlatan background so you do not need a diplomat, your half-elf rogue arcane trickster could be a sage and fullfill all your knowledge needs, your paladin could make a performance to rival your average bard, you can use a gith hexblade warlock and you do not need another melee fighter.

I do not say that´s a perfect, but That´s something you cannot do in previous editions. Just saying.

Not being perfect and not being able to do that in previous editions, I agree. But the rest of the exemples you provided are almost all based on skills. Yes 5E has made it so classes can learn almost every skills. But saying, for exemple, a warlock Hexblade will replace a pure fighter, wich can get 4 attacks/round, combat maneuvers, fighting styles etc...you just can't replicate/learn class-specific powers abilities as you can skills

Again, as you said, not perfect. I say far from perfect.

LoL? Yeah, I was talking about roles all the time, not classes. Does not matter it´s the 3rd time I said it, it seems (I wonder what D&D class "diplomat" and "sage" is. Must be a homebrew).

No, if I want to play a rogue, I should pick the rogue class for it. I should not have to take rogue bits and stick them into my cleric.

I'll say it again: if you can stick bits from any class into any other class (which is what you had in D:OS), then your classes are fake and you have a classless system pretending to be a class-based system.

Argh, no. I loathe rigid and restricted classes. Let me be rubbish by being Jill-of-all-trades-and-master-of-getting-myself-pwned.

I just want to play with more then three friends we currently have to run two squads in DOS2 I would love to have my full D&D party in BG3

This would be perfectly fine in a solo-play game, but in a party-based game the point of the party is that each member brings something special or unique to the party to justify them being given a spot in the party. Otherwise, why bother with a party? May as well play solo with a PC that can do everything themselves.

For the most part, I agree. As I have said earlier, beginning in the late 90s, I became kind of anti-class after all the years of class rigidity. Now, after have so much of what I used to wish for (e.g classless systems), I think I am more middle of the road, which means classes that do their thing best, but have the chance to do other class stuff (just not as well).

So I read this, and all I can think is that you are telling those of us that want 6 person party size that we should just abandon the pregenerated companions (missing out on flavorful dialog and plot), so that we can make a custom 4-person party that doesn't follow the 5e "classic" composition of Warrior/Mage/Priest/Scout, but can still fulfill those roles by shoehorning in proficiencies.

Note, that I do play D&D 5e, and game with a party of 5 other people (6 total). Saying that D&D 5e was built around a party size of 4 to me is just disingenuous. AD&D (the edition that BG 1-2 was based on) was built around a 4-person party (yet the game had a 6-person party). D&D 3.X (the edition that IWD 2 & NWN was based on) was built around a 4-person party (yet those games had a 6-person party and 2-person party respectively). D&D 4th edition was based around a 4-person party. D&D has always been based around a 4 person party. Saying that BG 3 should be limited to a 4-person party because "5e" is just lacking in structural integrity as an argument.

In practice, there are many reasons why many D&D tables have consistently more than 4 players to a party. In my particular case, many of us simply don't like vancian spellcasting, or those that don't hate it are simply sick of playing a spellcaster. So, what did we do instead? We gathered a couple more like-minded players (to make up for the fact that we don't have magic to solve all our problems) and game with a party of 6. It means that we can literally play whatever we want without being expected to accommodate the needs of the party; because otherwise in a 4-person party, before character creation we would have a session that nothing but discussing who was going to play the Warrior/Mage/Priest/Scout.

Not really, I absolutely prefer 6 party members and at least 13 companions like the previous installments if possible (or more XD) but realistically I do not think we are going to have it (They already said so, it´s a Coop MP game with 4 players, etc); so I wanted to point out that if we have only 4 party members in the end that would not be the end of the world because 5e is more flexible than previous installments of D&D.

Rigid classes are cool.
I can only say it more ofthen: classes should be more rigid and more restrictive.
in a perfect world clerics wouldnt be able to attack.

I also want the party to have six members.
Not only because, since Larian's game is called "Baldur's Gate 3", I expect that if it cannot be a literal continuation of the previous two parts, it will at least include some solutions that older players will remember.
It is also about choice. It is supposed to be a role-playing game where the emphasis is on the ability to make decisions. You can kiss the goblin's foot, attack him, or do something else. There should also be such a possibility with the party. If someone likes to play as one character, they should be able to do so. If prefers four - no problem! Six characters on a party - take it easy, it is possible.
If it wasn't "Baldur's Gate 3", I wouldn't have such a problem. But this is not just some random RPG, or even a casual game set in the world of DnD. This is "Baldur's Gate" and should still resemble the previous parts in terms of the number of party members and similar details. I don't feel nostalgic looking at the trailer and gameplay. The graphics are not like the first two Baldur's, but I can understand that - different times, different player requirements, etc. But not being able to recruit six members instead of four hurts. It's not Neverwinter Nights, it's Baldur's Gate... right?

I don’t see how the specific number of party members was an inextricably intrinsic part of Baldur’s Gate’s identity. That it was a party based rpg, absolutely, but not the 6 character limit.

Would I like a larger party? Sure. But I understand if 4 is easier to balance encounters for, so I can live with it.

I dont think 6 party members are a direct part of the baldurs gate identity.

I however thin kthat 6 party members are a superior number of Party members to 4. Flat out.

Its a tactical RPG at this point, and its 5e.with 6 party members its ok if 1 or 2 are a martial who doesnt do jack shit.