Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
4 is perfect for a D&D party. One fighter class, one healer/buffer, one offensive caster and one utility character. And with multiclassing you can mix and match to really make the 4 suit your playstyle. In this case more does not equal better.


All of this is wrong.

Multiclassing is also not the answer because of the level 10 cap. You need 3 levels in a class to get the basic archtype unlocked, and that means you will be missing out on the second ability score increase or feat. Less than three levels and the class doesn't offer much. If you go more than 3 levels, it weakens the primary class further.

Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
4 is perfect for a D&D party. One fighter class, one healer/buffer, one offensive caster and one utility character. And with multiclassing you can mix and match to really make the 4 suit your playstyle. In this case more does not equal better.


All of this is wrong.

Multiclassing is also not the answer because of the level 10 cap. You need 3 levels in a class to get the basic archtype unlocked, and that means you will be missing out on the second ability score increase or feat. Less than three levels and the class doesn't offer much. If you go more than 3 levels, it weakens the primary class further.


Like, in Baldur’s gate 3?

Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
I think 6 is too much...4 is enough.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
I think 6 is too much...4 is enough.


Can you explain why you (as.other) think it's not good to have more choices ? 6 slots is not supposed to mean you HAVE to manage 6 characters if you don't want to.
So what can be the problem ?

Asking because what I read in the thread doesn't look like "I prefer playing 4 characters in my team".

Last edited by Maximuuus; 14/03/20 06:59 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2020
Yes I like a 6 party too and a way to make this possible is if they have AI scaling so there will just be more enemies that roughly matches yours and that way it can be played many many ways.

With DOS2 they have made mods that has the same level as yours or harder enemies so i hope they built this mechanic in the game so players can tweak it.


Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
i dont see it that way
while true that it makes it slower, with shared turns it doesnt make it A LOT slower
in multiplayer, having more than one or two characters would be great.
Only having 2 in OS2 sucked.
And if i want to MP wiht 3 other people then itd would be realy boring if someone had to only play the fighter.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
I think 6 is too much...4 is enough.

Fine. Keep your party as 4.
Explain to me your justification for denying me the ability to have a party of 6.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
4 is perfect for a D&D party. One fighter class, one healer/buffer, one offensive caster and one utility character. And with multiclassing you can mix and match to really make the 4 suit your playstyle. In this case more does not equal better.


All of this is wrong.

Multiclassing is also not the answer because of the level 10 cap. You need 3 levels in a class to get the basic archtype unlocked, and that means you will be missing out on the second ability score increase or feat. Less than three levels and the class doesn't offer much. If you go more than 3 levels, it weakens the primary class further.

Yes exactly. Multiclassing is going to be largely pointless in this game because multiclassed characters will be very weak and not really able to do anything well.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
thats also wrong tho.
you just dont get that multiclassing is mostly for dipping

still 4 is enaugh for a table but not for a videogame

Joined: Mar 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2020
I am very much a supporter of the 6-man party. I hate viewing D&D though a min-maxing tank healer dps lens. I want to be able to add flavor to my parties and not have to drop pick up companions just to do X because my party is missing Y. (I did treat the copper coronet as a companion safehouse but that was for their story missions) For party make-up I find 4 it too limiting D&D has range of classes that can for fill at least two of the three, if not all 3 of the trinity (cleric, druid, paladin) as well as the option to Multiclass, (level cap of 10 impacts power of any multiclass build) allowing a bounty of options for party creation. My favorite party formations in BG2 where:

Keldorn Paladin or, Jaheria druid/fighter
Yoshimo Thief, or Imoen thief/wizard, or Nalia thief/wizard, or Jan thief/wizard
Aerie: Wizard/ Cleric, or Edwin wizard
Anomen: Cleric/ Fighter, or Viconia Cleric
Minsc: Ranger, or Valygar Ranger, or Massi Fighter
Player: Fighter/ Wizard
I Like casting spells.

My parties in BG1 weren’t much different with me fighter/wizard, Minsc, or, Ajantis, or Kivan or Khalid, Xan, Imoen, and Branwan

Having watched Sven play I assume just like the previous games and D&D in general that Rogues will be 100% necessary and there by will occupy 1 of 4 slots. taking either dps or support roll.
With the three I have left unless I choose to omit either healing or tanking or combined them into a single character like Anomen in BG2
I may have to change or think really hard about what character I will make. Not knowing how many companions or what classes they are/will should be is exciting, this is a new game! It shouldn’t be a point of concern, but I fear only having 3 to choose from. May force my hand into more of a utility role and not the dual wielding glass canon that I want to play.
I find the argument that 6 vs 4 makes for too many turns and will make combat too long disappointing. Chicken / egg. Was the turn based in before the party size I think so, is it a result of play testing? Yes?
Do I want fluid game? Yes. Do I want that at a reduced roleplaying experience no.
But course that’s a single player perspective, I keep reading that party size is the way it is for multiplayer. Is BG3 at its core multiplayer a game?

Tldr: 4 instead of 6 hurts my feels is a direct result of game design and likely not going to be expanded to 6 without crippling the game.

Joined: Mar 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
I think 6 is too much...4 is enough.


Can you explain why you (as.other) think it's not good to have more choices ? 6 slots is not supposed to mean you HAVE to manage 6 characters if you don't want to.
So what can be the problem ?



Well it does mean that, if the game is balanced and structured for a 6-man party, then your meant to play with a party of 6. (Although I would agree that you do not have to, but you might not doing so problematic)

They would have to include some sort of scaling of enemies or player character strength to allow you to play with less than the default party limit effectively. Technically possible but not necessarily easy.

Last edited by Schuesseled; 14/03/20 05:29 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Tuco Online Content OP
veteran
OP Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
I mean, I know you are purposefully IGNORING the point, but you've been already told that every "six men party" game so far was perfectly playable with less characters.
It doesn't even require any particular scaling, in most cases. In several of these games the mere fact that the same amount of total exp gets parted between fewer party memebers means that a four-men party will just level faster.
It's the same mechanic that allow people to play BG2 solo, in fact: Your solo barbarian/kensai/whatever will level up so fast when he's taking SIX times the amount of exp he well automatically offset the numeric disadvantage.


Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
I think 6 is too much...4 is enough.

Fine. Keep your party as 4.
Explain to me your justification for denying me the ability to have a party of 6.

Yeah, that's an interesting thing, isn't it?
Even if you are someone who HATES the idea of a six-slotted party for whatever reason, it's not that hard to concede that having a six men limit allows to play with four characters anyway, if you wish so, while conversely the other way around just doesn't work; if four is the limit, it's going to be the limit for everyone.
And yet here we are with people who keep repeating things like ""Better not, because Larian doesn't want it anyway". How is that a proper argument, anyway?

Last edited by Tuco; 14/03/20 05:42 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
4 is perfect for a D&D party. One fighter class, one healer/buffer, one offensive caster and one utility character. And with multiclassing you can mix and match to really make the 4 suit your playstyle. In this case more does not equal better.


All of this is wrong.

Multiclassing is also not the answer because of the level 10 cap. You need 3 levels in a class to get the basic archtype unlocked, and that means you will be missing out on the second ability score increase or feat. Less than three levels and the class doesn't offer much. If you go more than 3 levels, it weakens the primary class further.

Yes exactly. Multiclassing is going to be largely pointless in this game because multiclassed characters will be very weak and not really able to do anything well.


It almost sounds like you've played the game

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Tuco Online Content OP
veteran
OP Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus

It almost sounds like you've played the game

yeah, it sounds almost like D&D was around for a while and people kew how classes work.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus

It almost sounds like you've played the game

yeah, it sounds almost like D&D was around for a while and people kew how classes work.


A computer game based on d&d is not d&d. I'm sure they will wchange the original rules if needed, unlike in the original games where many things were implemented just because they were in the rulebook and not balanced correctly, thus making them next to useless (dual classing I am looking at you...)

Last edited by anjovis bonus; 15/03/20 08:56 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
For what it is worth: I always did find parties of 4 (be it Tyranny, NWN2 or DA:O) too limited. I thought Deadfire’s party of 5+multiclassing worked well, and to be honest when playing BG1&2 I used 5 or 6 companions.

Whenever it is up to actual body count, or character design, I don’t know - afterall most of BG1&2 characters were rather passive.

However, I found party of 4 in D:OS2 far to much. Being being coop game first, there was a lot of tedious stuff to manage - stuff meat into your elf, move heavy stuff with your muscle, scan for dead, use ranger to talk to animals, initiate and reinitiate conversations with different companions, as there is no easy way to take advantage of other characters stats for rolls.

And of course another thing is whenever they want to support 6 player coop.

Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
The more you have on your party, the less each of them counts. This is common sense, not an opinion.
And I personally would not like more less important members in my squad. This is an opinion.
Also, I personally would absolutely not like to manage six folks. Personal taste.

If you want to maintain a certain level of high quality overall, there is no balancing for 'well, take 3 or 4 or 5 or 6'.
That is quite obvious and needs no arguments I believe, we are all thinking people.

Thus, for the best this game can be it should be optimized for what the makers envisioned it to be - in my understanding.

In an optional mode - besides the intended version of the game - there could be either an 'easier' mode where you can just throw more in more companions, or enable some auto balancing on your own risk,
without having someone to be responsible for that it works out equally good as the intended way all the time.

Last edited by LaserOstrich; 15/03/20 01:11 PM.
Joined: Jun 2019
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2019
I would like 6 slots that would work in my favor for when they give us DM mode. 1 DM and 5 players sound nice. (Here is hoping for both.)

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Tuco Online Content OP
veteran
OP Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Wormerine

And of course another thing is whenever they want to support 6 player coop.

I'd doubt they'd want to. Too messy.
The good news is that they absolutely wouldn't need to.
Having a party that can potentially slotted UP to six memebers does not in ANY way imply that you need to extend it to the multiplayer side.

A multiplayer session would still be managed at most by four players (which honestly I don't expect to see happening very often) with two *potential* extra NPC being optionally controlled by as extras by them.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Tuco Online Content OP
veteran
OP Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by LaserOstrich
The more you have on your party, the less each of them counts. This is common sense, not an opinion.
And I personally would not like more less important members in my squad. This is an opinion.
Also, I personally would absolutely not like to manage six folks. Personal taste.

If you want to maintain a certain level of high quality overall, there is no balancing for 'well, take 3 or 4 or 5 or 6'.
That is quite obvious and needs no arguments I believe, we are all thinking people.

Thus, for the best this game can be it should be optimized for what the makers envisioned it to be - in my understanding.

In an optional mode - besides the intended version of the game - there could be either an 'easier' mode where you can just throw more in more companions, or enable some auto balancing on your own risk,
without having someone to be responsible for that it works out equally good as the intended way all the time.


Have to say i'ts almost amazing how much I dissagree with pretty much anything you said.
Both in terms of personal opinions and talking about "logical conclusions" that aren't necessarily true at all but you try to state as matter of fact.

Like the suggestion that you couldn't scale things up with exp or something because every fight would need to be "fine tuned"... As if any fine tuning was even possible at all, to begin with, in games with this amount of variables.
Checking any forum discussion about DOS 2 would be a perfect example of that: with people commenting on the same encounter and describing it alternately as "Too hard" or "too easy" based on their setup etc.

Last edited by Tuco; 15/03/20 02:07 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

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