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

To be clear, I'm FOR an allowed party size of 6 (via a dedicated defaults-to-off checkbox in the settings) that uses split exp. Modifying the exp formula could easily balance everything for parties >4.

But I do agree with Alyssa_Fox that split exp might not work that well for 1-person parties, possibly at all levels. At low levels, an increased-exp solo-er simply wouldn't have enough features to resist common enemy CC/shoves/surfaces/damage. At higher levels (with increased exp), a solo-er would reach the level cap and thus sharply drop off in power beyond that. Also, while systems like Pathfinder grant skill points each level and increase ALL STs with higher levels (even AD&D 2e did this, right?), D&D 5e only increases your proficiency with a subset of these. A level 20 5e sorcerer, barring feats/subclass abilities, still only gets their Wis Mod to Wisdom STs.

Honestly, I'm mainly theory-crafting for fun at this point: "given no extra exp, how could one balance a party of 1-2 characters for normal encounters?" It's not like Larian is actually reading this thread. Or if they are, they've likely already come to their conclusions.

Okay. I guess I'm not truly even considering parties of 1-3 at all. My focus is parties 4-6, with an emphasis on 6. You can balance all encounters for anything between 4-6 party members with relative ease using XP split. A party of 4 Level 4 characters should have relatively the same trouble fighting the Spider Matriarch as a 6 member Level 2 or 3 party. Shoot! The 4 Level 4s might defeat her easier because they have higher HP each and better stats and abilities.

But, the point is that it wouldn't take as much for Larian to implement a 6 member party. They wouldn't have to rebalance the whole game.

As for 1-3 member parties, that's on the players. You want to challenge yourself and go fight everything solo, then you just have to accept the challenge, OR set the difficulty setting to Easy or whatever it will be once they actually implement difficulty settings.

Again, that should have absolutely no bearing on this discussion about increasing party size to 6.

You keep saying that ...
But same as Goblin leaders are not big bosses of Act 1, no matter how much you wish that ... those companions are not any more important than rest Origin characters will be.

Why did they chose to make them first?
Bcs theyr classes was done first.

Why was theyr classes done first? Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard and Warlock ...
The most basic classes you find.

Dont search anything deeper in that.

This dont make sence to me ...

Party of 4:
I need to take Wyll with me for his quest ... i release one companion ... i take Wyll instead.

Party of 6:
I need to take Wyll with me for his quest ... i release one companion ... i take Wyll instead.

Where is any difference?

Oh that is what you mean ... that with bigger party there is bigger chance that i will have Wyll in my party allready!
Well, yes ...

I know, i know ... this is actualy main reason for 6 members party for myself.

Agreed ... simply allow us to recruit two more people and dost adjust anything, we can handle that. :P

Well, at least we agreed on most things this time. 😁

i was having so much fun with pathfinder wrath of the righteous. it's the first game that make me feels that i needed 7 party character instead. not a joke. i'm intending to use a mod to increase the size to 7. here me out why. i play on core difficulty and above so it seems to cover most of the roles to have the best gameplay (for myself personally), some companions are simply required for every playthrough... except if you play on normal difficulty i don't think it's going to matter.

camellia - simply required for me as she's the best party buffer, tank and critter.
seelah - she's really powerful with mark of justice and really required if you play higher difficulty.
sosiel - mandatory for me over daeran. sadly daeran has to go because sosiel much better.
nenio or woljif - nenio here winning over both woljif and ember. ember sleep is really nice though. but cam got her covered.

so the other party companion, unless you are playing as a range MC yourself, i would say arue or lann is simply mandatory.
but due to above party setup, if my main character isn't a DPS himself, i would rate that greybor is mandatory.

due to this design it simply leave me no choice for a 7 party character setup. also.. a pet companion is simply very important! in higher difficulty as well.

bottomline: i find myself enjoying and having alot of fun with pathfinder wrath of righteous given alot of options and different playstyles. with 4 party character in bg3 sadly to say.. i only completed EA once and never have touch it anymore.

for the sake of gameplay, i honestly think larian should increase the party size to 6 instead of 4. but i can really see through their intention which they really wanted that 4 party multiplayer thingy. but for single player i really urge larian to do the right thing. not everyone plays multiplayer. i have DOS / DOS2 and i never once touch the multiplayer. i don't see it any issue giving more options to players who want 6.

instead of giving more options and flexibility why larian chose to do the opposite?

Funny, because I played WoTR on hard and I felt that 6 person party is an overkill. I only actually used Weduag, Arue and my sorcerer PC in combat every turn. Nenio, Camellia (later Lann, I killed Camellia and leveled Lann as a shaman when I got him in act 5) and Daeran just summoned monsters to tank and I usually skipped most turns for those three. Combat in Pathfinder is extremely boring and easy because AI is just too dumb.

Why? Why people who like 6 person parties are more important than people who like playing RPGs solo?

Yeah, that was just you.

Because an RPG like BG3 is not meant to be played solo. Neverwinter, yes. Skyrim, yes. The Baldur's Gate series is built on being a party based series of games, and that is how D&D is meant to be played as well, as a party. If you want a solo game, there are plenty out there. What you seem to be trying to do is force a game to be both solo and party based and somehow balanced for both when it is the 3rd game in a series that has been based on a 6 person party from the very beginning.

You can't make someone see something they refuse to see, or believe in something they simply don't care about in the first place.

You can try to explain to me how a small party will inevitably not be able to comfortably handle all the skill checks that appear everywhere in the game, which makes the game less enjoyable, all day, it won't matter if I simply don't care about making skill checks, and won't find the game any less enjoyable if I fail skill checks everywhere, as long as I can still progress the main story.

You can try to explain how a small party greatly limits party composition choices all day, it won't matter if I never care about party composition or role-playing with a group of characters. I will be perfectly content if I can blast through the game with one single character. Experimenting with different ways of tackling encounters using different party compositions? Pfft.

You can try to explain how playing with more characters is more fun and interesting, it won't matter if I find it more enjoyable and easy to just have one single character to manage.

We can drop all the arguments as for why we believe one thing is better than the other. At the core it's just "because we *prefer* it that way". It's just personal preferences, no matter how absurd or stupid you may think someone's preferences are. If I enjoy playing with one character because I'm too lazy to care about the nuances of playing with 6 characters, none of your explanation will matter to me. I have the right to not be one of those sophisticated players.

Definitly not just me

https://steamcommunity.com/app/640820/discussions/0/3393916911753266145/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder..._ever_feel_like_a_party_of_6_is_too_big/

Well, no, we can't, actually, because we are arguing for the addition of that preferential option that is currently missing in the game and being vocal and insistent about it is the only thing that will give us a remote chance to make it happen.


"it's up to personal preference, so shut up and suck it up" doesn't really help anyone here.
Well, besides Alyssia and her rabid opposition to let other people have something they may enjoy.

Ah yes, not just you. Also another couple of nutjobs in a ten-posts thread where half of the replies are opposing the initial suggestion.

P.S. Same goes with the reddit thread, incidentally: the overwhelming majority of the replies are in favor of a larger party size.

Well, it's developer who decides how their game is meant to be played and Larian confirmed that they will add a Lone Wolf mode.

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1086940/view/2885074731428367103

"Is there a Lone Wolf mode planned?
This is actually a question already being asked by a number of our playtesters who are currently playing the game. A Lone Wolf mode is planned, but won’t be in the game at the beginning of Early Access. One of the many great discussions that come from people playing, and talking with us."

I just scanned those threads that you linked on the previous page (from steam/reddit), and after the opening thread titles questioning whether a 6 character party was too large, there were at least as many if not more posts and upvotes in support of a party >4. In that respect those threads seem to mirror what we've see in this one, and also what Try2Handing mentioned about the intractability of personal preference.

For my part, I'd say that XP scaling is a ready solution to accommodate Parties of 3-5, and also parties of 6 like the earlier BG games. I think it would work well going from 4 to >4, or from 4 down to <3, just as BG1/2. Provided the player intends to play the game with a party. If they don't, then they may have extra requirements to accomodate.

You and mrfuji have both expressed the idea that XP scaling will be insufficient for parties <3, and particularly for solo or duo play. That may very well be true, but it seems to me that if accommodating the Lone Wolf is so much more onerous, then it really should be an independent game mode and not try force a round peg into a square (or ideally hexagonal) hole here.

For example, I should not be able to simply dismiss my party of 4 down to just myself as the Lone PC, and then suddenly gain access to a host of extra abilities, more hitpoints, double concentration or whatever. Unlike going from 3 to 4, or up to >4, where we can keep an internally consistent and flexible method via XP scaling, Lone Wolf likely requires a totally different set up to function well. It should have its own independent game options toggle and should not intrude so much on the default party based game.

Going from 3-4 to 3-5 or 3-6 is relatively simple and straightforward to execute. Solo or Duo play not so much, I think our request here for 2 extra party slots with XP scaling is much easier to pull off in a way that will satisfy both players who like a party of 4, and those who like a party of >4. But going the other direction is like a totally different convo, that requires something a lot more involved to make this thing satisfying for strictly Solo players who aren't interested in a party, and just want some kind of AI henchmen type thing (if they even want that?). I suggested earlier that they could use a ghost chain, or even simply have the camp as a place for story delivery without actually bringing the NPCs along for the ride. To me that would defeat the point, but they could set that up I'd think as a game option, and it wouldn't spoil anything for my preferred style of play. I don't oppose that, I just think it will require more work and a different sort of work to pull that off, than our request to have 6 at the high end rather than just 4. By comparison the 6 request seems pretty straightforward, the 1-2 request rather more involved.

Honestly the only valid arguments I see against an optional 6-person party are:
1.) Working on this will take away Larian's resources from something else that the poster thinks is more important
2.) Poster will feel compelled to have the full 6-person party so they miss less content, but think this will be less fun in a TB game especially with Larian's UI. And self-imposing oneself to 4 characters is not fun, for the same reasons that "If you don't like it, don't use it" is a bad argument: imposing self restrictions is not fun or good game design.
3.) Larian will implement a 6-person party in a terrible way that affects all players, not just 6-person-party players (e.g., adding more enemies, making the 6-person party required, and/or using the 6-person exp mechanic for solo players)

These are the only things we should be discussing. Most other arguments boil down to essentially: "I don't want to play with a party of 4, so no one should be able to without mods."

The responses to these concerns are:
1.) It can take negligible work to implement a 6-person party. Larian could simply make it an option without changing anything else. Or they could add [optional] scaling exp, which is very simple.
2.) The game shouldn't allow a 6-person party by default. You should have to go into settings to enable it.
3.) Yes, they might. But we're arguing for what we want, not what we think is going to happen, hopefully so that Larian takes inspiration from our ideas.

Similarly (to be fair), people arguing FOR a party size of 6 shouldn't be using arguments such as "a 6 person party matches BG1&2" because similarities don't necessarily equal better. 5e != AD&D 2e.

If you have a different argument than the 4 listed above, feel free to mention it. I'll admit it's likely I'm missing something.

Well, then again the preference for one type of party setting over the other have very little to do (if anything at all) with the specific ruleset used.

A party of 6 worked great in BG2 because it was an ideal compromise for this type of computer game, not because something about the AD&D is "specifically tailored for that type of party".
Which is also what makes the argument "Bu-but the PHB/DM guide suggests 4 players" is bloody stupid. And not just because 4 players are suggested as a BASELINE rather than a top ideal, but because that has little bearing in how you play this type of computer game.

It's the same reason that years ago made a lot of people complain that a party of 4 in Dragon Age Origins was obviously a dumbing down of the formula tailored around console players. And this is despise the fact that Dragon Age was a ruleset with THREE BLOODY playable classes.

If they are planning a Lone Wolf mode then why are we even debating this? You're confusing. Let them create a Lone Wolf mode for you, and a 6 party game for everyone else. Why are you fighting for a 4 party game instead of 6?

I think she's made pretty bloody obvious that this isn't about making a sensible argument for a design decision but about defending the status quo no matter what.
And no mirror will be left unclimbed in the attempt to achieve that goal.

Right on. Exactly what was going through my mind as I was reading this exchange. BG3 is, by definition, a party-based game. So talking about 4 v. 6 is fundamentally different from those who want to play a party-based game without a party. Talking about wanting to solo a party-based game is in the same cetagory as wanting to play an isometric game first-person, or a character development game without engaging in any character development. You're looking to play the game in a way that goes against the very essence of the game, wheras the discussion about party size 4 v. 6 is well within the scope of what the game is about.