-1 to the OP
I concur with Redwyrm for the reasons stated and for the reason having companions become more like camp-followers promotes BAD roleplaying. Fewer and deeper companions will always be preferable to me. Shifting out party members on the fly like some wants here is anathema to roleplaying.
I don't care what kind of challenges you wanna overcome as developers with party of 4 or what kind of challenges you wanna put before players with party of 4. It doesn't change the fact that party of 4 is too small for an immersive DnD game.
It takes away a lot party setup possibilites and I fed up with going back to the camp leave some one and take Astarion whenever I need perception and sleight of hands rolls.
4 is a recommended party size for DND 3e, 3.5e, 5e, PF 1e, and 2e.
I don't know where you got idea that party should be bigger
(and any DM would say you they definitely prefer party of 4).
Less than 4 - not enough versatility to overcome challenges.
More than 4 - too little attention for each character, and combat becomes too slow.
Combats are faster if you kill your ennemies faster.
You don't have to add creature because you have one more character. This is not how you balance a game. Many games are TB, have 6 companions, AND faster combats...
A sure way to make a party feel *less heroic* is to make every enemy stronger than the individual party members - and letting them know the only reason they win is because they have numbers on their side. To the contrary, most battles should be against larger numbers to enforce the feeling of "winning against the odds" and heroism.
So yeah, you don't kill enemies faster because challenge would naturally have to be adjusted to the parties increased capabilities. Having more or stronger enemies would make everyone more vulnerable towards spike damage. A character would be attacked more times, harder, before regaining their turn - making it much more likely combat turns against the party. The unavoidable consequence would be more save-scumming costing more time. Besides, I already feel saving in combat should not be allowed to disincentivize save-scumming and allow more suspense to build as there is more on the line.
Chess is turn-based and comes with a lot less complex rules than 5e. Every turn based game is NOT the same. 5e has a convoluted system which is hard to translate to the digital medium.
I don't really care the average... Average is not what you're supposed to do. This is as ridiculous as the argument saying "D&D is TB, so BG3 has to be TB".
And there we go. It's not only the party size and composition, it's turn-based vs real-time all over again. Kind of revealing of the strong sense of entitlement that drives people like you. When reality does not fit your preference in so many big ways, you rage against reality instead of accepting it for what it is.
Oh and D&D 5e is turn-based, so BG3 has to be turn-based. There, I said it. Not ridiculous at all! Especially when you consider the licence holders WotC want BG3 to promote the *current* D&D which is the 5e system. Larian being so good at turn-based combat was part of why WotC decided on giving them a crack at the classic title after so many years.
At least more than 40% don't like playing with only 4 characters. With a party size of 5 or even 6, 100% of the players are happy.
And 97% of statistics on the internut is made up on the fly. That you even think 100% happiness is possible marks you like lacking in common sense tbh.
