Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Unbalanced party choices

So I've tried the sorcerer and had to restart the game because of an unbalanced party.

In D&D an ideal four-member party consists of two melee strong characters, a healer and a spell caster.

In BG3 if you choose a spell caster or a healer as the main character you end up having difficulties because the companions you get to choose from are mostly spellcasters, other than the rogue.

Solutions to this would work obviously either have your main character as a melee-focused character or perhaps Larian should include an additional fighter to the companions.

Minsc and Karlach will be frontline characters.

I've not really had trouble with any party make up, to be honest.

Wyll, Astarion, Shadowheart and Lae'zel all make perfectly adequate frontliners, in this game.... and even when my sorcerer or wizard end sup tanking enemy attention, it's only rarely a big deal.

The fights where you'd really, really want a strong tank are so overblown that your tanks won't stand up anyway, right now, so it hardly makes a difference.

I agree that there is significantly more spellcasters than rogues, rangers and warriors. Lae'zel is the only warrior in the group. I feel like Larian should of added a Paladin to complement her but then again Paladins also have magic. Astarion is the only rogue but he's an arcana rogue by default. He should of been given mostly rogue attributes instead of giving him spells. Astarion should also be the only one who can picks locks unless you choose to pick ranger for your character or a rogue. As for spell caster companions, you have three, a cleric, a warlock and a wizard. I'm not sure what the abilities of classes are in DnD but I notice that Wizards and Sorceror have pretty much the same abilities minutes a select few. I also feel that Wizards should not be the only one that can learn spells. I think that is unfair to Warlocks, Clerics and Sorcerors. In my opinion, the game doesn't have to be 100% DnD just based on it is fine. DnD is based on existing lore, they just tweak it for their own. So, Larian can also do the same for a video game.

I was brought here based on the interviewed and advertised promise of a 5e D&D game, brought into video game format as faithfully as possible - that's what they said, and that's what they advertised to draw in early purchases (as well as coat-tailing the Baldur's Gate legacy and name). That was their marketing campaign, initially. The interviews where they explicitly said and advertised those things are very hard to find nowadays, they've quietly disappeared.

Doesn't matter though: those were the advertisements that drew me here... and the more I feel as though those advertisements are not being honoured or upheld, the more like I will be to speak poorly of the game, and its developers to others, and the more likely I'll be to recommend against both it, and the company that produced it, for not really showing any interest or respect in the IP, and caring only about making noise for their own game,s even if they have to mislead their prospective audience to do so. The less I feel those advertisements are being honoured and respected, the less likely I am to ever support Larian in anything ever again, and the more likely I am to suggest the same course of action to my friends. I know I do not feel alone in this sentiment.

You don't really necessarily want a 5e game: that's fine. There are PLENTY of high quality computer RPGs that are not 5e D&D games; go play them, you'll enjoy them. This one was pitched as a 5e D&D game, set in the forgotten realms, so that is what it should be.

Third play through of patch six …Druid main, shadow heart, gale, astarion …should be interesting but enjoying it so far upto the blighted village - time to kill the ogres …

You know, that you can choose the subclasses of your companions? Astarion is only an arcane trickster, If you choose it that way. You can make him a thief and then he hasn't a single spell on him. It's up to you


About the topic: It's true, that we have a lot of spellcasting classes and my characters add to the pile, since I don't play fighters. But I never had a problem, beating the game anyway. I often use my character, Shadowheart, Gale and Wyll and just bring the enemies down with spells.

Wizards can learn many spells through scrolls and they have more spellslots but they have to long rest to recover them.

Sorcerer have less spells and spellslots but they have metamagic and they can recover spellslots with their sorcery points.

Warlock have less spells and less spellslots but their spellslots are up again after a short rest.

Cleric knows all spells available and can pick those they wants between every long rest.

Long rest and short rest makes the balance between spellcasters. Long and short rests does not work as they should in BG3. Dnd is not the problem. The resting mechanic in BG3 is.

pretty sure a lot of people who are hardcore DND tabletop players would strongly disagree on this.

>> In D&D an ideal four member party consists of Two melee strong characters, a healer and a spell caster. <<

I think this is a incorrect premise. I know plenty of power gamers that would disagree with this statement. In fact, spell casters tend to be the most overpowered classes in any DnD game. While it is true that many boss fights can be made easier by having a couple of tank characters in the lead, I haven't ever had a situation where good tactics couldn't change the odds significantly if played correctly. Spell casters using grease, sleep or web spells can significantly change the odds in any battle allowing other characters advantage against them. I'm using a sorcerer as my main character and have used a party of Gale, Laezel and Asterion for a number of tough fights in the game and have yet to lose a single battle and most have been pretty easy. That said, I'm now headed into the underdark and I've swapped out Gale for Shadowheart because she can work more as a front line character as well as offer party buffs. This is my 7th or 8th play through and I've used all available companions for every fight and haven't encountered one that I couldn't beat if I used the environment, magic and tactics correctly.

If your style of DnD is basically run at the enemy and beat them on the head and don't take advantage of the edge that magic can give, then the issue is your play style not the game.

JMO YMMV.

Quote
In my opinion, the game doesn't have to be 100% DnD just based on it is fine. DnD is based on existing lore, they just tweak it for their own. So, Larian can also do the same for a video game.

pretty sure a lot of people who are hardcore DND tabletop players would strongly disagree on this.

I can say with complete confidence that this is actually the case. I've been to many gamecons and have met with members of Wizards of the Coast as well as some of the original designers of DnD and they have often pointed out that DMs are free (and encouraged) to modify or adjust rules and lore if necessary. The idea has always to be true to the spirit of the game. Variation is key to making the game always seem new and unfamiliar. The last thing any DM wants is the game to be so rule locked that the players end up just following a list of steps to win.

Predictability has never been the foundation of a fun game.

Circling back around, I have also never had a problem completing the game with the companion choices available. Have noticed that several people are very stuck in their way of playing, but most still find a selection on companions that work for them, and has been stated, we don't have them all yet. If you are really intent on playing a spell caster, whether Wizard, Warlock, or Sorcerer, Then Lae'zel is almost an auto include. Since they've redone Shadowhearts stats, put a set of ring mail on her, or the gith half-plate, and send her to the front of the line. Astarion, when chosen as a Thief and given the Dual wpn feat so he can dual wield rapiers, is DEADLY. So I think there are so pretty decent choices for "fighters/Tanks/Melee DPS" in the current companions list. Personally, I only use 1 character as my beat stick and I very rarely have to reload, even the toughest fights.

As far as DnD is concerned, a traditional 4 player party consists of: 1) Melee specialist-Player character, Lae'zel, Astarion, or even Shadowheart; 2) Rogue-PC, Astarion, or Shadowheart; 3)Magic user-PC, Gale, Wyll, 4)Healer-PC, Shadowheart, or Gale (who can learn cleric spells from scrolls and he is deadly with guiding bolt!). As you can see, by DnD standards, you don't even need your PC to play any of the necessary roles. In fact, there are several of us who are waiting for the opportunity to play one of these as our main PC, even if they are not properly made.

As others have noted, there will be more companions added in the future.😊

I love casters, so my current party is sorcerer Tav, Gale, Wyll, and Shadowheart. My last playthrough was the same except that Tav was a druid.

It would help tho, if they were actualy planning one Origin character per class ... and were releasing them with those classes ...
Right now we would potentialy have Cleric, Fighter, Ranger or Druid to front line ... instead we have Fighter and "Cleric" (i dunno, feel free to corect me but trikery just dont feels right to me in first line ... more like backline buffer or something) ...

But honestly i dont see where this big fuss get from, i played with Sorcerer + Gale + Wyll + Lae'zel ... and they were pawning everything quite good

I've been DM'ing for over 20 years from 2nd edition through to 5e and typically when working with new and old players alike, session zero is critical so that I can create the campaign around the character choices the players made.

Session zero is pre-play and typically involves character creation and conversations around what type of game the players may want, do they want a dungeon crawl, a murder mystery, an epic journey, etc.

The primary reason in a four-party game two melees, one healer and a spellcaster is the sweet spot is that with this make up the party has the greatest chance of success across a wide range of situations. Primary is the higher HP/AC and strength, dexterity, and constitution stats of melee-focused characters which can come in very handy in a variety of situations, not least of which is for the protection of the spellcaster who will likely be at mid to higher levels the deciding factor in winning a fight. The healer is also important to heal up the damage the melee characters typically receive along with other support spells such as Bless / Aid, etc.

It is possible to create a melee Cleric at higher levels if you put your bonus points to dexterity, strength, and constitution, though you are limited to bludgeoning weapons such as maces, etc.

Okay, I've thought about it for several minutes now, so you're going to have to tell me...


What exactly does the damage type of your favoured weapon have to do with anything here at all?

It's all about covering the greatest area in terms of range, keeping the characters with least HP and AC out of harm's way, while being able to deal damage to enemies at all ranges.

If you have a spell caster heavy party, you're going to find you'll get overwhelmed quickly and die faster due to the lower HP and AC of Spellcasters.

Also spells have a higher chance of failure given possible broken concentration etc. Which means you need to protect your spell casters if you want to be most effective in battle.

I third the opinion that the classic D&D party is fighter-rogue-wizard-cleric, instead of 2 melee fighters+healer+spellcaster. With a party of 5, the default 5th slot is a bard=buffer/debuffer. Now, usually the rogue is a melee fighter, so in practice we end up with 2 melee fighters. But not necessarily. As thief-Astarion is definitely a melee character, we have all 4 roles regardless.

But yes, currently 3/5 of the companions are spellcasters, 3.5/5 if you make Astarion an Arcane Trickster. And we don't have many of the hybrid classes (Paladin/druid/bard) than can partially fulfill multiple party roles, making party composition more restricted if you want a "balanced party."

Unfortunately, I'd guess that the next companions we'll get are druid and sorcerer, as those are the released classes. Which will make the companions even more caster-dominated (although druid can be a melee frontline via wildshape).

To me the unbalanced party choices are reflected in the weapon selections. Laezel is locked in on a great sword per background and fighting style.The rest are dexterity based or spell slingers. There are no NPCs to make use of all of the interesting variety of strength based weapons that you find. That leaves the PC to make a strength based character if you want to experience the variety of weapons and fighting styles. But as the face of the party, I want to be more than a fighter. Having more strength based NPCs would really open up the options.

I made a thread about this somewhat recently-ish. I completely agree.