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

For me party limitation is just shouting "you are playing the game! it has game limitations!"
And yes, nearly every game has such limitations...
but they usually just dont make accent on it. You just know you have slots to fill and thats it (that is why I like system where you must choose companiaons each time and dont listen them complaning about being kicked from pre-made group)

In BG3 game is just throwing the fact that there are in-game limitations in my face.
I meet Lae'zel who is eager to remove tadpole and when I ack her to join me she just says "no, your group is full (!), I`ll sit in your camp and wait.." what? WHAT???

The worse is with "new" camp system where the camp is build into the surroundings in dungeons... I like the idea, I hate loosers among companions being there. I travel through the dangerour area with alot of enemies (lets say Underdark) with 4 people, but each time I camp there are 6 people... What other 2 are doing I want to ask, follow at the safe distance or what?


Also found that each time I play I end up with the same "useless" compations sitting an the camp 100% of the time and doing nothing and I run with the same group of 3 and listen the same their dialogs that I already have heard many times...
And I have feeling the same will be after release for me: one and the same party from start to the end...

I think that could be explained easily. I don't like worlds which turn around the "hero" and his/her group and I don't like companions which are 100% to the main heros taste and licking his/her ... all the time. As allegedly the world is big and wild, there could be space for more parties of heros traveling around. The companions you see in the camp during rests do their own business the day over, they are just too polite to inform you how boring your adventures are in comparison to their own.

Except in BG3, there is nothing more important to our companions than our current main quest: deal with the tadpoles. Except for maybe Gale's bomb, but he tells us about that and requires we bring him items, and therefore isn't going off on his own to deal with it. So it doesn't really make sense that the companions aren't putting 100% of their effort into solving the tadpole issue.

I think it'd be interesting if, when you don't make quick enough progress in reaching each companion's preferred method of solving the tadpole (e.g., going to the Gith Creche for Lae'zel), the companions become dissatisfied with you. First they have a talk with you imploring and then demanding that you go there next. If you continue to do other things, however, they leave you to go there on their own. You'd be able to find them again when you go there, but perhaps things have played out differently than if you had gone there earlier.

Exactly. What doesn't make sense to me is that any of them are willing to sit at your camp and do nothing. They all have a vested interest in the main quest, and a few of them have a vested interest in side quests.

Lae'zel is the perfect example. She wants to get to the creche and she makes it quite plain constantly by nagging you that you aren't getting there fast enough. So why would she even allow me to tell her to sit at camp and wait there? It makes more sense to me that she would tell you where you could go and just how fast if you told her to sit at camp and do nothing.

Wyll is another perfect example. He pretty much hounds you right away, urging you to go to the goblin camp. So why would he be okay with you telling him to just sit at camp and do nothing?

Astarion is really hoping to find out more about the tadpoles so he can learn their secrets and control them. So why would he be okay with anyone telling him to sit at camp and do nothing when the best chance of finding out more secrets about the tadpoles is to go with you?

Gale has a bomb and he would be worried that you might withhold artifacts from him. So why would he want to sit at camp and do nothing? He'd want to make sure that if you find artifacts that he has to say in maybe acquiring them for himself.

Even Shadowheart expresses a desire to explore the area to see if she can find out more about the conflict between her people and her enemies, the Selunites.

So, to me, it really makes no sense that any of them would be okay with you telling them to sit at camp and do nothing. if anything, them being okay with it is more like them kissing your bum and just doing what they're told

It also makes loss of companion insignificant.
Oh, my companion disagreed with my actions greatly and left the party!
Yes, that one whom I never used and who had 3 dialogs with me so far... such a tragedy! Don't know how I will continue playing without him!

They've also said, I believe, that there will be custom character mercenaries in the game. Um... Why? If you only have a party of 4, there's no room for custom characters and origin.

Bcs you dont have to take even 1 of them with you ... duh.

Or they can die ... even more duh. :-/

My point was that you already feel the sting of a small party with the origin characters. You'll feel it a WHOLE lot more with custom mercenaries added to the game.

Like I've said about multiplayer, so it will be with custom characters mercenaries. The more non-origin you have, the more punished you are because you can't even trigger many origin story events - or you need to switch out companions constantly to do so.

Party of 4 customs means 0 opportunity for origin story quests like Lae'zel and the Gith creche, Wyll and Spike or Shadowheart and the Selunites/Sharran war. If you had party of 6, you at least have 2 party member slots to put origin characters in. Now, you can still have story quests.

At least with mercenaries I would hope you could Leave At Camp. You can't do that with 4 player multiplayer. You play 4 players and you completely lock out all opportunities for origin story quests.

And again, Party of 6 allows them to take present encounters and balance them more appropriately with 5e rules. They wouldn't need to nerf monsters as much. 3 intellect devourers are much more fight able with party of 4 customs and Shadowheart even at level 1 than they are with just Shadowheart and the MC. Also, 3 REAL 5e imps are much more doable with party of 4 + Lae'zel than just Lae'zel and MC.

And finally, I've asked you before, Ragnarok, to be respectful. Your comments are not. Please refrain from "duh" - like nonsense that does not provide any constructive use at all. It's insulting and unnecessary. I do not appreciate it. Thank you.

I dont believe mercenaries are suppose to add to origin characters ... they are suppose to replace them.

Party of 6 could be usefull in many ways ...

But mercenaries are not good argument for it, as far as i know, if you would have party of 6 ... there is litteraly nothing forbiding you to make 6 custom characters, instead of 4 ...
And (speaking about single player, obviously) you are just where you are now. :-/

In the end there is nothing disrespectful, or insulting about mentioning that some thing is obvious ... if you find such statement as personal attack, i believe you have problem. :-/

Let's get this part out of the way.

Respectful= "Bcs you dont have to take even 1 of them with you."

Respectful= "Or they can die."

Disrespectful= "Duh.". This is the same thing as saying to someone, "You're an idiot and a moron. The statement you made is absolutely idiotic. Why are you even speaking or presenting ideas, Neanderthal."

Disrespectful= "even more duh.". This emphasizes that you think the person's idea is even more stupid and moronic. So, you took the first "duh" and multiplied it 10 times, making it that much more insulting.

Would you talk to your mama that way - or your boss? If you thought their ideas were maybe a bit silly or wrong, would you be so disrespectful? If so, then that explains a lot.

My mama would have slapped my face off if I said something like that to her. I did once. Yeah. I just said, "duh" and nearly got my butt whooped. I can't imagine if I said, "even more duh."

Now, onto the actual topic.

Sorry. I see the disconnect. I was thinking the game would cap you at a total of 4 customs to align with 4 player Multiplayer. And so, the standard for the game could be set to party of 6, and you can start with up to 4 customs - 1 MC and 3 mercs. Then you'd still have the ability to add 2 origins.

But, to your point, mercs would probably be treated differently than 4 player multiplayer. You could create and let go any number of them at will.

As far as dying. Hah! Who stays dead in BG3? - unless YOU kill them.

Or it means just "obviously" ... nothing more, nothing less ...

And thay "may" be the reason i said it just means "obviously" in the last post ... but sure, feel free to read it however you like, if it pleases you. :-/
Just dont stuck your words into my mouth. :P


Despite the fact that i see no reason why you even should care ...
And despite the fact that I personally consider drawing a family into an argument, the lowest act of the low ...
And despite the fact that you are neither, so even if i would not, it dont aply to you anyway ...

Yes i do.

I do say my mother, or my boss without any problems, nor remorse ... that something i just said should have ben obvious ...
And since they both are reasonable persons who are actualy willing to listen what are you telling them, instead of wasting their, and my time trying to fing some offense behind every word, sight or gesture ... i dare to say that they would simply reply that it indeed should have ben obvious, and we would simply move on.

Feel free to try it sometimes, it's incredibly liberating.

//Edit:
Indeed now to the actual topic ...

This idea i supported year ago, when it appeared first time, and every time since then ... i still like it, and i still support it ...
And i still hope Larian will implement it that way.


This is one of reasons i would like to see them in EA ...
Otherwise, its all just guesses.

Nettie would be nice adept for mercenary ... or Aradin (and his whole group) ... or there is lot of potential alies among Tieflings ...
Hells, the options are endless.


Yup, that is the kind of death i was talking about ...

Or you simply leave them ...
I have seen few times on this forum few people talking about switching their party members after they die ... i have no idea how they manage, but i think something like that certainly should be implemented for those of us who wants to play hardcore. :3

Took a half year break from the game and when I come back this discussion is still a thing? il chime in because I do think its an interesting discussion but I feel its a bit of a confusing one. I feel it comes down to this sentiment. 'The game needs 6 man parties, or it isent baldurs gate!' and I feel its flawed.

Baldurs gate 1 and 2 had 6 man parties. That very much is fact. However they also used the dnd 2nd edition rules set. It used THAC0 instead of AC. Rangers werent complete dogshit. The game wasent baldurs gate because it allowed to you to bring a 6 man party. What made bg1 and 2 what it was, was the setting and the story they told in that setting. The journey of the bhaalspawn that you followed. A story that is now very much a part of the canon and thats been told (and the bhaalspawn isent our PC but thats besides the point). The story might be continuation of it, or not. But at the end of the day the game is still baldurs gate.

Its a rpg telling a story in the forgotten realms in or near the city of baldurs gate. It uses the DnD rules set.

DnD has changed over the years. Bg 1 and 2 were based on a version of DnD that is very, VERY dated by now. The class balance is different, the setting has changed and the rules set has changed. Heck entire spells have changed or outright dissapeared from dnd since then. Same goes for class features. If they make the game to have 6-man parties it wont magicly be Baldurs gate. Nor is the game any less baldurs gate if it lacks 6 man parties.

However I am in favour of 6-man parties. As an option. Not by default.

Im a DM and a player in another group. Finding good encounter balance can be exceptionally hard. And dnd is written for parties of 3 to 4 players. You can have bigger parties but it quikly muddies the waters with regards to balance. It very easily becomes to easy or to hard if you muck that up. So giving us an option to do it would work imho. Maybe make it be tied to a higher difficulty or something or just place a warning that the game might be easier then it was intended to be. But more options for the player is rarely a bad thing and I couldnt totally stand behind the option of allowing 6 man parties.

I've heard that repeatedly (the 4-party 'ideal'). I assume that's because CR was originally based on a group of 4, and it involves some work for a DM to rescale encounters in P&P. But that really doesn't mean its intended for 4 players only. I have always played with larger groups. Yes, 5E is more versatile with class roles, so you can get away with fewer players, but really that by no means precludes or limits player numbers. I have also DM'd and recently played with 6 players in a 5E campaign. It is absolutely doable, so I really don't think that's a reason not to support more than 4 players. They could quite easily target a 6-person party and have everything 'scaled' - or as others have argued, if the XP awards are split, then the party level would self balance (or could ne made to) anyway and over-levelling on core content should not be an issue.

I would prefer of 6 (or at least 5) person party. I find 4 too limiting, even if I can cover core roles with 4. It seems like an artificial optimization exercise. I would like my ranger, cleric, wizard, paladin, rogue etc. as I did before.

That's the thing. I've play tested scenarios for BG3 in Tabletop. Every encounter is designed for a larger party. Party of 4 is Deadly for almost each and every encounter while Party of 6 is not.

Take the first encounters with imps. Party of 2 (MC and Lae'zel) against 3 imps is suicide using proper D&D 5e stats. However, if you START with Party of 4 and add Lae'zel, THEN 3 imps is a fairly decent Tutorial fight at Level 1. Same is true for all the fights in the Prologue. The first beach fight with 3 Intellect Devourers is also suicide with just Party of 2 (MC and Shadowheart), but a party of 4 with Shadowheart (making 5 characters at Level 1 or 2) is doable. It's still tough, but if you know to keep them at a range, you shouldn't have an issue with party of 5.

Then take on Gimblebock and his 3 friends plus the 6 mercenaries inside the crypt (total of 10, but spread out). That's a bit more rough for a party of 4 to do all without taking a Long Rest, especially if you just got done with the 3 intellect devourers at the nautiloid AND if you actually did fight the fishermen. But, with a party of 6 (4 customs + 2 origins), you can face all of them before needing a Long Rest. It all makes more sense with a party of 6 so that by the time you reach the grove, you likely won't have Long Rested even once, but you will have probably Short Rested once or twice. From a story perspective, this makes more sense.

Then take later encounters. Hag's lair can be done all in one playthrough without needing to fight redcaps, Long Rest, fight Masks, Long Rest, fight Hag. Spiders can also be done in one playthrough without fighting ettercaps and first group of phase spiders, Long Rest, fight matriarch and her minions.

Originally, outside the Necromancer's Lair, they used to have like eight skeletons that you had to fight. But the fight was so hard for party of 4 that they had to now nerf it to like 3 skeletons.

The gith fight is still complained about probably the most by players because it's too hard. Party of 6? So much more doable. Even the goblin camp massacres and so forth are so much less frustrating and take a lot less time when you have a party of 6 - so you get two more characters per round that can go and kill goblins, ogres, bugbears and so forth.

The whole experience is just a lot better with party of 6, and if they did that, they could use proper D&D stats and rules and the whole game would be more balance and fun.

Some facts about party size in D&D 5e, just to make sure we're all on the same page. If I get something incorrect please correct me.

• DMG pg 83: CR and encounter building "assumes that you have a party consisting of three to five adventurers." Specifically, 3 to 5 players are treated as equivalent, whereas 6+ and 2- require additional calculations to determine encounter difficulty.
• All Adventure Modules suggest either 4, 4-5, or 4-6 players. No modules that I'm aware of suggest 3 players.

In summary, while all party sizes are technically allowed, the standard seems to be 4-5 players with 6 or 3 less common but still explicitly encouraged by official D&D books.

Personally: +1 for allowing a larger party size where split exp is used to balance parties of all sizes, as long as it's an option in settings and not in-game. I want the base game to remain balanced around a party of 4 and I don't want to, by default, be allowed to have 6 people in my party.

2 things:

1. I do hope they give a party of 6 setting. However, I do not want the game balanced around their janky homebrew monsters and rules and then have them give us party of 6 and have it be a totally sucky experience.

2. The game is only balanced currently around party of 4 because monsters and rules are not genuine 5e. There is so much homebrew. If they were based more on 5e, the battles would be really hard for party of 4.

Give me option for genuine 5e stats and rules and option for party of 6, and we should be good. Hopefully.

My big fear is they'll balance around homebrew and then give us 5e, and it'll be so difficult even with party of 6 that it won't be fun.

I for one hope they simply allow us to incerase party size and dont touch anything else ...
If for nothing else then for the reason its the easy and therefore most probable option.

+1

The problem with taking tabletop as a test bed for these scenarios is that the monsters that we fight are SEVERELY toned down from what they should be from the tabletop.

The intellect devourers dont have their ability to lower your int and teleport in your brain for example.
The imps in the tutorial area dont have resistances and immuniities, have lower health, cant cast invisibility and their attack is a light crossbow attack. You also are guarranteed to have the jump on them.
Gimblebock and co can be attacked piecemeal and if you even slightly use tactics you can have a jump on each seperate group.

Long resting is hardly needed for all those encoutners you listed. The hag can be nasty but if youre lucky you can kill her without having her fight back (she doesent fight back in her shack, she flees) and even WITH the redcaps helping her ive managed to do that encounter multiple times without suffering anything in the range of high damage. Mind you im sure the actual fight is alot harder but at the monent you can cheese (or rather at the moment I last played. Might be changed now) Heck last time I did the fight the change so the red caps wont join in if theyre not close enough wasent even in effect.

The 8 skeletons outside the necromancer room were seriously bog standard skeletons IIRC and they dident all raise in 1 go but more came into the fight over time. Its been a while since ive done that fight but it wasent hard at all. Even if they all rose in 1 go. Theyre skeletons. Small things aside like getting your mage swarmed I cant really see how they would give a party of 4 adventurers are hard time.

People need to seriously calm their tits honestly. If you are having trouble with a fight take a step back and consider what exactly is giving you a hard time. Some of the only fights that id consider very hard (and about on parre with the things you meet in BG2) is the githyanki fight, the minotaurs, bullette and the hook horrors. And even then those fights have been nerfed and tweaked since the last time that ive played them. I know that the Minotaurs have been toned down alot for examplle so that fight might be completly doable now even under the worst of circumstances.

Everything in the game right now is doable with a party of 4. There really isent a NEED to make the party any bigger.