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

It would be fun to create your whole party IWD style. With the risk of losing out on companion specific side quests and storylines though

I'll go ahead and add my +1 here.

I've always felt that 6 party members was the ideal DnD party in CRPGs... but if the devs feel like 6 is too many, I would be satisfied with 5.

Even having just 1 more party member would make a huge difference and would give a lot more freedom to players to play as they want rather than be forced to fill a certain roll in the party.

Another issue I have is that on Larians website, it says that once we pick a team, thats it, locked in after act 1. I'm against this.

I may be able to deal with 4 people if I didnt get locked into one party. I'd like to be able to swap, and have different teams for different situation.

The point about mods, is that, if they want 4 players to just be a thing for them, they can mod it in so that what they want to restrict people to can be a thing for them.

They lock it in to force us to replay the game with other characters probably, because I can't see why, because that's what the reason for DoS was.

If the game will require locking people out of characters, I wouldn't mind it, but would it be as great of a game as we expected it to be if it needs to lock out companions so that their story can be used for another playthrough?

i am obviously in the minority here but i actually like smaller parties more.
my sweet spot is probably 3.
just wanted to add my opinion.

I'd like add a forth point
4- It makes devs lazy, why add much requested features and fix bugs and balance the game when the can go "fuck it the modders will do our job for free?"
Great post thank you for the input, I agree that if the party size was 8 instead of 6 I probably would not complain, but that would mostly be because I would have the choice of how many people to take with me, and if I wanted to recreate a classic party setup I enjoyed in the original games I would not be forced to go up to 8 and could limit myself down, I think what a lot of the people who prefer 4 don't realise is we don't want to take away what they like and want we just want the option to have the same as them, a way to play the way we like and want.
I will probably try out playing as Gale as he seems pretty cool but otherwise I will probably always play as a custom character because that's what Baldur's Gate and D&D is to me, it's about putting my own character in some amazing and fantastical land, it's about telling my own story and seeing how my character reacts and adapts to the world not trying role play as some pre-created character, they are fine as foils for my guy to react off of but they will never be a main focus and I agree more companions overall would be time better spent over making them all origin characters to play as. As it is I'm hoping for recruitable companions in acts 2 and 3 just how in the original games as you went around the world and found new locations you found new and different people who you could bring along, normally before I start a BG campaign I decide what type of character I want to roll then look up and research a little who I'd like to come along and only recruit them, so sometimes i can spend large portions of the game with only a few companions.

I like his idea, and yours as well, more options is always a good thing.
+1

Folks keep saying that limiting it to 4 characters increases the replayability factor. However, there are some of us out here who have real life responsibilities that do not allow for massive replay time sink. Some weeks I'm lucky to get 5 to 10 hours of play time in - I want to maximize my time, experiencing a larger group of characters . I play many games, alternating which I am playing at any given time, depending on my mood, how much time I can devote that day, how many interruptions I can expect and so on. I see no reason I can't have the 6 character game I want, that would keep someone else from the 4 , 2 or 1 character game THEY want to play. That's the point of different difficulty levels, and the reward or lack thereof of splitting xp and loot among
a greater or fewer number of characters

Indeed. If they do go through with the (terrible) idea to lock in the team after act 1, then the 4 people group limitation will be even worse.

Made the same argument in the past pages: it's a bad idea in general, but it becomes downright awful if you limit the party size to three companions.

I agree, but I fear they won't budge on this because of a story reason that is already fixed

Yeah, that is what i'm afraid of as well. Doesn't mean I like it though

Its been brought up before but just to highlight that when there is a party of 6 players you also get more opportunities to play different equipment or spell loadouts. I think it'd be particularly nice for spells and arcane casters esp since it makes preparing utility spells more viable. Right now they really need to focus on dmg but if you have like another wizard or bard in the group you can have one dude wrecking fire balls and another with like abjuration or going illusion style.

With 6 there is more room to redupilcate class but with a different focus, after the core 4 the fifth and sixth slot is where the party variety comes into play.

The prob with everyone can do everything, is that you have to long rest and change loadouts constantly if you want to try something off key. So instead you just go with whatever is most OP for that archetype.

In BG1 by the time you got to the Friendly Arm inn you had Charname, plus Imoen and Montaron/Xzar pairing. The Khalid and Jaheira pairing came soon as you got to the Inn. These were cool because they were already grouped together. So you had the Harpers or Zhents choice pretty early and a reason sometimes to see one chunked with amusing one liners from the other companion.

There was just way more gameplay nuance involved in selecting a party composition and who to ditch or switch. In the Beregost area you could pick up a Bard or another Fighter. There was a Ranger or Cleric just outside town. By the time you reached the mines you had already encountered like a dozen possible companions. That's the vibe that's missing right now for me with only 4.

Too be honest I don't see good reasons to change it now. From most players perspective party of 6 is old fashioned and mostly just matter of personal taste. From sales perspective Larian way of doing things works and most people agree with it.
Finally the most important from game design perspective everything is written, design (gameplay, multiplayer and so on), made and balance around party of 4. So chaining it now would created unnecessary chaos to please just the one group of people.

So making party of 6 a basic feature of the game? Big no. Making engine handle party of 6 so mods will allow it without any problems? Yes, go with it.

i agree with your thoughts that at this stage in the game it may be difficult to accomplish, particularly if larian has designed the game as you indicated above around a party of 4 (we sure this is the case?) - but respectfully i disagree and think that making 6 the party size should be the standard as it was the standard in the og bg games and this is supposed to be bg3 (altho reviewing some other posts i feel like some would prefer this as dos2: baldurs gate edition - i dont see enough significant enhancements/improvements to this game that would cause me to even call it dos3). also, please note that by making the standard be 6 slots still allows for players to have a 4 person party (or solo plays) so having a party of 6 isnt alienating a segment of the fan base whereas the reversal seems to be as a card carrying member of the pro6 party. and again, you say that the game is balanced around a party of 4, but larian themselves has said that you can recruit 'mercs' to round out a party and some have been able to get up to 6 in mp so does this argument really hold any weight?

i still struggle to see any concrete points as to why larian wouldnt want to bump the party size up to 6 other than
-resources/money (they just crushed their ea sales so i doubt that is the case - if anything it should show them the potential this game has and reinforce larians desire to work with the community to make the game even better than it is currently),
-timing (we are still a year out and this is the whole purpose of ea feedback, and larian has released multiple support patches post their dos1/2 launches so i suppose this could be done similarly, but i have my apprehensions),
-mods will do it (spending $60 on an ea game where one of the largest feedback points isnt being heard only so mods can support or what many consider fix a primary gameplay mechanic just doesnt sit well with me),
-balancing issues (which i dont think has a lot of weight given if you are lucky/save scum with die rolls you can bypass various encounters - i also dont think encounters [outside of random encounters/mobs, which is another game mechanic that larian seems to be moving away from relating to the og bg games] should scale either, as it detracts from a sense of character progression if the world levels with your party but thats a post for another thread)

i would just refer folks to the variety of valid and thought out posts that discusses the rationale and reasoning for having a party of 6 be the standard while still allowing for solo and party of four runs, and challenge ppl to give productive and constructive critiques, around both good and bad aspects of the game, instead of falling back on any of the above tired arguments against parties of 6 or saying that from a sales perspective that larians way of doing things works (debateable) and most ppl agree with it (again, debateable) as this just comes across as excuse making/fanboyism for larian and really isnt productive.

@nation

Will expand my thinking. You assumption is that party of 6 should be standard, because of few reasons:

* Because previous games were like that. Indeed they were, but why we should we really stick with it? Both of this games are now archaic and are long closed story. I'm fan of both previous Baldur's Gate games, but being honest here. Without sentimental aspect Baldur's Gate 1 is just good game with average story and it didn't pass the test of time. Baldur's Gate 2 looks much better in this aspect, but still it's a relic of the past. I won't go with all this seems like Divinity 3/ Divinity: Baldur's Gate talk- not only, because it isn't related to the topic at all, but also if someone remembers how many placeholders from DoS1 were in the EA for DoS2 then there is just no point to speak about it at this stage of game/EA. So I don't really see why we should hold argument like this at all.

* Without party of 6 some players will be alienated. Yes, maybe- maybe not. However, same will happen if they will change it to party of 6. Some people would say that now it's too much of party management, too chaotic or something else. Also if they will change it once then another group will rise saying something like make it party of 8 or party of 10, because system/game/universe XYZ haves it that way. Yes your argument here is valid, but same goes for any other party size. Also like you said that party of 4 being way to go is debatable, well same goes for party of 6 being consider fix for primary gameplay mechanic- it's debatable. No matter what someone won't like the final outcome.

* Is game really made around party of 4? Yes and overall fight balance is lesser concern here. We talking about things like story, narration, dialogue system and other mayor mechanics and aspects of the game. This project is huge already which is reflected in pure numbers and statistics (at least compared to theirs previous game). In the end changing it would consume set amount of manpower to once again please just one group of people in the end.

Another things why should they stick with party of 4 is overall vision for the game. They had something in mind and it's one of the core/ground rules/aspects for game like this. It's kind of like asking devs of Pathfinder to make game around party of 4 for various valid reasons. Sometimes creators just must go with things that thought will be the best for theirs game.



Valid solution would be adding another play mode with party of 6 and maybe things like Active Pause mode in Enhanced Edition sometime after the premiere. This game really needs valid polish and improvements, so there is just no time and it's unnecessary to try please everyone with very personal taste based things now.

i appreciate the response my dude, and i do want to say that my earlier post didnt mean to single you out but instead to speak to some of the larger themes ive seen in ppls counterarguments to the base 6person party size (while still allowing for ppl to do solo and 4man runs using their 6 'party slots' - like how you can currently still do solo runs despite the 4party limit), so my apologies for that - but, respectfully i pretty much disagree or have issues with every position you made in your response lol
this is all mainly related to the 6 v 4 person party debate:

-bc the previous bg games were like this - ya and this is supposed to be bg3, but i do agree that the bhaalspawn plot should be tossed

-bc the previous bg games are 'dated' and were just good or are currently looked at thru rose colored glasses - i just think this is plain false given that baldurs gate is credited with reviving the genre, has universal 4/5 or 9/10 star reviews, and is the standard which many like games are now compared to and from which many of the games since have drawn inspiration. bg was 'the' computer dnd game and was so good that now 20 years later they are still selling copies of the game (which as an aside speaks to the overall lack of 'new' or innovation in the gaming industry given all of the new definitive/enhanced/next gen rereleases of older games) and to be frank, i think the hype for this game had more to do with the title being bg3 than having larian as the developer. i understand that was adnd rules tho so i can be sympathetic to the issues in adapting 5e, but i didnt anticipate such a drastic departure in some aspects and could do with more 5e rules/mechanics in some of these areas (surfaces, food, elevation, etc.)

-i actually dont think theres enough innovation from dos2 in this game for it to get a new number, so i agree the dos3 talk is premature, but i think dos2: bg is valid given the merging of the game mechanics, origin v custom characters, shared limited party size, dos2 party and camera control, and dos2 like narrative weve got so far (ie shared plot/narrative with our companions with tadpoles in this instance, possible limited companion choice after the first act, act maps, even being a survivor on a beach) - but i agree also with what you said about this being ea so alot of things are subject to change so all we can really do is just theorycraft at this point

-without a party of 6 some players will be alienated - yes. thats it. you argue that the same will happen for ppl who prefer 4 over 6 - i agree that some ppl may, but i dont think this is correlated as you suggest. with having a party of 6, players can still opt in to just running a party with 4 members - you still have choice. by limiting party size to 4 you dont even have the option in the base game to have 6 companions. and if its too much party management, or chaotic, or 'something else' for a player, they can still opt to just run 4 and avoid such a hassle that 6 members may present.

-if they change it will ppl ask for them to increase it further? - maybe, thats true. i agree at some point that you would need to limit party size, but your rationale that xyz system or game has it doesnt carry much water if you ask me, as the xyz we should be caring about here is the og bg games (id like more allusions to the forgotten realms too just as an aside) which had up to 6members and shares the same name as this game. im actually having some difficulty thinking of any similar rpg game that has party dynamics that has 8-10 party members? any suggestions - being serious, actually sounds fun to play, lol

-i agree with your overall point that whats best for 4v6 is up for debate/interpretation/personal preference - but what i am arguing for and asking that larian implements is the option for you to still play with a party of 4 while allowing for a party of up to 6 so we both as players can win and enjoy the game, while those in the pro4 party seem to be advocating against players being able to have that option and thereby artificially limiting our choices/options. when framed this way, not considering costs/resources/etc. which is another facet of this question, i dont really think its up for debate. larian should implement up to 6 party members - can they and will they are two different questions.

-your next two points around if the game is really made around a party of 4 and their overall vision for the game - i think this is a larger discussion about what larians vision for the game was when they first began development to where it is now that they are receiving feedback from the community, so i guess my response to that is that i just disagree with what their vision for this game should be in regards to this specific party size topic as alot of other ppl have also voiced in the forum and this is purposefully the opportunity to give feedback in the hope that larian considers as they work to create the game? and i would say that the group of ppl in the pro6 or unaligned and dont care is the larger segment of the bg community and again this change wouldnt take away your ability to run4. regarding what the scope of such an overhaul may be in terms of resources, and larian isnt some small indie developer, idk if i have a lot of sympathy for that rationale, especially considering the numbers they just got from the ea. i am also skeptical about how 'difficult' implementing two additional characters to your party would be (frankly, i also think the game could do with more interparty interactions and companion input during dialogue encounters) or if it would really imbalance encounters (which is another topic) and again, it just comes off as empty rationalizing.

-i dont really care about the devs for pathfinder since we are talking dnd 5e here, but relating to creators sticking with their vision for a game thru to launch - for every one you can find im sure you could also find a multiple more that either made changes based on feedback and were better for it or didnt make changes and didnt make it. constructive feedback can only work to improve a game (or anything really) and saying things like 'sometimes creators just must go with things that thought will be the best for theirs game.' isnt in any way productive or meaningful feedback

-what you said about a valid solution being multiple game modes i agree with, and you also mention RTwP (which, lol oddly enough as someone who really enjoyed the og bg games im against as i think turnbased fits 5e and dnd better), but then you state that the game needs real polish and theres no time and its unnecessary to try to please everyone so lets wait and hope to get these in enhanced editions - i think that mentality sets such a low bar for larian and the expectations for what should be the re-invigoration of what has long been considered a flagship franchise in the genre, so i just dont prescribe to it.

to wrap, ill just say that i have been enjoying my experience playing this game in ea - for the most part it sounds like the majority of us all are, but i disagree with some of the changes in game design from the predecessors to larians iteration and havent really found any concrete or substantive reasoning as to why larians way of doing it is better

From a sales perspective, OK I mean they already got my 70 some odd bucks. I'm sure they could cash out now, not change anything substantial out of EA feedback, "stay true to their vision" or "stick to their guns" or insert whatever euphemism we like for essentially ignoring the feedback, even after consideration. But it'd also make me a lot less inclined to buy an expansion or sequel if that was their approach.

Party of 6 isn't a complete deal breaker for me, though I really do think its better on the merits and not just purely based on my nostalgia for the archaic. 4 does not feel Epic enough for me, but perhaps if they listen to feedback in other substantive areas my disappointment about that can be allayed. I actually think it will be better for the points like narration, story, dialogue system and every other mechanic I can think of to have 6. Most issues I have with micromanagement currently have way more to do with UI organization and pathing fails, than the number of PCs I'm controlling in the party. Everyone is already following me to camp anyway, so I basically already do have a party of 6, at least for many of the narrative components, I just don't get to have them along for the ride when actually playing. It may be a matter of taste, but I'd much rather have 5 companions than 3, since I think it would be more engaging all around.

I bought this thing mainly because I wanted to support the franchise and have high hopes for BGIII. I fully expected the EA to be half baked, and this still feels very much like an incomplete game atm. I've enjoyed it, but its also missing many features that I would have expected and the lack of the 5th and 6th party slot is not the clunkiest of clunky things going on right now.

They need to work on stuff like camera control and party movement pathing, inventory and spell management, hotbars and general UI stuff too. Which all seems way more important to me than scaling the difficulty levels around a particular party size or balancing combats etc just yet. Balancing is a long haul. How much balancing are they going to be able do anyway if we are only testing a 3rd of the game in EA? I'd prefer 6, maybe I'm old fashioned though I don't know. I think this is low hanging fruit, and would likely please more people than it would annoy, but that's just my anecdotal sense of things. For everyone motivated enough to actually post on forums, leave a review, or join a discord to yammer away about stuff there are probably a couple dozen players who just go with what's given and wouldn't be chiming in. I don't have a sense of what most people want, but I know what matters to me. I think they'd be unlikely to get another 70 bucks out of me at this point. Especially if its just like thanks for the feedback and for helping us to find and crush all these bugs, but we're going to hard pass on making any major changes due to already sunk costs. If its take 'it or leave it', I'm already taken I guess, but it leaves a bit of a bitter taste, since I really do have high hopes for this one. Plus it just seems like not particularly complicated to pull off. It not like they have to rebuild it from the ground up to make this happen. If its already in the MP game it should be there in SP too.

+1