A party of up to six is the correct decision. Less than that and the game doesn't feel like Baldur's Gate. Solo the game, take only a few companions, or have a full party. That's how the original games worked. Leave it up to the individual and stop thinking that because a party size of four is enough for you that it is OK for everyone else.
And why are we pretending like the game is balanced as is in EA? Do people really think this is how the final game will be? That Larian won't change anything? That there won't be any difficulty sliders? That we can't opt into ways to make the game more or less challenging based on player preference? That's just crazy. It's also stupid to complain about how other people play the game not working with your play style or rudely pretending like you know the financials of these asks and that us peasants posting in the Suggestions & Feedback forum are too dumb to know what we want. Let people play the way they want. D&D is about giving people the power to create stories how they want. That's why the ruleset is so flexible and allows for homebrew (mods for tabletop).
Although if it ends up being that party is fixed after Act 1, then I'll really lose the desire to play this game. Party experimentation is KEY to Baldur's Gate. If you were stuck with the same party for the whole Bhaalspawn saga, then that would suck in a very major way and the pocket plane would be a very sad place.
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
Originally Posted by Peranor
Originally Posted by arion
Originally Posted by Smash Dently
Besides let's say they jump us up to 6 and rebalance the whole game
lol this argue again what game they need to rebalance? there no balanced game, all we have is EA which not balanced at all
Originally Posted by nation
[quote=Peranor][quote=arion][quote=Smash Dently] Besides let's say they jump us up to 6 and rebalance the whole game
lol this argue again what game they need to rebalance? there no balanced game, all we have is EA which not balanced at all
Yeah, and even if it was. I don't think it would be terrible difficult to add some kind of dynamic balacing to the game that accomodate for your chosen party size. Maybe set it as a starting option when you start a new game. Choose between solo or 2-6 party members. And once the game is started the balance is set and you're locked to the maximum party size of your choise.
+1 i think this would be a really good idea too - something like a 'Behind the DM Screen' pre campaign/character creation screen where you would be able to designate a variety of options that would carry over into the full campaign, many of which could potentially speak to a variety of the discussions and alleviate some concerns on these forums and could be really helpful when setting up a mp campaign specifically.
things that you could possibly toggle that would impact the campaign's 'difficulty/balance', but im sure others here could add to this list -stat allocation - roll, buy, array -feat at first level (id argue this could really open up gameplay but could warrant an overall campaign challenge increase) -classes/races/feats/spell filter etc (more mp oriented tho) -party size 1-6, but could see why 1,2,4,6 may be more feasible to include and 'balance' at this point (id argue that players should always be able to have a max of 6 open party slots bc enables more player choice and allow players to decide themselves to go 4 or 6, etc.) -use healing potion as a bonus action -scale of surface effects -show/hide dice rolls - im not sure its a good thing to know a dc of a skill check or see that you failed that perception roll, but that being said id rather the dc be set and apply my bonus to the die roll instead of reducing the dc as i think it currently works (id also think this systems presentation may need some tweaking - not a fan of jumping away from the dialogue to just fail a die roll) -limit info that can be gained from 'examining' npcs and enemies, such as hp or ac -party interaction during dialogue and trading/bartering (maybe more mp tho) -more specific class tweaks as the 'dm' allows (ie swapping warlock spells, respecs, multi-class requirements)
i feel the above list (outside maybe the scale of the surface effects) are all common dnd 'house rules' topics you discuss around the table that could also really work to refine an bg3 campaign to fit each persons playstyle. obviously this is all just thoughts/theorycrafting suggestions but i think in particular the discussion regarding having 4v6 party slots and possible required balancing could find solutions for both perspectives with a toggable pre-campaign dynamic balance as mentioned above by peranor
also, maybe tangentially related, but i think balance should be focused around encounters not party size or level - i want to adapt to the challenges and world of bg3 not the opposite way around
I like his idea, and yours as well, more options is always a good thing.
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
They can't have failed to notice by now that it will be a real sticking point for a lot people. This is already one of the longest threads in this feedback section, and its been brought up in many others.
I'm not terribly inspired by the idea that if the devs don't do it, then motivated modders will be able to solve everything. This doesn't strike me as a game that will be particularly easy to mod. NWN was basically a modders dream, but lack of party control, with henchmen instead of a full party kinda sank it, despite all the other innovative things that were done. It was a perennial disappointment there even with like 3 expansions and a sequel, that we never got a party control system there. And that one was by the same developer. Larian is so much closer, much much closer to the BG vibe than NWN ever was, but they are kinda shooting themselves in the foot by hamstringing us with a party limited to 4.
