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

This isn't Solasta, if I wanted to play Solasta, I would be playing Solasta. That comparison is just getting so old and used, it is practically Pamela Anderson. Every game has their interpretation on party size. The most common in ALL of them is 4.

I am not talking D&D tabletop, I am talking any RPG game on console or PC, that has that many party members? Maybe work a little harder on reading comprehension rather than trying to come up with some snark.

Maybe because Larian knows that forums are about the WORST place to get an idea of public sentiment (besides maybe Twitter). Especially since the 90% you are referring too, are most the same posters. Not to mention, this is an open registration forum, so there is also the problem of sock puppets. Not to mention, pretty sure Larian has a better idea of game theory, game mechanics etc than a armchair DM that thinks that they know everything about how to make a successful game that actually makes money to the broadest number of purchasers?...Maybe?

Well if we're going by posts in this thread I'm sure I've had plenty of repeats, anytime I can think of something I didn't think of before then 666 for sure. But Baldur's Gate and IWD were actually some of the last games in the 6+ party lineage to come out before it disappeared almost altogether, I guess until the attempted iso renaissance of more recent days. 4 or fewer feels like lowest common denominator from the consoles legacy. Like accepting the limits imposed by arcade games and consoles and the FPS line. Cause by the time BG1 came out the ship I think had already sailed, and it was almost only by accident of an RTS bridge (from games like the og Warcraft or Starcraft or Shogun) that kind of brought the concept of 6 or more back into it. Or even the idea of controlling a full-on army battle almost crept back into it, albeit on a much more limited scale in BG. But anyway, that was a big part of what made BG cool I thought. It was distinct from other games in the similar genre, but which went off from then on with the 4 cap in mind. Its just a different vibe. I do miss the '6+2more' concept of the old gold boxes though

I think of the og BG, IWD and NWN games in spiritual succession from these earlier ones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Box

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgotten_Realms:_Unlimited_Adventures

With infinity engine and solstice kinda the last in that line


upload image



computer product heheh

Neither were we.

As title suggests, I'm looking for a way to tweak the game files and have a full party of six in my next playthrough.

I know it can be done somehow, since people have been doing it from the start of the EA in October, but any attempt to google a guide about the topic brings me the the most useless results (including all the countless previous threads in this forum about people asking it as the default for the game. You know, the ones Larian will never pay any attention to).

If anyone could come up with a fool-proof guide about how to do it step by step I would greatly appreciate it.

Nexus usually has whatever. Party size 8 limit.

https://www.nexusmods.com/baldursgate3/mods/181

Actually I'm pretty sure there's a good chunk of us.
You just think you're special with your opinion.
I get your mom tells you that a lot.
I don't see how making a 6 man party an issue to you who would still be able to use a 4 man party.

Just because it's a common formula, doesn't really mean it's the only right one. Most games are copy and paste games anyway.

The biggest pro to a 4 man party, is that it's easier to manage, since most folks that like it aren't capable of doing any more, it'll overwhelm them. They're also tuned to that kind of playing style, the whole meatshield, typical mmorpg theme and think it's how it works for everything. The more simple and child friendly the better for you guys.

The only thing holding me back from actually buying the game is the six men party issue. What will make this game different from any of the other options tbh, I'm not a simp for game companies that's done well in the past. Look at CD project Red.

They didn't do so hot with Cyberpunk.

I kind of want something that stands out more, not another passive game that I just go through and not come back to, because the only difference is that I get to use other companions. That's a lame excuse to come back to a game.
Why not just give us one grand playthrough and be done with that.
It'll make you more interested in playing another grand adventure over the motif of playing again to see what It'll be like with a different companion that has maybe a a few hours of different dialogue only.

That's another Larian issue too, they have this you pick 3 companions and that's it theme going on now. They've mentioned multiple times how they want you to leave with who you wanna, since that's your permanent team, the rest of the squad is gone.

🤦🏻‍♂️🤷🏾‍♂️

I also prefer 6 party compositions. I'll mod them in if they won't be supported in vanilla.

The problem is that the game is VERY easy with mods.

I feel like even if they don't allow us to have a party of six, one thing I don't understand is giving the permanent boot to everyone else. The NPCs are a big component of these kinds of games. I know that these games came after BG/BG2, but Mass Effect and Dragon Age had the added benefits of your home base that allowed you to still keep up with certain companions and talk to them, developing their stories alongside yours. It seems like Larian already has that capability set up with the campsite. That's what I had assumed it was for, considering the way they utilize it in the game. It seems like a waste if they just make us throw all of those other companions away. My paladin of Torm may not necessarily like Shadowheart (once I can play him), but the idea that I could maybe get her to see the light would be a fun reason to keep her around, for example.

I get that it would take a little doing and that we don't know what the camp system may look like outside of the EA. But if it isn't changing drastically, it isn't as if Larian isn't already devoting the time and resources to having all of those NPCs available for plot development and the like already. It'd just be a matter of having them all present at the camp. Like they are now.

But also, yes, I'd love to have 6 people in the party at once. Hell, even just a fifth member would open things up a lot.

i agree that this detail has also largely been swept under the rug recently by larian. idk what the current plans are here, but initially larian intimated that there would be companion/map locks post act1, however i too am concerned about how this will be implemented particularly if we can only have a party size of four. tbh id prefer no companion or map locks at all, unless there is narrative rationale/significance, but im just not seeing that yet in this ea build, but would be eager to hear larians plans for this feature

Took me a while to realize my thread was merged here for whatever reason (not even sure why, since it was about an entirely different matter than discussing the merits of an expanded party), but still, I'll take the chance to thank you for the link.

Also, I'm experimenting a bit with the six slot setup and I have to say it's going more or less as I was expecting:
on one hand I'm enjoying the novelty a whole lot. Having a bigger party covering more roles and allowing more characters interactions definitely DOES make the game more fun.
On the other hand, playing this way makes the flaws of the UI and control scheme (no formation control, no multiple selection, no click and drag, the idiotic chain/unchain thing, etc) even more annoying to deal with.

Alright so I'm a veteran D&D player of 15+ years across each of the editions. I am also a huge fan of the old Baldur's Gate games (I still play them today). I get that many video games have started going with the 4 character party cap, and some people are ok with that, but overall I believe it severely reduces the experience, it destroys replayability, and will inevitably only serve to bog down gameplay. here's why:

1. Baldur's gate (as well as all the classic D&D rpg titles: Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment, ect) have always gone with 6 characters in a party and there are good reasons for this, but for Larian studios the best reason to consider it is because reducing the party size to 4 will make the game feel less like a Baldur's Gate game, and more like a Divinity game. which don't get me wrong Divinity is a great series, but in the end it's not Baldur's Gate, and that's what fans who have been waiting years for this really want. I have already seen a lot of reviews and comments about how BG3 doesn't really feel like baldur's gate, and I think this would go a LONG way to solving that.

2. Having a party size of 6 means the player is not as "locked in" with their character selection. In a game where I can only have 4 characters at a time I am inevitably forced to make my selection based on the bog standard "tank/dps/healer/buffer" type of party, because without those key roles being filled the party becomes unbalanced. you have a little bit of wiggle room if you specialize those 4 characters the right way, but not much. and inevitably some characters are simply going to get left behind this way. In my playthrough for example, I really like Wyll's personality, and his combat ability is great, but I rarely have him in the party because for me him and Astarion compete for the dps role, except astarion can pick locks much better than Wyll can, so it's a no brainer that I need Astarion. For every player that might be a different case but with 4 character max there will always be a character the player wishes they could bring but can't because their playstyle is in competition with another character they think they need. In a party of 6 however the player has certain options, not only can he fill those roles more easily, but he can double down on one or two, which allows for a huge variety in the types of parties available and therefore: endless replayability. It allows players to bring along 2 extra characters for no other reason than the player knows that one or even both of those characters will be useful or relevant in the upcoming storyline archs, AND, it allows for the main character to be made in ways that are "outside the box". For example, a player might want to make his main character be more of a faceman, with all his specialization focused on utility spells and abilities that help him outside of combat, while leaving the combat skills to the rest of the party. Most people won't be able to do that effectively in a 4 character party.

3. In the end, the way the game plays right now with a 4 player party, I found that the lack of 2 extra characters just meant that I was constantly having to return to camp for no other reason than to change up my party to have the right characters for the moments I wanted them in. And that just became annoying really really fast. It would be even more annoying if I was unable to go to camp at any given time I wanted without consequence (which is something that in fact NEEDS to be addressed too, resting is too easy). And so that's really the problem I see here, is that a party of 4 has no actual benefit to anything because you can change which characters you have at any time anyway, and instead it's only going to result in the player getting annoyed because they have to return to camp twice every time they encounter a locked chest, once to get the rogue in the party, and another to get their chosen character back (or what ever example you want to think of, wizard for detect thoughts, fighter to move a rock, etc).

4. A party size of 4 means no movement formations, which isn't actually a huge deal, but it's happened enough times where I'm trying to get my main to the front of the party but one of my companions ends up triggering the event instead just because they don't know to stay behind him. And again, having this feature would make the game FEEL more like a baldur's gate game.

Simply put, 4 characters is not enough for a D&D game. A tabletop game yes, because there are other problems with having 6 players at a table, like how distracted everyone might be. but for a videogame this is not the case in fact it's the opposite. the single players will want more out of their party, so that they can explore the game more fluidly without breaking every other moment to change their roster, and a multiplayer group will probably enjoy having more slots for players to join in. This is why I think Larian should reconsider the 4 character party cap.

There is already a very long existing thread about this...
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=672266#Post672266

oh ok, I guess I didn't find it when I was looking, my bad.

Alright so I'm a veteran D&D player of 15+ years across each of the editions. I am also a huge fan of the old Baldur's Gate games (I still play them today). I get that many video games have started going with the 4 character party cap, and some people are ok with that, but overall I believe it severely reduces the experience, it destroys replayability, and will inevitably only serve to bog down gameplay. here's why:

1. Baldur's gate (as well as all the classic D&D rpg titles: Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment, ect) have always gone with 6 characters in a party and there are good reasons for this, but for Larian studios the best reason to consider it is because reducing the party size to 4 will make the game feel less like a Baldur's Gate game, and more like a Divinity game. which don't get me wrong Divinity is a great series, but in the end it's not Baldur's Gate, and that's what fans who have been waiting years for this really want. I have already seen a lot of reviews and comments about how BG3 doesn't really feel like baldur's gate, and I think this would go a LONG way to solving that.

2. Having a party size of 6 means the player is not as "locked in" with their character selection. In a game where I can only have 4 characters at a time I am inevitably forced to make my selection based on the bog standard "tank/dps/healer/buffer" type of party, because without those key roles being filled the party becomes unbalanced. you have a little bit of wiggle room if you specialize those 4 characters the right way, but not much. and inevitably some characters are simply going to get left behind this way. In my playthrough for example, I really like Wyll's personality, and his combat ability is great, but I rarely have him in the party because for me him and Astarion compete for the dps role, except astarion can pick locks much better than Wyll can, so it's a no brainer that I need Astarion. For every player that might be a different case but with 4 character max there will always be a character the player wishes they could bring but can't because their playstyle is in competition with another character they think they need. In a party of 6 however the player has certain options, not only can he fill those roles more easily, but he can double down on one or two, which allows for a huge variety in the types of parties available and therefore: endless replayability. It allows players to bring along 2 extra characters for no other reason than the player knows that one or even both of those characters will be useful or relevant in the upcoming storyline archs, AND, it allows for the main character to be made in ways that are "outside the box". For example, a player might want to make his main character be more of a faceman, with all his specialization focused on utility spells and abilities that help him outside of combat, while leaving the combat skills to the rest of the party. Most people won't be able to do that effectively in a 4 character party.

3. In the end, the way the game plays right now with a 4 player party, I found that the lack of 2 extra characters just meant that I was constantly having to return to camp for no other reason than to change up my party to have the right characters for the moments I wanted them in. And that just became annoying really really fast. It would be even more annoying if I was unable to go to camp at any given time I wanted without consequence (which is something that in fact NEEDS to be addressed too, resting is too easy). And so that's really the problem I see here, is that a party of 4 has no actual benefit to anything because you can change which characters you have at any time anyway, and instead it's only going to result in the player getting annoyed because they have to return to camp twice every time they encounter a locked chest, once to get the rogue in the party, and another to get their chosen character back (or what ever example you want to think of, wizard for detect thoughts, fighter to move a rock, etc).

4. A party size of 4 means no movement formations, which isn't actually a huge deal, but it's happened enough times where I'm trying to get my main to the front of the party but one of my companions ends up triggering the event instead just because they don't know to stay behind him. And again, having this feature would make the game FEEL more like a baldur's gate game.

Simply put, 4 characters is not enough for a D&D game. A tabletop game yes, because there are other problems with having 6 players at a table, like how distracted everyone might be. but for a videogame this is not the case in fact it's the opposite. the single players will want more out of their party, so that they can explore the game more fluidly without breaking every other moment to change their roster, and a multiplayer group will probably enjoy having more slots for players to join in. This is why I think Larian should reconsider the 4 character party cap.

I believe the reason for them sticking to 4 characters is that their engine probably can't handle more than 4 players at once in co-op.

Full quote for context if it gets moved.

+1 100% Great points.

I mean I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt at this stage they are going to change party size. Because then they would have to totally redo all the engagements difficulty and the mechanics behind them. To most people, 4 is fine. I mean who knows, maybe they will add more party characters, but considering it only takes a second to port to camp to swap out, and the extra work that would be involved in basically redefining the entire set of combat mechanics, I just don't see this happening. Not to mention, most RPGs, 4 is the standard now. It was the standard in their previous games for DOS as well.