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

You do know that it makes no sense that it's faster pace having less party members right?
The game concept is totally different from DoS.
Having more actually lets you end battle sooner because of the limitations of DnD combat. Most can do one or two actions a turn, with more party members, it means you get to attack more.

If this was DoS, for sure, we'll watch this guy buff his character 20 times in one turn than finally proceed to wipe the map by himself, but so far the new battles is nothing like that.

Storywise the number of party members don't matter, it's all on the writer, we can have one member and it'll be a good story if the designer behind it does a good job. But comparing the two game makes no sense as well, one game does revolve around the idea of playing a tabletop game with others in a group, some folks have no friends we get it, so they like less of a crowd and now the other game... the other doesn't really relate at all to the game design, it's two different world. We only compare DoS to this because of the fact that it's the same company.

People do make a lot of valid points for 6 men, and tbh, if you want 5, 4 or 1, just do you, letting people choose and have more options is never a bad thing. I don't see why people whine about how other people plays,n when most likely, we'll never play together, we're more bound to play with our friends and family.

It goes both ways, having more allows more strategic thinking as well, you're not limited to having a core set of the same group that most other have, just hop onto YouTube, most people have the same exact setup more or less, there's more possibilities in a fight with more characters tbh. And a lot of what you said has been refuted by others already too. I'm not going to spend time going into it, but it goes back to the fact that having 6 members isn't an issue and people have the freedom to choose what they want. Just find those responses and rebutt them if you're very adamant about how you want us to play.

What you really are saying is that, you like it a certain way, and you want us to play that way only. Which is ironically kinda selfish. Let people play how they want. If you like less, go for less.

There's ways to make players struggle besides what you've mentioned too. Ways to make the game funner, but that's more personal preference.

Larian is cool enough to give options, there's those who plays solo too, and we don't see them complaining, nor are we hearing them force us to play with only a single character.

People seem to keep thinking this game is DoS.

Edit: JRPG is JRPG, totally different bro.
Some is good, some isn't.

One game revolves around the idea of blowing up the whole planet with barrels and the other.....well...

There's a logical issue with the comparison to D:OS2 is though, because the characters in that game are somewhat specialized, but you can still have swiss army knife characters that are good at everything. Even if you specialize characters you have a crap load of scrolls and items that make it possible to go without spreading your points fairly easily. In D&D however those options are not as readily available, and nor should they be(even if it is a video game as the argument seems to go). In D&D people are forced into certain rolls that don't really change throughout play(Though there is some evolution), and I think the only thing that limiting the party size to four does is make the developers feel like they need to add more food and scrolls and potions to the game to make up for it. I think with a rebalance of resting and encounters (which apparently are done by an AI now) the game would be vastly improved with one or two more companions available. Then the need for items to keep yourself alive and barrels to give you the advantage(or outright cheese the system) would be somewhat mitigated.

Baldur's gate is the most replayed D&D CRPG of all time

It had 25 recruitable companions and a full party of 6 members.

In terms of the possible party combinations, the "25 recruitable companions" is the more important part of the equation than the 6 member party cap, but they are both relevant.

As pointed out earlier in this thread there are many more combinations available with the cap at 6 than there are with the cap at just 4, provided we have a decent number of total companions available. The number of combinations practically doubles when going from 4 to 6 if the total number of companions is raised to say 10 rather than just the 5 currently available. This increases even more dramatically again if we go from a possible 10 companions to say 15 or 20 companions in the roster.

Right now initial impressions are being based on the 5 recruit-able companions currently available in EA, and a full party of 4 members. But there's no way it could end up just being 5 companions or just one or two beyond that thrown in later as some have suggested. That would be a crazy hard fail from the team holding the crown right now. They'd need like a dozen companions just for it to even hold a torch to the epic glory of BG1. So I fully expect them to double or triple the number of companions by the time this thing goes live just to do it justice by the BG standard. I mean they got what, a dozen writers on it? Seems about right.

It makes sense for Larian to tease them in smaller numbers like this too, so that their EA can focus on the party interactions/compositions they feel need the most feedback, and probably more importantly to give us a reason to keep tuning in when they drop their larger patches to expand the content. But there are bound to be a lot more companions, and if that's the case, a full party of 6 is going to give a huge amount of variety in party composition over just 4... even accounting for a few companion pairings that might not be compatible long term without things coming to blows inside the camp.

There are plenty of amazing ways to make an awesome 4 person game by design, or to make a game with only 2 characters when the goal is a Kurvitz style masterpiece. But we're not taking about just any game. This is the heavy weight title we're talking about! This is Baldur's Gate III

It really should be trying to distill the essence of what made the other two preceding titles so rad, and part of that was the variety of possible party compositions. I just can't see the logic that says giving us fewer characters in our group somehow gives us more choices, or better or more interesting choices. it just doesn't pencil for me. Closes off more doors than it opens and diminishes the replay in the long run. Creating a party building vibe that's concordant with the previous titles in the franchise, and building it out with those kinds of limits in mind is what I'd dig.

I really think the party of 4 is going to become more problematic later on, when the encounters scale to epic territory. This is why a lot of us are hearing the internal alarm bells sounding, and trying to argue for a fix now, while there is time to fix it. I mean we definitely expect a game with a Dragon combat or two eventually right? That's going to be a lot harder to pull off in style with just 4, while still maintaining a classically epic sensibility. I mean unless the plan is just to toss us a bunch of non controllable friendlies? This seems to be the go-to approach in many of these EA battles right now, and maybe it works alright when there are narrative reasons (like "the Blade of Frontiers!" sounding his horn, or NPCs that are part of the story) but as a player I feel less invested in the encounter when this is overused. I'd rather have a party of 6 that I can fully control and really work to defeat the opposing crew, than half a dozen random friendlies appearing in every other encounter, just to serve as fodder so that the combats can be balanced by teams/sides.

Just like a good DM, a good difficulty setting in the options should allow everything in these encounters to scale, whether the player elects to cruise with 6 people or just 4.

But still, if you really want it to hit the nostalgia button and go for broke, I'm chanting 6 6 6! Even though I know I said I'd tap out, the gravitational pull of this thread just seems inexorable for me lol

I definitely agree that a 6 person party makes much more sense. Though, if they do take this route, then I hope they consider adding a few more potential party members to choose from in Acts 1 & early Act 2. After all, I do still like being faced with difficult choices.

I've heard that they're planning on having a total of 12 or 13 companions or so. Not sure about the exact number, but htey will most definitely add more.

5 players seems okay, 6 could be a little OP and a lot of different inventories to manage

[

+1
fully agree

+1

6 in party = more fun creation group, alot subclass exist, very unfun to be limited with only 4. And please 3 story characters and 3 full created character. Give me back the freedom !

you have argued my points far better than i could, thank you and I could not agree more.

I don't see why this should be such a big problem for them to implement, they are not a small indy dev that needs kickstarter to fund there games anymore. This is a AAA game with a AAA level amount of staff behind it, I believe they have over 200 people working on this so a few set aside to create a valid way to play with a six player party should not be too big of an undertaking for them or divert many resources away for the 4 man experience.

You say that for you and many others that the extra party members is not a big deal, but what about those of us that clearly want this quite a lot, do you deny us that option because you don't want it? Also what if it was a quarter of the player base that wanted this, or half, what then would you say to the party size been an option so people can choose what they want? Because thats all we want, the option to play how we want, not to take away the options already implemented that allow you to play how you want.

I know exactly what you are trying to say and agree completely, I may be boring and not thinking outside the box if i want a rouge to open locks and disarm traps, and a cleric for healing with a wizard for offensive spells and a paladin as my tank, hell I like having two tanks and a fighter that can all hold the line and then a ranged backline that can rain hell down from above.

Also off topic side note: I've been a White Mage main since 2.0 PS3 beta, but my favourite FF job has always been Red Mage, however I never switched over when they added it because it didn't feel like the jack of all trades master on none it was meant to be, as a healer I was hoping for something that would fill the role of a healer in a pinch when desperate. But because it had to fit the trinity everything just feels lacklustre. But I do plan on my first or second character been a Bard in BG3, if they do it right I should be able to build it fairly close to the Red Mage archetype, they may even put in an appropriate feathered hat, or at least that's my hope.
My first two full playthrough is going to be Cleric and Bard because i'm boring and sticking to what I know and like.
But people in sweatshops actually get paid for their work, It might not be a lot but they still get something, whereas we are paying Larian for the privilege of been exploited. I agree with you on pretty much everything, and while modders could do it it would never not be janky, temperamental and or work as well as what Larion could do while they are still finishing off the game, they are big enough now and well funded enough that they should have the resources to do this themselves. Regardless of who is making the game it has the name Baldur's Gate attached to it so I expect it to feel like Baldur's Gate and not another part in their own franchise that they already have, differentiating the party size and allowing us the party flexibility and compositions we are used to from previous entries would go a long way to make it feel like a Baldur's Gate game, at least to me.
That was what I said in my OP, make it a toggleable option before you start a new game that comes with a disclaimer about wonky balance and achievements will therefore be disabled.
All we are asking for here is an option that a large portion of the player base wants, we don't want to take away your option to play with the settings that you find best and most fun, would you deny us even the possibility of having simply the option to play with the settings and party size we want?
when I made that the last I had heard Larian had confirmed a cap of 10 but it seems they are not sure anymore https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/20...-not-cap-player-levels-to-ten-after-all/ but until they have a definitive answer and number I think we should work under the assumption of 10 to avoid dissapointement for anyone wanting a higher level cap.
Here here +1
I also think that thats what a lot of the people who like the 4 man set-up are missing, we only want the option to have 6 party members, and they never give an opinion on us simply have the option to choose how many people we can take with us.

The origional Baldur's Gate games both had 6 man parties as the default party size when you was done recruiting companions, as did the Icewind Dale games that where built on the same engine. If they where all based around a 4 man party then this wouldn't be such a big deal to all of us who loved the originals.

Same for Torment, while Temple of Elemental Evil had a default party of 5 player-generated characters but you could hire up to three additional NPCs, if charisma allowed it.
Fun fact: ToEE had for years what was broadly considered as by far the best, most faithful implementation of the D&D combat system in a computer game (its flaws were all in other areas, frankly) and allowed for a bigger party *precisely* because turn-based combat made it more manageable and rewarding than real-time.

I expect there will be 12 origin characters at launch, one for each class, and then i would expect a few more that are only available in acts 2 and 3, like you if you are locked in after act 1 ends I won't be impressed
I like his idea, and yours as well, more options is always a good thing.
+1

The only reason I'd want 6 companions is if I also get to create my own party. Right now I'm fine with four because I'm not keen on dealing with pre-made companions. While I like games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect, I don't necessarily enjoy all the companion interactions. Overly written companions control the narrative too much.. If I get to create my own party like in IWD then that's more fun for me because it's my own soap opera that I'm creating. I get to create the characters personalities and stories as I play the game. If it's someone elses characters then my brain goes all grumbly whenever they do something out of character for the character I'm trying to play them as.

like IWD, you could also create your own custom party in the original bg games too by essentially hosting your own mp campaign and filling in the party slots with self-made characters. i actually really enjoyed this being a part of those games too (including the black pits side-stories) as you mentioned it allowed the player to create their own party of custom made characters and then be able to act out the adventure and party dynamics as they went through the story, so i really hope larian does include this as an option too as part of the full game on launch - the og bg games were more restrictive on character creation than 5e, so it was really fun theory crafting all good/neutral/evil parties or just cool character concepts that i hadnt yet experienced in game (which you could also plan a party around when you had another 5 custom pc slots so even if characters werent 'optimal' you could still mold a party to fit your playstyle or pick up an appropriate npc companion among the dozen plus that both the originals had).

I also agree with what you were saying about playing with companions whom control the narrative too much or 'steal the spotlight' from my own pc - which i think the origin companion characters do to a certain extent. at this stage in the games development i dont think reducing the origin characters role is realistic or a good use of resources, however i do wish they would add some more game mechanics that made me feel like my own pc was more critical to the overall games plot, as currently it feels like if my pc never survived the ship crash they wouldnt even get a footnote in the history books, bc all the origin characters theoretically would just carry on with the story as they still would need to address the tadpole situation whether our pc was present or not, which to me just doesnt feel like bg - just for an example, in the originals if your main pc died you had to reload, no tpk required. im not saying that larian should implement this function, and 5e death mechanics present different tools for a dnd game today - im just highlighting that as an example of how the game's plot/narrative/story all revolved around your pc and your pc's interactions (that you decided and selected) with the environment/companions

Gonna have to side with the increase to 6 crowd, 4 kinda limits combinations.

Exactly

We already talked about it in some of the previous pages (or maybe it was in the other big thread about this same topic?) but I want to stress a point again: it's not just about having an effective battle formation, it's also about putting a lot of great loot to good use, so you feel properly rewarded for what you find.

A party of six allows you to build a party where more or less all the range of weapon and armor types are used and useful.
In a party of 4 you either force this differentiation, limiting your options for a party composition even more, OR you'll end up with a lot of loot feeling useless because, for instance, you have one single character that can use "martial" equipment, no one wearing a certain category of armor, etc.