That's some delicious irony, isn't it? Inb4 "but that's only a suggestion": all of the "rules" are suggestions. There are no penalties to a table that chooses to ignore a rule "because they think it's mean", an argument I've actually seen on this very forum, or for having a table with 6 players + a GM, or any other number, for that matter. So, I guess it's not "Trust in 5e", but "Trust in 5e, but only the stuff that I like"?
Is it? It's not like most of the poster hang on every change Larian made, only those that in their opinion would be better off if left in their original form.
I would also question if party size is the same as gameplay rules - never played TTRPG, but I play Table-top games quite regulary and player size can get out of hand with too many participants - not because it's bad for gameplay, but because how much time it take before each player gets to play. Being the only player kinda erases this consideration. So which partysize will provide me a better playing experience? I know my preference.
EDIT: that said, with how poor party controls are I wouldn’t want to babysit party of 6 and prevent them from getting lost, running into surfaces, jumping and stealthing poor twats 1 by 1. At this point merging all party members into 1 for the exploration, jRPG style, might be a worthwhile thing to consider
