Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback The Party Size is Too Small, and it's Divinity: Original Sin's Fault!

I've now got about 30 hours in the game, and the number one issue I have is that the party size is too small, by at least one character. And I firmly believe the reason has to do entirely with Divinity: Original Sin.

In BG3, you have a party of characters who must work together to achieve their shared goal(s). To be successful, the party will generally require the following things:
- A healer who can keep the party on it's feet.
- A tank of some sort who can help protect the squishier folks and dish out some damage.
- A magic user who can provide access to mystical tools.
- A utility character who can accomplish tasks like opening locks, disarming traps and generally being rather sneaky.

In a system with a maximum party size of 4, and all characters using a class based system, it is extremely difficult to cover all of these needs and still have room to bring along a party member you're fond of who already has their class-based role filled. For example, if I want to play a Warlock, it is rather difficult to bring Wyll or Gale with me without handicapping my party's capabilities. (Yes, I know Gale can learn healing spells right now, but that needs to be addressed as well).

Larian was able to get away with this in DOS because they did not use a fixed, class based system. Any character could learn any skill in the game, so you could completely mix and match your companions with the ability to train or rebuild them to ensure good party composition. BG3 on the other hand uses classes, and while we will eventually be able to multiclass, I think that will struggle to provide the flexibility needed to have party members who can excel at their role and still cover a secondary role to a sufficient enough level to free up a party spot. This leaves the player in the unfortunate position where their party composition will generally be dictated entirely by class and role, with no room for personality or character interest.

Getting the party size to six is likely a rather unworkable solution when it comes to balance and performance, but I really hope Larian will consider increasing the size to five to allow players to bring along their favorite companion, even if they are a bit redundant or ineffectual.

I highly doubt it has anything to do with DOS II.
4 is a very common party size, especially for Games which support Multiplayer and even more on Console.

That you can not have any utility in the group is exactly the point i think.
You have to make choices and this also adds more replayability to the game.

To me it doesnt matter if ots a 3, 4 oder 6 Party, but blaming DOS again is just random., i think there are good reasons for a 4- party

Not really. Just give the enemys higher levels, or add a few more.
Goblins for example are not known for being formidable fighters individually.
They just breed like Rabbits and overwhelm with sheer numbers.

We encounter a lot of Gobs in the EarlyAccess version but the groups itself NEVER felt overwhelming.

The combat AI is also leaving much to be desired.
It sometimes stops mobs from following you over a certain distance.
Or they just attack you with obvious disadvantages.
I wish they would seek out cover sometimes.


And a greater partysize in general seems very desirable.
Since the encounters would be way more epic and it may also allow for much more tense feeling powerhouse enemys to appear.

Enemys like
* the Owlbear
* the Minotaurs
* the Beholder Demon

Ultimately I know they are balanced to be defeatable with 4 groupmembers.
I liked this sense of dread when I entered battle with unfavourable positioning. No eternal Easymode hell yeah.
And if 5 or 6 people stand in a bad place, the Bigshots balanced for max-party seize will feel even more overpowering.

There is one thing I regret not trying back then.
Just shooting at the Red Dragon with an Arrow before the dialoge scene starts.

Can nothing give me a total sense of hopelessnes and despair? Apparently not. Not if I can place my group with foresight.
But I feel the RedDragon + his Githyanki bastards would truly push it to the limit.
Just how I like it.

Actually, you don't need a healer because you can throw food and potions at people. And anyone with decent DEX can open locks, disarm traps and be sneaky.

With 330+ hours the easiest party was me as a Dex Ranger, Lae'zel, Gale, and Wyll. And I dont do cheese.

Mostly agreed. Try the mod. 6 works just fine. Needs to implemented. Otherwise it's not Baldur's Gate, full stop.

It's a more natural size for multiplayer and we will be able to cover everything we need with 4 characters party.

We will have 8 companions to select from that will plug in whatever holes our main will have - there are not really that many skills there that are irreplaceable and if it comes to that, every character can use skills without proficiencies just fine too, just losing the proficiency bonus.

You don't need the specific roles. You can solo this game using a bit of creativity so you definitely can have 4 of any role in your party. Remember, food heals, potions are frequently found, and anyone can use scrolls. This can cover the healer and mage type roles easily. If you like ranged and stealth play, you don't need a tank role, just use some tactical positioning and brains. If you prefer the tank role you might need someone for extra dps (haven't tried solo tank yet so not sure) but this someone can most likely be any class. For traps and locks, just have someone with sleight of hand and perception. Not getting into the party number debate, combat turns are already painfully slow even with soloing.

I am glad games are getting away from the forced roles, there is more fun to be had, imo, in a non traditional party.

You really don't need any specific classes. Take whatever companions you want, you can still do fine.

People will spout the trite excuse that "4 men is the recommended party for tabletop sessions".
But that's a pointless "apples and oranges" comparison. P&P with 4 people to consume in short bursts and a single player campaign sprawling across 80-100 hours are two very different things and beg for a very different degree of variety.
Meaning that, yes, a party limited to four is abysmal for variety.

That said, we already had a good dozen of threads about this very topic, included what's literally the most popular one in this section: https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=679595#Post679595
At least until the one begging for more bikini armors won't top this as well.



"Need" is overrated. This is not really about what's needed, as much as being about the enjoyment that comes from opening to an exponentially greater number of combinations.

I know it exists, I even crossed it at some point, but I can't track it back to save my life.
Care to give me a little help so I can experiment a bit with it?

I'm still dubious only about the fact that until Larian (hopefully) revamps the way the party controls, moving six men with the current UI may turn out to be the stuff of nightmares.
Which is part of the reasons I consider that revamp basically a mandatory prerequisite for my future enjoyment of this game.

Oh, well why are we stopping at 6, then? I demand 8-person party! No, 10! No, 12-person party! Let's get exponential AF.

Because we people of fine taste love balanced middle grounds.

I, for one, would love to individually jump my 12 party members over every gap.

Temple of Elemental Evil came with a prestigious 8-men party.
You can start from there.

It's safe to say the only reason it is 4 is because dos2 had 4, and to do anything else means changing the system, hence extra work. I don't find it particularly problematic, but a lot of people here find it to be a very bad decision

Lets have a little look at the DMG and some 5e Modules, should we?

DMG on building encounters:



3-5, okay... we could just take the average I guess. What would that be? Ah right: 4.

And now some Modules:



Is there any number, that seems to be coming up more than others?

So stop blaming DOS2, just to have some cheap shot arguments. The more probable thing is that DOS2 has only 4 PCs, due to Larian wanting to get the BG3 licence from WOTC.

How hard can it be to put just one more character in and make it five?

Not looking at the game balance in particular but whenever I imagined any kind of fantasy adventurer group, dungeon goers or whatever, I always imagined five people. Always.
Six feels a little on the weighty side.
Four feels like one of them got cold feet and ran off.

Was it really just only four as well in OriginalSimp2? ^_^
I didn't even remember.

All I remember was that Archers were super OP with their highground bonusses.

Not hard at all, if the already existing mods that added it is any indication

It doesn't.

It is already implemented. When you start a custom 4player Party you can have 5 and possibly 6 people in your party (your 4 customs + Laezel + Us)

It is a conscious decision and has absolutely nothing to do with Larian being lazy or any of the other "reasons" people give just because they are salty about it.