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

We should probably say that it would lead to a better balance and a game in which we play more and watch less...

For me, a lot of this discussion about party size in other RPGs misses the point. My strong preference for six is very specific to this game, because this is a D&D game. When an RPG's system has very few "classes" and/or classes are weak or nonexistent, then a party size of four is fine (ex. Dragon Age, D:OS). But when you have a very deep and robust class system with a large number of uniquely-defined classes and then even subclasses and archtypes and the like, as you do in D&D, a party size of four is extremely limiting in my ability to fully enjoy that deep and robust class system. So it is very specifically with a party-based D&D game that I want and expect that larger party size.

What I really don't understand is this, the game from the beginning has shown up front that it is 4 party team. It isn't like they tried to hide it. It was in all their play demos, write ups, etc. Everyone knew this when they bought the game, or I mean should have if they had actually watched any video on the game before hand. So I just don't get why they should be expected to totally redesign the combat, and the gameplay to satisfy some players that knew what the game was about when they bought it? Whether a 5 or 6 party team is more D&D (which is arguable because on one side people are saying they want 5e rules, but everything I have read about 5e, it is targeted for a 3-5 party team), Larian NEVER advertised the game for anything other than a group of 4. I mean even the 5e gm guide states that it is focused for 3-5 players. So where does 6 come from? Because the BG game made 20 years ago had it? So that means every game associated to it (which btw, BG2 I believe was using 2e which is apples to oranges different than 5e, where a 6 party was necessary back then).

SO which is it, do you want the game to follow the 5e ruleset or the 2e ruleset? So if Larian is following the average of 3-5 players for a 5e ruleset, splits it down the middle and gives the players a group of 4, somehow that is taken as completely wrong and should be totally redefined to match the average group of 2 editions ago (I know it is actually 3, but I think most people want to act like 4e never happened) because...reasons?

"Totally redesign the combat".
Holy fucking Christ, could you be any more disingenuous if you tried?

And it's not like these talking points weren't already been discussed to death (and return) for the past months and dozens of pages, anyway.

Maybe because 38-45% of players aren't satisified with a party of 4 while 62-55 are "satisfied" ?

"Ho but the majority...!!"
Should have read the comments while we had those discussions monthes ago.
While being unsatisfied is pretty clear... Being satisfied doesn't mean you wouldn't be with something else.

Many players asked for a party of 5 even in players that voted for "satisfied".

Sources :
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthread...Sludge+khalid&Search=true#Post712741

Redesign everything... Seriously...
They already have to "redesign" everything due to this wtf difficulty level ("we will add a lone wolf mode because we know players like it" => "oh no don't worry, we could already solo it...")

The only way to state with accuracy what number of players aren't "satisfied" is to place an in game poll (or even the number that feel passionately about 5 being the party number), not some poll in an open forum, which MAYBE represents 15-20% of the players if that. I mean the idea that 38-45% of the players in the game are on these forums, is just really not even close to accurate. You can go on about the "majority" all you want, but it is the truth. I mean just by going with the numbers of registered purchasers of this game from Steam alone is over 1m people, that is not even including GOG. Pretty sure there is not even a fraction of that on these boards. Not to mention, not everyone on these boards even VOTED in the survey. So please excuse me if I think you 38-45% is suspect.

I mean I am sure there are people that feel the same as you do, but to say that there is 45% of over 1m+ players...I mean are you serious?

Also, if you think this game is difficult, all I can say is don't play Pathfinder. Or if you think it is TOO easy, than wtf do we need a 5th or 6th party member for?

For fun?
So we can more easily interact with multiple companions, especially if Larian does a DOS2 and kills off all the ones we don't choose?
To have more flexibility in party compositions?
So that more time in combat is spent playing the game instead of waiting for enemies to take turns?
Any of the above reasons alone is enough to want a 5- or 6-person party.

Exactly.
Incidentally ALSO stuff that was already argued a couple hundred times in the past pages of this very same thread (well, on the past pages of the several threads that compose this one, more accurately).

Do you know how sample works ?

A huge +1 to all of this.

A sample is worthless when it is not a sterile sample. Also, a 1k sample for a game of over 1m+ players, is hardly a sample. If it was around 10k-15k I would think it a little respectable. I mean it seems some others can't figure out how a sample works when comparing review scores of 8 people and over 33k people soooo.

Yes by the same group of people...Shall we count how many actual posters have posted in this thread over the reposts of a sub group of people?

Idk how true these are, but the first 10 pages of Google results all say that a sample size of 1k is perfectly fine for over 1m+ players. These results use the statistics presented on the Sample Size Determination wikipedia page.

The same could be said about people arguing against a 6-person party. Shall we count how many people ITT have argued against 6-person party vs for?

Going back 9 pages, there are 31 different people explicitly arguing for a larger party size, with slightly more than 3 entirely new posters each page. Extrapolating backward, even conservatively (assuming 2 instead of 3 new posters per page), this results in ~100+ different posters.

Going back 9 pages, there are 7 different posters explicitly against a 6 person party. And of those 7 posters, 4 are arguing against it because the game is already too easy, and 1 because combats are currently so slow. Both of these problems are fixed by Larian re-balancing the game, difficulty settings, and/or improving enemy speeds, and thus would address the issues these posters have with an optional party size. This leaves 2 posters against a larger party size by itself, which extrapolating backward (generously), results in ~10 posters categorically against a larger party size ITT.

double^ respectfully, keep trolling, derailing, and dismissing anyone that doesnt share your viewpoint fam instead of arguing the merits of 6 v 4 person party. 46 pages and counting.

admittedly we are on opposite sides of this particular topic and at this stage given larians communication/panel discussion i would agree that the likelihood of a 6person party diminishes daily, but seriously, and my apologies in advance to the mods for any 'venting/snarkiness' that may bleed out here, but i feel like the majority of all ~290 of your posts within the last month of joining have been of a similar vein of just 'pooh poohing' any feedback that you dont agree with and it comes off that you are just here to argue in bad faith. furthermore, i see a number of your responses include comments along the lines of 'well if they changed xyz, i personally wouldnt mind/would support the change - but its larians game so they are going to do what they want' which is extremely frustrating when trying to discuss suggestions/feedback for an ea build that larian themselves asked for when first launching early access.

now feel free to continue posting and sharing your feedback, all welcome, but you weaken your position and credibility when exhibiting the above behavior. tbh, ive actually wanted to respond and say this for a number of your posts now, but didnt want to create any forum drama, but its really getting to the point where it seems that you are just running interference for larian/the devs or just...because? its odd flexing.

Not sure if this has been mentioned already (there are a lot of pages to this discussion), if so I apologize.

Let me start off by saying that I would like at LEAST a 5 party member band, but 6 would be phenomenal. That said. Anyone who has DM'd their own PnP game know that the party size influences A LOT of what happens in the game. Everything from encounters to loot to gold gained for those encounters. If an encounter is easy, you don't want to reward the group for just walking through your campaign. The more players you have, the more modifications you need in an encounter to balance it out. If that encounter is overcome, then the more experience, loot and gold that is gained from said encounter.

An example of this would be the owlbear. Right now, that is a challenging encounter. Add 2 more players, and that challenge rating drops exponentially. So in that case, the encounter would have to be modified with the owlbear doing more damage, having increased hit points, possibly even including more enemies in the encounter, just to balance it out. This would also mean more experience for your characters, which means they level up faster, which means every other encounter in the game would need to be modified so that when you are reach further in the game, you are, once again, not walking all over the enemies and getting handsomely rewarded for it.

Can this be done? Of course. But it requires planning, coding and modifications to the game which they need to be able to focus on. Larian may very well be doing just that, but it's going to take time. In essence, it's a wait and see what happens scenario. I have a feeling that even after launch there will still be more tweaking and modifications made by Larian themselves, simply due to sheer scope of what D&D is.

Very true what you said. I’ll offer a counterpoint even though I agree with you.

Expanding the party size to six will work IF Larian starts removing most or all of their nonsensical homebrew systems like backstab, height advantage, surface effects, barrelmancy, action economy. Because all those things are in place, our four characters act like 6-8.

Why? Take height advantage which is two rolls and taking the best roll. If we didn’t have that, you’d roughly need two characters to achieve a similar result. I say roughly since it’s not exactly the same but hopefully you understand my point.

Backstab is the same. All the explosives act like AoE which again can damage multiple monsters with one attack.

Remove them and then you can have more party members with less impact on balance. And having more party members also means spreading out magic items and more expenses to equip each member.

I thought Larian wanted players to have more actions. You can with more party members without resorting to breaking 5e rules. And more party members means more roleplay banter and diversity in party composition.

I wish there was just a "Like" button. I agree with you 100% on this. The environment affects were pretty cool in DOS:2, but WAAAAYYY overdone. (In a fantasy setting where do all these bad guys get their hands on that much oil and what do they use if for, other than to be waiting bombs for their enemies?!?!) Some environment affects, sure. Water on the ground? Cone of Cold is cast, yea, it'll turn into ice, and make it dangerous for anyone moving through, very cool concept. Just don't have water, then everywhere. It's a unique system and can be implemented well.

The height advantage thing is also something that can be implemented in certain situations, but not all. Ranged weapons, sure, I can see incurring a small bonus (small reduction in AC similar to reverse cover), but not advantage. Magic, however shouldn't have advantage in this case. Wizards, clerics and the like aren't strategically trained enough to gain the benefit of high ground, so it should limited to martial type, fighter, ranger, etc. if implemented at all. (High ground advantage is not present in PnP for a reason) Advantage and disadvantage should be doled out sparingly.

Sneak attack from a rogue, yes, that incurs advantage, as it does in PnP. BUT, only if the rogue is striking from an unseen position or invisible. If there is a friendly within melee range, then extra damage is incurred, but not advantage on the attack. So the rogue would still need to hit to get the damage.

Says the guy who's basically a one-man-army engaged in the relentless fight to oppose and silence ANY criticism across the entire forum.

Can't agree more. People play games for different reasons. Some like insane challenges, others like the story, character interaction, etc. Some like all the above. You can't please everyone, BUT you can make certain features be turned on/off, and have difficulty settings, so that players can experience it the way they want to. Again, my opinion though.

I particularly like to play with only four characters. Imagine having to deal with a party of six with so many interface problems that the game has. But this is easy to implement with mods.