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

Nope ...
As long as there is warning telling people that turning this option on will affect their difficiulty in the way that *may* potentialy make the game incredibly trivial.

Of course some fools will complain anyway, but by present of that warning there would be clear proof that they are fools.

+1

+1
Most games have difficulty settings. Even in DOS2 IIRC. If there are custom settings that would even be better. I'm sure there probably be modders to "enhance" the combat encounters hence i believe a max party of 6 would be really enjoyable. Those who wanted 4 they can still play the way they want. Everyone wins.

Just read it now, it's not a game but simply a picture made by me (with Daz studio, I'm not an artist), loosely based on some games and typical group dynamics.

I'm interested in how will they manage party structure with just 4 characters and classes like druid/bard. I feel I already feel shoehorned into cleric/fighter/rogue/mage type of class for my main.

On the current difficulty level (which is named "Classic" in the game) any class could be played as main to master the fights, in my opinion. A lot of the custom rule choices of Larian make group roles less defined and certain classes less mandatory, which you can like or not.

I just recently started to replay Dragon Age: Origins ...
I like when my party is, lets say fiting rather than perfectly effective ... so was thinking that my Dwarf would make perfect party with Oghren, Shale and Sten ... then i find out that playing as 4 Warriors is impossible (unless you play on Easy). -_-

So if we dont get option to have bigger party in BG-3 ... wich would be sad. :-/
I hope that at least we get some more options so our party can fit better together thematicaly.

biggest problem for me as well. i find myself that for solasta i absolutely need pally, cleric and a wizard. so i only left with 1 slot. really i don't have much room for others.

I definitely would be more comfortable with a party size of at least 5, strictly because it feels like the game needs to fill the roles of: Melee Fighter, Healer, Trap/Lock Wrangler, Ranged Attacker, Controller, and Multiple Target Damage. Now, 5e does have options to allow for flexibility, which allow for people to double up on some of those roles, but limits on class proficencies and ability score modifiers providing bonuses to skill proficencies can limit how useful that can be. Especially of note is how some skills are not represented at all in Backgrounds, and others are in many different backgrounds (although that issue can be somewhat fixed by allowing for backgrounds to customize your skill proficencies). Solasta just outright told the player in character creation that "X skill/language is not used in-game, so if you're taking that, it'll only be for flavor."

That said, Solasta also goes with a 4-person team and they have fewer options overall. I'm playing that game and trying out different party configurations to see how well I can cover roles with different parties and backgrounds. My first team was Barbarian/Cleric/Rogue/Sorcerer. My second team is Fighter/Druid/Ranger/Wizard. I'm sure there are more teams I can try and maybe the 4-person limit will feel fine in both Solasta and BG 3.

However, Solasta also is fairly strict with the rules on enemy HP, AC, saving throws, and options, and that can make a big difference.

due to the problem with concentration i find alot of stuffs are not being used and hence more party characters defintely helps. for one putting a sorceror? for twinning that may be really great. Btw.. i'm not sure how action surge works in baldur's gate 3. actually i havent try action surge in solasta either. so if action surge grants additional action in one turn that means a fighter with 2 attacks can have 4 with action surge. as extra attacks are based on attack action. so having 2 actions would mean having 2 attack actions. how is it supposed work actually?

You have it correct. Action surge gives you a second full action, so if the attack action normally gives you two attacks, you can have two additional attacks, or use that other action for something else. However, it does not give you an additional Bonus Action.

if that's the case fighter is far superior than other martial classes. even paladin wouldn't be able to match fighter damage at higher levels? also action surge is per short rest. in dnd5e it seems like there's no limit to how many short rest you can take. dual-wielding on the other hand seems really bad to me. was wondering if the off-hand weapon procs elemental damage? it seems in solasta the off-hand weapon doesn't proc elemental damage. correct me if i'm wrong? if it procs elemental damage then dual-wielding maybe better than two-handed weapon. my ranger in solasta currently is dual-wielding 2 longswords one with 1d8 lightning and the off hand is 1d8 cold damage. however i don't seem to see the cold damage being proc. i have previously tried a rogue for few levels and then i abandon the party. rogue seems very bad at damage compared to my pally that burst down bosses fairly quickly.

also that makes multi-classing with fighter would be really strong. just 5 levels in fighter with action surge could net 4 attacks per turn excluding haste. not sure follow-up strike is a solasta thing does bg3 has it?

For pure basic attacks, sure fighters get more --> more total damage. But other classes (e.g., Paladin) have powerful abilities (e.g., Smite) which can make up for the fewer attacks. Action Surge is essentially 1x per combat, but a Paladin can Smite as many times as they have spell slots, a rogue can sneak attack every turn, etc.

If the weapon itself deals dice of elemental damage, then the offhand attack should deal that damage. The only restriction for off-hand attack damage is that it doesn't deal your modifier in additional damage. So your ranger's MH should do 1d8+Dex (or Str) lightning damage, and the off-hand should deal 1d8 cold damage. You have to specifically use your bonus action to attack with your off-hand weapon though; it doesn't happen automatically like in BG3. And you presumably have some feat or ability to dual-wield long swords..??

Rogue is great if you constantly get sneak attack damage on your turn AND if you also make frequent opportunity attacks (which deal sneak attack damage); otherwise yeah the damage is only okay.

"Just 5 levels in fighter" ... 5 levels is a lot, especially since most campaigns don't go above level ~10. Most people take 2 levels in fighter for the Action Surge, and rely on their base class for either Extra Attack or other features that benefit from action surge.

Leaving it open to mods is a good idea. From a tactical perspective I think 5 party members are often the sweet spot but 4-6 are fine. The issue with 4 is that it often leads little flexibility in party composition if you want to cover the usual roles.

Not only does four limit party composition on party roles, but it also keep you from taking along that oddball/eccentric/quirky companion who doesn't bring much to combat but is a great companion for roleplaying and party interractions. With only four party slots I could never justify taking along that companion, which would be a huge shame.

Paladin once depleted the smites he has to long rest. Meanwhile fighter only need a short rest. Very useful in cases where long rests are being policed by developer. Paladin has alot of nice tricks unfortunately he has to use them carefully especially again when long rests are being used as a difficulty barrier by developers. It's being used in solasta, i'm quite sure it's possibly could be used by Larian as well. I much prefer rations where you can rest anywhere as opposed to "fixed" and "static" area where rests were intended by developers. It seems more like a "scripted" experience by developers to play the game it's mean to be played as dictated by developers.

I'm not sure if solasta is buggy or not. I have only once twin blade ever triggered as a reaction. I'm pretty confident that some attack rolls where my existing AC +3 would actually beat the enemy attack roll. Longsword on it's own is a 1d8 and lightning should provide another 1d8. so the calculation should be 1d8 + 1d8 + [STR modifier]. i have the ambidexterous feat and longswords are not finesse. as pointed, i didn't actually seems to notice that my off-hand proc the additional 1d8 frost damage. i do have the dual-wield feats so i believe my off-hand should add the STR modified as well. anyway with the damage comparing to pally i was to the point of depressed. maybe.. well maybe once i'm dual-wielding 2 longswords of dragonblade (1d8 + 2d6 Fire) and another Punisher (1d8 + 2d6 Piercing) on off hand that damage may actually compete with paladin?

IMO maybe rogue should get 2 times sneak attack per turn that probably would be much better. I'm really excited about multi-class i hope Larian really put it in. Now that's the only edge Larian has over Solasta at the moment.

Also... yesterday i just got counterspell... it was freaking amazing. I'm not sure if it's bugger.. but i can counterspell the enemy counterspell? woahh.. my melee was about to hit the enemy caster and he counterspell.. and i got a reaction to counter him!. that's pretty cool.

+1

'i am once again asking for your 6 party slots support'

Since this topic is already a 90 page shitstorm let's add a bit more to it. I think 5 member party size is the optimum. Prove me wrong over the next 90 pages. Have fun!

I suppose 5 is also fine. To me, 6th party slot mostly exists for characters I really like but probably can't optimize them for combat very well due to not really synergizing with the rest of the party.

I feel like the only game I've played with 6 party members where I actually got extra tactical mileage out of the 6th slot were the Pathfinder games.

Um, when it comes to opinions, it's your job to prove yourself right, not someone else's job to prove you wrong.