Im honestly sick and tired of this topic. Saying that the previous titles had it and therefor this one should have it is disengenous
No, it's not. But morei mportantly that's not even the main argument for it.
All those games pretty much came out roughly the same time.
Uh, no, they didn't.
Dnd itself isent balanced around 6 man parties
D&D can work with parties of most sized above 2 (3 suggested) but that's irrelevant because as we aready argued coutless times the ideal setup for a 4 players tabletop session and a single player RPG where your party is made out a bunch of premade characters are entirely different things.
and saying that upping the party size by 50% brings no balance issues to the table makes you look like you dont know what you are talking about.
The concerns about "perfect balance" in a game that 1) was never that balanced to begin with 2) it's still in early development with not a single encounter still being set in stone 3) it's a "player(s) versus environment experience where no one cares about perfect tuning are completely laughable.
Encounter difficulty sits on a very narrow balance.
No, it doesn't. Since the dawn of the genre encounter design has always been sitting on a very precarious line and basically any degree of inside knowledge about its inner work can break things to a hilarious degree.
Hell, some times breaking things is precisely what makes it fun.
Adding 50% more fighters to 1 side and not giving the other side something completly throws that balance out of the window.
WHo said shit about not giving the other side anything?
We are asking for six to be an officially supported setup precisely because it makes a difference compared to brute-forcing things with a mod.
