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

I'm kinda sick of people using Inventory Management as a reason for NOT doing something good for the game.

Inventory Management is a mess right now and needs to be fixed regardless of party size, camp supplies, or whatever else people are frustrated with BECAUSE inventory management sucks.

IF they don't fix Inventory Management, then yeah, a party of 6 would make the issues even worse, but that's no reason to not have a party of 6. Fix the dang janky Inventory Management issues and SO many other issues would be resolved.

The party versatility thing is where I'm at for the 5-6 man team.

At 4 person, it's really important for each position to fill a role. D&D is still a game of specialized performers so while 5e allows more flex than a lot of past editions (there's a lot of different ways to get healing, and you could have a cleric as prime damage while a bard does prime healing depending on builds... for example) but you still need to consider these facts.

So, at 4, I'm going to have one support, one artillery, one melee, one utility. I can stretch that a little bit here and there. My planned party if, it stays at 4 is and assuming two characters are companions:

Karlach (Paladin or Barbarian?) for melee, Alfira (bard, support/artillery), Shadowheart (cleric, artillery/support), and a Monk, Rogue, or Ranger for my own character doing utility.

If Karlach and Alfira are not companion choices, I'm probably going Laezel (Melee), Wyll (artillery), Shadowheart (support), and Monk/Rogue/Ranger for my own character doing utility.

But stretching even to 5 would allow me to double up a roll and maybe explore one of those story lines where the character is a bit annoying, but the storyline is interesting and I'll have bear with them to see if they improve.

OR

5 lets me build a balanced set of characters in the companions and then play whatever class/subclass I want just on pure concept for my own character without worries about leaving myself a vulnerability somewhere.

OR

This would let me, say, have a run where I have a cleric or paladin of Selune romancing Shadowheart (because I'm a goof like that) or a second bard matching with a (please let her be a companion or at least a romanceable utility character that follows your camps even if she never joins the party for fights) Alfira. Without worrying, again, that doubling up would leave me vulnerable. (granted, a Light cleric is a very different beast than a Trickery cleric)

Honestly, every time Inventory management is mentioned as a reason against more characters, my knee jerk thought is "Then just Update the inventory management!" cause as it stands, yes its clunky, and it is holding a lot of things back. So it should be fixed, as simple as that.

i'm afraid it will go to deaf ears for larian. point being they have decided that it's a 4 party character and turn-based game just in the veins of DOS2 formula. basically they are in their comfort zones where this formula is what makes them popular in the first place. too many characters may deter the mass audience as someone mentioned pillars of eternity 2. look at how that game performed? of course many will argue the failure is not due to 5 characters but i can assure you it plays a great part in it for me personally.

i recall in DOS/DOS2 there are people who requested for more party characters as well. i think that the same attitude given by larian. so i would say, since it's already possible in DOS2 via mods if not mistaken, you can actually increase the party size. that's the only option we have.

but it would be really great if we can see some modders actually can do a rebalance mod for 5-6 party characters. honest, i really don't mind to donate to that modder for his hard work.

Let's be honest. There are NO good or justifiable reasons for not having the OPTION of a bigger party. So I cannot help but wonder why we keep needing to have this exhausting debate again and again ....

I hope it doesn't go to deaf ears. Expectations were so high for this game, and there are just so many little things to be disappointed about, that they really start to pile on. Maybe we're all Cassandras in this section, doomed to be ignored, but if this game comes out of EA with a party cap at 4, I just know they will never live it down. Its already way too easy for returning fans to bag on Larian and make this the studio everyone loves to loathe for tipping over the D&D crpg sacred cow.

You can just feel it happening, even if the pace here is like painfully tectonic. As the EA has gone on, the most exuberant and enthusiastic posters who were all generous and hopefull with their suggestions a year ago, now seem totally demoralized by it in like every other post. Like they've just been worn down too much, expectations dashed too hard, too many times. Legs starting to buckle before the last leg of the marathon. We can just watch the low hanging fruit rotting before our eyes on this one, as the most consistent EA request continues to be ignored with each new patch, leaving no time to properly implement it and to fix what needs fixing to make it hum.

The main argument against 6 in this thread seems to be the fear that it will just make the game even worse than it already is, by highlighting all the various things that don't work well even with a party of 4, rather than trying to find ways to make all that stuff better so it could actually support 6 and make us happy. Alas

The reason this one seems such a salient point of criticism, is because it stands in so readily for so many other things that people have noted as frustrating about the game. The designers I guess don't want to deal with, but I think coming out of EA with 4, they will have already torpedoed the ship and even the mods won't be able to fix it then. The thrill will be gone. It's almost gone already

This thread has ignited my desire to try playing BG3 with a 6 person party, though somehow I never had that same desire with DOS2. It's probably knowing that it'd be overwhelming in DOS2 with its AP system allowing you to potentially get 3 actions per turn, compared to BG3's much more strict action economy in comparison.

I'd much rather wait until we get more companions, though. Nothing can convince me to include Astarion in my parties.

When you try it with 6 let us know your impressions for sure.

From what I've gathered, the first thought is that the game overall is just more engaging, simply because there are more characters and points of input involved. It won't make any of the other issues go away, say inventory or party movement or the smaller pool of companions, but it makes them feel somewhat less pronounced as a point of irritation. The perception of the play pace within combat is faster because there are more points where the player is actually in control of what happens. Outside of combat, it makes things like inventory and gear management more engaging since more can be made use of. Same with the story beats and interjections. A larger party means more stuff happens, and ups the sense of scale, makes it more epic.

You're telling me they're trying to compose an epic here, but not using Hexameter?

I mean 6, clearly

I had a quick thought about multiplayer too. I wonder if the ultimate reason for the 4 person party may be due to multiplayer concerns? Trying to organize sessions around 6 people is a lot more complicated than 4, and it also means each individual player has to wait longer before their turn comes around. However, there is another argument to be made that a proper reaction system will keep everyone much more engaged outside of their turns.

At the same time, increasing the party limit to 6 would also be a huge boon to 3 player parties. How? Because each player will get to control one companion of their choice as well. And a 2 player party will get 3 characters to control. 4 party limit multiplayer is kind of in an awkward state where the overall experience is balanced around 2 or 4 players, because 3 players means one person will get to pilot a second character while the rest only get their primary character. Granted, increasing the limit to 6 pushes that awkwardness to 4-5 players, but it's also much easier to organize 2-3 player sessions as opposed to 4 and beyond.

A 6 party limit would also greatly enhance the origin system for multiplayer purposes, I'd think. I still think the system is a waste of development resources, but if all 6 players decide to play as origin characters, it'd greatly enhance the experience of using that system in theory, as all six players would get to experience that unique perspective together. The room for more companions is also a bigger boon to the experience of 2-3 player parties as well.

(Also, a cynical analysis would be to think that Larian doesn't really consider the inventory management to be that messy because it's inherently less of a problem in multiplayer.)

My fear is that they are going to make the same mistake NWN made, which was to designing a game for the Single Player = Single Character (Party of 1) experience, and where multiplayer is really just Co-Op for 2-4 players each controlling a lone single character. Basically so they can try to have Golden Eye in a D&D game I guess? Whereas the thing that made Baldur's Gate for me was the full party control, God mode. 1 player controlling multiple characters, the whole party. Everquest, NWN, all the various MMOs that have come along, they all shoot for that same style of MP game, which on its face is more like PnP D&D, sure, but that's not what made Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate or the Gold Box games golden. Baldur's Gate was about controlling more than 1 character, controlling the whole party. Even in co-up multiplayer, BG was about splitting the group. Just like mentioned above, where if you had 3 people, then they each took control of a second. So you could have 3 people and still bring along Imoen or Edwin or Viconia or whoever. I agree, nobody is going to hang around and wait for 6 players to get their act together, so it's much more likely that you have two players each control 3 characters. Or 3 players each controlling 2 characters. Or 4 Players, where control of the remaining NPC companions just rotates depending on who showed up first/last. Or perhaps they don't bother with companions at all, but right now they'd have no choice, because of the "looks like you're full up" at 4 deal.

Multiplayer in BG3 allows you to control multiple characters. If somebody drops the host can re-assign that character- so you can have 2 players controlling 2 characters each.

For the record I don't care if we have 4 or 6 characters. I can already defeat the game with 2 players using strong builds so the idea of balance at this point seems irrelevant.

4 characters, 6 characters, 8 characters, 10 characters. All fine with me.

As long as 4 man party is there I will never play as an origin char or even them as companion because they suck.
A vampire who tried to kill me.
A wizard that eat all my magical stuff.
A toad that tell me what to do and act high and mighty.
A cleric make me suspicious of her intentions.
A warlock that yell " blade of frontier " every god damn time he speak.
May be with more companion revealed I can change my mind but now, 4 man custom character ftw (4 man customize is the pain in the ass but worth)

i think you nailed it. my feeling for DOS/DOS2 it was designed as a multiplayer game with co-op of 2-4 players where it's mean that players only control 1 single party character. that is why we have this tagged on 'chaining'. after completing bg3 EA the feeling was really a DOS2 clone. it's simply made for DOS/DOS2 fan instead of being a baldur's gate game. i believe i'm entitled to my own opinion. i'm sure there are many larian fans out there waiting to prove me wrong, but idk. i don't need assurance from them.

the way i see it bg3 with their current strategy will still be a success since it seems to market to the mass audience and also larian DOS fans. i would say larian can continue with their stance and beliefs but unfortunately i just have to be honest with myself. they are not treating the franchise with respect but just pushing their DOS formula with it.

very unfortunate, but there's nothing much that we can do about only hope for the modding community.

Seriously, they should let people just create their own 4 custom characters from the get go and ignore the origin character (or murder them). I mean I know there is a way to do it with Multiplayer and opening 4 copies of the game but it is a HUGE pain to do that when they could just allow it.

This is a planned feature iirc. At least the creating part.

Hehe. It certainly will be interesting to see how Larian's BG3 story plays out if you kill off every single one of their damn "origin" characters. I wonder of there will be a lot of crying?

Nah, it doesn't really matter much in Act I. Probably you miss out on a lot in actual Baldur's Gate ACT 2 and 3 since the majority of them have quest resolutions there. Although likely you end up with the Artifact from SH either way and so can at least continue that one. Probably you can also still go after Cazador if you want, or he gets folded into the main plot somehow. Gale and Wyll don't have much, but The Creche is likely a totally different situation if you don't have Miss Githyanki with you.



Awesome!

My point was that I could picture the BG3 devs wringing their hands and whining and crying that they put so much time and energy and effort and love into creating these awesome and wonderful and amazing origin characters and a bunch of horrible players just blatantly killed them all off the moment they met them. I can even picture the devs putting in place some sort of *punishment* for those players who do such an appalling thing. I mean it is extremely obvious the devs WANT us to play with their silly origin characters, that they are trying to PUSH us into using their stupid-ass origin characters. And this irks me.

Oh yeah I get you. It also creates a certain degree of FOMO if you pass on the origin characters. It feels manipulative to some degree. I made that mistake with DOS2 and I wish I had just ignored them and murdered the lot.

The other night I had the experience of offing Shadowheart immediately for the first time on the Nautiloid. She went instantly hostile after being released from her pod, I think because I had accidentally whacked one of the experiment bodies lying on the ground nearby for that 1 xp, and so I guess that must have pissed her off?

The artifact floated up with a choice to "take it, or leave it..." How apt! lol

Origin Companions are pretty lame as a concept. They smack of the DM trying to noodle into the party to show off their own Player Character ideas or to influence the party's decisions directly by becoming part of it, when that's not really the DMs job. It's better when that energy goes into developing compelling Non Player Characters or Villains that the party is meant to face down.

Sure in BG1/2 the designers had to supply us with companions, since everyone knew it was basically a single player game at bedrock. The internet still barely existed when it came out, and the idea that you were going to have a LAN session with any more than like one other person at a time was kind of laughable. But the way they approached Companion design (especially in BG1) still seemed tasteful and tactful. They were just broad sketches on class archetypes and a dime a dozen, with only the bare minimum fleshed out in terms of characterization. They didn't overshadow the protagonist, because there just wasn't enough there to cast a very long shadow in the first place.

In BG2 this changed somewhat. The companion characters loomed larger, and there was the suggestion of a "Canonical" party carrying over from BG1, (certainly not the party I used in BG1) and it began to feel like if you didn't bring along certain companions, you'd be missing out on a fairly significant amount of game content. Even with more VA work though, the companions in BG2 were still more 'throw-away' than the Origins seem to be here, and at least there were more than a dozen to choose from.

That said, Larian clearly went through a lot of trouble of making these 5 Origin companions for the EA, and from the splash screens and all the promo art it's obvious they really want us to play with them. I mean take away the Origins, and there's not much art left to even define what the game is about. Seriously, if you axe Lae'zel and Shadowheart and the Origin companions in that banner above, what's left?

Get rid of the Origins, and there is literally no promo Art for this game left lol.

Not to get too left field here, but I'm pretty disappointed with the promotional art direction for this game for that reason. I've heard a lot of people saying AAA this and that, but honestly I feel like a AAA studio would have hired a couple illustrators and updated their banners and splash art by now. Show us something else? I know it's probably a pain to get art approved by the Wizards, but if they can't do it with the 2D illustration, then maybe let your 3D modellers go to town with it instead? Show us the BG3 Monstrous Manual in splash, some equipment, some environments? Pretty much anything other than that same Struzan style banner with the Origins characters again for the thousandth time.

It would be like if BG1 and BG2 just kept showing the same screens over and over, with Imoen and Jaheira, Edwin, Viconia, and Misc... each doing their "best pose" hehe. Nothing in the BG1 or BG2 promo art indicated a particular party or set of characters that the game was about. They just showed off the Realms and Dragons and general D&D type stuff. This game needs more of that, and less of these Origins. But since they're already here... You'd think the least they could do is have a party size large enough to accommodate them all in single run.

It really feels like the game is not being designed for full party control at all, but more like co-op double dragon, where we're just supposed to control our MC and maybe 1 other hanger on. Anything more and the weight of UI snafus is just crushing. I want them to aim for 6, not just because that would be more BG, but also because it would force fixes for all the other things that currently give me headaches. 6 throws that stuff in starker relief, so perhaps they'd actually have to address it, instead of sweeping it all under the rug.

Returning briefly to a previous conversation, 6 is sentimental, sure, but it's also a pretext and challenge for the developers. Just to ensure that the UI and broader game actually works for a larger party and doesn't fall apart into total chaos at that scale. Right now I believe the extended party mod is totally busted since patch 5, because of how the rest mechanic works, but prior to that, by playing with 6, you can see what works well and what really doesn't. Like not just with inventory management or the chain, but for a whole host of little things that could use improvement. Capped at 4 they are just barely skirting by with it, so I really don't think mods will be able to fix everything if it comes out of EA like this. The developer has to provide more support. I don't get it. Even purely from an optics standpoint, a Party of 6 would differentiate BG3 from Solasta, and shore up the constant refrains of BG3 feeling more like a sequel to DOS2 or Dragon Age than Baldur's Gate.