Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
-1

Unlike DOS- where you could make everyone a hybrid of everything and just add Hydro and Aero on half the party and the other half have Geo, Scoundrel and Warfare - this is Dungeons and Dragons and each class is limited on what they can do and even tough some spells might repeat for a few classes, their class features are unique and only them can bring it to the table.

This means that it's hella restricting only having 4 because you'll miss so much on those jack of all trades classes that cannot be included since you need to min max and follow the basic model of 1 Melee, 1 Healer, 1 Rogue, 1 Magic Caster. It's not diffcult at all to understand that if you have a party of 5 or 6 you can add more versatility and enjoyabilty in the RPG aspect so you can play whatever the hell you want even if they are not the best options/selection.

4 people parties are doomed to either be min maxed so they can take the whole game or forced to multiclass in the future.

Last edited by HeavensBells; 12/10/20 04:26 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
I prefer 4 but if people want 6, then why not let them get 6?

More choices good, less choices bad.

Last edited by SirJimmaras; 12/10/20 04:24 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
At this point it is obvious the game is geared around four players as its the default setting. With the exception of a couple encounters four has been adequate.

Personally, I think there is room for compromise. Make the default four, and then allow a Charisma bonus of +3 or +4 allow for an additional one to two followers. Will that make some people optimize for beastly parties with OP charisma classes? Sure, but twinks are going to twink regardless.

Last edited by DistantStranger; 12/10/20 04:27 PM.
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: CARDIFF
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: CARDIFF
For me the main reason I would want 6 instead of 4 is RP reasons mostly. Sure it would be easier to play with 6, and I like easy, but I'm just as happy as it is with 4.


Love and sausages xx
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Dagless

Seems you are playing armchair developer as much as anyone, by dismissing any concerns about increasing party size and saying it’s just better.

Yeah. But I'm not making shit up and I know what I'm saying.

Quote
You said earlier that’s it’s not a problem for people who prefer to play with fewer characters than standard, but also that fights balanced for 6 characters wouldn’t take longer because they could “clean up” faster.

These sound like mutually exclusive arguments to me.

No, they aren't. 6 men clean the same encounter quicker.
With the correct system in place, 4 men tend to level up more on the long run and become individually more powerful. That doesn't make the battles with six characters "slower". Not in a game where Initiative queue is mixed between allies and enemies.
If anything makes the player intervene more often on the action rather than watching long sequences of enemies doing their own things.

You people are giving gravity to a "design problem" that simply doesn't exist.


Quote
If you can clean up faster with 6 characters, then playing with fewer surely puts you at a disadvantage. And that means most people will play with a full party, even if it’s more cumbersome.

You just make the total of exp gained split among the number of party members. Which is precisely what BG1 and 2 and what made viable playing the game with six party members OR playing it in solo with a single character leveling up way faster.
A lot of people played Icewind Dale with 4 custom characters rather than six just to have them level up more, for instance.

As I said in the other thread about this topic (the GOOD one, with the proper arguments for it) people should not misunderstand one thing: the request of having a party of six does not come from the NEED to have them to achieve things, but from the enjoyment that comes from having more variety, more interesting tactical options and mix-ups and carrying on more companions questlines in the single player campaign.


Quote
We also don’t know how this will affect the story once we commit to our party.

We know that Larian's current plan is to force the players to COMMIT to their selection of three party members and get rid of the others after act 1, like they did with DOS 2.
Many, myself included, think that is a terrible mistake and they should revise it, but even if it was a final decision it would make for an even stronger argument in favor of carrying more companions with you.


Quote
BG3 is not a story about 1 protagonist and a group of followers. It’s a story about up to 4 protagonists, because it’s a game for up to 4 players.

And absolutely nothing is preventing these four players from doing what they were doing anyway. Maybe even having two additional NPCs to carry around, if they want.

Last edited by Tuco; 12/10/20 04:48 PM.

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
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by SecondAchaius
Im surprised that no one has mentioned LArian stating this about the companions

"Will companions be interchangeable during long rest?
Yes, at the start of your adventure your recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. Just like friends in real life! After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life."

That last part makes me feel like they are gonna do the Act 1 finale of DOS2.


Wow, I did not know that. That is indeed terrible. So you are either committing to a party where you like the characters, or the party that makes the game easier. Like I have not yet explored the nuances of the combat system and I do not have the excessive knowledge of the source. So my game is very difficult, especially when I break up the usual meta of tank/healer/caster/rogue. And I then "only" have 20 hours or so to try out what composition works for me and what people I actually want to bring.
This locks me out of content effectively and forces me to choose one build over the other instead of adapting constantly or going back to a trusted setup for the time being. Not a fan.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Dagless

Seems you are playing armchair developer as much as anyone, by dismissing any concerns about increasing party size and saying it’s just better.

Yeah. But I'm not making shit up and I know what I'm saying.

Quote
You said earlier that’s it’s not a problem for people who prefer to play with fewer characters than standard, but also that fights balanced for 6 characters wouldn’t take longer because they could “clean up” faster.

These sound like mutually exclusive arguments to me.

No, they aren't. 6 men clean the same encounter quicker.
With the correct system in place, 4 men tend to level up more on the long run and become individually more powerful. That doesn't make the battles with six characters "slower". Not in a game where Initiative queue is mixed between allies and enemies.
If anything makes the player intervene more often on the action rather than watching long sequences of enemies doing their own things.

You people are giving gravity to a "design problem" that simply doesn't exist.


Quote
If you can clean up faster with 6 characters, then playing with fewer surely puts you at a disadvantage. And that means most people will play with a full party, even if it’s more cumbersome.

You just make the total of exp gained split among the number of party members. Which is precisely what BG1 and 2 and what made viable playing the game with six party members OR playing it in solo with a single character leveling up way faster.
A lot of people played Icewind Dale with 4 custom characters rather than six just to have them level up more, for instance.

As I said in the other thread about this topic (the GOOD one, with the proper arguments for it) people should not misunderstand one thing: the request of having a party of six does not come from the NEED to have them to achieve things, but from the enjoyment that comes from having more variety, more interesting tactical options and mix-ups and carrying on more companions questlines in the single player campaign.


Quote
We also don’t know how this will affect the story once we commit to our party.

We know that Larian's current plan is to force the players to COMMIT to their selection of three party members and get rid of the others after act 1, like they did with DOS 2.
Many, myself included, think that is a terrible mistake and they should revise it, but even if it was a final decision it would make for an even stronger argument in favor of carrying more companions with you.


Quote
BG3 is not a story about 1 protagonist and a group of followers. It’s a story about up to 4 protagonists, because it’s a game for up to 4 players.

And absolutely nothing is preventing these four players from doing what they were doing anyway. Maybe even having two additional NPCs to carry around, if they want.


This is one of the best posts I've read on the topic, I agree 100% and have nothing to add (which is pretty rare)

Joined: Oct 2020
R
stranger
Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Oct 2020
For me its even simplier-4 people party makes is a DoS game,6 people party makes it a Baldurs Gate game. There is enough things basically copypasted from Divinity already,yet the game is titled Baldurs Gate,so maybe it will be good having something more in common with classic series.

Joined: Apr 2014
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Apr 2014
Originally Posted by rhielm
This game is designed around a party of 4 players, and that is fine. To change it to 6 would require the developers to start over on a huge amount of design work, and probably delay the game another 6 months to a year or more, and cost millions of dollars in development. No thank you.

Stick with 4. It works well, and adds to the fun and challenges in strategy when choosing your party members.

Party of 4, please.


This is very incorrect. They already throw several enemies at a party at a time. The challenge rating of a single enemy is judged on a 1v4 basis. These fights are already over the top on their own. They might need to add 1 or 2 tops more enemies to each area. Maybe.

Joined: Apr 2014
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Apr 2014
Originally Posted by orgnok
Dealing with a goblin encampment and fighting a hag is very doable before level 5. A green hag is CR3, goblins are Cr1/4, a goblin chief is CR 1.That's well within what a level 2-3 party can accomplish with some smart planning.

But to contribute something OT:

4 does feel pretty limited, Personally I like having a party of 5, but i think 6 is reasonable. That lets you explore half the classes in one play through. And gives you enough room to cover all your bases comfortably. That is of course assuming that we will get more (and hopefully a bit less over the top) companions.


A green hag may be CR3 but is definitely on the upper end of hard. One attack can pretty reliably one shot someone at level 2 which is when you can meet it in BG3. Goblins are CR 1/3 but this ignores placement and numbers. Those encounters are much higher than that. Mind you that CR is 1 creature vs 4. We often face bands of 8 or more. Even the random potshot with a short bow doing 8d6+16 will drop most characters on their own.

Add in the bugbears, gnolls with multiattack, and so on, and it definitely falls on the upper end regardless of the situation you come across per book rules. CR only makes sense as long as the party comp is constant. The moment you lose someone that's a drop of 25%. The relative CR goes up then and you can quickly crest into a death spiral. CR in general carries a lot of problems and this only highlights them. It isn't the defeater argument you think it is.

Joined: Apr 2014
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Apr 2014
Originally Posted by Jazhara202
Hey all I would like to also chime in and saying that I also agree about keeping the party size to 4. Here is a quote from the DMG in 5e.

The game of Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition and its encounters is balanced on two basic premises.

Each adventuring day, a party of three to five adventurers should be able to handle six to eight Medium or Hard encounters (DMG, page 84).
Most combat encounters should last 3 rounds on average (DMG, page 274).
This means that the characters playing the game should have enough resources–including hit points, spells, special powers, etc.–to last roughly 18 rounds of combat. In addition, the party should take at least two short rests per day to recover a portion of their spent resources.

So basically Larian has took the average of what the balance is currently made for. Its NEVER 6 players if you do that you actually have to make the game HARDER by changing the CR by tweaking numbers all across the board on top of much higher DCs for everything.

If they raised it to 5 players, it wouldn't be terrible as the raw states its balanced around that. Another observation is the game has many more traps and environmental effects that put a lot more damage out than regular tabletop DnD. So having a 5th party member I could see an argument for. ( Would rather not have any or rare environmental effects )

If you note tho, it also mentions (2) short rests between combat. Larian needs to try and do more 5e by the book stuff than not. Increase short rests, remove food that heals completely, if they want to keep that "healing" in the game, put it in forms of a potion of healing only. Lets keep this DnD please.

DnD 5e is VERY balanced and all the pieces fit together like a tiny jig saw for a reason.

Jaz


Except fights last WAY longer than 3 rounds as is. In my earlier post like I mentioned they would need to add 1, maybe 2, more enemies per area because there's already a large scale imbalance on most encounters as is. Add in the elemental effects and Original Sin remnants, the game is so far off balance from 5E anyway. Plus they add other abilities like with the phase spider's spit. The 5E version of that monster can't do that and it changes fighting them dramatically. You can easily keep the scale of current encounters, normalize properly to the 5E ruleset, add maybe 1 or 2 more enemies, and accommodate a 6 person party with ease.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
I too would like to have a party of 6 characters. As many others have stated already it provides more variety and freedom to play around with differect classes and builds. Balance and mechanics should't be to hard to tweak around a 6 character party. Not sure how it would affect the overarching story through.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
4 is a party but 6 is also a party.

Divinity: Original Sin II have 4 men party and lone wolf and both modes are fun. I don't understand why people would outright dislike the option for party of 5 or 6. Larian can balance it just like they balanced the Lone Wolf mode and people can have fun with either 4 or 6 party size. Problem solved. Win-win.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
How about 5 so everyone meets in the middle?

Joined: Oct 2020
J
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
J
Joined: Oct 2020
My post post got glossed over in the back pretty quickly.

But I had mentioned my feedback on why the game should not be 6 players since its not balanced for that as per dnd 5e ruleset

The game of Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition and its encounters is balanced on two basic premises.

Each adventuring day, a party of three to five adventurers should be able to handle six to eight Medium or Hard encounters (DMG, page 84).
Most combat encounters should last 3 rounds on average (DMG, page 274).
This means that the characters playing the game should have enough resources–including hit points, spells, special powers, etc.–to last roughly 18 rounds of combat. In addition, the party should take at least two short rests per day to recover a portion of their spent resources.

So basically Larian has took the average of what the balance is currently made for. Its NEVER 6 players if you do that you actually have to make the game HARDER by changing the CR by tweaking numbers all across the board on top of much higher DCs for everything.

But the argument for having a 5th i could easily see since it normally is per CR in the monster manual on top of the current Environmental effects causing a lot more damage (( they need to remove this ))than you would find an in actual dnd tabletop setting.

Remove all the extra unneeded environmental damage that isnt a thing in 5e,
Remove the healing on food,
Put back that number of value on healing into potions of Healing
Add more short rests

By doing these things a party of 4 or 5 should be fine.

Jaz

Last edited by Jazhara202; 12/10/20 05:56 PM.
Joined: Aug 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
Please Larian, of course I want 6 companions, but I'd settle for five. laugh Four just feels so constricting. and it feels weird to adventure and then go to camp and some npc is sitting there giving me the side eye for leaving them at camp.

Joined: Apr 2014
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Apr 2014
Originally Posted by Jazhara202
My post post got glossed over in the back pretty quickly.

But I had mentioned my feedback on why the game should not be 6 players since its not balanced for that as per dnd 5e ruleset

The game of Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition and its encounters is balanced on two basic premises.

Each adventuring day, a party of three to five adventurers should be able to handle six to eight Medium or Hard encounters (DMG, page 84).
Most combat encounters should last 3 rounds on average (DMG, page 274).
This means that the characters playing the game should have enough resources–including hit points, spells, special powers, etc.–to last roughly 18 rounds of combat. In addition, the party should take at least two short rests per day to recover a portion of their spent resources.

So basically Larian has took the average of what the balance is currently made for. Its NEVER 6 players if you do that you actually have to make the game HARDER by changing the CR by tweaking numbers all across the board on top of much higher DCs for everything.

But the argument for having a 5th i could easily see since it normally is per CR in the monster manual on top of the current Environmental effects causing a lot more damage (( they need to remove this ))than you would find an in actual dnd tabletop setting.

Remove all the extra unneeded environmental damage that isnt a thing in 5e,
Remove the healing on food,
Put back that number of value on healing into potions of Healing
Add more short rests

By doing these things a party of 4 or 5 should be fine.

Jaz


I quoted your whole post. What got missed?

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Minnesota, USA
R
stranger
Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Minnesota, USA
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by rhielm
This game is designed around a party of 4 players, and that is fine. To change it to 6 would require the developers to start over on a huge amount of design work.

I wish people could stop to make up shit as armchair developers to legitimate their bias.

This sounds like a case of the Pot calling the Kettle Black. You're accusing me of "armchair developing" while second guessing their decision to go with a party of 4 in the first place, and telling me how easy it would be to change it to 6. You don't know that. I'm sure they have very good reasons for choosing a 4-person party in their engine, and their story. And since we don't know their development process, we have no right to second guess their decision on this. On top of that, I would actually prefer a 6-person party, so don't go accusing me of making this point to "legitimate my bias". Because I'm looking past my personal bias to understand that I don't know the development process, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they know what they're doing. That's why I'm saying "stick with 4". To demand to the developers they change their game design to a 6 person party simply because we feel like it, and because BG1 & BG2 had a 6-person party is entitled, and selfish. Larian has proven that they know what their doing in this genre. It's their game, it's their art. Not ours. Let them create their game and their art in their own way. Judge a game for what it is, not for what it isn't.

Last edited by rhielm; 12/10/20 06:04 PM. Reason: Spelling Error
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by rhielm
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by rhielm
This game is designed around a party of 4 players, and that is fine. To change it to 6 would require the developers to start over on a huge amount of design work.

I wish people could stop to make up shit as armchair developers to legitimate their bias.

This sounds like a case of the Pot calling the Kettle Black. You're accusing me of "armchair developing" while second guessing their decision to go with a party of 4 in the first place, and telling me how easy it would be to change it to 6. You don't know that. I'm sure they have very good reasons for choosing a 4-person party in their engine, and their story. And since we don't know their development process, we have no right to second guess their decision on this. On top of that, I would actually prefer a 6-person party, so don't go accusing me of making this point to "legitimate my bias". Because I'm looking past my personal bias to understand that I don't know the development process, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they know what they're doing. That's why I'm saying "stick with 4". To demand to the developers they change their game design to a 6 person party simply because we feel like it, and because BG1 & BG2 had a 6-person party is entitled, and selfish. Larian has proven that they know what their doing in this genre. It's their game, it's their art. Not ours. Let them create their game and their art in their own way. Judge a game for what it is, not for what it isn't.


+1 to this

Seems to me like a lot of people just want to play the game the same way they've played others in the past, rather than put the effort in to learn a new system

Joined: Aug 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by rhielm
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by rhielm
This game is designed around a party of 4 players, and that is fine. To change it to 6 would require the developers to start over on a huge amount of design work.

I wish people could stop to make up shit as armchair developers to legitimate their bias.

This sounds like a case of the Pot calling the Kettle Black. You're accusing me of "armchair developing" while second guessing their decision to go with a party of 4 in the first place, and telling me how easy it would be to change it to 6. You don't know that. I'm sure they have very good reasons for choosing a 4-person party in their engine, and their story. And since we don't know their development process, we have no right to second guess their decision on this. On top of that, I would actually prefer a 6-person party, so don't go accusing me of making this point to "legitimate my bias". Because I'm looking past my personal bias to understand that I don't know the development process, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they know what they're doing. That's why I'm saying "stick with 4". To demand to the developers they change their game design to a 6 person party simply because we feel like it, and because BG1 & BG2 had a 6-person party is entitled, and selfish. Larian has proven that they know what their doing in this genre. It's their game, it's their art. Not ours. Let them create their game and their art in their own way. Judge a game for what it is, not for what it isn't.


I want a 5-6 (preferably 5) charcater party for a number of reasons, but I will say that this is very much the exact time to ask Larian to change the party size. Early access is here to see what works and what needs changing, and if Larian ultimately agree with the people that say the party size needs changing, then let them. If they think that it's not worth it to change the party size then it won't matter what we said. From what I understand Larian is more than capable of standing by their decisions, even ones they apparently later admit weren't the right decisions. They gave us early access because they wanted our feedback on what they were created. Furthermore just because it's their art doesn't mean their vision is automatically the best version of what it could be. More input combined with thoughtful consideration of that input is one of the best ways to create something great and I don't think we should automatically assume that their plan is the best plan; plenty of studio's who have created great games in the past have included stuff that on hindsight just didn't work as intended.

I just hope that if they keep the party size at only 4, they tune the combat down to a more manageable level because as it stands, the game's difficulty is such that a player with fairly average skill is painfully restricted by such a small party size.

Last edited by Gray Ghost; 12/10/20 06:32 PM.
Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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