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

From your side as a player, sure, it may not seem that way. But from the side of the developer, it is absolutely things like co-op v. SP. Their game building decisions cannot factor in gamer opinions about anything since they won't have solid data in that regard. So their decisions are going to be made based entirely on their vision for the game. And Larian's vision for BG3 has been, from the very beginning, that it should be an awesome couch co-op/Stadia game first, and SP only as a secondary consideration.

Not what i mean ...

If you will play with just single person, who will take 5 minutes to pick spell he will be using next ... then yes, it will be slow ...
But not bcs there is too many characters, just bcs user of one of them is incredibly slow.

If we allow four player coop to have two additional characters, question will be who controls them? I bet people will be annoyed if they can't control companions.
My only beef with party size is that it limits me which class to pick. I'm picky with my companions, and custom companions don't cut for me. So I can't really have balanced party. Can't wait for release.

Im sory but that feels like false argument ...
Doesnt same problem occurs when you have 3 players?

Question:
Is party size mod workin with patch 9?

For some reason i cant manage to make it ...
So i wonder if i only do something wrong, or (since saving method was changed) its no longer usable. :-/

oh, is this thread still alive?

3 players per party - too few
5 players per party is too many
what to do with it
what solution
let's discuss and think well

3 too few? 5 too many? As much as I like 4 players parties, I think it is more a question of taste than an objective statement. Heck, some RTS games could even be considered 20+ man parties since you are juggling with so many units.

Bigger party would be nice, but I don't see how it is feasible at this stage. EVERYTHING seems built around parties of 4, even non-combat things.

Works for me, just recently got the game and did 8 players on a team. At times I'm dealing with near 12+ units on the screen as allies.

No issue at all.
Everything runs smooth and quick, Larian did a great job imo.

It seems Larian has already have almost everything in place. The mod itself just changes the party max limit and we ourselves choose the number and nothing more. Meaning it's a very likely possibility. The UI is already made to accommodate for more than 6 players on a team. Even reaction works as intended.

Gsmeplay-wise so far, it's fun, combat is fast pace, there's no clutter. And lastly, none of the excuse being thrown out is affecting my gameplay at all. There's a few minor bug in scenes where 3 of the body just stands in the same spot and doesn't have a place to stand in cutscenes when they can very possibly do.

All in all a smooth gameplay. I've did a run with 3 already and time isn't an issue.

It's actually funner with 6+ because I get to use more options and more action economy going on, I'm actually enjoying combat more with more companions. There's more chemical reactions that can go on the field as well.

So people complaining about not being able to comprehend and handle a lot of party members, it's a you thing.
If you're not capable of doing something so simple buddy. Uninstall this game and go back to minecraft or something.

Also it's probably psychologically a control thing too. Where you like controlling how random strangers live their life so you feel some form of empowerment for once in your life.
Sounds like the typical sensitive neckbeard on reddit.

I can refute this.

Everything is not build on 4 players at all.

Have you actually tested 3 player teams, 4 and 6, 8, heck even one or two and than some?

If not, I don't think folks should be making assumptions based on biased opinions.

Why so snippy? Glad you’re enjoying playing with an expanded party, but no one has complained that they can’t comprehend or handle lots of party members, at least not recently though I don’t pretend to recall all the ins and outs of this thread. There are valid concerns raised about balance with larger parties, but if those don’t bother you and you find combat with more party members fun then … great.

Bro what's wrong with you? People having a different assessment of a situation is not a psychological bid for control, and being skeptical of game-balancing holding up is not a "biased opinion." Chill out.

No one, and I mean NO ONE, is talking about the game being too complicated at large party sizes.

If anything, the reason things are built around 4 player parties at most is because the game would be TOO EASY. There would be no challenge whatsoever based on current combat encounters with a significantly larger party. You could just steamroll everything without thinking. That's why Larian's previous games offer a greater challenge by using a one-person party, or a much easier time with a 4-person party. You can have a massive party if you want, but it's just going to be really, really easy. And kill all the game balance.

Also if you can mod the game to give you a larger party, why do you care if people think the main release should consider game-balance for party size? Just mod it how you want to play it then. Your insults, accusations, and claims of refutations are unfounded.

As an aside, let's take rolls for example. First, each character has a chance to interact with something in the world and roll for a chance at success. Let's suppose there is something which requires a roll of 20, with no bonuses. Each character therefore has a 1/20 chance of success, or 5% chance. For a party of one, failure would have a probability of 95%. For a party of 2, failure would have a probability of (.95)^2, or .9025, or 90.25%. A party of three would have a (.95)^3, or 85.73% chance of failure. A party of four (.95)^4, or 81.45% chance of failure. A party of five would have 77.37% chance of failure. Party of six, 73.51% chance of failure. Party of seven, 69.83% chance of failure. Party of eight, 66.34% chance of failure. As combat is also based on rolls, and damage tends to be somewhat uniform (a small assumption), success rates would tend to increase the larger your party, especially considering damage would multiply per each party member added. So we decrease the probability of failure on rolls from 95%-->66% (or 81.45%-->73.51% if 4-->6) on worst case scenarios, and multiply the amount of damage the party does by 1.50 or 2, depending on your suggestions. That's going to ruin any semblance of difficulty the game has to offer.

The game has a baked-in level of difficult based on a certain level of damage output and a certain probability of failure. These range from hard (small parties) to easy (party of four).

Unless you mind not having another party member in the background a small workaround: If you disband the party beforehand, then only the character you use to address an NPC is shown and you don't have a party member mess in the background.

Yes no need for people to be rude or snippy. But, it is a fact that many people have indeed complained here about how difficult it is for them to manage six character parties, a claim that totally shocks me and does go to people's level of competence.

Umm … I’m afraid that still sounds a bit rude. Though admittedly nowhere near as bad as the post I’d first responded to . But Larian need input from all sorts of players in order to balance the game, and dismissing those who find (or would find) some elements harder than you do as incompetent is not helpful or constructive. Yes, some of us will be better or worse at the game (and some of us could be better if we took a more optimising approach but prefer a base challenge level that promotes roleplay over minmaxing), but that’s all fine and we should be able to say how we find it without judgement.

Still, thank you for the correction on point of fact that some players have indeed said they would find a larger party too difficult. That’s useful info, though of course not the only possible objection to a larger party. And I do now also recall discussion of managing a larger party being more time-consuming and fiddly, particularly in light of some of the game’s frustrations around pathfinding or auto jumping failures where we have to take control of each party member in turn. But hopefully that mainly relates to mechanics that will be improved in the full game anyway, so will become less of a consideration.

My mistake on that count. I did not realize that people can't manage a 6-person party. Did not even think of it as a possibility. Thoughts Mr. Dime Store Psychology was just pulling a strawman out of thin air.

I do want to point out that number of party members is a direct factor in success in the game. Here's a simple equation to model the situation:
Let n=number of party members and x=probability of success and let i be some multiplier that represents a given average level of damage or effect per party members...

n*i*((1+x)^n -1)=y,

Where y is the overall effectiveness of a given party. As n increases, y increases significantly because you are increasing the probability of a successful roll and multiplying the overall output on that roll, assuming the effectiveness of a given party member, i, is held constant. Let us also use the same equation for repeatable rolls in the world, except slightly modified...

((1+x)^n)-1=y

Where x is the probability of success on a given roll, and y is the overall success for a worldly encounter for a party. As n, the party size, gets bigger, the overall success of rolls, regardless of how difficult the rolls are, gets more frequent. A very difficult roll with a large party can have the same probability of overall success as a very easy roll for a small party. Therefore, party size is important for game balance in the world and in combat.

Finally, let us consider a situation of one-time rolls, like ones which can or cannot initiate combat in dialogue. Only one person speaks a dialogue option, and party members cannot try again. Still, with a large party, you can stack bonuses and items, such as guidance. We can modify the equation with a new factor m=viable bonuses probability, and v=number of unique bonuses. These factors increase with n, as you can specialize more characters with a larger party. So...

x+mv=y, where both m and v are increasing in n.

Therefore, for all major mechanics, a larger party means an easier game, unless the whole game is rebalanced/reworked.

THEN you get the super-easy effect, where you can repeat rolls with different party members AND use different bonuses...

((1+x+mv)^n)-1=y, such that mv can only repeat for as many spell slots exist and so decrease with every n.


YOOO WAIT I REALIZED I FUCKED UP THE MATH.
I need a minute to fix this. Most of it is fine tho.

Most of the above holds as a general rule of thumb, but a more accurate mathematical representation would be probability of failure...
Let "b" be probability of failure, and all other variables stay the same.
Let probability of failure with a given party be b^n, and probability of success be x=1-b^n.
The equation for multiple rolls however should be done from the perspective of failure.
1-(b^n)=y is the equation for y as the probability of overall success on a given roll, or what was once equation two. My conclusions still hold, just replace success with failure when reading.
Overall combat effectiveness is then...
n*i*(1-(b^n))=z, where z is overall effectiveness for a given party. As b^n gets smaller as n increases, my paragraphs above still hold.
Then for one-time rolls with situations like guidance...
1-b+mv=y.

I think we probably get the gist enough to agree the general thrust. No need to make your brain explode ! Or am I just projecting?

You're right. I'm not going back and changing everything. The math is a little wrong though for the given situation. People get the point. I think combat illustrates it best, as does a repeatable roll:
n*i*(1-(b^n))=z
Let us suppose there is a party of 4 and a party of 8. Let us also suppose there is only one side on the die which gives us success. Therefore, b=0.95, i=multiplier, n=4or8.
For a party of 4, overall combat effectiveness, z=0.742i
For a party of 8, overall combat effectiveness, z=2.693i
So a party of 8 is NOT merely two times stronger than a party of 4, but IS ACTUALLY 3.629 TIMES STRONGER THAN A PARTY OF 4.

Just to finish off my point above, I just want to show how repeatable rolls in the world would look with different sized parties. You can graph this if you want.

Equation (1-(b^n))=y, where b is the chance of failure as a decimal, n is the number of party members, and y is the overall success rate. I'd recommend a 3D graphing calculator, like https://www.geogebra.org/3d?lang=en (try messing around with b, n, and y as the x, y, and z axes to make it work. Make sure your framing is set so that you can see the relevant section. It should produce a sort of lopsided wave tunnel. You can also multiply the whole left side of the equation by n to get a sense of the effect on combat. Again, try with different axes for different variables because geogebra isn't always cooperative. I'd do the math by hand but that sounds like work, and that's what I'm actively avoiding here.

ANYWAY, we can also just set the chance of failure as a set probability, like the worst-but-still-winnable case scenario of only one side wins, so 95% chance of failure. This gives us a 2d equation. You can use something like https://www.desmos.com/calculator for this.
Equation is then 1-(0.95^x)=y. At this level, parties of the following sizes have the relevant chances of success at the "hardest winnable roll" in the game that can be repeated:
Party of : Success Rate
1: 5%
2: 9.8%
3: 14.3%
4: 18.5%
5: 22.6%
6: 26.5%
7: 30.2%
8: 33.7%

I think the jump from having a less than 1 in 5 chance with a party of 4 to having a more than 1 in 4 chance with a party of 6 is pretty significant.
Anyway, I'm beating the drum on this not because it's important or new information but because I'm procrastinating on other stuff.