Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 27 of 84 1 2 25 26 27 28 29 83 84
Joined: Oct 2020
L
stranger
Offline
stranger
L
Joined: Oct 2020
You do know that it makes no sense that it's faster pace having less party members right?
The game concept is totally different from DoS.
Having more actually lets you end battle sooner because of the limitations of DnD combat. Most can do one or two actions a turn, with more party members, it means you get to attack more.

If this was DoS, for sure, we'll watch this guy buff his character 20 times in one turn than finally proceed to wipe the map by himself, but so far the new battles is nothing like that.

Storywise the number of party members don't matter, it's all on the writer, we can have one member and it'll be a good story if the designer behind it does a good job. But comparing the two game makes no sense as well, one game does revolve around the idea of playing a tabletop game with others in a group, some folks have no friends we get it, so they like less of a crowd and now the other game... the other doesn't really relate at all to the game design, it's two different world. We only compare DoS to this because of the fact that it's the same company.

People do make a lot of valid points for 6 men, and tbh, if you want 5, 4 or 1, just do you, letting people choose and have more options is never a bad thing. I don't see why people whine about how other people plays,n when most likely, we'll never play together, we're more bound to play with our friends and family.

Joined: Oct 2020
L
stranger
Offline
stranger
L
Joined: Oct 2020
It goes both ways, having more allows more strategic thinking as well, you're not limited to having a core set of the same group that most other have, just hop onto YouTube, most people have the same exact setup more or less, there's more possibilities in a fight with more characters tbh. And a lot of what you said has been refuted by others already too. I'm not going to spend time going into it, but it goes back to the fact that having 6 members isn't an issue and people have the freedom to choose what they want. Just find those responses and rebutt them if you're very adamant about how you want us to play.

What you really are saying is that, you like it a certain way, and you want us to play that way only. Which is ironically kinda selfish. Let people play how they want. If you like less, go for less.

There's ways to make players struggle besides what you've mentioned too. Ways to make the game funner, but that's more personal preference.

Larian is cool enough to give options, there's those who plays solo too, and we don't see them complaining, nor are we hearing them force us to play with only a single character.

People seem to keep thinking this game is DoS.

Edit: JRPG is JRPG, totally different bro.
Some is good, some isn't.

Last edited by Lenggao; 17/10/20 11:46 AM. Reason: Jrpg... lol
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
One game revolves around the idea of blowing up the whole planet with barrels and the other.....well...

Last edited by JDCrenton; 17/10/20 05:26 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
V
stranger
Offline
stranger
V
Joined: Oct 2020
There's a logical issue with the comparison to D:OS2 is though, because the characters in that game are somewhat specialized, but you can still have swiss army knife characters that are good at everything. Even if you specialize characters you have a crap load of scrolls and items that make it possible to go without spreading your points fairly easily. In D&D however those options are not as readily available, and nor should they be(even if it is a video game as the argument seems to go). In D&D people are forced into certain rolls that don't really change throughout play(Though there is some evolution), and I think the only thing that limiting the party size to four does is make the developers feel like they need to add more food and scrolls and potions to the game to make up for it. I think with a rebalance of resting and encounters (which apparently are done by an AI now) the game would be vastly improved with one or two more companions available. Then the need for items to keep yourself alive and barrels to give you the advantage(or outright cheese the system) would be somewhat mitigated.


Reality is Merely and Illusion, Albeit a very persistant one - Albert Einstein
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Baldur's gate is the most replayed D&D CRPG of all time

It had 25 recruitable companions and a full party of 6 members.

In terms of the possible party combinations, the "25 recruitable companions" is the more important part of the equation than the 6 member party cap, but they are both relevant.

As pointed out earlier in this thread there are many more combinations available with the cap at 6 than there are with the cap at just 4, provided we have a decent number of total companions available. The number of combinations practically doubles when going from 4 to 6 if the total number of companions is raised to say 10 rather than just the 5 currently available. This increases even more dramatically again if we go from a possible 10 companions to say 15 or 20 companions in the roster.

Right now initial impressions are being based on the 5 recruit-able companions currently available in EA, and a full party of 4 members. But there's no way it could end up just being 5 companions or just one or two beyond that thrown in later as some have suggested. That would be a crazy hard fail from the team holding the crown right now. They'd need like a dozen companions just for it to even hold a torch to the epic glory of BG1. So I fully expect them to double or triple the number of companions by the time this thing goes live just to do it justice by the BG standard. I mean they got what, a dozen writers on it? Seems about right.

It makes sense for Larian to tease them in smaller numbers like this too, so that their EA can focus on the party interactions/compositions they feel need the most feedback, and probably more importantly to give us a reason to keep tuning in when they drop their larger patches to expand the content. But there are bound to be a lot more companions, and if that's the case, a full party of 6 is going to give a huge amount of variety in party composition over just 4... even accounting for a few companion pairings that might not be compatible long term without things coming to blows inside the camp.

There are plenty of amazing ways to make an awesome 4 person game by design, or to make a game with only 2 characters when the goal is a Kurvitz style masterpiece. But we're not taking about just any game. This is the heavy weight title we're talking about! This is Baldur's Gate III

It really should be trying to distill the essence of what made the other two preceding titles so rad, and part of that was the variety of possible party compositions. I just can't see the logic that says giving us fewer characters in our group somehow gives us more choices, or better or more interesting choices. it just doesn't pencil for me. Closes off more doors than it opens and diminishes the replay in the long run. Creating a party building vibe that's concordant with the previous titles in the franchise, and building it out with those kinds of limits in mind is what I'd dig.

I really think the party of 4 is going to become more problematic later on, when the encounters scale to epic territory. This is why a lot of us are hearing the internal alarm bells sounding, and trying to argue for a fix now, while there is time to fix it. I mean we definitely expect a game with a Dragon combat or two eventually right? That's going to be a lot harder to pull off in style with just 4, while still maintaining a classically epic sensibility. I mean unless the plan is just to toss us a bunch of non controllable friendlies? This seems to be the go-to approach in many of these EA battles right now, and maybe it works alright when there are narrative reasons (like "the Blade of Frontiers!" sounding his horn, or NPCs that are part of the story) but as a player I feel less invested in the encounter when this is overused. I'd rather have a party of 6 that I can fully control and really work to defeat the opposing crew, than half a dozen random friendlies appearing in every other encounter, just to serve as fodder so that the combats can be balanced by teams/sides.

Just like a good DM, a good difficulty setting in the options should allow everything in these encounters to scale, whether the player elects to cruise with 6 people or just 4.

But still, if you really want it to hit the nostalgia button and go for broke, I'm chanting 6 6 6! Even though I know I said I'd tap out, the gravitational pull of this thread just seems inexorable for me lol







Last edited by Black_Elk; 17/10/20 07:47 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Oct 2020
I definitely agree that a 6 person party makes much more sense. Though, if they do take this route, then I hope they consider adding a few more potential party members to choose from in Acts 1 & early Act 2. After all, I do still like being faced with difficult choices.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by MarcHicks
I definitely agree that a 6 person party makes much more sense. Though, if they do take this route, then I hope they consider adding a few more potential party members to choose from in Acts 1 & early Act 2. After all, I do still like being faced with difficult choices.



I've heard that they're planning on having a total of 12 or 13 companions or so. Not sure about the exact number, but htey will most definitely add more.

Joined: Oct 2020
B
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
B
Joined: Oct 2020
5 players seems okay, 6 could be a little OP and a lot of different inventories to manage

Joined: Oct 2020
E
stranger
Offline
stranger
E
Joined: Oct 2020
[
Originally Posted by vberge
I really really want this suggestion to go through. I want a party of 1 Tank (fighter or paladin), 1 cleric, 1 charisma caster(bard, sorc or warlock), 1 int caster, 1 rogue and 1 fun character (druid, barb, ranger).

4 just has too many limitation and I feel like I am forced into tank, healer caster and a rogue that kind of has to be arcane trickster at that point.This leaves no room for fun party compositions.

Please please please reconsider the 4 man limit.


+1
fully agree

Joined: Oct 2020
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: Oct 2020
+1

6 in party = more fun creation group, alot subclass exist, very unfun to be limited with only 4. And please 3 story characters and 3 full created character. Give me back the freedom !

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by MasterRoo09
For everyone who thinks having the option of 2 more party members is bogus or "makes the game or combat too long" or makes "it too easy" or "you can multiclass to fix most problems", hear me out a bit.
Here's my link to my thoughts on why I think it would be a lot of fun for the option of 6 party members.
http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=685704#Post685704

I would like to add a few things to back that up.

1. 5e Core Rules

"The preceding guidelines assume that you have a party consisting of three to five adventureres... If the party contains six or more characters, use the next lowest multiplier on the table." - Page 83 D&D Dungeons Master's Guide

5e considers 4-5 to be standard while 6 or more being optional, totally up to the players and DM for party size. So Larian at the very least can give us max 5 party members if they're being picky with the rules. The reason why many players want the option (keyword option), is because it was an option in the original BG 1 and 2. This is a Baldur's Gate game, doesn't matter who's developing it. I wouldn't mind more elements from the original BG that would further improve BG3. (Party management and maneuvering being a few to list) I also would like to mention that many official WofC D&D adventure modules of both current and past editions are geared for 4-5 and/or 4-6 players. If you want "lore" to further prove my point, take a look at Drizzt companions. He has 5 total in his party. So what if players wanted to have fun and roleplay as Drizzt in BG3 and (hopefully have an option later to add fully other customize companions) his companions from the books?

2. Time management.

The fact that I have to sit and watch my clock during enemy turns against my party of 4 is bogus. For example: Goblin camp. That was about 25 enemies which would be considered a platoon (18-50 soldiers) against my 4 companions which is not even considered a squad (6*-10 soldiers), So already players are watching their clocks for the enemy to take their sweet time in current Early Access. If I had those extra 2 members, I would've had more chances taking out Goblins quickly.

3. Difficulty Levels

If players want a challenge, you have every right to do that and the option of 6 companions will not sour that experience. I honestly think the game should reward players who decide to take these challenges for a smaller party, just like in the original BG. The same amount of experience will be earned for encounters but if your party is smaller, each companion gets a bigger piece of the pie. So far it seems that the game rewards the same amount of exp. no matter how big or small the party size.

4. The game world is not designed for a bigger party

I'd beg to differ. Most battles have a large number of opponents and there is plenty of space for 2 more party members. If a warlock can have their minion and a ranger can have their pet in the same party of 4, It can fit more than four or even 6 playable characters in practically every area.
For many of the old-school BG players. Remember Firewine Ruins and how claustrophobic it was? You almost had to move the party in a single file line in that dungeon. BG3 EA hasn't had any dungeons or areas as claustrophobic as Firewine Ruins and if they did, I'm sure it would be a challenging dungeon. Also, I hope to God Larian fixes the party movement and controls.

I don't see how an optional party of 6 would sour your experience if you really hate that idea. In fact it gives you more options and variety on how you want to approach the game. I thought that was the whole reason why we love RPG's the variety of possibilities and customizations.

Larian, if you're reading this, at least let us know why this wouldn't be possible. Many people who don't like the idea say because it's also "balancing issue" and needs a lot of resources. I'm positive that is an issue but if that is true then let's hear it from the horse's mouth and let us know why.


you have argued my points far better than i could, thank you and I could not agree more.
Originally Posted by jonn
Originally Posted by RKane
Originally Posted by Ghorunt
Originally Posted by RKane

So don't play in a 6 man party. What he's advocating for is the ability to do so. I think you're both shooting down the idea in spite of the fact that the game will be balanced around 4 people anyway so your experience wont change


If you balance the game around 4 characters but allow a party of 6, everyone will have 6 characters in their party anyway

How do you know?

Originally Posted by Ghorunt

and this would make the game too easy. If you want to go that route, it makes more sense allowing this option with a mod instead.


Why do you care if it makes the game easier for a group of 6? You're not asking for this feature so you have no business talking about balance

Also, I should point out that in divinity, the number of people who did lone wolf duo's seemed to be just as many people looking for 4. In fact, I'd be interested in the ratio between the number of 2:3:4 man games played. I would put money on the fact that full 4 man runs would have the lowest percent as it seemed impossible to find a group of 4 people to actually commit to the entire game.

Also, as I've said in a previous quote, and countless times, balance is a completely pointless criticism to an otherwise reasonable and valid suggestion / request. It's not your job to worry about such a trivial task. Anything can be balanced after the fact.

Opposing a feature request because you 'worry about the balance' is childish and annoying. It's a deadweight opinion based on an entirely selfish desire to cockblock others for no reason whatsoever.


TL;DR, I've yet to see any valid reasons to oppose this idea. If your only concern is balance, just say "I'd wouldn't mind as long as the balance is done right". Don't go round saying "I oppose this because I worry they might ruin the balance for a situation I never intend to play". It's really selfish. Stop offering dead weight opinions and use your head. There is a very simple solution to this and would be trivial to keep everyone happy.


I'm only opposed to it until the devs come out and say that it is something they will be able to manage along with all the other improvements they want to make. Until then it is a possibility, no matter how much you shout, scoff and name-call, that this could use up resources that could be better used elsewhere. For me and many others the extra party size isn't that big of a deal.


I don't see why this should be such a big problem for them to implement, they are not a small indy dev that needs kickstarter to fund there games anymore. This is a AAA game with a AAA level amount of staff behind it, I believe they have over 200 people working on this so a few set aside to create a valid way to play with a six player party should not be too big of an undertaking for them or divert many resources away for the 4 man experience.

You say that for you and many others that the extra party members is not a big deal, but what about those of us that clearly want this quite a lot, do you deny us that option because you don't want it? Also what if it was a quarter of the player base that wanted this, or half, what then would you say to the party size been an option so people can choose what they want? Because thats all we want, the option to play how we want, not to take away the options already implemented that allow you to play how you want.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by odesseiron81
I don't mind a 4 person party. It's not the worst thing in the world. But 5 would be far more comfortable and also make for more diverse party compositions.

I'm going to make a comparison to MMO's. Completely different genre, I know and that might not be fair. But the Problem is very similar and relates. Particularly compared to FFXIV Online. But it is a problem many "new" (post WoW) MMO's have.

That is called the Trinity. Let's say you have a raid, you have 2 tanks, 2 healers, 4 DPS. There are no utility jobs. Or if there are, they are niche and not desired to be in the party. But in most cases with MMO's nowadays, again, using FFXIV as an example, a Bard is considered a DPS. A red mages is a DPS, and so on. It's a set group of those 3 kinds of jobs. No room for a true support job. Those classes may have support abilities integrated into them, but they're still a DPS. Certain jobs are preferred over others. Because there is no room for a class that doesn't offer the maximum amount of optimal output.

Final Fantasy XI Online did it extremely well. A standard party is 6. A tank, mage, healer, 2 DPS, support job. In that game there were several support jobs. You were encouraged to experiment. Much of the content in that game required support based classes.

Granted BGIII isn't a MMO but I feel a similar can occur. Instead of a Trinity we have a Rectology? lol. Or Rectangle based system. By having only 4 members, you limit the ability to designate someone to a utility/support job. Granted we can still have a varied composition of members, but many people are presumably less likely to experiment with classes. The average player will probably go Warrior/Rogue/Damage Dealer x2. Otherwise they might think their damage output is too low. Or survivability. Adding even 1 extra slot to party members creates a possibility of so much more diversity and party experimentation. I hope 5 members at the very least get considered.

I know exactly what you are trying to say and agree completely, I may be boring and not thinking outside the box if i want a rouge to open locks and disarm traps, and a cleric for healing with a wizard for offensive spells and a paladin as my tank, hell I like having two tanks and a fighter that can all hold the line and then a ranged backline that can rain hell down from above.

Also off topic side note: I've been a White Mage main since 2.0 PS3 beta, but my favourite FF job has always been Red Mage, however I never switched over when they added it because it didn't feel like the jack of all trades master on none it was meant to be, as a healer I was hoping for something that would fill the role of a healer in a pinch when desperate. But because it had to fit the trinity everything just feels lacklustre. But I do plan on my first or second character been a Bard in BG3, if they do it right I should be able to build it fairly close to the Red Mage archetype, they may even put in an appropriate feathered hat, or at least that's my hope.
My first two full playthrough is going to be Cleric and Bard because i'm boring and sticking to what I know and like.
Originally Posted by coredumped
Hi, I am also in favour of having a maximum of 6 party members.

As many people have already argued here, using the argument that it slows down the game is silly. What slows down the game is the fact that they turned this into a turn based game (I think it's a horrible approach, but not gonna get into that here). The combat is already incredibly slow and dull with a 4 man party. And guess what... It's even slower and duller the more you reduce the party size because you have to wait longer and longer for the enemies to finish whatever they're doing before you can play again. So, if the issue at hand was merely the fact that it would "slow down the game", it would in fact improve it in every way as you can dispose of enemies faster, have more synergies and most important of all, you can actually play more often during combat.

Using balance as an argument is pretty uninformed (I guess it's the best way to put it without using other less cordial terms). Balance is something for the developers to worry about. We as early access players giving feedback are pretty much a sweat-shop QA team. Our job as individuals who want to better the game is give the suggestions we feel would do exactly that. We are not here to babysit them and say "oh, but the poor lonely devs already have other Jira cards open in their dashboard... let's not give them more work". That's... stupid. A 6 man party would better the game for a great variety of reasons which have already been stated here, so if you're gonna argue, use arguments that actually have an impact in the GAMEPLAY AND THE PLAYERS, not the developers. This is their job, they are paid to do it, and you pay for the end product.
Not to mention that balancing in this area of party members has been done for many years successfully. As anyone who's played the original Baldur's Gates can tell you, and they are over 20 years old.

With these issues aside, I feel the biggest problem with having a 4 man party as a maximum is that it is extremely restrictive to the player. Most people will want to have a balanced party. I don't care if you can make Gale into a swiss-army man and have him lockpick, disarm traps, charge a boss on a flaming unicorn wielding a staff and magic missiles. To me this just seems like I'm playing DOS 2 again, where every character does everything. This just removes uniqueness from your companions and the idea of roles (which I feel most people who enjoy DnD games like) kinda goes out the window. DnD games are amazing for many reasons and party management is one of them. 4 man means you're locked into a core that you can't really change without gimping yourself in effectiveness and/or fun. You'll most likely want a front liner to deal melee damage and/or tank (say a fighter), a support which can buff, heal, disable (e.g. cleric or druid), someone with utility for exploring, scouting, lockpicking, disarming traps, etc. (like a rogue) and a spell caster. Sure you have a party that can finish the game but you have no room for imagination or fun.

Also, regarding the mods argument: Sure, eventually modders can make a mod for the party to have a maximum of 6 members if Larian does nothing about this, but it is much better to have the actual people who are developing the game and have the insight and ability to fine tune it and balance it properly to do so as it would no doubt lead to a much better experience for everyone.

But people in sweatshops actually get paid for their work, It might not be a lot but they still get something, whereas we are paying Larian for the privilege of been exploited. I agree with you on pretty much everything, and while modders could do it it would never not be janky, temperamental and or work as well as what Larion could do while they are still finishing off the game, they are big enough now and well funded enough that they should have the resources to do this themselves. Regardless of who is making the game it has the name Baldur's Gate attached to it so I expect it to feel like Baldur's Gate and not another part in their own franchise that they already have, differentiating the party size and allowing us the party flexibility and compositions we are used to from previous entries would go a long way to make it feel like a Baldur's Gate game, at least to me.
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by HustleCat

Maybe less EXP for bigger parties and more for smaller ones


That's exactly how it works in D&D and in the old BG.
I'm sure Larian know it.

More specifically, since in Larian games basically only the main character levels up and others simply keep up with him, what you are supposed to do is to adjust how much exp he gets according to how many partners he carries around.
Which is the norm. People talking about it as an obscure method that would require the longest, most elaborate inspection when it has been tried and tested over YEARS of practical use are ridiculous.


Vaguely legitimate worries, if any, would rather be that:
- you can eventually exploit this system levelling up faster and THEN grouping more companions anyway.
- at some point all characters are going to hit a level cap anyway.

To both the most appropriate response is "SO FUCKING WHAT?"
It's irrelevant. Just more fake concerns, in practical terms. These games are never "finely tuned" to make possible barely edging them. There's always a massive headroom making them completable at any skill level with a far from optimal setup.


That is true. You could level up with 2 early on and then turn act 3 into butter with your high level group of 6. I like a more challenging and less exploitable game. I think DOS2 had extra game options you could select that would change the game, but disable achievements. Maybe they could do that for 6 player party mode

That was what I said in my OP, make it a toggleable option before you start a new game that comes with a disclaimer about wonky balance and achievements will therefore be disabled.
Originally Posted by pincup
I'm content with 4 companions, someone at Reddit summed it up nicely but judging by responses, this forum is filled with die hard fans of 6 members and no matter arguments everyone against them will hit a wall laugh so why bother. 4 that's the number and I hope it stays that way



All we are asking for here is an option that a large portion of the player base wants, we don't want to take away your option to play with the settings that you find best and most fun, would you deny us even the possibility of having simply the option to play with the settings and party size we want?
Originally Posted by arion
Originally Posted by Sir Sparhawk

Larian has already confirmed that the level cap is 10

already confirmed it is not 10

when I made that the last I had heard Larian had confirmed a cap of 10 but it seems they are not sure anymore https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/20...-not-cap-player-levels-to-ten-after-all/ but until they have a definitive answer and number I think we should work under the assumption of 10 to avoid dissapointement for anyone wanting a higher level cap.
Originally Posted by Roarro
I just love these arguments-4 person party was good enough in DOS, why change? Well maybe ask Larian to make another DOS game and leave Baldurs Gate to us ?

Here here +1
Originally Posted by kanisatha
It's clear to me what's missing in these discussions is that four takes away from those who like six, but six does NOT take anything away from those who like four. They can still play their game with four (or less). As for game "balance," you just balance the game for whatever number you decide as the developer, and then have a warning with the toggle to increase party size that says: hey, doing this may make your combat unchallenging. Including choices so different players can play and enjoy their game as they want is NEVER a bad thing. Not ever.

I also think that thats what a lot of the people who like the 4 man set-up are missing, we only want the option to have 6 party members, and they never give an opinion on us simply have the option to choose how many people we can take with us.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by AleXty

if I remember correctly even the old bgs were a maximum of 4, but I could be wrong. Honestly with a group of 4 there is a lot more strategy and I personally like it. Six would be too much, they should increase the difficulty of the mobs and should increase the mobs to face.

The origional Baldur's Gate games both had 6 man parties as the default party size when you was done recruiting companions, as did the Icewind Dale games that where built on the same engine. If they where all based around a 4 man party then this wouldn't be such a big deal to all of us who loved the originals.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Sir Sparhawk
Originally Posted by AleXty

if I remember correctly even the old bgs were a maximum of 4, but I could be wrong. Honestly with a group of 4 there is a lot more strategy and I personally like it. Six would be too much, they should increase the difficulty of the mobs and should increase the mobs to face.

The origional Baldur's Gate games both had 6 man parties as the default party size when you was done recruiting companions, as did the Icewind Dale games that where built on the same engine. If they where all based around a 4 man party then this wouldn't be such a big deal to all of us who loved the originals.

Same for Torment, while Temple of Elemental Evil had a default party of 5 player-generated characters but you could hire up to three additional NPCs, if charisma allowed it.
Fun fact: ToEE had for years what was broadly considered as by far the best, most faithful implementation of the D&D combat system in a computer game (its flaws were all in other areas, frankly) and allowed for a bigger party *precisely* because turn-based combat made it more manageable and rewarding than real-time.



Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by KingNothing69
A party of up to six is the correct decision. Less than that and the game doesn't feel like Baldur's Gate. Solo the game, take only a few companions, or have a full party. That's how the original games worked. Leave it up to the individual and stop thinking that because a party size of four is enough for you that it is OK for everyone else.

And why are we pretending like the game is balanced as is in EA? Do people really think this is how the final game will be? That Larian won't change anything? That there won't be any difficulty sliders? That we can't opt into ways to make the game more or less challenging based on player preference? That's just crazy. It's also stupid to complain about how other people play the game not working with your play style or rudely pretending like you know the financials of these asks and that us peasants posting in the Suggestions & Feedback forum are too dumb to know what we want. Let people play the way they want. D&D is about giving people the power to create stories how they want. That's why the ruleset is so flexible and allows for homebrew (mods for tabletop).

Although if it ends up being that party is fixed after Act 1, then I'll really lose the desire to play this game. Party experimentation is KEY to Baldur's Gate. If you were stuck with the same party for the whole Bhaalspawn saga, then that would suck in a very major way and the pocket plane would be a very sad place.

I expect there will be 12 origin characters at launch, one for each class, and then i would expect a few more that are only available in acts 2 and 3, like you if you are locked in after act 1 ends I won't be impressed
Originally Posted by Peranor
Originally Posted by arion
Originally Posted by Smash Dently
Besides let's say they jump us up to 6 and rebalance the whole game

lol this argue again
what game they need to rebalance?
there no balanced game, all we have is EA which not balanced at all
Originally Posted by nation
Originally Posted by Peranor
[quote=arion][quote=Smash Dently] Besides let's say they jump us up to 6 and rebalance the whole game

lol this argue again
what game they need to rebalance?
there no balanced game, all we have is EA which not balanced at all



Yeah, and even if it was. I don't think it would be terrible difficult to add some kind of dynamic balacing to the game that accomodate for your chosen party size. Maybe set it as a starting option when you start a new game. Choose between solo or 2-6 party members. And once the game is started the balance is set and you're locked to the maximum party size of your choise.

+1 i think this would be a really good idea too - something like a 'Behind the DM Screen' pre campaign/character creation screen where you would be able to designate a variety of options that would carry over into the full campaign, many of which could potentially speak to a variety of the discussions and alleviate some concerns on these forums and could be really helpful when setting up a mp campaign specifically.

things that you could possibly toggle that would impact the campaign's 'difficulty/balance', but im sure others here could add to this list
-stat allocation - roll, buy, array
-feat at first level (id argue this could really open up gameplay but could warrant an overall campaign challenge increase)
-classes/races/feats/spell filter etc (more mp oriented tho)
-party size 1-6, but could see why 1,2,4,6 may be more feasible to include and 'balance' at this point (id argue that players should always be able to have a max of 6 open party slots bc enables more player choice and allow players to decide themselves to go 4 or 6, etc.)
-use healing potion as a bonus action
-scale of surface effects
-show/hide dice rolls - im not sure its a good thing to know a dc of a skill check or see that you failed that perception roll, but that being said id rather the dc be set and apply my bonus to the die roll instead of reducing the dc as i think it currently works (id also think this systems presentation may need some tweaking - not a fan of jumping away from the dialogue to just fail a die roll)
-limit info that can be gained from 'examining' npcs and enemies, such as hp or ac
-party interaction during dialogue and trading/bartering (maybe more mp tho)
-more specific class tweaks as the 'dm' allows (ie swapping warlock spells, respecs, multi-class requirements)

i feel the above list (outside maybe the scale of the surface effects) are all common dnd 'house rules' topics you discuss around the table that could also really work to refine an bg3 campaign to fit each persons playstyle. obviously this is all just thoughts/theorycrafting suggestions but i think in particular the discussion regarding having 4v6 party slots and possible required balancing could find solutions for both perspectives with a toggable pre-campaign dynamic balance as mentioned above by peranor

also, maybe tangentially related, but i think balance should be focused around encounters not party size or level - i want to adapt to the challenges and world of bg3 not the opposite way around

I like his idea, and yours as well, more options is always a good thing.
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
They can't have failed to notice by now that it will be a real sticking point for a lot people. This is already one of the longest threads in this feedback section, and its been brought up in many others.

I'm not terribly inspired by the idea that if the devs don't do it, then motivated modders will be able to solve everything. This doesn't strike me as a game that will be particularly easy to mod. NWN was basically a modders dream, but lack of party control, with henchmen instead of a full party kinda sank it, despite all the other innovative things that were done. It was a perennial disappointment there even with like 3 expansions and a sequel, that we never got a party control system there. And that one was by the same developer. Larian is so much closer, much much closer to the BG vibe than NWN ever was, but they are kinda shooting themselves in the foot by hamstringing us with a party limited to 4.

4 makes it feel like Valkyrie needs food!

6 is what we want lol






+1

Joined: Oct 2015
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2015
The only reason I'd want 6 companions is if I also get to create my own party. Right now I'm fine with four because I'm not keen on dealing with pre-made companions. While I like games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect, I don't necessarily enjoy all the companion interactions. Overly written companions control the narrative too much.. If I get to create my own party like in IWD then that's more fun for me because it's my own soap opera that I'm creating. I get to create the characters personalities and stories as I play the game. If it's someone elses characters then my brain goes all grumbly whenever they do something out of character for the character I'm trying to play them as.

Joined: Oct 2020
N
member
Offline
member
N
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by vyvexthorne
The only reason I'd want 6 companions is if I also get to create my own party. Right now I'm fine with four because I'm not keen on dealing with pre-made companions. While I like games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect, I don't necessarily enjoy all the companion interactions. Overly written companions control the narrative too much.. If I get to create my own party like in IWD then that's more fun for me because it's my own soap opera that I'm creating. I get to create the characters personalities and stories as I play the game. If it's someone elses characters then my brain goes all grumbly whenever they do something out of character for the character I'm trying to play them as.
like IWD, you could also create your own custom party in the original bg games too by essentially hosting your own mp campaign and filling in the party slots with self-made characters. i actually really enjoyed this being a part of those games too (including the black pits side-stories) as you mentioned it allowed the player to create their own party of custom made characters and then be able to act out the adventure and party dynamics as they went through the story, so i really hope larian does include this as an option too as part of the full game on launch - the og bg games were more restrictive on character creation than 5e, so it was really fun theory crafting all good/neutral/evil parties or just cool character concepts that i hadnt yet experienced in game (which you could also plan a party around when you had another 5 custom pc slots so even if characters werent 'optimal' you could still mold a party to fit your playstyle or pick up an appropriate npc companion among the dozen plus that both the originals had).

I also agree with what you were saying about playing with companions whom control the narrative too much or 'steal the spotlight' from my own pc - which i think the origin companion characters do to a certain extent. at this stage in the games development i dont think reducing the origin characters role is realistic or a good use of resources, however i do wish they would add some more game mechanics that made me feel like my own pc was more critical to the overall games plot, as currently it feels like if my pc never survived the ship crash they wouldnt even get a footnote in the history books, bc all the origin characters theoretically would just carry on with the story as they still would need to address the tadpole situation whether our pc was present or not, which to me just doesnt feel like bg - just for an example, in the originals if your main pc died you had to reload, no tpk required. im not saying that larian should implement this function, and 5e death mechanics present different tools for a dnd game today - im just highlighting that as an example of how the game's plot/narrative/story all revolved around your pc and your pc's interactions (that you decided and selected) with the environment/companions

Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Korriban
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Korriban
Gonna have to side with the increase to 6 crowd, 4 kinda limits combinations.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by vberge
I really really want this suggestion to go through. I want a party of 1 Tank (fighter or paladin), 1 cleric, 1 charisma caster(bard, sorc or warlock), 1 int caster, 1 rogue and 1 fun character (druid, barb, ranger).

4 just has too many limitation and I feel like I am forced into tank, healer caster and a rogue that kind of has to be arcane trickster at that point.This leaves no room for fun party compositions.

Please please please reconsider the 4 man limit.



Exactly

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
We already talked about it in some of the previous pages (or maybe it was in the other big thread about this same topic?) but I want to stress a point again: it's not just about having an effective battle formation, it's also about putting a lot of great loot to good use, so you feel properly rewarded for what you find.

A party of six allows you to build a party where more or less all the range of weapon and armor types are used and useful.
In a party of 4 you either force this differentiation, limiting your options for a party composition even more, OR you'll end up with a lot of loot feeling useless because, for instance, you have one single character that can use "martial" equipment, no one wearing a certain category of armor, etc.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Page 27 of 84 1 2 25 26 27 28 29 83 84

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