Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Party Size Poll

Okay. I think I figured out the poll functionality.

So, here are the options:

For BG3, you want the adventuring party to be:

1. Party of 4 as is. No difficulty settings changes. It is balanced as is and you just like it this way. Period.
2. Party of 4 with option for difficulty settings that make monsters more 5e stat-based with 5e rules. (Some homebrew where it makes sense but most rules and stats are 5e.). This might require them to rebalance the game, creating new encounters with monsters that actually are able to be beaten with using 5e rules and stats. (You don't face 3 intellect devourers but maybe something more reasonable for 2 level 1 characters.)
3. Same as 1 but party of 6 max. Game is balanced for party of 4 with homebrew monsters and rules but Larian gives option to increase party size to 6.
4. Party of 6 with option for difficulty settings that make monsters more 5e stat-based with 5e rules. Also, allow for 4 custom characters to be created during character creation so you can start with up to 4 customs and then add characters like Lae'zel or Shadowheart for 5 or 6 party members during prologue. Using 5e stats for monsters and rules, encounters wouldn't need to be redone. In other words, you could actually face 3 5e intellect devourers that can devour intellect because you have a bigger party. To be clear, this option includes option 1 as a difficulty setting but adds an option for party of 6 with 5e difficulty setting.

Party Size multiple choice, up to 4 choices
	Party of 4 - No change to current
	Party of 4 - Add 5e Difficulty Option
	Party of 6 - No change to current bud allow option for party of 6
	Party of 6 - Allow 4 Customs at creation + Difficulty setting for 5e stats and rules to balance
Votes accepted starting: 21/04/22 03:28 AM
View Results

I think you are going to have a lot of unnecessary padding in the fourth option from people who hate all the companions and don't realize that they will be adding custom party creation at the start anyway, unless they decided not to do this?

They don't have anything to change to allow us to play with 5 or 6 characters especially if mercenaries are planned.

XP sharing would be the best even if the game is balanced arround parties of 4, but I guess it doesn't match with "larian's vision" or to "a game they'd like to play".
There's no excuse not to allow parties of 6 in Baldur's Gate 3 even if the game clearly states that it's balanced around a party of 4.

Yeah. It's interesting to me. Options 2 and 4 can sort of be combined. The main difference is that in option 2 they'd rather have Larian rework the entire EA to make a genuine 5e experience rather than simply allow an increase in party size to 6 and allow people to create a team of 4 customs up front for a more balanced experience.

With option 4, you COULD play it by simply creating 1 character and limiting yourself to a party of 4 with true 5e rules, making the game a lot harder, but they'd rather Larian implement 5e and rework a lot.

Hmmm.

3polls at once. O_o
One about party size ...
One about game difficiulty ...
And one about custom party ...

I must say im a bit confused about what should i choose ...

I mean, i do want custom party so option 4 ... but they allready promised that so, my opinion dont matter ...
I also dont require 5e stats, so option 3 would be better i gues ... but that states it dont want any difficiulty settings, wich i want and as deep as possible ... on the other hand, difficiulties was also allready promised so ..

I gues i need to think about this longer ...
SO far the only thing i know for certain is that first option is hard pass from me.

I think I made it so you could choose more than 1 option. I had you in mind. Pick the options you like, and then do like you just did. Give your description of how you'd tweak each.

Indeed you did ... i didnt notice.
But i shall take day or two to think it thoroughly anyway.

OP, I think you made a huge mistake by not including the option of:
I am fine with 4 but I don't mind including the option to go up to 6 for those people who want that option.

What do you mean here? I don't think mercenaries will enable party sizes of 5 or 6; they'll just replace one of your 4 party slots.

There's no problem here because you can select multiple options. So ^ you'd select options #1 (keep as is) and #3 (option for party size of 6).

@GM4Him - be careful about including multiple factors in your polls. Option #4 contains so many factors, each of which people can be for or against separately.

I voted for #1 and #3 because either a party of 4 or 6 is fine with me.😊

4 because fuck origin.
All my homies love custom party .

Not very understandable

I meant that they don't have too add creatures or rebalance the game AND that they don't have to add more companions (a party of 6 with only 8 companions would really reduce the "party builds" possibilities, but if we have mercenaries possibilities are unlimited).

For more than one custom need a option to leave at camp, atm you can't kick from party.

The reason I combined a few things in this poll is because I personally don't want them to implement D&D 5e mechanics and monster stats using the current monster encounters and limiting us to a party of 4. All this kind of goes hand-in-hand.

Here's what I personally want: The ability to create a party of 4 Custom Characters or play with 4 actual players, we all create our own and adventure together. Then, while we're adventuring, we can add Lae'zel to our party when we meet her. Then we can face 3 actual imps with proper imp stats in the very first combat scenario. 4 PC's plus Lae'zel, a party of 5, can defeat 3 imps with a moderate challenge. Likewise, this same party can defeat 2 imps and a hellsboar two times during the final battle on the nautiloid, and they can defeat 3 intellect devourers on the beach.

What I don't want is a limit to only a party of 4 with proper D&D stats and the encounters unaltered so I'm fighting 3 legit imps in the first encounter with only 1 PC and Lae'zel. That's practically suicide and will require a HUGE amount of reloading. Likewise, I don't want to have just me and Shadowheart against 3 legit intellect devourers.

option 4 sounds appealing but somewhat unrealistic. I really doubt that encounters would just work well in all cases if monsters were their faithful adaptations - it might in some, but probably won't. Of course, I would rather increase party size, and rebalance the game appropriately, closer to 5e originals, but that is just not going to happen.

Oh yes. Absolutely. I agree that total RAW 5e stats and rules won't work. I'm looking for a much more faithful adaptation, not an absolute RAW experience.

For example, I don't mind various goblins. They don't all have to be cookie cutter goblins with scimitars and shortbows and all 7 HP with 15 AC. One of the monsters Larian has done well is goblins, imo. They've made them varied and interesting and not all the same.

I don't mind slight variations. For example, I think rock throwing harpies makes sense, but like Ragnarok said at one point on a different thread, I'd like them to actually have to find and pick up rocks and throw them. If they don't find them and pick them up and throw them, then they use clubs and claws and such. Maybe some harpies could carry clubs and others bones that have similar stats to clubs. Maybe some could throw bones and skulls. Maybe some could actually use a dagger or a spear. Whatever Larian wants to do with that.

The issues I have are with basic monster stats. I don't like imps that have no resistance or intellect devourers that can't devour intellect or have resistance. Even if the intellect devourers are baby versions, give them their proper name and make it plain that they are babies (ustilagors). Don't have phase spiders teleporting clear across maps some 300+ feet while spitting poison globs at opponents, thus changing the entire spider breed completely. If it's a phase spider, they should phase in and out of the Ethereal Plane and attack only at melee. Shoot. Call it a Misty Step Poison Spitter Spider and I'd be happy, but don't call it a phase spider and then have it not act like a phase spider.

But even with these, I'm fine with variations. Have 3 phase spiders that act like normal cookie cutter phase spiders but then have the matriarch act like some crazy teleporting poison spitter. She's a crazy mutant phase spider. That works for her. The others, though, should be basic phase spiders.

And who said it won't happen. They've done other major crazy things that we didn't ask for, like put a ton of time into creating weird mini-camps. Why not something like this? It can't hurt to ask for it, anyway. I mean, I won't hold my breath, but it can't hurt to ask.

I'd rather not go down Solasta road and force four custom's down people's throats. Truthfully, I usually run with two customs normally on BG3 and pick up a couple premade companions along the way.

I think I am in my "we a doomed" mood today

No no. It's not forced 4 customs. It's optional and maybe recommended for D&D 5e difficulty. It's up to the players how many they want in their party.

BG3 is already expected to allow 4 customs, at least for multiplayer. And hasn't it already been shown that Lae'zel and Us join your tutorial party with no problem??

If GM4Him is arguing for the option of playing with 4 customs + 2 Origins, but you can still play with 1 custom + 5 origins, then that's fine. (I assume this is what you mean?)
If he's arguing for that being the only way you can have a party of 6 is that you have 4 customs, then no, hard disagree.