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

Sure there is a problem with using RtwP examples but TOEE did just great with larger parties. TOEE had lots of problems but combat wasn't one of them.

Get onto the Solasta forums right now and you will find people discussing how to build characters to replace the thief -- do you build the ranger into the lockpicker / trap disabler or is better to give that to the greenmage? It's a problem I'd rather not deal with. I liked the BG2 party -- lockpicker, meat shield, healer, archer, mage, wildcard.

In a 4 person party I just don't have space for wildcard (sorry bard) and I don't like the building against class strengths -- yeah you can make the bard the trap disabler or have the mage pick locks but that's just not as much fun as having a thief in the party.

The 6 basic attributes also kind of imply a full party of six, so you can roll with an exemplar of each.

Well...

Apparently they CAN combine threads. A bit wonkily since everything is just kinda jumbled together now but reading back through it all I guess it's not too terribly incoherent.

I wanted to try and summarize a few things, maybe, I'm not sure it's possible after reading most of the day with a brain turned to jello now... but I'll try for a few things I think at least.


1. Char Number Options - 6 players doesn't have to detract from those that prefer less. Having the option there would be really nice though for those that DO want to play with a larger party size. You can always play with less but you can't just add more if it's not build into the game. Yes mods are possible however I always greatly prefer something actually be built into the game, primarily for stability but also overall functionality & integration. Well after DOSII had been out we tried using mods to increase party size and monsters etc and it was WONKY in multiplayer. We didn't even make it off the island before the game was so broken it wasn't possible to progress. In singleplayer we were able to make them work but it took a few play through to figure out how to balance monsters so that char were about the same level they should be and combat was still challenging. It wasn't THAT hard though such that some people make it sound like it would be impossible or take forever or something. Two regular arse casual gamers didn't have too bad of a time figuring it out...

2. Story - My gf has never played the original baldurs gate games, however she has played the crap out of DOSII. What was the first thing she wanted to do with the game? Mod it so she could have ALL the story characters in her party at once and do all of their stories in one play through. (This required messing around with balancing mods quite a lot, which is another issue.) Neither of us minded bigger battles, more monsters (Some people actually enjoy more/longer combat when it's well implemented.) Of course those that want less, can always just do the game with less characters, 2, 4, whatever. It was interesting to me how much she really liked all of the characters and their stories. She also bought the book with more of the stories they have. Would she have liked the game as much with less characters? I guess I don't know. Would she have liked it as much more? I again don't know but the answer logically seems yes, and it wasn't so much the number of playthroughs to achieve that because she's played through it a ton of times, apparently she just likes having more characters in the story in each of those playthroughs.

I thought it was interesting being that she's not really a big gamer but absolutely loves that game and has played it multiple times now with those mods on for basically more everything; more story, characters, monsters, combat. She has no issues managing what like 9 inventories and does so happily (with the special container mod on). Is this for everyone? Of course not. But she absolutely loves to play it that way so if the options were there, some people would enjoy them as opposed to the idea that anything over 4 is heresy and micromanagement sin. No one has to play that way or another if there are options, and options would be nice to have at the start.

3. Slog / Combat / Scaling / XP - There could be various difficulties & or a slider for number of monsters even & or a slider for monster stats, or all 3. Recommended presets for various party numbers. Or whatever combination of those options they wanted to present with. Experience can also be however they want to customize in relation to party based on the options available. Like you could adjust for larger party size with simply more monsters and thus there is your extra exp so chars are basically same level as a 4 char party would be at any given time so that exp can be split among party members but you can make it basically same for larger party by just adding more monsters, or you could have same number of monsters and just make them stronger & worth a little more XP to spread out relatively the same. Use a 2 char party with the normal 4 char number of monsters and level a bit faster if you want to play 2. Or try even more monsters and level even faster if you can survive. The slider could even be adjustable just like difficulty level at any time in between battles maybe. Doing these things would be like basically taking a lot of the best mods for DOSII and building them right into the game which would be FANTASTIC and help to suit someone that wants to play solo as much as those who would prefer all the wonderful flavor of a 6 character party along with a level of challenge the player prefers.

4. Time / Resource / I want mine no not yours - As others have pointed out many of the arguments against 6 characters seem to be based around being ok with 4. That's great you get what you want and you don't want it changed, but what about everyone else? A lot of people that I feel kind of mainly representing a younger demographic have primarily only had 4 player games, while a lot of the older games, ones us old farts remember and love, were 6. I've stated before that frankly I've been quite tired of 4 players seeming to be the unspoken maximum number of players for like 10+ years in games now and it drives me batty. Maybe it won't matter as much to me because I literally might not be around but that's been something that has irked me for a while as a sort of trend. I come from a large family and we frequently pass on games that are limited in the number of players because too many are left out. I digress. Anyway, arguments that time could be better used for this vs that is a matter of opinion and clearly there are lots of people that would definitely like some of that time/resources dedicated to at the very least making 6 characters an option and I think the option is the best compromise. Or depending on how XP / monster scaling possibilities / monster number possibilities maybe it doesn't so much have to be an option as the other options. You could have up to 6 and adjust the difficulty/number of monsters/monster strength however you like for the number of characters you plan to run. Everyone is happy. Or should be, anyway. No one HAS to run 6, but you can, there are 6 slots available and you can fill them all, or run with as few as you want. No one HAS to get more, or less XP, or more, or less combat/monsters, but you can. (Suggested presets might be nice to kind of help maintain homogeneous party level in various areas so battles don't start to get too easy / party over leveled with large parties.) If that seems like too many options then they could perhaps just integrate it all into the difficulty mostly or just have difficulty + monster number OR difficulty + monster strength scaling rather than all 3. Or, perhaps not best but simplest, build it all into difficulty.

So some may say, well I'm ok with 4 so I just want more of whatever they can add ignoring spending any time on accommodating six, but the counter argument for everyone who would like to have six is just as valid and actually imho a bit less selfish since players who want to play with 4 don't lose their ability to do that. PLUS, you get the chance for more characters (& their stories) to go through the story within a single play through so any potential theoretical loss of story can be mitigated by having a few more party members making things more interesting & more different interaction possibilities.

Of course, this is also supposed to be BGIII, not DOSIII. Because of the turn based combat, it's going to look/feel potentially a bit similar. To me, other than obvious D&D rules & world, one distinction that also harkens to the originals could be six character party possible.



I'm sure I could have done a better job summarizing a left some things out but after reading for the better part of the day I think my brain is going numb.

+1 to all of this.

I agreed with that as well. While I'd like to play Solasta I'm not real excited about it for a few reasons. 1. The exploration enigma doesn't sound very fun to me. Metroid like puzzle stuff to find your way around the dungeon... Eh. Sounds like a bit of a drag to me, not being a fan of lots of puzzles. 2. Only 4 characters... 3. It also just kinda looked a bit drab.


*Had another 'possibly' great idea for how to do party XP - each battle is just a flat amount predetermined in the game and each character gets that XP (regardless of how many monsters there are or difficulty/toughness). That way, a party of 4 or 6 would always be the same level after X number of battles with the same creatures/fights. More monsters being more challenging for the 6 character party helps to make the fight similar in difficulty as it would be for the 4 char party (but yield the same XP for each char per fight regardless of monster number) and they would get a little more monster loot to help keep those extra 2 characters geared decently. Kind of like if the DM just adjusted XP to be the same for each battle in the game but vary the number of monsters / difficulty of monsters for larger parties. OR if a smaller party wanted a bigger challenge they could go for it and try to fight more monsters, or they could adjust it down to fight less if it was too much. Either way, the party ends up the same level any other party would be throughout the game. Of course alternatively the monsters could just be tougher for larger parties instead of more but I personally think more probably makes a little better sense. The big idea here being that each encounter ends up yielding the same XP per character regardless. Some folks might not like this and want to play 2 characters specifically to level faster, maybe that could be an exception if playing LESS than 4, or they could just make it relatively simple and flat so that characters are a sort of predictable level wherever they have progressed into the game for all party sizes and if players want they can adjust more/less monsters or difficulty.

To be fair, the 4 party member dynamic with the stock roles does pose an entertaining challenge.

Tank
Heal
Blaster
Lockpick/Trap

One of my favorites if you are into the various subclasses.

Paladin Tank (Oath of Conquest)
Druid (Circle of Wildfire)
Divine Soul Sorcerer
Bard, with thief skills.

Covers everything, and even gets you a little flame pet. This is what I will put together if/when we get to have our own party from the start, depending on if we can add in our own Classes via Mods, I'll replace the druid with a melee/divine class I am writing up for my own setting.

1> Totally agree.
2> About the same with me in regards to quitting it was a while ago
3> I am actually playing another round of DOS2 JUST so I can see if there is any valid points to people saying this is just DOS3, I really haven't found any besides BG3 is using a modified version of the same engine.
4>I really am not a fan of the group being larger than 4. If people don't want to play a melee/or casing class, they can still group up with the same class companions, the companion can just be set up with a different discipline.
5> Ok so HERE is where it gets tricky, because I have done some reading on this. First, you will not be able to simply choose a casting class if say you are a warrior, at a certain level, IF you have to requirements, you can choose a secondary class. Which means, in order to raise your INT to the required level, you will have to gimp your Warriors strength from the start to put points in INT. I am not a fan of multiclass, but at least that requirement makes it at least somewhat balanced. Second, Swen seemed very particular about his words, and I am guessing it is because multiclassing will only be available to the player character, NOT the companions. Which again, I am all for, because personally, I think multiclassing is cheese in 5e standards, I much preferred the multiclass limitations in 2nd edition with the race requirements etc.

I'd like to address some of these points, sorry couldn't actually find your original post so quoted form the post above.

1. Nobody is expecting a replica of a 20 year old game but speaking for myself I was a hoping for a sequel which continued in the same vein; a great story, adventure, exploration, an interesting range of companions that felt real, an immersive game world that felt alive. So far the map feels a little too like an amusement park.

Sorry but I found the Panel from Hell stream a bit of an amateur anti-climax. I'm not for a minute doubting their commitment to creating a great game, it's just that they seem to have infused it with much of their own interpretation of 'fun' and Larian style OTT mechanics. Some love it, I happen not to.

2. I have never played tabletop but from what I have read in these forums, DnD 5e is designed for 4-6 players?

3. Can't really add anything here.

4. They might well be trying to translate 5e rules closely but it would seem, judging from those far better informed than myself, that they have made plenty of changes under the guise of video game translation, that have ended up imbalancing a number of things. Combat is almost all about gaining high ground advantage, jumping behind enemies to gain advantage, buff/debuff spells are basically redundant. Those are just a few examples. I'd wager a bet that battles in DnD aren't about jumping constantly behind enemies? Also, the combat mechanics have homogenised somewhat the individual feel of classes.

5. I don't quite understand how multi classing characters in a 4 person party somehow makes up for the extra 2 people that would be in a party of 6?

From everything I have read, the common consensus is that 5e is more focused on 4 players. It is something you can google. I was curious after reading different views from different posters.

using similar arguments ive seen posted in other threads, the common consensus that pnp 5e is more focused on 4 players shouldnt preclude larian from being able to adapt the rules to a video game for a party size of 6 (and id also argue the whole wotc recommended player size, like challenge rating, should be taken lightly in a game where a gm can create any campaign scenario they desire and most gms would be thrilled with more players at their table - altho during covid times with social distancing that may be difficult )

+1 again for increased six person party size, as again, those whom prefer four can still run that group size, although i do agree that an increased party size may further exacerbate some other current bg3 ea mechanics (ie party movement controls with the link/chain, camera controls, current ui/inventory layout, limited companions/npc roster, possible camp/resting mechanics, you could include general combat/encounter balancing and mechanics here, but id argue thats a larger issue in of itself and of possible lvling pacing/progression issues in an act1 ea build)

as an aside, id also like if the next panel from hell/larian update the studio detailed further the map/party locks planned post act 1 that was discussed earlier in ea. personally im not really a fan, but i suppose it could depend on larian's implementation

I'd prefer 8-10 for party size (if there simply MUST be a limit at all)... but I'll certainly +1 the 6 member party idea. 4 is just too limiting in entirely too many ways, especially when you have NPCs that are programed to que off of each other and make certain comments when this person or that person is with the group.

Who cares in a video game....?

The "design for 4" is a very cheap arguments.
TT =/= Video game.

Nearly all campaign are designed for 4-6 players.
Not 4 "but you can 6 if you really wish".

Please list ANY game that offers 8-10 party members? OR even 6? I mean every RPG I can think of at the most has 4. Your not leading a posse...If having a party that size is so important, there is mods for it in every RPG I can think of. But in the last 10 years, I don't think there are any games that go above the 4 party limit. There is also console limitations they have to consider.

Funny and tells me you a not a old DND fan.

ALL DND games had Party of 8 possible slots logn ago.
You just created 6 of them and tehre were 2 free spots for NPC to join your party.
Basicaly all of the TSR DnD titles.

But another issue is.... we are at page 42 now on this thread and if you summarize you will see that abotu 90% say yes please 6 man party! And thats ONLY this forum! You can see similar thread accross all BG3 related Forums with same content.
And guess what? Larian shits on Comunity! They dont even care to talk about it.

Please moderate your language. Offensive and insulting posts are contrary to forum rules, whether speaking about individual posters or anyone else. It is possible to express criticism without becoming offensive.

Ok I applogize.

Larian fully Ignores Community and cant care less about customers opinions as they dont even try to talk to them.

I hope thats more correct now. Sorry Sadurian.


Edit: Oh and by the way if the company that got our Money would be so responsive as their Moderator are..... threads like this wouldnt even exist.

All the old IE games included their EE, The Temple of Elemental Evil, Pillars of Eternity, Tyranny, Pathfinder, Wasteland 2 and 3,...
Most of these exemples comes with 6 but one can have more (ToEE). I'm sure I can find more exemples.

There are also games with 5... And other "kind of rpg" like the Banner Saga, Fire Emblem, Valkyria Chronicles,...

Many of thoses games, including the IE games are available on console. I could even say that even on console, it's way easier and intuitive to control 6 characters in BG1 EE than in DoS2 lol.
Couldn't go further than the boat on nintendo switch because of this horrible chain mechanic.

Those were the days, were they not? Great stories, great design... crap graphics, admittedly... but those games endure in the hearts and minds of those who were lucky enough to play them when they were new for a very good reason. You could create and control a full sized party of 8 with versatility and utility (which you typically needed to do in order to survive) ...and you didn't start off with a 1st level companion character that had a 20th level background origin story.

All the Gold Box FR and Dragonlance games from SSI and Stormfront used that formula of create six +1 or 2, including the original Neverwinter Nights which was the first MMO on AOL also based around the party of 6+ concept.

Even BG1/2 basically did the same with the heads up 7up, if you consider like Korax or Familiars in BG2 or other temp NPC types that are directly under the party's control. BG1 didn't have a summoning limit, it was more about whether your computer could handle it lol. BG2 had an overall limit at basically a dozen. I'm trying to recall if summoning a familiar occupied a permanent slot, or maybe it was capped at 11. But anyway there too, depending on how broad you want to think about 'the party' it was frequently controlling 6+ add ons. But yeah all the D&D computer games I can recall from the 80s and 90s were 6 and up. But in the late 90s early 2000s that changed when most games became either Solo focused, or solo + henchmen/followers, or group of 4.

Many of the older games that come to mind were for PCs. But I know most arcade games during the same period capped at 4 and still do. I can't think of any examples of a stand up arcade game with more, so perhaps there is something to that influence. After nintendo consoles kind of followed the arcade model rather than the PC one for a long time, except for a few titles in the jrpg lineage or until things like memory cards were more common. I think Dragon Age was probably a watershed for the 1-4 party. But I agree that it feels like its been 4 or bust for a while now. Like at least a decade or more