Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Mar 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Larian needs to understand that in D:OS a party size of 4 could work fine given that D:OS is a classless system. But D&D is a class-based system, and the different classes are a foundational core characteristic of D&D. If you go with only a party of 4, you might as well not bother creating all of the many more esoteric classes available in D&D because nobody is going to be able to use them anyway. Like many have already said, you basically always need a fighter, a rogue, a cleric, and an arcane caster. No space in your party for any ecclectic characters. No space in your party for that character who is dead-weight in combat but so much fun to have for roleplaying purposes. In a D&D game, that's a terrible shame.


It worked well in NWN2. It's not about how many party members you have but game balance. I liked playing BG with 4 or 5 party members personally rather than 6.

Ha funny... One would believe that you are deliberatly weakening yourself by only taking 4, but that's interesting.

I have to admit I really disliked not having the opportunity to have a party of 6 in the NWN series (though NWN2 was more palatable than the first game).

Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Larian needs to understand that in D:OS a party size of 4 could work fine given that D:OS is a classless system. But D&D is a class-based system, and the different classes are a foundational core characteristic of D&D. If you go with only a party of 4, you might as well not bother creating all of the many more esoteric classes available in D&D because nobody is going to be able to use them anyway. Like many have already said, you basically always need a fighter, a rogue, a cleric, and an arcane caster. No space in your party for any ecclectic characters. No space in your party for that character who is dead-weight in combat but so much fun to have for roleplaying purposes. In a D&D game, that's a terrible shame.


It worked well in NWN2. It's not about how many party members you have but game balance. I liked playing BG with 4 or 5 party members personally rather than 6.

Ha funny... One would believe that you are deliberatly weakening yourself by only taking 4, but that's interesting.

I have to admit I really disliked not having the opportunity to have a party of 6 in the NWN series (though NWN2 was more palatable than the first game).

You get more levels with a smaller party.

I disliked the first NWN so much that I never finished it because you had no party to control. NWN2 I finished a few times, and despite being inferior to IE games it was an OK RPG.

Last edited by anjovis bonus; 05/03/20 03:13 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2020
They confirmed it will be 4. Also you will be able to rebuild the companion from scracht as in DOS2. Lets think I want Minsc on my team but I dont want a ranger cause im already a ranger, so I change Minsc and he is a Wizard now.

Thats sucks for me. I want to have tons of companions and explore different options to play again and again. If that evil cleric doesnt fits in you party maybe u should change the whole party, cause you want him/her. But probably they will follow the same way as DOS2. They had 4 companions in DOS1, 6 in DOS2. So I think there will not be 18 as in Baldurs Gate, all with great stories.

Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Are you sure you only have 4 characters who can become party members or is it that you can only have 4 at a time?

Joined: Mar 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
Are you sure you only have 4 characters who can become party members or is it that you can only have 4 at a time?

Not sure this has been revealed. Still can't decide if I like games that have a base camp where you change your party. Yes you get to have different conversations,
and have mission specific skills along, but I prefer to have my party, with warts and all and not have to take non interesting characters along just because the situation requires it, but that's just me.

Plus there seems to be a party size and additional companions.

Joined: Mar 2013
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Mar 2013
Originally Posted by YezCrusader
Hi Larian =D

I always loved that the original BG games allowed up to 6 party members!

I also thoroughly enjoyed D:OS 1 and 2, but honestly one of the big factors (among others lol) that keeps me going back to BG after all these years is the party size. Is there any chance the current party size of 4 will increase to 6 for BG3 in the near or distant future?

Thank you!


DOS2 with just 4 party characters.. game is really slow due to turn-based. Especially there are alot of other enemies as well. There's this lone-wolf ability where they encourage you to play with 1 or just 2 characters and i find it far more rewarding. 6 will be really slow. since it's turn-based i rather in be just 1 or 2.

Joined: Feb 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2020
I really want to see the option to have a 6 person party. Whether it is default, or if it is a setting in "casual" or "easy" difficulty setting, I don't care. But I want it available. Why? Because as brought up, D&D assumes that you have a party consisting of roles like: Defender (a melee warrior such as fighter), Controller (somebody with AoE spells or abilities such as wizard), Leader (a healer or buffer such as cleric), and Striker (somebody who is tactical and dishes out DPS such as rogue).

Generally if you don't have people dedicated to these four roles, you are going to have a hard time in D&D. If I am going to be "forced" to fill each of these slots, I would like to have 2 slots that I can fill "for fun" as opposed to "necessity".

Joined: Feb 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Feb 2020
I really really hope it goes over 4 man. 1 fighter, 1 mage, 1 thief leaves only 1 space for fun. I love role play and 4 man limits this. I love crafting a varied team with non-meta characters/classes, 4 man means precious few slots are taken up. And I dont want DOS style all classes can do everything, I want my fighter depending on the healer, and the mage reliant on the fighter.

Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Ardeis
I really really hope it goes over 4 man. 1 fighter, 1 mage, 1 thief leaves only 1 space for fun. I love role play and 4 man limits this. I love crafting a varied team with non-meta characters/classes, 4 man means precious few slots are taken up. And I dont want DOS style all classes can do everything, I want my fighter depending on the healer, and the mage reliant on the fighter.


Can I ask why you feel you will need those 3 specific classes in your party?

Joined: Feb 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by Cirolle
Originally Posted by Ardeis
I really really hope it goes over 4 man. 1 fighter, 1 mage, 1 thief leaves only 1 space for fun. I love role play and 4 man limits this. I love crafting a varied team with non-meta characters/classes, 4 man means precious few slots are taken up. And I dont want DOS style all classes can do everything, I want my fighter depending on the healer, and the mage reliant on the fighter.


Can I ask why you feel you will need those 3 specific classes in your party?


For me, it isn't about specific classes, but roles. For example, you can just as easily swap out the wizard for a sorcerer to fill the role of controller, and some classes like Druid can be build more as a Controller or as a Leader depending upon spell choice. But lacking a role can create some significant challenges. For example, you need a defender to keep your spellcasters safe (be they arcane or divine). You need a leader to make sure that your defender does not fall in combat (either through buffs or healing). You need a controller to make sure that your party is not overwhelmed by shear number of enemies (be it by AOE damage or AOE debuffs). Finally, you need a striker, because you need reliable damage, such as a rogue's sneak attack, a monk's flurry of blows, or a ranger's hunter's mark.

Below are how I personally would sort the various classes by role. Again, some classes can in part fill other roles (paladin's can also be leaders, druids can be controllers, etc), but not in what I would call in an optimal manner.

Controller: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Defender: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin
Leader: Bard, Cleric, Druid
Striker: Monk, Ranger, Rogue

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5