Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Is there a chance party size will be increased or are we stuck with 4 ?

Why is it funny? I think the party size is fine, and if I were a modder, I wouldn't make a mod that raises that, and as a player, I won't download a mod that raises it. You think you need 5 or 6, and if you were a modder, you'd make that mod, and as a player, you'd use it. Different players/modders, with different preferences, will make, and use, different mods. Nothing funny about it at all, it's the way the modding game has worked since there was a modding game.

In regard to not creating a mod that reduces it, it already exists: Players that play any of these games solo. I have something like 20 complete runs of BG 1 and 2, combined, with solo characters. Why would I need to request, or build a mod to do something that I can already do in the existing framework of the game?

And how is that better in any way, shape or form? You do know that not all of us have an unlimited schedule to endlessly replay these games. Also you don't have to create characters that fill every role you know.

I don't see even the tiniest bit of a downside to any of this. All of this sounds like it would make for a great game.

I wouldn't mind the four person adventure party as much if there were actually more party member options. The smaller party size IMO already provides pressure with class selection since there's little wiggle room in regards to offerings if you want to have your class archetypes covered-arcane caster/divine caster/rogue/martial fighter.. There's no backup wizard/sorcerer to replace Gale if you don't want him in your party/he leaves. No backup divine caster to replace Shadowheart.

Plus, there's the whole 'your party is fixed after Act' I thing to worry about. In other games like NWN or BG I+II I'd frequently bench a character after adventuring with them a while and doing their character quests. Being locked in after the first act does not, IMO lead to a gameplay environment where I see myself experimenting with party composition much over the course of the game.

Feels like getting squeezed from two ends tbh. Not enough party member variety in regards to certain archetypes stifling options for divine/arcane spellcasters (could really use another cleric/wizard or druid/sorcerer companion...or even a class like the bard or paladin) and too small a party size to really make me feel comfortable straying outside the core archetype classes. As -is Wyll basically almost always sits on the bench for me since I have a fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric competing with him for three slots.

A good summary of the issue, I'd say.

I also think the small amount of companions is a much bigger problem than 4 vs. 6 party members. I would very much prefer twice the potential companions with half the content. It also adds a great deal of replayability when you can have different party compositions. It feels like in BG3 I will always be stuck with the same companions even after we get 3 more. You should have a choice for an Arcane spellcaster, a Cleric or a Rogue. Having to take Gale and Shadowheart on every single playthrough likely means there will be no new playthrough.

They should have a bigger focus on Tav as the protagonist, and less focus on companions. It's like they want to do an interactive movie with their selected cast rather than a game. Writing every companion to be a potential protagonist is a huge waste of time, and because it severely limits the number of companions it kills off choice and replayability in a game. I've grown really tired of the companions in just EA, too. Will be a struggle to give them another chance at full release.

The origins system is starting to feel like something of an albatross around the neck of Larian in regards to this. Unlike DOS2, we have a lot more races and classes to consider, and a fixed class system. DOS2 was designed with the idea of being able to 'respec' essentially on the fly, classes being essentially meaningless from what I recall in terms of dialogue content, and combined with the smaller pool of playable races led itself for a much better match with their 'Origins' companions with a limited cast of party members.

D&D though, I think there's much more of an expectation that classes and races be represented as companions and that players will want to make their own avatar. We're getting something like four less companions (almost half of which are humans) than BG II, with several classes and races not being represented at all and no duplicates. There is the danger of the increased number of origins characters competing for resources that otherwise might go to more companions or refining the roleplay experience for 'Tav'. DOS2 was somewhat infamous for having a charname that was basically an undefined afterthought that was upstaged by each of their companions, who each had their own epic 'main character' backstory. in BG III each companion similarly has their own big 'main character' background/plot while Tav just makes do without. Sure, you might be looking at a slightly different experience as a drow, but that's about it. Why would I ever play a Warlock Tav, for example, if Wyll is right there and has this big plot involving his patron being kidnapped by the cultists and his history with the goblins of Act I interwoven with the main plot, and Warlock-Tav has none of that? etc.

IMO the game needed about half as many origins characters (if at all) and a bigger focus on Tav and non-origins companions.

It's a combination of BOTH, plus the impending threat of wiping out all the non-grouped companions after Act 1 (if they intend to stick with that idea after two years of extremely negative feedback about it).

That's an issue that was already pointed several times across the months in the countless threads about the topic (and consequently in the Mega-thread, too): the "Few slots mean very diverse playthrough" is more often than not a complete myth.
Most players will always consider some particularly key role too crucial to give up on them, which in practical terms narrows down the "room for variety of party composition" even more.

And before someone jumps the gun, this doesn't mean you COULD NOT play in their absence. You can pretty much go through the game however you want, even solo. Just that many will not want to.

Also consider the fact that Larian might very well be doing the equivalent of holding a gun to the head of your companions and forcing you to choose your three favorites at the end of Act I.

Consider that Larian put a fan favorite ranger who's widely beloved and who appears on a huge amount of 5e marketing material as an origin party member. A lot of players will feel unfairly pressured to take him even if they don't necessarily want him because they don't want to be responsible for his demise. So for a lot of people who don't want to kill him, it'll feel more like 'pick two, cause we know you'll be taking the ranger'. Limited options, ticking Act I clock, pick your favorite three.....It's rough, tbh.

Pick 1 because the story also kinda heavily suggests you take Shadowheart, or kill her for the artifact.
Edit: I mean, you CAN just kill her, and she'll probably die anyway if you don't so... I guess pick 1.5.

I can't wait for people to get a mod that allows more companions and then to complain about the game being too easy.

Someone has clearly not been paying attentiont to this thread. Or any of the countless other treads on this topic.

It will be possible.

You can always raise the difficulty.

It is all about having a great personal experience and supporting others in finding what works best for them.

I'm not so sure, because what we have works well for me, but my experience is invalid, because someone else would rather have more. I mean, I run the Unlimited Companion Framework mod in FO4, and my party size is 3. Before I found that, I ran a mod that let me take Dogmeat, along with another companion. Using the former mod, I could run with all of the vanilla comps at the same time, and yet I don't. Want to guess why? Pathing issues. With just one companion, and no mods, I have been pushed off of buildings or other ledges by a comp that wants to be hogged up on me, and yet, when I enter an elevator, they're in some other building, having tea with a super mutant, apparently, because they're nowhere to be seen.

There's a post in this thread where the poster found it funny that nobody has requested less comps? How am I supposed to assess "what works best for them" when they apparently don't understand that you don't have to recruit, or can even kill some of the comps, if not all, I honestly haven't tried yet? Although, after release, I'm sure at some point I will... How many comps are we going to need in order to fulfill "every class and race"? How many of each are in just the PHB, let alone official resources outside of the PHB? But that argument's been made in this thread. So, commenting on the inevitable "it's too easy" threads, which already exist, isn't unreasonable, it's going to happen, whether the party size is increased or not, and suggesting that they simply use less party members will be met with something along the lines of "but I'm playing the game the way it's designed/the way I want, so they have to "fix" it" posts. I've seen it before. Players that go to the extreme to trivialize the content, and then complain that the content is trivial... How do we "support what works best for them"?

The modding community will make it possible. This one may work with patch 8...if you read the notes...they are working on it (talking about a work around).

Mod

This is like the proverbial "bird in the hand".

Those that don't want big parties are good and those that do are also good.

Exactly right, as I pointed out in this post.

Lets say they do ...
So what? O_o

Well, for starters, I'll get to point and laugh. If it follows the same pattern as what happened in DDO, I'll also get banned from the forums, because you're not allowed to point and laugh at people that get what they wanted, and then aren't happy with it.

DDO forums: We need a higher difficulty than Elite.
Me: OK, but once they introduce it, they shouldn't spend any more dev time on it because "it's too hard".
DDO Devs: Release Reaper mode, after two years of debate on the forums.
DDO forums: But this is "stupid hard" and needs to be nerfed.
Me: Points and laughs, because I predicted this very scenario.
DDO forums: REPORT POST "he hurt my feelings"
DDO community manager: Permanent ban for melting snowflakes.

That's one scenario that could play out. Then we could get "but it's too easy" Tuesday, well, maybe Wednesday, because Taco Tuesday? We had that on the old BSN, with "Not the Warden Wednesday", where every week there'd be a new thread about how (insert whichever Dragon Age game here) was going to suck because it wasn't going to be the Warden, and a list of 1,000 reasons it needed to be, despite DA 2 running concurrent with Dragon Age Origins at the start, which would mean that the Warden would have to be both fighting the Blight in Ferelden, and going to Kirkwall, at the same time.

I don't see the problem.

Me neither ...
I believe that every player should get option to ruin his own game ... especialy with things he asked for himself. :P

And if some people who would like to laugh at them will get banned in th proces ... well, that is price im willing to pay. :P