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

This all stands on two bad assumptions:

1) that Larian feel the urge to provide perfectly ballanced experience to everyone, no matter how big, or what members his party will have ...
Wich obviously isnt quite true (at least not yet) ... Larian simply created game ballanced for 4 people ... and if you want to go with 2, its your choice ... thigs will be harder for you, but if you wish ... you can, no tunning is happening if you do ...

Perfect example are those Intellect devourers on start ... if you cast Shadow away, they will obliterate your ass if you are not carefull enough.
Why? Bcs game dont care that you decided to cast out your companion, you are suppose to be group of 2 by now and in that numbers, encounter is fine ... if you decide to get there solo, its potentialy harder ... if you decide to open tomb instead (and manage to ) you can get there other way around with 4 member party and that encounter is trivial as fuck.

2) that players feel the urge to be provided perfectly ballanced experience to them, no matter how big, or what member their party will have ...
Once again, that is false asumption ... since no modder in the world would go through every single game aspect and tuning it for more party members ... they simply find the rule that say "when party members = 4, dont allow another member to join" ... and change the number from 4 to 6 ... NO ADDITIONAL TUNING AT ALL ... wich (surprise, surprise) is EXACTLY what we (or at least some of us) want from Larian.

Action per turn, spell slots and other per rest powers, HP will require tuning. It will require testing if just doubling or quadrupling them is good enough, but these stats will definitely need some adjusting to level the field for solo/duo players.

What are you talking about? Where do you think I got that from? That's exactly how D&D works. It is the D&D system. When you play D&D, if you go up against enemies and the DM awards you a thousand experience, that thousand experience is divided amongst the number of characters in the party. So, if you have four party members, they will level up much faster than eat party members, because you are giving more experience to each individual character in a party of four. So I can play the exact same campaign with four players as I do with eight players, but by the end the campaign with the four players will be higher level than the campaign with the eight players. I'm not entirely sure you fully understand how D&D works.

And it's all about how they implement things in the game. Sure if your solo playing you're eventually going to level cap towards the end. But I don't think that anyone expects that this game should be built based on a solo playthrough. This is a D&D game, and D&D is never meant to be played solo. It is meant to be played as a party of adventurers traveling together, a group of friends. That's why we are fighting so hard for a party of six. Parties of six are a classic for D&D.

Still, popularity can be measured and popularity proves that something is appealing and enjoyable for an average customer. It is important for AAA games, because AAA games are blockbusters of video gaming industry. So, if your tastes are niche and specific, then play niche games, watch niche movies, read niche novels, but don't try enforcing your niche tastes on general public. You have a right to dislike something majority likes, but calling it trash is edgy and dumb, you need to learn to respect the tastes of majority, because, after all, our modern society is based on preferences of the majority and democracy and in video gaming industry customers vote with their money.


No real approval system for companions, few skill checks in social interactions, lacking and mostly boring combat encounters, horrible interface, etc. Older BG titles didn't age well. At least Planescape has writing as it's saving grace, but BG writing is very generic and cliche.



Dragon Age: Inquisition is the most successful video game launch in BioWare's history based on units sold. That's a fact.



It's funny how you say things like that and claim that other people are delusional. You claim that your opinion is superior, what you like is complex and amazing, but what majority likes is trash. Yet there are no numbers supporting your words, no objective metrics, no statistics, just your opinion without any real proof.

If we are talking about actual tabletop DnD, then open pages 82-83 of DMG for 5e. You don't only split XP based on the amount of players, you also tailor encounters based on the amount and level of players. On page 84 you will find guidelines for how much exp should a party member earn for each adventuring day. The actual amount of XP a single player in the party earns by the end of the day is supposed to be the same no matter the size of the party. DM creates encounters so that larger parties earn more total xp (more enemies, more difficult enemies) so that after you split the xp between party members they will level as fast as members of a smaller party.


https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?author=5E%20Solo%20Gamebooks


Parties of 3-5 are default for 5e, parties of 6+ have special rules and imply different combat encounters. Page 83 of DMG 5e.

I still have yet to hear a valid argument for why they shouldn't make it 6 party members.

Here are my valid arguments for 6:

1. Multiplayer party of 4 can actually have origin characters in their party to satisfy story arc requirements like Lae'zel interrogating Zorru. Can't have that with party of 4.
2. Players have more flexibility to strategically build their party.
3. Players can literally travel with all origin characters in single player mode, thus able to trigger all story quests without having to go to camp, ask party member to leave, confirm it, walk up to other party member, ask them to join, then leave camp. Sure, more companions may be added later, but the core companions, the ones the story is being built around, can all travel with the MC together and interact, etc. without the camp hassle.
4. Lots of people want it, and those who don't can still play with only four if that's what they really want.

Have I missed any? Either way, some very valid reasons.

Tell me what I'm missing here.

It's funny that you think that they are building their encounters even remotely based on D&D tabletop rules. If they were, you wouldn't fight imps and intellect devourers and demons at level one and two with potentially only a party of two. If anything, the entire game so far seems to be building encounters around a party of six. That's why they're nerfing all the enemies.

Think about it, if I fought three intellect devourers with a party of six level two characters, that would still be a challenge if they implemented the rules correctly. A party of six fighting 3 imps would also not be an easy battle. The whole game is nerfed right now because we are only having four party members. If they want to make this game work even remotely close to D&D rules, they need to implement six party members and stop nerfing the enemies.

But regardless, the concept is still the same. A six-party member group fighting the same enemies as a four party member group will gain less experience and it will thus balance out. They don't have to rebalance the whole game for just that reason.

You know, your response bugs me. Do you DM RPGs at all? I've been tabletop RPGing for like 25+ years. I know how to build encounters, and I know that you can build them in such a way that regardless of party size, they are doable.

That's one of my big pet peeves with BG3 right now. They are trying to build the game using impossible enemies. Then they nerf them horribly. A single intellect devourer is a tough fight for a level 2 party of 4. 3 is insane. 3 imps fighting a party of 4 level 1s is also rough. I took a party of 3 players at level 1 through BG3 using tabletop, and the Prologue was rough with Lae'zel helping. They did it, but it was rough. Lae'zel almost died in the first imp fight.

First of all, I am not thinking that. I explained why you are wrong to assume that in actual DnD campaign a smaller party will outlevel a larger one. Because in actual DnD campaign encounters are tailored according to the party size and level so that every player will earn a specific amount of exp for each adventuring day. You split the exp, but the total amount of exp a larger party earns is supposed to be much higher. In the video games where the encounters are mostly static and do not adapt to the size of the party having a party of 6 and 4 will require creating different sets of encounters for each party size to achieve that. Using raw xp split without it will cause unbalanced and frustrating gameplay. That's my point.

Appreciate it.

I agree that actions per turn and HP could be useful and relatively easy to tune - simply scale from anywhere from 1.5-4x. Doubling spell slots...eh maybe will be a slight buff to power, but given the ease in long resting in BG3 this won't be that huge of an effect. However, an especially tricky mechanic is concentration. I'm assuming a Lone Wolf Solo character probably won't be able to concentrate on two spells at once, whereas a party of 4 could have up to 4 concentration spells going on at once. Or hey, maybe that'd be an appropriate and very interesting mechanical change by Larian - double concentration? At the very least, the novelty would attract players to at least try a lone wolf playthrough = game replayability.

Another problem is the ability for enemies to easily CC your solo character. In Divinity this is offset by +60% Physical and Magic armor, but in BG3 it'd be...saving throws? One thing that higher level characters gain is the ability to better succeed on saving throws (e.g., Fighter's Indomitable, Monk's Stillness of Mind, Paladin's Aura of Protection), all of which would be missing in this type of Lone Wolf mode. Unless Larian simply buffed all saving throws by ~+5 (roughly giving you 50% more chance to succeed) I can foresee this being a big problem...

Which isn't a problem if you don't care about how close Bg3 is to tabletop DnD. I don't. I care about two things: how fun it will be to play both for me and my friends and how much money will Larian make so that they can continue making games that are enjoyable and innovative. I see strict adherence to DnD tabletop rules as a negative element here because it restricts the creative freedom.


Yes, because a party of 4 lvl 2 characters has XP Threshold of 200/400/600/800 and an intellect devourer is, if I am not mistaken, a 700xp monster with CR of 3. But BG3 isn't a tabletop rpg.

Yes, that's a good point, double concentration would be a very welcome addition in that case. And not only in combat encounters, buffing characters for social encounters is important too. Which also makes me think that Lone Wolf should probably grant you some extra skill proficiencies.


Agreed, that one is tricky, because on the one hand the players shouldn't feel immune to CC, but on the other hand getting CCed when you only have 1 or 2 characters can be quite deadly. I don't know if a flat buff will be the best option here. What do you think about advantage on saving throws after the first round of being CCed?

Lol. I can't think of a single person out here who doesn't want the game to be fun and for Larian to make more fun games.

You tell me I'm wrong, but what do you base your RIGHTness on? I base my statements and suggestions on 25 years of RPG experience + a gazillion hours of playing videogames including almost every D&D game that's existed since Commodore 64 Bard's Tale and Pool of Radiance and all the old cRPG word games.

Since the freaking dawn of D&D cRPGs, I can't think of any that has so flippantly disregarded the source material so much, turning intellect devourers into thug grunts and imps having no resistance to anything and so on and so forth. Now, that said, it's EA, so maybe they plan on fixing that later. Who knows? And, in spite of it, I still love this game.

Yes, there is some room to argue all day long that many classic D&D cRPGs had only 4 party members, but that doesn't matter here. What matters here is what makes the most sense for this game.

I've given multiple reasons why a 6 party member BG3 is a big plus and why 4 severely limits. I've also explained how they can make it work without an issue. All you have done is get knit picky with me about the PHB and what it says about building encounters. The "rules" in the books for such things are guides. In practical use, I'm telling you, you can build encounters for 4 or 6 and it works out the same in the long run. Yes, in tabletop, you CAN design encounters based on player level and make sure to award experience so that by the end of a campaign a party of 4 is the same level as a party of 6 might be, but you can also design it the way I suggested.

And, just so you know, at one point, I even suggested that they could implement logic that does analyze your overall character level and tweak encounters to match. 3 imps against character level of 3 and the game should reduce imp health to 2 HP a piece because they have resistance and would require 4 HP of damage each to kill. It wouldn't take much to implement that logic, and then it would fit right into the PHB guidelines you quoted. I would actually prefer it. As a DM, that's how I would do it.

But that, again, should have no bearing on party size. Why? Because a computer can be programmed to modify encounters to match PC levels. You can even have demons fighting level 1s with legit rules IF the DM sets up the encounter right.

If implemented I think they'd need to restrict double concentration to solo (not duo) playthroughs. 2-person parties, each with double concentration, would be able to get into some crazy shenanigans. Especially since anyone can use scrolls atm.

As for skills, yeah giving extra proficiencies is probably better than a flat bonus to all skill checks. 2-3 additional ones perhaps.
Honestly that might not be enough. One turn of CC, against a group of >4 enemies, could be enough to just outright kill you. Especially if they chain-CC you with additional effects.
I'd suggest either advantage on all (first?) STs, a flat buff (proficiency bonus?) to all STs, or maybe a pool of Legendary Resistances per long rest. Where after a failed ST, you can expend one of those uses to succeed. Though this wouldn't work with Larian's lack of reaction systems, and so would simply turn into "you automatically succeed on the first X STs per day" which is bleh...

To the back and forth on the previous page... Alyssa_Fox' general point as I read it, was that she'd like the developer to prioritize the Campaign at the scale of a Party of 1-4, or more specifically of 1-2. If the DMG says that a "party of 3-5" is the default in 5e, that still leaves us with at least 3 at the low end. A campaign for 3-5 is a lot different than a campaign for 1-4. BG3 is not a campaign for 3-5, it's a campaign for 1-4.

The implicit point being that for any "special rules" and encounter balance zots, she'd rather have that dedicated not to the party of 4+, but rather for the party of fewer than 3. Citing sales and her own enjoyment with friends as the main motivator there, and some skepticism that any form of XP scaling could do the trick on its own, particularly at the low end. That's how I read the gist anyway, unless I was way off track. Was that the right read Alyssa_Fox? Is that your thought as well mrfuji3?

I understand the logic there, I just don't really agree with the priorities. I think Larian will probably damage their brand a bit if they stick it to their D&D fans overmuch, when the time comes for them to push out an expansion or sequel. They won't have the same kind of broad based good will and optimism from those quarters going into that next thing, if they just burn their D&D bridges along the way. Critical blowback could easily take the wind out of these sales, even if acclaim was strong initially. I know for my part I'll be pretty apprehensive if various things keep moving in a different direction than what I was expecting. At first I was like "hell yeah! please take my money BG3!!!" boiling over with enthusiasm at the prospect of a new Baldur's Gate game. Now my response would be decidedly more tepid and a lot more wait and see.

I want 6 in the EA. I don't necessarily need the encounters balanced for 6, but want native support for 6 in the UI and game settings. I don't want to download a mod and risk breaking my install to get something they should have built into this thing from the get-go. I can't speak for others, just for myself on that score. They will have a real hard time getting at my coin purse again if they try to pawn a BG off on me that only supports a party of 1-4, out of only 5-8 characters. That's just not the game I want at all, and they're already into me for the price of entry and all the time spent on these boards and such. So even if its a sunk cost thing at this point, I'll still repeat in the vain hopes...

6!

ps. I won't dispute that any of these Lone Wolf modifications being suggested might not help with sales or be advisable too. Only to say that if they can put in a whole gang of features and dedicate zots to the 1-2 experience -and can torch the DMG to make the Solo player happy - but remain entirely intransigent when it comes to their players who like the large party experience and just want a UI unlock that already exists, I will be hella blue. So blue. It will feel like such a rub.

I mean where is the 73 page Lone Wolf thread on these boards? Wasn't this the 6 character party thread? and now watch it all morph into the Solo player thread now. Alas

Maybe that does need a thread though. Like not this one, cause it will draw so much ire to go from talking about more than 4 to talking about fewer than 3, but there is a point to be made there too. I just think its hard to have the same party size discussion in both directions at the same time.

Or how about this? Instead of weighting the discussion in terms of what is more important or valuable to the game, how about just a pre-fix to clarify... So it's easier to follow along with the thinking.

>4 for "Party great than 4"

<3 for "Party fewer than 3"

Like an almost emoji to defuse tensions. Or an upvote even, like if you prefer to play with party at the high end or low end hehe

I think XP scaling works very well as a way to take the scale up from 4 to something >4. But I don't know how well it'd work in the other direction. I mean I'm only thinking about it in terms of how that worked in BG, to scale 1-6 and it seemed to work well, but I was almost always playing predominantly with a party of >4 for the duration there. And I plan to play BG3 almost exclusively at whatever maximum party size cap is allowed. I'm less experienced in what is required to run games for the soloist. I don't play much that way, except for during brief interludes perhaps for some story reason.

I still am not seeing a valid reason to not have a party of 6.

What I see is the game would work best WITH a party of 6.

1. Monsters could have actual 5e stats.
2. Story triggered for all origin characters so you don't have to change them out.
3. Able to trigger origin storylines even with a 4 player multiplayer session.
4. Able to strategically design your party more effectively.

The benefits of 6 way outweigh any negatives.

And that's my point. All the arguments against 6 are not big development issues.

And don't forget, they plan on implementing Difficulty settings, so that blows the whole balance the game issue out the water even more.

Seriously give me a good reason to not do 6.

Well besides that fact that there will be more origin characters, so we will most defnietly not abke to take them all ... wich was confrimmed both by datamining and Sven himself.

There is one tiny detail here: Long rests.
Since right now story progression is tied to resting especialy with companions ... since we can talk to them mostly in camp only.
If you add two other characters we could spend much more time in field ... since we would have more hp, dmg, spellslots, carry weight ... more everything to keep us from resting. 🤣
Personaly i dont see that as a such huge problem ... i say let people screw the game the way they want ... but since you asked. 😁

Laziness )

Because there isn't one.
It's not by chance that the attempted arguments are always the same recurring ones like "the official manual suggests 4 players" that were already discussed and dismantled dozens of times in this very thread (well, in the constellation of merged threads that make it).
Starting precisely with the very reason why that suggestion is made (the tabletop system obviously needs to sound so frictionless as possible from a logistic standpoint when it comes to gather different players around a table) or the fact that there's a significant difference between several human beings interacting around a table and having constant input on what's going to happen and a CRPG, where NPCs have very limited and sparse chances to interject in the player's decision process.

Even in its best and most grounded form, any argument against a variable number of party members is basically a case of arguing that "if you can't have perfect, then nothing is better than good". Which is obviously some disingenuous loaded bullshit.

And this is before even going *once again* over the fact that we are in a goddamn Early Access and there would be NO BETTER TIME to be wildly experimental with letting the players try different things and see what they will tend to prefer at large.

You keep saying that, but my point is that you can have every single original origin character in your party. So, you know, every character who appears on the title screen and who is obviously the most important non-custom character, who they chose to make the stars of EA because they are clearly more important than whatever future characters they release. But regardless, the more origin characters you have the more annoying it's going to be to have a party of four. Increase the number of origin characters, and you increase the number of times you have to switch characters out if you keep the party size to 4, thus proving even more that we need a larger party size. If I have 10 origin characters, let's just say, and 4 party member slots, in order to experience the full story, I'll have to switch out party members constantly. A party of 6, not so much, and just forget story altogether in multiplayer games of 4.

As for resting, yeah, well, I'm trying to get them to stop with character development only at camp, and have been from the beginning. It's a broken system to force people to long rest just to fully interact with the characters. It would be much better to simply trigger dialogue on the road with your party than the constant, "Let's talk at camp" bit.