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

As someone who likes soloing for the challenge and in this game to make combat feel faster, I do not want to gain xp faster than I would in a group. Why can't there just be two options, xp for 4 and xp for 6, or just warn players that it will be easier for them with 6 and keep it balanced for 4? Or just change it to allow 5 as a compromise.

This would probably be the best if they don't want to go with split XP.

Like I give a shit about the sales numbers. I'm talking about someone who actually played (and mostly despises) these games while they were launched.
If we were going by popularity contest loads of people would be crazy about Oblvion and Skyrim, but that's not going to stop me from having an abysmal opinion of both.


What are you even talking about? This is not a competitive game. And different players WILLINGLY choosing to control a different amount of units wouldn't affect anyone who isn't interested in doing so.

It's irrelevant. No one would stop them from doing so.

We already went over it a million times even just in this very thread. You could at very least make the bare minimum effort to keep up with the discussion rather than just jump in with the preachy tone and pretend to school everyone about core design.
Yes, I would preferer to have the game tailored from start to finish around my ideal party size, and nothing would stop Larian from having different difficulty settings about that if they wanted (since they already love to implement half a dozen of them in their games) BUT if they weren't willing to that extra mile in terms of effort, then YES, I'd take the native option to play with a party of six even if the game is not "carefully [UN]balanced around that idea", because this ideal quest for "perfect balance" is fucking irrelevant, especially when it gets in the way of enjoyment.

And don't pretend people are asking for it "without understanding the implications" when some of us already tested the concept extensively in practice:




No, I don't, because my option wouldn't prevent them to play however the fuck they may want.

"We made a game in the genre that is mostly liked by the people who usually hate it" wouldn't really be the best of the box quotes.
Here's the thing: you may HATE everything that defines a competent, engaging and complex CRPG, but I don't, so I'm also not so eager to throw in the trash pile any aspect of the genre that doesn't make it closer to Diablo for the sake of mass appeal and praise any trashy attempt to streamline the concept.

He's actually mostly into turn-based games and tabletops, by his own admission, and as he confessed himself only the (wrong) assumption that there wouldn't be a market for them pushed his company to not even consider the option until very recently.

But DOS 2 isn't a better game than BG2, its only advantages over it are pretty much the technical ones (neat 3D engine, better framerate, etc). In basically every other way it's an INFERIOR design with a boatload of downright BORKED mechanics.
A clucky control scheme, a messy inventory management, a disastrously bad armor system (so bad that even Swen Vincke himself had to admit at a a later date it was a disaster and they should have not shipped the game with it), a half-assed perk system on top of an exceedingly steep power curve and one of the worst itemizations I've ever seen in the entire genre.
I even liked the two DOS games to a decent extent, despise all their flaws, but seeing people like you pretending they redefined the entire genre and that their success proves everything about them was flawless is honestly comedy gold.

So yeah, once again I don't really give a shit of your laughably bad prejudice of what's "outdated" and what's a pinnacle of modern CRPGs, I guess?

Said the clueless person.

That is exactly what i said. O_o

I know and they are not just 5 ... we only have 5 of them *now*
Sven himself specifictly told us that there are NOT all Origin characters implemented right now.
And there is a lot of dataminined evidence aswell.

They arent the only ones... just the first ones we get ...
Just as with the classes, sub-classes, races, and countless other stuff.

Agreed.
Problem here is that 300 xp is not for "a character" as you say ... its for default group wich is 4.
Therefore if you manage to defat that monster allone you should get 1200xp.

You see im not arguing about principle just about final numbers.
Your only misstake was using single character as default value in the world where everything (rewards included) is prepared for 4.

I realize this might seem like 3/3=6/6 argument ...
But final numbers matter ... unless you also alter amount of XP for levels.

By the way i love the idea and i think it should be implemented regarfless of party size ... just imagine you could attack Githyanki patrol either with 4x lvl4 or with 1 or 2x lvl 5 bcs you spread them for some encounters. ^_^
Sound great to me.


Might have second reason ...
Since you are supppse to take party members with you to zheir respeczive quests (still dont quite understand why are we unable to question Zoru oureselves) ... it would be awfull to drag level 1 to some combat situation.l

Well at least in this thread there is a spirited if rather bitter tasting back and forth. In the movement mechanic thread I've heard far fewer defenses of the current design. But 4 has support here. Still perhaps if they could get 4 players moving more smoothly and the inventory working better, a player coming from the DOS experience might be inclined to try 6 on for size? But least it would let me experience more of the game and have fun during EA when its all off the rails anyway.

The olive branch is that now most of the people who came here from BG2 have set our expectations pretty low. Basically just hoping for an optional setting, when of course I'd rather a design based around 6. Can't get to 6 without full support for 4 though, so it's still hard for me to understand where the hurt comes in adding two more slots? XP is the easiest thing to adjust of all the things that might be adjusted.

Also this is completely off topic, but it would be fun if a TPK allowed me to walk around the area as a ghost for a bit. They could use that idea to test out random stuff like flight or pathing. I hope the game gets a ghost or spirit state. That's one thing I do remember fondly from NWN even if it wasn't really exectuted fully in vanilla. That was my favorite part of my PW hehe. Throw a feature like that in EA and I'd run around as ghosts just to look at the beautiful areas for a few minutes after each time my party got chunked. Whether its a haunting of 4 or 6! Still seems like that'd be entertaining lol

Well, one point I can easily concede is that until Larian won't rework their insufferably bad control system, managing a party of six (or anything more than a single character, in general) will always be way more inconvenient that it has any need to be.

The recent addition of the "Group/ungroup all" keybind was a significant (if only marginal) improvement and a better formation control would help even more, but we are still talking of something that is absolutely sub-optimal for no actual reason or benefit.

That's fair. The solution is, as is for most things, a toggle. "Full exp for all party members" or "split exp."

I will be very impressed if you beat the game solo without increased exp (assuming you don't completely abuse cheese).

Long story short, but i'm still waiting for a 5ppl party implementation. )

I still don't understand the resistance to a 6 person party. It doesn't hurt players who just want 4. If you like only 4 because you don't want to have the hassle of managing the items and equipment of 6, then only have 4 in your party. And by the way, I don't understand this anyway because you still have to manage all the items of your entire group at camp. The only difference is that you have to switch them all in and out in order to manage all of their items; unless you're just going to ignore the people you leave at camp. And if you're going to ignore them anyway, then, once again, let that be your choice. Don't limit those who want 6 who want to manage 6 people in their party.

And if your concern is difficulty of gameplay, because they might build challenges based on 6 characters so that they are too hard for 4 characters, they can tweak the system to make that not an issue. Either they can build into encounters some sort of system that increases or decreases enemy stats based on the number of characters you have in your party at the time, or they can do what we've been suggesting and implement a split XP system where experience is split between the people you have in your party. So 4 characters would level up faster than 6, making challenges just as difficult for 4 as they would be for 6 because the 4 person party would be naturally at a higher level than the 6 person party.

I'm just not fully understanding why this is an issue. Why fight for 4 and therefore limit those who want 6? The game would work out so much better if they allowed for 6 in SO many ways.

And if item management is your biggest issue, then I have the same issue. Item management in BG3 sucks right now. It needs to be fixed. However, the party size should not be limited just because of a broken item management system.

Let us have a party of 6!!!! Please!!!!

Couldn't agree more.

+100!!!!

Larian hinted that we are going to lose companions after Act I, the party will probably shrink like in OS2. Chances are that your entire group will become four people.



XP split isn't working. Early game becomes much harder, than it becomes much easier when you outscale content too much, then it becomes much harder again when you hit content for max lvl. Balancing encounters via stats and amount of enemies will work, but it will require extensive playtesting of every encounter for 5 and 6 people too. Why waste QA's time on testing combat encounters when they can be looking for bugs or testing quests and other stuff that actually matters for every player? Mods will allow a party of 6, it's not a deal breaker for people, unlike unbalanced gameplay for people who will buy the game only if they can play solo or duo.

@Alyssa_Fox

Let's turn this around. You've said that you want to be able to play solo (with something like a lone wolf mode right?); how do you think such a mode should be implemented in BG3?
-Increasing experience gain will have significant problems at the level cap, true.
-5e doesn't have "skill points on level up", so BG3 can't simply give characters double the skill points.
-Doubling the ability score modifiers (e.g., Con of 14 gives +4 instead of +2), the proficiency bonus, and/or HP won't scale well with level because power in D&D is heavily tied to class features/spell level. Even getting an additional full action (and bonus action) isn't sufficient, for this reason. Unless you play a fighter/barbarian I suppose...then it may work.
-Larian could adjust all encounters for a Lone Wolf playthrough, but these seems like a LOT of work, and possibly require the player to commit to that mode for the entire game.

I'm honestly curious what your thoughts are on this. Because possibly, what will work for a party size <4, could potentially be inversed for a party size >4.

Yeah, they did.
Sounds like an additional reason that makes the party of four complete shit.
The only thing shittier than a small party in a CRPG is a small party where you aren't even allowed to swap an extended circle of companions around.

Oh well, Larian will find a way and, be assured, it will have nothing to do with how D&D is supposed to work.

Let's start with "Larian hinted that we are going to lose comanions after Act 1." Okay. Fine. They hinted at it. So what? This is a forum for discussing what we WANT Larian to do. That has no bearing on whether they SHOULD shrink the party like in OS2. I sincerely hope they don't shrink the party. As others have said, it would ruin the entire flexibility of being able to have different parties at different times depending on who you need in the party and when. Say I need more magic users in my party to fight a certain magically weak enemy. Let me put Gale and Wyll and Shadowheart in my party. Say I need more physical melee fighters. Let me put my fighter and Lae'zel and maybe Karlach (assuming she'll be an addition to companions) in my party. Don't limit me to just 4 going forward. That's terrible! That forces players into a niche instead of allowing them to strategically implement their team to better face certain enemies and encounters. So, just because they've hinted at it, doesn't mean they should do it, nor does it mean they should limit the party to only 4 period.

And just because they aren't XP splitting correctly now, doesn't mean they shouldn't do it correctly for the future. If they XP split correctly, then it won't matter how they balance their encounters. If I go into the game with only 4 party members and earn a total of 4,800 XP, splitting that 4 ways is a 1,200 XP a piece. So, my characters should be Level 3 because it's 300 to go to level 2 and 900 more to go to Level 3. If I have 6 party members, they'd only gain 800 XP a piece doing the same encounters. So, they'd only be Level 2. The way D&D is designed, an encounter should be just as challenging for 4 Level 3 characters as it is for 6 Level 2 characters. You wouldn't have to rebalance at all because you are trading things off. While you have more party members, they are lower level. Thus, less experience earned per person and thus they won't gain levels as fast and so although you have more people to fight with on your side, they won't be as strong as if you just went with a party of 4.

So, it wouldn't be some big-butt thing they'd have to do to rework the whole game. Just rewrite the code to allow 6 characters regularly (which it is already in the game since you can do this if you multiplayer with 4 people and get Lae'zel and Shadowheart in the Prologue it allows you to have up to 6 in the party during the Prologue), and then just recode it so that it doles out experience a bit differently, splitting it instead of giving everyone all the experience. So, what the game does now is gives you 4,800 XP each for a party of 4 instead of dividing it by 4 and only giving each character 1,200 each like it should. If they implemented these two simple fixes, whether you have a party of 4 or 6, it won't matter from a game balance perspective.

And frankly, right now, the battles are fairly easy, for the most part. I've played through from start through the initial grove experiences, including Harpy Battle and Secret Tunnels Fight, and I just now Long Rested for the first time with a party of 4 at Level 2 max. So, if they change the XP rewards so that they are split instead of everyone getting max XP every fight, they still wouldn't have to rework the entire game for balance purposes.

Yet sales and completion stats are objective metrics. It's ironic, but you yourself used "who cares of what YOU want?" as an argument, so why should Larian care about what you want when they can spend time and effort on implementing and testing something that will help attract more players or will be appreciated by more than just bg1&2 fans?


You imply that they will want it. The problem is that they will be forced to do it, it the game will be balanced for a party of 6.


Unbalanced difficulty and frustration will stop them. Is it so hard to understand, that there a lot of people who liked NWN1 being centered around sole PC, who only bought OS2 because they could play it with only one PC? People who like parties may want 6+ PCs, but they will still be happy with 4. People who want to play with controlling only one PC won't buy and enjoy a game where they will feel handicapped playing that way.


Then why can't you accept that people who consider 1 or 2 party members as ideal party size want the same thing? It's much easier to make a game enjoyable and balanced for 1 and 2 sized parties using Lone Wolf-style mechanics if the maximum size for the party is 4.


It will prevent them from enjoying a game the same way it's not enjoyable to play BG2 solo unless you are a hardcore BG2 fan. Vast majority of players just want to chill and have fun playing the game, they don't want extra challenge and they don't want the game to be boringly easy. That's why proper balance is important.


Recycling outdated game design doesn't make a competent, engaging and complex CRPG.



BG2 was good in 2000. If it was released today even with modern graphics it would be considered mediocre compared to RPGs like DA:I, OS2, Witcher 3.

"Unbalanced difficulty and frustration will stop them. Is it so hard to understand, that there a lot of people who liked NWN1 being centered around sole PC, who only bought OS2 because they could play it with only one PC? People who like parties may want 6+ PCs, but they will still be happy with 4. People who want to play with controlling only one PC won't buy and enjoy a game where they will feel handicapped playing that way."

But again, play it solo or with party of 6. Use proper XP split and it works. You play solo and gain 4,800 XP. You are now 1 character at Level 4, going on to 5. You play party of 6 and gain 4,800 XP. Split 6 ways, you have 6 Level 2 characters. Same challenges, same difficulty because 1 Level 4 = 6 Level 2's.

So, why not allow the game to be played with up to 6 party members so if you want to solo, you can, but if you want a party of 6, you can also?

This doesn't work with DnD system. 1 level 4 =/= 6 lvl 2s. Also in the endgame you hit content designed for 6 characters at max lvl while you only have 1. Try playing Pathfinder or BG2 with a casual not crazy min/maxed character even on normal difficulty without cheese, it won't work.

I'm going to keep asking until Alyssa responds or someone quotes me and then she responds to that (in case she's ignored me), because at this point the conversation is just getting repeated.
As BG3 is right now, playing as a solo character in BG3 will be really difficult, especially at later levels.

@Alyssa_Fox, how do you think Larian should implement Lone Wolf mode for people who want to play BG3 solo, if not increasing experience point gain?

5e doesn't have "X skill points gained each level" that can simply be doubled, and power in D&D mainly comes from abilities & spells which are determined by class level and not the amount of points put into a skill. Perhaps your idea of how to implement this might result in some understanding/resolution of allowing a 6-person party by doing the inverse...

Sure. They are objective metric for sales. Who are you even trying to fool here?
Are we trying to attempt the angle where any criticism should be dismissed on the virtue of popularity contests?
Guess the only good movies are the blockbusters, too.



The only thing outdated here is your pretense to be taken seriously every time you make a claim like this stating it as a fact.


Complete, utter bullshit. You're delusional.
Dragon Age Inquisition isn't even the best Dragon Age and the oh-so-lauded Dragon Age Origins was often considered a second-rate attempt to recapture the magic of BG2 by most of the people who knew better.

I wouldn't really consider these three games combined as good as BG2, NOT EVEN even with the tech advantage and some design choices I'm far more favorable to (i.e. turn-based combat over RTWP), let alone if they were going to lose that edge.
And the third is a completely different genre anyway, so I'm not sure of what relevance it's even supposed to be (still, mechanics were always TW3's weakest points).

You could have spared me a long winded answer that in the end it doesn't really say anything of value beside "I'm going to defend whatever questionable blunder Larian could make as if my very life depended on it". I already got the gist several discussions ago.

For the rest, most your tedious attempt to keep arguing that you couldn't have a game that works with both a 4 and a six-men party keeps being something you cling to exclusively out of sheer stubbornness.
It's ridiculous because built over the assumption that you can objectively nail balance (something that will feel entire different to pretty much every single player according to class used, playstyle, familiarity with the system, etc.
It's not a strong argument per se, but it becomes especially weak given that many already conceded more than once in the discussion that they would take the option for a larger party even at cost of getting absolutely zero rebalance around it, something that at that point would literally have NO negative effect on your morbid attachment for a boring small party.

"BU-BUT WHAT IF I WANT TO PLAY SOLO because managing more than two characters gives me an aneurysm?". Well. Suit yourself, but most people don't get into party-based CRPGs to play fucking Diablo.