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

Im personally not that bothered by the 4 man party limit. Dnd is roughly balanced for that party size and have sat at many dnd tables with 4 man groups.

But more options to choose from for parties is always good and gives you so many more tactical options, it would be great!

Maybe Larian can offer an additional mode for 6 man groups? Dident DOS 2 have an option for more AP per turn and the like which was accompanied with a 'the game isent balanced for this' popup if you clicked it. Something simular could work just fine imo

I want to add my agreement to the 6 man party size. IT does not need to be full featured companions for the additional increase in party size. For example it could be the player hiring mercenaries that go along with the 3 companions. They do not need to have conversations with the other party members and it could be woven into the story somehow. As a example you could have the mercenaries recovering from a mind flayer removal and their mind being emotionless so they have no input on the actions of the party, Then you could make it so at the end of the story their have alignment personalities that reflect to what their personality will be at the end of the BG3 story. This could translate into DLC, as now the characters want to find out where they came from and then they make choices based on the alignment they have become in the story. It add to the complexity of the battle the player could have and allows for a lot more creativity in battle with strategy.

This game feels too much like Divinity orginal sin with just 4 party members. At least Pillars of eternity 2 did not shrink down to 4 (pillars of eternity 1 had 6 party members) and let the player hiring mercenaries to fill in the slots where needed. I know its a lot more work to have 5 full featured companions in the game, but their are ways, like Pillars of Eternity 2 did, that can make it work. The player also did not have to take 5 party members in that game if he or she wanted to, it just had the option of having 5 party members (6 would be better).

I really like this idea.
For one, it fits in with what early editions of Basic (B/X) D&D and AD&D 1e did with hirelings and mercenaries. For another, it's similar to Gale (without being Gale) in that Gale has to be "paid" in magic items. Mercenaries and hirelings might have similar requirements. They might consume the party funds in gold, or like the dialogue with Lump the Enlightened implies, in food. They could also require certain types of magic items be assigned to them, or only be available until they receive a certain quest item or fulfill a certain story condition. In that way, they would be similar to regular NPC characters, but in a more limited way. Sovereign Glut is a good example of this. He has his own reason for joining the party, is there for a specific amount of story time, and then leaves once his goals are met.

I still think 5 players would be fine. D&D game, mostly, have a warrior/tank, a rogue to pick locks/ more dps, a wizard, and a healer. That's the basic meta party. If my main character is a mage, then who do I leave behind when heading into the goblin fort with Wyll (cause of his quest)? In my first playthrough I left Astarion behind... just meant I had to go through it all again with him for the locks and stuff. Just seems kind of arbitrarily annoying.
Just one extra spot would be enough, and shouldn't require THAT much of a difficulty tweak to make it work.

+1

So far the game seems like a downgrade version of DOS2.

Same here! 5 is the best.

Given that Larian probably won't give us either, why settle for the mediocrity of 5 when we can dream the excellence of 6?
Also, six gives us a symmetric formation, which totally counts as a bonus.

Nah - 4 is perfect, 6 would change the entire nature of the game....this Just works so well ..

No, it isn't.
No, it wouldn't.
And no, currently it really doesn't.

Just being bold in stating bullshit doesn't turn it into a proper argument.

With a 4 man party virtually every spell that requires concentration just blows. Doing pretty much anything breaks concentration, and its not like pnp where the dm can scale things on the fly based on what the PCs are doing on the regular. The way they have the combats set up here, I don't even know why they bothered implementing concentration as a thing. But at least if we had 6 its somewhat more viable for one party member to be running interference. Give the priests a reason to cast something other than guiding bolt lol.

I wish they'd at least try it before deciding apriori that it would hose everything they've built so far.

I keeping hearing how 5e on the table top is balanced for 4, or 3-5 which the dmg calls "ideal." That's because in PnP most DMs will have trouble prepping and managing a campaign for more than 5 people.
A typical dining room table seats 6. So sure, 5 seats for the players and the gamemaster at the head probably is ideal in PnP. But this is a computer game!

Why should we settle for less than the max? 6 is the max

6 is generally acknowledged to be upper limit, and its of course harder to run a campaign for a party that size. But again, this is a computer game, it isn't one dude running the show. This is more like having 20 DMs, who had a year just to plan out the campaign. They should be able to make it work for an epic size party, which is 6.

The party dynamic runs differently in a single player cRPG than it does on the table top. Here's a great article extolling the merits of smaller parties in a typical table top session... very little of it actually applies to our situation, for the simple reason that we don't really have 4 players. We have one player controlling 4 PCs. But it'd be cooler if they were controlling 6!

https://www.dungeonsolvers.com/2018/06/22/the-ideal-party-size-for-dd-5e/

Seriously, I just go down the list there and nod, but with the caveat that this situation isn't typical and this isn't like a standard session. This is Baldur's Gate

While on caveats, I do think Multiplayer has different needs on balance, and 4 is maybe more appropriate. But I don't think even there that most people will log a 4 man MP session. Co-Op I'm sure is just much easier to organize. But BG really has to nail it for SP, and for that they just can't go wrong with 6. 6 is the money play!

A full party of 6 also mean they can't just gimp out with lemming style controls for party movement. If there are 6 PCs + summons on the screen that means they need solid pathing for the party movement. Right now they can maybe get away with ham fisted controls and body blocking chain magnets individual jumps and whatever. Whereas to do 6 they'd need to streamline and make it hum proper. They should be doing it now so there is time to iron out the kinks.

Isn't that the whole point of doing an EA anyway, to see how far they can take it?

Push it the limit!

Sextus!

Heheh

There is a world of difference between 4 Humans and one Human + 3 NPC.

With only simulated people it's a safe thing to go with 50% more to get similar dynamics. Computers are great at combat but there can't be any actual spontaneous situations and no matter how great banter has been written, it doesn't add up to the table-top experience

Exactly. Notice that they had to institute the homebrew rules to make up for the smaller party. With the lowered AC the need to cast bless and others buffs is reduced. Make one cleric front liner, another support Same goes for abjurer wizards -- so far the class is inferior to evoker but in a 6 party one wizard could blast and another protect.

More members means more banters and more tactical combat because there are strategies to used with two members of the same classes. And there just isn't a place for a bard in a 4 person party -- bards do lots of things but no one thing very well.




And yet the modules say 4-5 or 4-6 and critical role runs with 6 or more. And I also think we need to keep marketing in mind, this ideal number is designed to say "look you don't need to convince everyone and their dog to join your game you can do with a few friends".

And I'll say it again, it's not just D&D it's Baldurs Gate which has always had a party of 6.

-1

This is an issue of balance between the camp that complains about combat taking too long and the ones who complain more is better.

I'm in the camp of wanting choices to matter, wanting to be mindful of party composition as opposed to just blurting out yes please.
I'm in the camp of wanting fewer companions rather than more because the latter invariably leads to each being given less development time and thus tend to be less interesting.

I'm pro companion as opposed to camp-follower though, if we have many companions I don't appreciate an arbitrary limit on how many we could use. I want a realistic roleplaying reason as to why we leave that grizzled warrior, that powerful mage, or more likely...Shadowheart in camp while the rest of the party risk their lives.

I see lots of good arguments being made on various points here on this issue. So I won't get into too much of the stuff that has already been covered. With the current 4 party size, I haven't had much issue. Sure, sometimes larger battles can at times make me wish the enemy AI would move faster so I can do a turn again. Those battles, sometimes give a feeling that having a bigger pool of characters to act with would be nice, especially when it feels like one of the turns is being wasted picking up or healing a downed character over and over. Fights where the enemy spawns more such as the phase spider and mephits really have me feeling party size, but that again comes down to the turn ratio kind of issue. Ability to get any set of enemies' HP down hasn't been an issue. Times where my whole party manages to fail a perception check are annoying, but I am unsure if more party would help much in that area.

I'm on the fence right now with this debate on party size, perhaps when there are more companions revealed it will be easier to feel out the need for more slots. It would open up a luxury of opening a little bit more battle role versatility for clerics/shadowheart if they didn't as often have to be the dedicated healer. That said, as much as I like the notion of having more people in my party to be able to explore the respective characters banter,clashes and class abilities in one playthrough, I have to recognize that multiple playthroughs are encouraged by a restriction in that area.

Man, this could very be the worst post in the thread, even among the ones on the WRONG side of this argument (because yes, there's a wrong one).

4 fits fine.

Fits what?
We aren't filling holes here.

The statement that there is such a thing as a wrong side in a argument about party seems rather wrong to me... whats next, people are going to say there is such a thing as a wrong opinion?

Of course there is.
Most opinions that come from a position of ignorance and are built on wrong assumptions are completely worthless, for instance.
Well, unless your goal is to poll "What clueless people think" on a given topic.

Tuco, I rue the day you and are opposite sides of an issue. Luckily, in this instance we are both on the side of objective truth.

I find the "less is good enough" position baffling. Why would you use EA time to say "good enough"? I mean really, it take me back. You can't argue that 4 feels like BG. You can't argue that 4 is ideal for D&D and the can't argue that give you more content. The closest thing to argument is repeating what the devs had said "combat last too long" but I don't think that's much of an argument. Or isn't one at all. With 6 parties you can use different strategies, combine the strengths of different classes and *even if that all seems wrong* you can still just take 4 along. But it wrong as anyone who tried the mod knows.

My honest to goodness best guess is that "4 is fine" sentiment springs from a desire to side with devs and show that you know how video games work. I really can't think of another reason.