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

Actually larion stated the ui was setup so that it was possible to be able to have a party of 6 characters but it was not configured to allow it at this time you can actually get this situation during the tutorial if you play with 4 player characters.

Regards to most thoughts its a general consencus amongs most people not to mod it during EA. - As for release there were comments saying 2021 last news update that was posted from interviews ect the full release was delayed till 2022 mid year.

So yeah expect another year or so of 1 patch every 4 - 5 months with a post saying that its delayed to 2023 at rate content is coming out in ea currently.

2023 eh? Feels like going to a "Grand Opening!" after the store has already been open for two years lol.

Hopefully they at least change the window displays? We've had the same banner art and splash screens forever!
Needs something to give it some charge. A party of 6 would be expedient, since it's already basically in place, tracks with the previous games and seems to be a top request.
Launching out of EA with a max party of 4 would be hella weaksauce

So, why 4 characters in a party? Why not 6 or 8 or 10? Why is 4 "Full up" according to the potential party members. This is not really explained in the game. The characters just say you are full up so they can't join you.

Here's a story suggestion Larian could use in game to explain to the player why only 4 can be in a party at once, and if they add a few simple mechanics to the game it would work well:

1. Magic pockets. At some point in the prologue, probably in the first 2 chambers, a cutscene should show the MC finds a set of 4 magic pockets. These can be traded to new party members if they are swapped in. However, since there are only 4 pockets, it works best to only have 4 party members. The MC could even make a brief comment to that effect.

2. A cutscene upon gaining your fifth party member. During this scene, the MC asks the new member to join. The new member then moves to join the others but the MC is the one to suggest that the party size might be now too big. "Perhaps a smaller group would be better," the MC states. "We might draw too much unwanted attention with more than 4. Besides, we could use someone to stay and watch over the camp." Then another member like Astarion might say, "Oh! And maybe they could handle all the boring things for us, like fishing and gathering and cooking and cleaning. You know, the peasant tasks that unimportant people do." Then a party management window would pop up allowing you to choose who you want to keep in the party and who to send to camp.

3. Food, water, and camp maintenance. During the first night at camp, a quick tutorial could explain that anyone you leave at camp will spend their days finding food, water and taking care of other camp maintenance like cooking meals, etc. The more characters you have, the more food and water and camp maintenance will be needed to survive. Thus, a simple camp mechanic could be done where the player chooses which party members will join the quest and which will be assigned to camp duties. Camp duties would be gathering food and drink first, then equipment maintenance. If you don't leave enough people at camp to manage this, penalties start to occur.

So 6 total members? 4 in party and 2 at camp satisfies the requirements. Prior to 6 members, 1 at camp satisfies the requirements. So kinda a 1 at camp for every 3 total members. Later, when you get even more members, maybe then increase party size to 6 with the MC stating it might be good to now take more members with. So 8 members total, 5 in party and 3 in camp meets the requirements. 10 members, 6 in party and 4 at camp. Prior to having a full party of 4, the player could still leave 1 at camp if they didn't want to worry about finding food, etc. or weapon maintenance for that day. Otherwise, they'd have to find food and fresh weapons or suffer penalties.

Failure to meet the requirements, such as when you are first starting, would start with a lack of weapon maintenance. Nonmagical weapons should receive penalties if used and not left at camp to be resharpened and maintained by a camp party member. You certainly find enough weapons in the game, so why not a simple system of having party members switch out damaged equipment at camp leaving them with a party member to fix. If there is not enough party members assigned to camp, weapons and equipment don't get fixed. This makes storing more weapons and such at camp, instead of always selling, more meaningful so party members can switch out gear each day leaving damaged gear behind. I'm talking small penalties for damaged gear like -1 to damage or AC. Nothing major. Again, only nonmagical and only items that were actually used in combat. The penalty wouldn't apply until the next day and only if the damaged item was taken with to continue adventuring.

As the party gets even bigger, they really need more to remain at camp. If they don't, food is no longer provided by camp party members. And so, the party had best have gathered enough that day to compensate or suffer a penalty the next day on their questing. Again, I'm talking maybe a -1 to rolls for adventuring on an empty stomach.

Food should also spoil after a day or so, thus making finding fresh food in the game more important and so forth. Again, you find a lot of food in the game,, so why not?? This would make it even more important to gain party members and have them assigned to camp so you don't have to worry about these kinds of things while adventuring. Then it would make sense to have fewer in the actual adventuring party so the rest could handle the mundane tasks that are still necessary to adventuring. The bigger the party, the more people who are needed for camp maintenance so they all continue to have food and such to survive.

And, I mean simple mechanics. I wouldn't want this to bog the game down. Each new day, player gets a camp maintenance window. They pick who does what with defaults set to match what they did the previous day, and weapon swap would be a button the player hits, electing to swap out damaged items only for identical nondamaged items. One button, all swapped at once, and if there is no replacement, the player is prompted to pick a replacement from the collective inventories. And any spoiled food would just disappear from your inventories. No need to keep it around or micromanage it.

Do we really need an explanation for the party size ?

Is that something that bothered you in other party based RPG and/or is that something you think about when you're playing a DnD campaign ?

Not saying it's a bad or a good idea, I just wonder about the relevance/interest of it.

I think this is a good idea in general. It wouldn't be too much work to add one or two scenes where this is explained, and it makes sense. Probably not first priority right now, though

That sounds pretty good actually.

I could also see more plot-related reasons to split up the party. For example, when you meet Wyll, he won't abandon helping the Tieflings prepare for the goblin attack unless someone else will take his place. If you can successfully persuade one of your other members to help the Tieflings, then you can add Wyll to your party in exchange. That sort of thing. Someone needs to stay behind and do x, while the rest of us do y. One person needs to do x, one person needs to do y and the rest of us will go do z.

If I had my way, it could even go one step further, where x might have varying degrees of success depending on who was doing it, and how many people were working on it. So then the player would have to balance how useful it was to have Shadowheart translating the McGuffin, vs how useful she would be in the main party. It would give some incentive to try some challenges with less than a full crew if you really needed folks skills elsewhere. Most importantly, it would make it seem like there were things happening in the world beyond the edges of the screen, which I think is sorely lacking in the game right now.

It did for me.

I always thought Pathfinder: Kingmaker kinda missed a golden opportunity here. If people in your party couldn't do their duties as advisors at the same time they were off adventuring with you, it would be a perfect excuse to limit party size by requiring a number of advisors running things at the capital exactly equal to the number of companions you had to leave behind.

Something like this could actually be really fun if done right. Companions not in the active party could act as a 'reserve party' of sorts that keeps the camp tidy while the main party is gone. There could be unique scenarios like welcoming Scratch or the mysterious skeleton to the camp.

One could take it a step further and have characters get their own playable solo arcs while they're back at the camp, like Astarion trying to hunt on his own and accidentally getting himself trapped in a perilous location with tons of running water around him while also trying to hide his tracks from whoever is hunting him. Or Lae'zel trying to ask random passerby for the location of her creche/trying to get them to ferry a message to her own people, only to fail miserably due to her obvious intimidation factor. Such a concept would also heavily encourage rotating the party.

Come to think of it, I cannot remember a single game in existence that has attempted anything similar to this.

+1

I would honestly rather keep it empty, so anyone can find the explanation he see as fit ...
Personaly i would certainly download 6member party mod once i will be sure it works. :P

I don't want a dialogue explaining why the party limit is 4 because I simply don't accept four as a party size limit and either Larian will fix it or I will find a mod that will.

I'd love 6 as well. Honestly, my idea could work with an unlimited party size. And yes, it always bothered me in other video games. Like FF7. You are supposed to have all the characters traveling with you at certain points but only 3 are allowed to fight. No explanation. Its dumb. Give me a reason of some kind.

Ah, but it is a minor thing. I just thought it might make at least a more fun topic than, "When are they gonna do an update?" 😃

Honestly it dont bother me at all, since im kinda used to it ...
In most RPG i know you have limited party with no story explanation, since its pure mechanic thing ... the question that is more pressing for me would be what will Larian do with unused companions?

I must say i certainly like how they use them in some games ...
Either that in some point your character is indisposed, and rest of the group need to help him/her ... or that you split to two groups where each have its own battle to fight.

Much better than let "unused" companions just stick in the camp the whole time.
Its like "Oh did you know Hero of *XY*?" > "Nah, i was just maintining his fire in camp, while he saved the f*cking world."

Examples:
Dragon Age: Origins, or end of Mass Effect 2 comes to my mind ...

I will join. 4 companion is too little. and if the number is not increased by release. the first and possibly the only mod that I will immediately install. there will be a mod on the expansion of the squad.

So much this. I want my party of 6, I want more companions, more interactions and try out more classes and not constantly travel to camp and switch around companions a lot.

Honestly just move it to a party of six and maybe say something about how more than that would be too conspicuous, thats it. Also have it that a recruited companion who is not active can still go forward when its relevant, like how it does not make any sense for Laezel to hang back at camp when you encounter the gith (yet everyone still knows in real time and judges what you do.)

Right. See? That's kinda my point. The companions at camp are just sitting around doing nothing all day currently. They're perfectly fine with you never putting them in the party. Wyll's just fine with you not putting him in the party to go get Spike and jazz. Lae'zel is fine with you never finding the creche. Etc. etc. etc. Meanwhile, they're doing absolutely nothing.

This idea, at least, gives them some use at camp. Heck, maybe they can even implement an auto-useless-item selling mechanic where you leave all the useless crap you find during your adventuring in the camp storage, and during the day while you go adventure, the party members you leave at camp auto-sell the useless junk that's only worth like maybe 1 gp, for you so you don't have to micromanage all that crap. Kinda like, "Whatever you put in this storage box at camp, we will sell for you at the Druid's Grove while you're gone."

So they take care of food management, useless item nonsense like forks and knives and spoons, repairing weapons and equipment, etc. while you and 3 others (or 5 others) travel around risking your life and such.

And yeah! It would be awesome if Larian did something like have Lae'zel decide to venture out alone during the day after x number of days of being left at the camp. She gets restless and heads off to find her creche herself. You're not giving this questline enough attention, so she's going to take matters into her own hands. Then maybe she gets into some sort of trouble and is trapped in some cave or something with gnolls trying to eat her face off. You and your party members hear about it from either one of the Tieflings or another party member you left at camp. Better go save Lae'zel before she's eaten!

I also like the idea of solo side quests, like the mention of playing Astarion prowling out on his own searching for prey. You left him at camp too many days in a row, and he's bored. So he's going out hunting. Maybe you even have the option of getting him into trouble. You can choose to either hunt animals or goblins - or hunt a few Tieflings who have wandered too far outside of the Grove. If you get caught, and Astarion loses the fight and/or is unable to flee, he is captured and thrown into a cell. Someone reports this to the MC, and now you, the player, have to get him out of the mess he's in.

Same with Wyll. Maybe he gets antsy because you left him at camp too many days. So he sets out to find Spike on his own. He gets captured, you have to save him. Or maybe, you play the part well enough that you succeed. Kudos to you, player. You did a tough solo quest and won.

Whatever. The main point of it all is actually to provide more importance to so many game mechanics that, as of right now, have no importance. You have gobs of food that never go bad and are truly meaningless. You pick up tons of weapons that, again, are meaningless except to sell them. You leave characters at camp who meaninglessly do nothing the entire time you're gone. They don't craft, cook, clean, maintain weapons...nothing. They're just there, picking their noses and scratching their bums while they wait for you.

And, again, I'm all about story and the story making sense. It makes absolutely no sense, right now, why 4 party members is "Full Up". None. What? I can't travel with 5? It has to be 4? I might need a 5th party member, or 6th, especially facing a giant deadly spider in her lair, but nope! Can't. Why? No reason. Just 4 is the max you can have in a party. It'd be better if the characters never say anything about you being full up than to say that you are full up and so they can't join you. At least in other games, it is just part of the game mechanic and nobody addresses it at all. Because your characters in BG3 address your party size, it is emphasized and makes it even more stupid. If you are going to have the characters say that you have a full party at 4 characters, then give me a good reason WHY it is full up at 4. Don't just say, "You're full up." See. Me, the player, I'm immediately sitting there thinking, "Why am I full up? What's 1 more party member in my party gonna hurt? Why CAN'T I have 5 or 6 at least? I mean, maybe more than 6 might be too large a group and all for stealth missions, but if I'm going in guns blazing, I'm gonna want an army. I'm gonna want as many in my party as I can take."

Anyway, again, it's really a minor thing. I just thought it would enhance the game.

I actually meant more when you walk up to the gith party she ends up following and comes into the scene cause it doesn't make any sense for her not to be there. But I think I talked elsewhere awhile back how I wanted companions to start doing stuff in camp, so teh camp feels more alive and it actually feels like everyone has a role to play in the group even when they are not there, not unlike Mass Effect series where each companion has a place in the ship they reside and tasks they ostensibly do there.

No amount of hand-waving is going to make a party of four acceptable or palatable or justifiable to me. I flatly reject the smaller party size.

I'm with GM4Him in this. 4 or 6 it should have some decent explanation why we can't take everyone with us. While now we have 6 companions in total there are more incoming, so it seems we will always have some sitting it out in the camp.
I can't express how much I'm tired of this reoccurring stupidity in RPGs that you have a batallion, but keep act as a squad. It's the main reason I was happy with DOS2 killing companions, which aren't in the team at the end of 1st Act. But even there the situation could be improved in the 1st Act itself.