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

Question here is not if that makes sence to us, but if that would make sence to Larian.

I started doing 4 custom characters in patch 4 and had Lar'zel join as 5th party member in Prologue.

I think it is important to state that this is an attractive option mostly because of BG2 and it's pretty deep party interaction system. Even in BG1 party banter was rather minimal compared to BG2. BG3 does not have that. Interaction is basically a one-way ticket between the PC and one companion.
Also most games do it like this now, it is simply cheaper and easier to do it this way, plus it adds replayability, which is all the rage since quite a few years. Mass Effect only allows two companions and in DA, as others pointed out there were only three as well. I think Neverwinter Nights also only had 1-2 companions.
So having two more people in your party was nice in BG2 where you had all the interaction, but yeah in BG3 you would have two additional mutes that would only contact you if they had something to complain or needed help with their personal backstory. With how polarizing the companions can be at the moment, I do not think this is a stellar idea.
On the other hand, if they choose to go the route with better written and more written characters basically, I am all for it, because replayability means nothing to me and never has. I might replay games a lot, but I never really play them differently. In fallout I am always the ranged stealth dude with a hero complex. So locking me out of content because of party limits and killing companions of, means I just never see that content. So in this case, Astarion might have a great story arc to him later, that I will never see.

Well, party size being four is a deal-breaker for me. At a minimum I would need a very easy to install and use party size six mod being available before I'd even touch the game.

Why though? I know for sure you played the dragon age games which had 4 party members. Why disqualify this specific game solely based on this?

I did it too! And I hated it there as well.

But as already pointed that's a bit of a disingenuous equivalency, anyway.
Different ruleset and class system, for one. And we are talking of anything past Origin, different style of game and combat, too.

That's becoming less and less true at each update, incidentally.
They are adding a lot of scenes where companions address directly each other.
Of course, most of these scenes will be wasted/never seen because for how it works currently you'll need to be at the exact place with the exact combination of characters in party to witness it. Which incidentally is even more of an argument in favor of giving the option to bring around more companions.

But you know what? I don't even need to guess if I "would like it or not". I already played an entire playthrough with Patch 4 and a party of six and guess what? It was the most enjoyable one I had so far.
More party banters, a better flow in combat, more tactical decisions to make at any given time (even if obviously that made a lot of fights easier), etc, etc.

This DESPISE the default control scheme putting its best effort into making the experience miserable for the player.

The game ready allows 6 in the prologue. So why is there resistance here? Makes no sense. We're not talking a big change. Just carry over functionality from prologue. Boom. Done.

Why are we having this debate? People want 6 party members? Why fight it? How would 6 party members hurt your gameplay?

In DnD the classic adventuring team is Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Rogue with other classes being variants or hybrids of those 4. Even the 5e edition DM guide p.83 states that 3-5 players is the ideal party size. Also there are no MMORPG-style tanks in DnD, frontline characters are usually both tanks and muscles and face is usually either rogue, bard (who can actually be fill most other roles in 5e) or sorceror (who can substitute wizard).



If we talk about systems, rulesets, etc. then for DnD campaigns a party of 4 is actually the gold standard. If we talk about RPG storytelling then 4 is once again better than 6+ because larger cast means you either get less personal involvement with each individual companion or some companions fail to foster any kind of emotional attachment.


You mean you want to create 4 customs characters in multiplayer and see content from origin characters at the same time, right?

Might just be my experience, but in tabletop 6 characters has always been that sweetspot.
For 5e official modules I have done Waterdeep Dragonheist, Dungeon of the Mad Mage, and some of Tomb of Annihilation. Now not counting Tomb cause its meant to be hard, my 6 person group still had challenged with Dragonheist + Madmage, without any homebrewing happening. Infact with dragonheist the party was practically wiped except for my Celestial Warlock because even with 6 players the characters made mistakes and rolls were made poorly.
So overall, from a personal experience I think it is completely possible to challenge a party of 6 with only RAW content.

You mean you want to create 4 customs characters in multiplayer and see content from origin characters at the same time, right?[/quote]


Yes. I create 4 custom characters using Multiplayer mode, and I have no open slot to add Shadowheart to gain more of her story, or Lae'zel, or anyone. If I have 4 custom characters, I miss tons of fun stuff in the game. At least with party of 6, I could add 2 origin characters at a time and still gain content.

Besides, again, my main point is WHY NOT? If the functionality already exists, and players really want it, why not give it to us? What harm would it do to allow us 6 party instead of 4?

@Tuco's already said what I would say, which is that in a classless (or pseudo-class) system like DA and D:OS a party of 4 is fine. In a system that is the classic standard for being all about classes (and yes this is how I see D&D even with all the 5e changes; D&D is ALL about classes as far as I am concerned), and where that system provides so many classes (and then also subclasses, archetypes, and multiclassing), anything less than 6 for my party size is aggravatingly limiting. As I have been posting on the P:WotR forum, one of the things I love the most about party-based RPGs is assigning specific party roles to my party members (and again, please don't bother telling me that in 5e this is not needed because I don't care). I need in my party: a tank, a melee damage dealer, a ranged damage dealer, a healer, and a crowd-controller and buffer. The sixth spot, then, is for that eclectic companion who may not necessarily satisfy a particular party role but who brings something unique or special to the party. So, 6.

No it isn't. Even officially, it is party size of 4 to 6. The pro-4 side is just conveniently interpreting that as exactly 4.

In my over 25 years of playing D&D, in TT, play by email, and nowadays on Roll20 using 5e, I have never ever played a game with a party of 4. The smallest parties have been 5, and typical parties have been 6 or 7.

5e Dungeon Masters Guide p.83 has special rules for parties with less than 3 players and more than 5 players. The official 5e rulebook clearly states that parties of 3-5 use the standart rules, while 6 players and more need balancing adjusment. "The preceding guidlines assume that you have a party consisting of three to five adventurers ... If the party contains six or more characters..."

3.5e Dungeon Masters Guide p.11 "The normal-sized group is around four players (with the DM as the fifth person)."

Party size of 4-6 is established as "normal" in 4e DMG p.31, but then it considers party of 6 being a larger party: "It’s too difficult to listen to six people who are all trying to tell you what they do at the same time."

See? This is the hideous problem with recurring topics... That some of us are basically condemned to this comedic Groundhog Day of repeating the same talking points over and over and just few weeks later being forced to listen to the same "rebuttals" we already dismissed a good dozen of times even in the very same "megathread" we are posting in.

The short version:
- the "party of 4 is the sweet spot" is a convenient claim for pen & paper because gathering more people on a regular basis can turn into a logistic nightmare. Even then, ideally people aim higher than that, especially given that not every member will be reliable from start to end.
- In pen & paper each member of your party is (allegedly) a thinking entity that contributes significantly to the conversation, the decision process, etc. In a CRPG any companion offers a narrow and limited contribution in that sense and limiting them in numbers even more strips the game away of more engaging content. Party banters, personal quests, reactions to specific situations, etc.
- Most pen & paper campaigns don't drag for hundreds of hours and even when they approach that time frame players often drop out, get replaced, rotate, etc. If I'm stuck with the same party of 4 in a computer game there will be piles of things I won't ever experience.

Basically, the summary of it is that one thing does not equate to the other. They are extremely distinct experiences and using a vague suggestion thrown in as some sort of consolatory claim in the PHB as a Gospel of Truth is pointless, if not even disingenuous.

That aside, limiting the group to 4 feels painfully restrictive not just when it comesto narrative/dialogues/cross party interactions etc, but even in gameplay/mechanical terms. Picking roles, taking advantage of all the rewards offered by the game, etc.
You either make an active effort to make sure your four guys cover the most different basis in every possible way with virtually no overlap (which also means "fuck you" to most "hybrid roles" and exotic less-than-overtuned classes) or you'll end with ton of equipment unused, class-specific quests not explored, etc, etc.

I mean, as an example above all: let's say I want to play a class X which is already covered by a companion I like. I couild consider to double that role with some minor differences in specialization for a larger party, but with four slot included mine?
I ether reduce the range of my party capabilities even more drastically or I'm basically forced to excluded that companion as a viable option.

Ok, in your personal opinion, how much content should you be able to experience on your first playthrough?

Again. Why are you arguing against 6 member party? How does it hurt you?

You can argue all day long that party is 4-6 members, but regardless, they have the ability to do 6, it's in the game, and all they have to do is lift the restriction for the rest of it to make us happy. So why resist? Why argue?

Let me word it in this way: NO game should EVER deliberately withold content from the player exclusively with the goal of "encouraging multiple playthroughs".
Which is a bullshit goal, anyway. I will play the game multiple times over the years if I enjoy the moment-to-moment experience, not if I'm forced "to go at it three times to see all the companions".
Hell, chances are even at subsequent playthrough I may decide to exclude mostly the same companions for similar reasons.

I played BG2 from start to finish something like 7-8 times over the years and there were character I simply never cared enough to bring along, as there were some other that it pained me to leave out no matter having a larger party or having already played with them.

I am with Tuco on this. Replay-ability for me is not in being locked from content and having to play again to see it, it is if a game actually sticks with me and becomes something I want to replay for my own enjoyment.

Apparently some players actually dislike having to handle a 6-person party and prefer 4-person. For whatever reason. And also apparently it's not ok for other players to have different preferences.

Ngl, I don't dislike TB but I do hate it when I see someone say something like "TB is the way it should be and is what the old BG games should have done and RTWP should go die because personally I'm unable to handle it (or, you know, for whatever other reason)" and I'd feel this urge to start another keyboard war, but then I understand that it's their preference and it's as legit as mine. So whatever I guess.

Getting back on point, for a game like this one, having a 4-person party instead of 6 will hurt the overall experience big time. Period. You may be ok with it, but that doesn't mean it's the optimal choice, from the design choice perspective. And this has nothing to do with "amount of content you can experience in one playthrough". Honestly, if you don't even understand this...