Well met Adventures and Larian!
So far I've really been enjoying BG3 EA. One thing that's really bothering me right now is not having the option to have a maximum of 6 party members in a group.
Hear me out, I've had many conversations with many fans telling me why 6 party members can't be possible.
1. Original BG and D&D party limits
We all know that original BG gave the players option to 6 party members. It was optional and gave players more choices on how they wanted to take on their journey. I know very many BG players loved that option and usually had 6 party members. It was that feeling of comradery and hilarious interactions between the characters. It was made the original such a masterpiece in it's play style. D&D 5e even states that 4-5 being the ideal party size with the option for 6 and more. I would also like to point out that most 5e adventure models are set for 4-6 players.
2. Having essentials and more
This was a big problem for me having only 4 party members. Most players have their essentials in their party, Fighter, Cleric, Mage or Rogue. For a game to only have 4 party members, I feel like I'm stuck with only these four class types and miss out on the other interesting characters or classes. Having 6 would solve that problem for me and many players because it allows more creativity for combos in combat. You can have the essentials and include a bard for fun buffs, an extra mage for more spell casting on the battlefield, a barbarian for some damage or a Warlock for hexing foes. Not only for combat but for role-playing and exploration. When I first started playing BG3, I started off as a wizard but noticed my party didn't have anyone with decent charisma except for Wyll. But, having Wyll in my party meant I had to get rid of the fighter, the cleric or the rogue. It was an annoying limitation for me. With that extra character slot or two, players would get the job done and have more fun interactions without having to go back and fourth to the camp to exchange characters.
I understand many DoS players love the painful difficulty and makes players think outside the box more often. Completely understand that. I understand having 6 would probably make combat a little less difficult and players would already know that. Encounters would still be challenging but the creativity will still be there. Plus, it would only be an option. You can still go with 4 party members if you want that challenging difficulty. Original BG players will also feel at home with 6 party members. I still remember BG 1 and 2's encounters still being crazy difficulty with 6 party members.
Some players have even said that 6 members would make battles way too long. But with BG3's faster battle system, I doubt everyone would be watching their clocks during fun combat encounters.
I also understand multiplayer is also another reason why the number has to stay with 4; but many D&D players will tell you that they've played many games with more than 4 party members. I would love myself and 5 other friends to play BG3 multiplayer.
Larian, please take this into consideration. I'm really enjoying BG3 EA but I'm still longing for the option for more party members for my team.
Sincerely,
Roo
I think you was able to articulate your thoughts a little more concisely then I did, I absolutely agree with you. I remember playing dragon age origins and been disappointed at the party size, I always have to take a thief with me because I hate leaving chests unopened, Then you normally need a fighter to tank and hopefully a wizard that can buff deal damage and heal to leave space for the story relevant companion, and you never really change what party composition you take making most runs the same when it comes to gameplay, six allows for a lot more variety that I think is very much needed in this type of game, and I'm worried that my party comp will always be the same in BG3 meaning I can never try any cool and fun compositions, or have a truly epic hold the line moment like I did in BG.
My favourite memory from BG1 is the end dungeon on the way to fight Saravok, I had 2 front line fighters and a cleric holding the line against a hoard of enemies while my rouge archer and two mages attacked from behind the front line, it felt so epic to set up a formation and use tactics to face of against overwhelming odds and I just don't see that sort of scenario happening with only four party members.
