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

You too AerezDrey!

Here, just while I'm at it, and since it's come up many times, an only slightly weaker (but still compelling) argument that we should at least have a party of five, cause...



Undeniably sound logic lol
I'm still pulling for six though

This is kind of off-topic, but I really don't get why there are bedrolls for the characters in your party. I have to imagine there's some sort of setpiece at some point where the bedrolls and sleeping in that arrangement matters, because I find their presence very weird. Every character already has a tent of their own after all, what do the bedrolls add or accomplish?

Actually, I kinda echo this, the party members could all have their sleeping stuff at their tent. Arguable that'd make it easier to have a larger party size and would just be easier in the long run, especially if we ever ditch the main camp for a house or tavern.

I think bedrolls are much easier to implement or less effort than tent especially if the game mechanic are allowing the party to rest at ANYWHERE as long as you have the camp supplies. I did not play and check out the latest BG3 EA on how it is currently implemented. I only finished EA once before the druid reveal.

Basically, in pathfinder kingmaker or wrath of the righteous, they have same bedrolls as well. You will see a camp with a surrounding of 6 bedrolls. I don't think it's difficult to implement other than Larian perhaps want to make camping looks more appealing. i would rather have Larian spend their time on priorities.

It's because everyone sleeps under the stars out in the open. It's common for a party to sleep around a campfire like that. Haven't you ever been camping? Who sleeps in tents?

😜

People who don't like to be eaten alive by insects?

If Larian wants to go for maximum realism, the entire party should get attacked by swarms of mosquitoes at some point.

A rabid squirrel bites us in our sleep forcing SH to cure our disease.

It’s because their bodies are blistering hot from the constant direct sunlight they endure while adventuring in Area 1. Bedrolls under stars are their only relief.

😝

i'm sure it's been mentioned but one downside of a party of 6 is that you'd have to add more enemies to keep balance, making combat take even longer.
In a RTWP game this is a non-issue because combat is so fast to the point you need to add trash encounters. But in turned based, it can make things feel really sluggish. I already feel some encounters in BG3 are way too slow when too many creatures are involved (i.e. Shattered Sanctuary).

Turn based doesn't HAVE to be slow with a party of 6. Larian already sped it up once. They could do more to improve the AI and keep the game rolling. In Pathfinder and Solasta, which are also turn based (or can be), you can have combats with 6 party members and the battle isn't slowed down at all. I have a hard time with this being a reason for not having 6 party members because other games can and have done it. X-com can have up to 6 party members, Pathfinder and Solasta, which are D&D games, CAN have it (though Solasta is mostly 4 party members, you can gain up to 2 additional at various points in the game). You can have animal companions, etc. as well. The game CAN move fast even with turn based. It's not impossible. It's just that it is slow right now.

This has been mentioned, yes. The counter argument has also been mentioned, namely that BG3 could use divided experience. If you divide exp among the characters in the party, then a party of 6 levels up more slowly than a party of 4, and the game mostly auto balances itself.

Edit: Also, people are arguing for the option of playing with a party of 6, not a requirement or expectation. Encounters would still be based around party sizes of 4; it's not like we want the game to check in real time what our party size is, and then adjust # of enemies depending on whether we have 4, 6, or 1 characters. Divided exp also allows players to use party sizes smaller than 4, where characters would level up faster!

There aren't more ennemies in Wasteland or Xcom than in BG3. Party of 6 does not always mean more ennemies. This is a wrong argument.

All else equal, if you allow parties of 6 right now, the game becomes much easier. You could balance this through split XP as mrfuji suggested, or by adding more enemies / stronger enemies.

Yes, and there are other things you can do too to increase the difficulty of a game.
But you don't HAVE to add more ennemies.

Some battles in BG3 already have more ennemies than hack & slash games. It would be terrible to add even more goblins

Which means that when you do all of the above in equal measure having “bigger fights” becomes hardly an actual issue.

if there are enough enemies, then it would mean placement & positioning, add variety to the encounter and stats changes. I'm not sure at the moment if Larian did any stats change to the bestiary. If they did, then i see no issue here if that's the case.

How is adding two more characters going to take them longer to make the game?

It's been done through mod already.

That's a pretty half ass excuse or counter argument tbh, no offense.

Logically, it makes no sense, since they're introducing more characters anyways, so that's basically an out of your "where the sun don't shine" answer tbh.

There's a whole list of reasons that goes on for so long, no one wants to write it all, about how just adding in one more character, not to mention 6 opens up so much more possibilities while you hardcore 4 player on a team people wouldn't even be affected much. Since you still get what you want, a 4 player team in a single or co op game.
But somehow that still affects your life enough to come up with the whole "it'll take longer to make a game, by adding something that's already planned to potentially be in the game already, but Larion is just debating if they want to or not take that path.

Following that logic I bet you guys get mad at people for playing a single player game a certain way that's not like yours too huh?

The difficulty argument is kinda invalid too, it's as if you're saying Larian would be half ass and not scale enemies accordingly.
The freedom of choice is always a good thing.
Some folks uses one character only, are you 4 player squad gon bash on them for playing with one character only?
Just let folks enjoy their game the way they want.
Heck if they have a 50 people on the team option, who cares bruh, let them.

It's like you're mad at me, because I shag my girl last night while you don't have one.
Me riding a car while you chose to walk.
I choose to hit the gym while you play video games.
How are you getting mad at folks for doing stuff that's not really affecting the choices you make?
How does it affect you at the end of the day?
It don't.

Are you going to pull my hands away from my girl as we walk because you have no one to hold yours? No, so why whine about people asking for more party members in a game that it makes sense to have a few more?

It's like you guys are stuck in this 4 player on a team loop mentality that's been the trend with games. You get offended at any mention of some different.
Or you probably don't have more than 4 friends or whatever.

Just let people get options man. Especially when the reasoning is valid enough vs "I don't like it because I've been playing 4 player teams my whole life" or "I'm too lazy to even play a game now that it has a function I won't use, so I'll whine about how hard it is to keep up with the game now that it has one more teammate on it."

Some folks man. 🤦🏻‍♂️
Closeminded ass community tbh.

It all seems to be about character management. 2 more characters makes the item management system even worse than it already is. It's a huge pain point now. Imagine 2 more on the team.

That said, you shouldn't base it on janky item management. Fix that and adding 2 more won't hurt the game.

Oh, and about balance. But balance can be adjusted easy enough. Use proper 5e stats for one, and if you need to, add more enemies. There you go. Now 6 party members works.

The pluses for 6 more than outweigh the minuses.

i know larian love to promote their 4 person multiplayer game. but i hope they should really support those who like 6 party members single player games. i don't think it's a difficult thing to just allow 6 party character in single player and just fine tune those combat encounters. since larian games have limited encounters and no random ones, i don't think it's a difficult task for them to fine-tune. compared to pathfinder kingmaker which they have some sort of random endless dungeons, it can't be that a small indie company can do it but bg3 as AAA game could not?