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

You have that in spades with the party of 4, Larian are clearly very focussed on the party interaction, but does adding 2 more to that dynamic warrant the extra complexities? Or would we end up with random conversations out of nowhere that have little bearing on what has happened before? It’s certainly easier to tailor the experience more with a firmed up group at a certain stage. I would rather have a more interesting party story where each conversation is relevant and growing to how I play, rather than a larger group with odd interactions that plague other larger group rpgs for the sake of banter.

Don’t get me wrong, I like a party of 6, but there is always 1 or 2 within such a party that get the short straw. Just playing a little devils advocate here.

Aren't you guys already tired of managing the jump of 4 characters ? You want more ? Hell no.

Also, 4 characters is the "optimal" party size in dnd 5e I believe as it is how most stuff is balanced so I guess that's why Larian rolled with it. Remember that you get pets and familiar to manage for certain classes also.

+1 I definitely need a party size of 6.

And I think that the game is nearly already balance for it...
I won't spoil here but since the beginning, I'm fighting a lot and there are many "huge" battles (I'm inside the goblin camp).

I can deal with those battles with a group of 4 but that's not always easy.
I like difficulty but I think some don't.

=> More party members mean less difficulty for this "normal game mode".

Another thing in those huge combat is how slow they are...
Not because of TB or because of D&D but when you face 15 ennemies and have to attack at least 4 times or more each one of them (considering all the miss), that's sooo slow.

=> More companions don't mean slower, but FASTER combat because you can kill your ennemies in less turns.

I also notice that there is the EXACT place for 2 more potraits... I hope.

Indeed, but I still hope to have 6 party members and keep a relevant conversation. Please, let me dream

+1

The main thing I dislike about limited party size is how it makes party composition incredibly boring. You are excluding a lot of accessory flavor because you want at least to cover a minimum of variety in your limited amount of slots.


The irony of the entire situation is that if they addressed both the "party size" concern and my other grief about how the party controls (dedicated thread here: http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=679414#Post679414 )
they'd be automatically defusing 90% of the complaints about this not feeling like a proper Baldur's Gate. They just don't seem to care much about that.


Well, we are probably wasting our breath here, since Larian, with all its upsides, is almost NOTORIOUS for being stubborn and sticking to their poor design decision no matter how much feedback they get against it (the obscene randomized loot system of their past games or the massively criticized armor system in DOS 2 come to mind).

I'd rather not have a larger party because combat takes long enough as it is.
Fewer party members and fewer opponents means less time doing combat = more playthroughs = being able to bring along a different set of companions on the 2nd run rather than running with the same guys because I had room for everyone the first time.

Not a single claim in this post is based on reality, especially looking at other games that did it (like the recent Kingmaker mod/addition to make the game turn-based).

For one, no one is asking for "more enemies". They could just be the same amount and slightly stronger.
Second, more party members make "controlling and cleaning up the area" quicker.
Third, the "speed" of combat is a relative and fairly low priority concern in a game where each encounter is an unique, non-repeatable event.
Fourth, "being able to bring every time a different set of companions" doesn't work that well when you want to cover certain almost-fundamental roles and your slots are very limited to begin with.

+1

As someone who very much enjoyed BG2 party banter (and how companions inserted themselves into many dialogues), I do hope for a larger party size, at least as an option to be modded in.

I think we all must focus to push hard on Larian to make that changes(like when community give group initiative feedback), because party size is the basis for all gameplay balance. If these changes are not be made as early as possible, they will never be done at all.

Adding my voice to this thread, a 4 man party feels so much more restricted when choosing companions so you always have: 1 Melee/Tank, 1 Support/Healer, 1 Rogue (stealth and lockpick) and to wrap up a Magic Caster (which will usually be a wizard because of extended spell list, why would you take a warlock over a Wizard in DnD late game???).

D&D also has 12 Vanilla classes (not counting Artificers) which means being able to have only 4 of those 12 (33%) you won't get as much versatility or adaptability if you cold have a 6 man party (50% of those classes could be in the party). By the way, how are you going to balance a party in the future when more classes comes around like Sorcerers, Bards, Monks, Barbarians and Paladins? Who are you gonna cut off to add someone new and still feel like you have some balance?

In BG1 and BG2 I always hated to ask a companion to leave so I could add a new one, and only did so if they were someone I liked better or had an amazing companion quest I had to do before getting my "dream party" back. I never thought of those companions as disposables tools to do a job and for me Imoen and Misc would always be in the group no matter what, so at least 3 spots on those 6 man parties were already locked on (counting my OC as well).

Therefore a 6 man party seems much more immersive and fun as well as adaptable than going back and forth picking a mule to do a job and then dumping it back to camp when said job is done, which looks like where BG3 is going since you can ask a companion to go back to your camp and just collect dust until you need them for a job or to further down their quest.

I don0't disagree and that's why I'm contributing to the thread.
Just saying that Larian is notorious for this trend of "sticking to their vision no matter what" (which could be almost commendable in other circumstances) and only later admitting "Well, yeah, that was bad and everyone knew it and pointed it to us, but what is done is done".

I hope the irony of you referring to 5E's encounter balance system is not lost on you. 5E Challenge Rating is based off a party of 4 ...

It should be obvious that a combat balanced for a party of 6 takes longer than a combat balanced for a party of 4 even with the same number of bad guys.
You are taking 2 extra turns every round compared to the party of four.

If you are facing more bad guys to challenge your increased numbers the bad guys turns will take longer as well.

There is no situation where combat balanced for a party of 6 doesn't take longer than combat balanced for a party of 4.






Except the character you add the Urchin background isn't sub-par at anything. Any Dex based character can have the Urchin background, lose nothing from their main class and still be able to lock pick and go stealthy when needed




Just so you are aware pulling statistics out of your butt is a common tactic for folks who don't have a viable argument.
Players who want to cheese encounters will cheese encounters. Here's a site that lists many of the cheese tactics players used in BG2 (https://sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/SpellsReference/Stuff/Cheese.htm) which should be noted had a party of 6.


So many accusations and so wrong.

Let's assume 5 in game companions ( B,C,D,E,F) and a party of 6. (You're playing character A)
First time through your party is A,B,C,D,E,F
Next time through your party is A,B,C,D,E,F
Third time through your party is A,B,C,D,E,F

Conversations don't change. Tactics don't change. The only variety is your character.

Same scenario, but party of 4:
First time through your party is A,B,C,D
Next time through your party is A,C,E,F
Third time through your party is A,B,D,F


Conversations are different, Tactics are different. By definition more variety.
If you do the math, which you seem to think you're an expert in, 6 choose 4 has 15 different combinations. 6 choose 6 has 1 combination.
15>1





As shown above a party of 4 has more replay value and more variety.



Nothing you've said disputes any of these points.
Larian has already said that they have not hard coded the party size and that those who wish to Mod a party of 6 are free to do so after full release.

I wouldn't mind if you could bring 2 more people as "non-combat support" who stay out of combat, if they are worried about combat being too slow and tedious with six party members. I just want them around for dialog. I agree it is tedious having too many, so I'm already not using familiars since they almost add nothing without being able to provide the help action and take another spacebar to cycle every round. But I do want those extra dialog reactions to scenes from having the "right" companions with you.

I agree six is the ideal party size for a cRPG like this game. Four is way too small. And it should not be necessary to rely on a modder to give us this, as it should be an option built into the game.

+1

This is an extremely valid criticism, I'm playing as a wizard and as it is now I can only see my party consisting of the same people. Lae'zel as the tank, Shadowheart as the support, my character as the spellcaster, and then the fourth slot being swapped between Wyll or Astarion as need be. Which leaves Gale on the side lines which is less than ideal cause I rather like Gale.

Please read previous posts in a topic before posting, this is backwards logic, I'm not going to explain why this makes no sense yet again.
Small party = worse for replay value, think through it logically and if you're struggling the actual logic for it has been gone over many times, twice in this thread alone.
It has nothing to do with a "perfect party" or "perfect playthrough" or passing every skill check.




What i'm reading here is, "the game is too easy and forgiving and i love it" This is exactly what i talked about earlier in this thread in regards to balancing game difficulty for a 4 man party. The only way to make 4 man parties viable outside of the cookie cutter role filling is to make the game too easy.

Larger party means more appropriate game balance, means more interesting choices, means more replay value.
I know my posts are a wall of text but really you can't explain the logic without actually explaining the logic, most arguments for 4 man party are based on three premises:
- I don't like difficulty
- Illusion of choice is better than actual choice
- I can't apply mathematical concepts taught to 10 to 13 year olds (Basic probability and ratios) to this problem.

I feel like i'm writing 2 + 2 = 4 on a blackboard and every now and then someone comes in a says "I like that 2 + 2 = 3"
Not a single comment advocating for a 4 man party has put any thought into whether their statements make sense. And when someone goes through it step by step they don't even read it.

So I get the want for 6. 6 is typically the maximum that DMs will allow, as it does slow down the game.

However, in a video game I see nothing against it.

Because Larian seems pretty adamant against it, I can see four available options for them:

1. Larian makes parties of 6 available. This allows for more flexibility, and more story party characters (As they already confirmed more will be included).
2. Larian makes parties of 5 available. It allows for the basics, and one additional party member (Or yourself) as the "Whatever I want" character.
3. Larian makes parties of 5 available, and allows one "Follower" companion from camp to join you on adventures. The dog, the goblin, whoever you recruit.
4. Larian sticks to their guns and keeps parties of 4.

I genuinely don't see an issue with parties of 5 or 6; if difficulty is what people are using to argue against it, then why not just throw in an extra mob or two that only spawns in to the world map when you leave camp with that additional party member(s)?
Likewise, you would subtract a mob or two for less characters.
If they implement genuine difficulty settings at the beginning of the game, you would increase mob numbers, rather than flat stat buffs like other games. Flat stat buffs can only get so interesting; extra no-voice no-name mobs makes things more interesting, dynamic, and diverse in combat.

Allow me to summarize:
"4 is fine as long as I can have more than 4"