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

I couldn't agree with you more. I've been doing great with my Trisha<Ranger/Knight; Shadowheart<cleric>, Gale<mage>, and Astarion<thief> Since I've learned the gameplay mechanics of the game the party has been able to pretty much handle any situation for which they have run into. Of course, we've not been to the Underdark yet.<LOL> But it seems that 4 is a good number any more than that would just be a pain in the ass.

Honest question, I see a pretty clear split within the overall fantasy RPG genre between top-down isometric RPGs like OG BG and Pillars of Eternity using a max-6 party* and 3D games like the various Dragon Age titles capping at 4 at most. Is there a 3D RPG that uses 6? Not counting any summons, of course, as in both cases there are optional summonable creatures/familiars that don't count towards party size, depending on your choices.

*Or 5 for PoE2, but I'm still counting it.

Sadly not that I can think of, which is why it would have been cool for BG3 to be that game.

I feel like I've already seen this game with the party of 4 or 3 or 1+henchman done several times now. Its sort of same old same old at this point, and not particularly Baldur's Gate in the feel. A 3D game built with a full party of 6 in mind would have been more of an innovation.

A pain because control are terrible... Everything is not about combats and difficulty.
This is a party management game and 6 companions gives better party management opportunities.

5 is also a better number than 4...
4 is way too limited and works in game that have a very limited number of class/subclasses or suit to players that will play the game way more than once.

This is D&D, not DoS... There are so many classes and many won't have the opportunity to play with less common classes with only 3 companions...
Druid, barbarian, monk, bard,... These are usually classes you choose as a 5th or 6th companions if you don't know the game and play a "classic" party composition.

That's exactly why a lot of us love BG1/2.
I could always play with the characters I liked (fighter, Ranger/Rogue, Wizard, Cleric/Druids) AND add a little bit variety and/or originality in the team (paladins, druids + cleric, barbarian, more than only 1 caster,...)

Maybe we need a party at 3 people? Like Mass Effect!
4 is somehow a lot, this like in all other RPG games, "classics of the genre".

though one of the hardest parts of getting into bg3 was the 4 vs 6 party size. i would be grateful for it, given some shifts.

currently including npcs we have 6 people. perhaps once the game opens up this is alraedy going to be adressed, i dont know, yet vidoes of someone making a single player party of four, show a fifth while on nautloid as it was an npc. there is room on that bracket space for 6... it may be intended especially since the fifth ( npc ) easily plopped in.

my actual concerns are not shared experience... let the thieves get that lil boost for disarming that trap. let the warrior who kicks the door down get his warrior exp etc. if everyone levels up at the same pace... why give them seperate exp bars. ( i know the answer why they do, im backing up my point to have them not level together 100% ) this will make having 6 members more fruitful, ill want to pick who really is with me, maybe swap em out from time to time. thats how i play. i dont want to add someone back to find out we are all equally as powerful, when homegirl sat at the camp all day untill i needed that paladin.

6 would make the game a cakewalk. its already easy solo.

Chiming in with another opinion that probably nobody needs to hear but anyway...

I'm firmly in the camp that believes a 4 person party feels too restrictive; certainly in terms of feeling forced to squeeze as balanced a party a possible into 4 characters and also because of the general RP flavour, party interactions, etc. It's by no means set in stone as we have the freedom to compose our party however we see fit but the standard composition of a balanced 4 person party might be: Melee specialist, Caster, Healer, Rogue. I find this creates a quandary of who do you take/who do you leave out? Bards, Rangers and Druids have some crossover with the aforementioned classes but are more hybrid.

For example, with 4 people max you are either forced to take a rogue or try to create another class which specialises in locks/traps and that just feels...strange? I can understand that certain classes (Ranger, Bard) might have have some ability in these particular skill sets but in general you would expect someone who has dedicated their life to a particular study/vocation would be an expert in what they have studied/practised. Generally speaking a Cleric, Mage, Fighter, etc. would not be expected to be an expert in lock picking and disarming traps...though of course you can roll a character to have these skills, at the expense of others you might require in game.

6 would be ideal but I would happily compromise on 5.

+1 repost for 6 open slots for party members - let the players decide how many companions they want to roll with

a party of 6 will make the fight

longer and more tedious.

you have to increase the number of enemy too

will not happen "officially" but surly with mods

individual initiative is bad when there is 27 + enemy


we would need "group" initiative

I +1 your specific +1.

Please explain how increasing potential output of a party by 50% "make[s] the fight longer and more tedious" when the number of enemies stays constant.

Why do you have to increase the number of enemies? If the reason is because "this would make most (current) combat encounters too easy" then modify the encounters (increase difficulty) without increasing the number of enemies.

This is 'DM has to adjust campaign to accommodate an additional player' basic 101. ...Strahd is gonna get 10% more HP and now does 1d10+5 damage with his main (unarmed) attack.

The idea would be to rebalance the encounters so that difficulty level was unchanged which would be relatively easy given that only one chapter has even been semi-finalised. Hence why people are advocating for an increase in party size now - the further into game development the greater the amount of work to rebalance the game would require. If they don't want a bigger party for whatever reason I'd rather they say so up front and give us their reasoning rather than just let the debate drag on until the point where making the required changes would simply be too time consuming.

As for letting the mod community solve the problem - that's basically just dodging the issue. I can't see someone modding the game to allow a larger party and then go through every single encounter in the game to balance it out, and do a good job of it, aside from the additional time that would take after the game launched.

I'd be cool with a party of 6. I think it would make for some really awesome additional fun in adventuring. But! There's got to be way more companions, and way more companion on companion interactions.

I believe the game is most likely just gonna stay a 4 member group game tho. Its a staple and works well enough.

I agree about a party of 6. I think, the difference between a D&D game and Dragon Age for example is, that's A only has 3 classes. So you can have them and maybe another mage with a different skill set or a dual wielding and an archer rogue... and you are fine. In a D&D game you have a variety of classes and I want a) try them all out and b) have a character for every situation-a cleric or druid for healing, a thief for traps, a fighter standing in the front, a bard for buffs, a mage or a Ranger for ranged attacks and or crowd control... it's a much more complicated class system and I think if the encounters are scaled to a party of 6, that could be a lot of fun.

also afaik D&D started out as an army game simulator and the first 2 editions had whole rulesets for commanding whole armies and encounters could have 300 enemies I know 3e and onwards focussed more on parties but to be locked to a small group of 4 with people saying 'oh you're too full up' is incredibly weird to me knowing the history of the game, the current party is rather anemic and missing a lot of options, even in act 1 I find myself swapping in and out party members constantly because they're actually bringing something interesting to the story beats rather than silent companions + if you actually want to follow up on their stories you need to be bringing them constantly for approval & for them to actually open up their background stories as some of those are locked behind reactions they have to your actions or things you encounter during the game.

No update on if 6 men will be a thing?

YA - They need to make this game just LIKE D&D... As many or few players as you want.

I'm sure the UI technology can handle this now... This aint no 80s gold box game.

I agree but I read elsewhere that the 4 person party limit might have to do with the co-op play mechanics of BG3 and also a potential console port down the line. If that is the case and it stays as 4 max, then it is a real shame. I would like to know the stats on percentages of people who play solo and those who play co-op.

If balancing encounters and mechanics for co-op gameplay on consoles truly is their main rationale for maxing at 4, that would indeed be a shame. Like why not just develop the thing for consoles in that case, and be up front about it? Or target the EA at PC players with controllers now, instead of punishing us with a controller style scheme that's forced into a mouse and keyboard experience here?

I think it would be more expedient to develop the encounters with a full party of 6 in mind, if only because in a video game there are more ways to manage the challenge for a scaled down party (at the players discretion) than are for a scaled up party after the fact with mods. Like it doesn't always have to be about adding or subtracting monsters in encounters (although it could be if they wanted). For example a smaller co-op party might just be given additional special starting equipment, like say a ring that provides bonuses or buffs, or some other reward for rolling with a tighter crew at the outset. Things that might make sense in-universe without busting immersion. This could be something that happens when you launch a game as co-op and knowing it will max at 4 because that's how consoles are geared, with the settings scaled to match the playstyle.

Also aren't co-op and single players both probably more interested in ways to increase the challenge generally (by rolling with a smaller crew) than they are in decreasing the challenge by rolling with a larger crew than intended? Like esp if the only option for the later is via mods?

Like its a silly logic, but if the idea is that a game geared for 4, is really more about making sure its still fun for a party of 2 or 3 (which is probably more likely in co-op) then the game is probably less engaging when you actually do manage to get 4 people together at the same time. And I guess its also a shame if you happen to have a 5th friend, who just doesn't make the cut because 'not enough controllers dude!' lol.

Why does this have to be Golden Eye in the living room? Don't we have the internet for that now? Hehe

It just seems weird to fixate on strict balancing for a party 4, when there is a ready solution in the DMG and most materials for adapting campaigns to parties of different sizes... like say 3 vs 5. Or if a party is just demonstrably too weak to handle the campaign and the PCs keep getting their asses handed to them... like if they are just going to get TKO'd in every encounter, you'd kind of expect the DM to make an effort and adjust some of the CRs in the encounters to fit the actual group, so it remains enjoyable, instead of just being a sadist about it. Or from the other end, if its the players who are being all masochistic and opting to roll light in a game balanced around 6 party members, that's a ready way for players to make things more interesting/challenging for themselves with a party of 2 or 3 or 4 handled that way. But there's no encounter scaling in this one that I've seen.

I'm with Ianthebea on this one, but mainly because 6 just fits my idea of what a Baldur's Gate game should be. Its a significant source of disappointment for me with the current game and I worry that its just going to mean fewer companions, worse party management controls, and a generally 'less than epic' vibe later if they don't start shoring it up here.