Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Oct 2020
H
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
H
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by WarBaby2
Originally Posted by Shurik
Sure. But I'm talking about the fact that it is impossible or extremely difficult to balance at the same time for 4 5 or 6 characters


Not if you properly implement the 5e rules, which are very easily scaled to party size... just saying.



+1



And as someone said, most of CRPG could be done with one character. In BG2, I finished the game with one mage, another time I went to amelyssanne with 1 archer alone, and I know people that did it with 1 knight.
Because of experience share, your one character would become more powerful quicker, which would compensate for the lack of party member. The end game was significantly more difficult, but manageable with proper gear.

The same could be said with reduced party of 3 or 4 btw : Experience being divided equally among party member means that fewer party member = more powerful party member, and so the game is somehow balanced for any party size.

Last edited by Hachina; 13/10/20 07:24 PM.

If it's what it's takes to save the world, then the world doesn't deserves to be saved - Geralt
Joined: Oct 2020
E
stranger
Offline
stranger
E
Joined: Oct 2020
Hard pass.

Restricting the party to four players may allow for a more "balanced" experience from a design perspective, but it makes the game feel less like Dungeons & Dragons and more like Gauntlet. With only four characters, the party composition will almost be locked to Tank, Healer, Thief & Mage. Classes may vary in those roles, but it limits a lot of the creativity and flexibility that D&D has always offered.

Joined: Jun 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Katj
I also like the party size of 4. Im reminded now of xcom where i always have more fun early on before i expand the squad size.


Funny you mention that. I'm an obsessive REplayer of XCOM2 + War of the Chosen (probably my personal "game of the decade" and the single player I have the most hours on in my Steam account) and the achievement about finishing the game without taking the squad upgrade is one of the very few I never took because I absolutely HATE the idea. If anything by the end of the campaign I have such an amazing roster of great fighters I'm always struggling a bit to decide who am I going to exclude from a mission.
I also absolutely LOVE the fact that WOTC introduced fatigue as a mechanic that forced you to use a far larger number of soldiers in rotation rather than sticking always to your same "A-Team" neglecting everyone else.


What’s also funny is that despite disagreeing with you on this topic, I generally only play Xcom with the long war mods. And part of what I like about is having bigger squads, bigger fights (although you can try to stealth your way through with small squads in long war 2) and a much bigger roster with more unit types. Plus a vastly more in depth strategy layer. It’s a long slog to get through a campaign, but if you haven’t tried it, you probably should.

However, that’s a different game. I’m not sure a direct comparison really works.

Joined: Apr 2014
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Apr 2014
Originally Posted by jonn
Just to be clear, I'm not assuming you don't know how to play, you made it clear in your post how much experience you have and I have no reason at all to doubt it. And I'm not here to argue with you personally - I tried to address "playing safe" because in your post you talked about the concerns over "playing safe" vs. "trying out novelty builds" in CRPGs - and you may well be right. I don't claim to be an expert in any sense, I just know that this has to be a good CRPG first and foremost. What if the game could be made so that the set of abilities and capabilities needed to do well was broader and/or different to the usual, requiring everybody from beginner through to expert to think outside of the box a bit? I just think (in my own opinion) that there could be a solution to the issues you raise other than increasing party size. I'm not arguing against that, specifically, just trying to introduce another point of view into the discussion.


No worries. I probably over emoted in my writing because conveying weight to particular parts of a sentence is hard in text. smile

I will absolutely give room to there being a vastly different experience should they normalize the ruleset implementation to be more 5E rules as written. Even so, I do legitimately prefer 6 characters over 4 for mechanics reasons as I explained. Then for story reasons, I was thinking about that after my first run where my camp started getting full. It was a huge bummer to have these clearly very well fleshed characters on one hand. The one time I did change someone out I immediately regretted it because I had internalized their abilities into how I ran the group. What with Larian saying that we'll "have to commit" after act 1 means they're getting cut off anyway. So my reasons break down roughly like so:

  • Mechanical freedom
  • Enjoying more companion goodness
  • Not feeling like I'm "losing out" on one companion that I forgot to re-include before the cutoff and lose any valuable gear or customization that I put into one of them

Last edited by SacredWitness; 14/10/20 01:05 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Pillars got the number right but this game is so easy atm that it can be beaten with 1 char and mad cheese.

Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by jonn


My point was more to say that the overall popularity and longevity of a game comes from (in part) requiring a bit of effort and experimentation with new and unfamiliar approaches, the reward you get for learning a new way to be victorious is tenfold in comparison with having all the solutions presented to you.

In the context of BG3, people are saying that with 4 characters they will be restricted to running certain classes, and therefore will be unable to experiment with party makeup. My answer is that they *are* able to experiment, they just might have to work a little harder to find the solution. For me, an encounter feels a lot more satisfying if I have to "solve" it rather than just blast my way through on the way to the next.



I'm sorry but....did you just say that the popularity and longevity of the game is better with a lower party size?

You do know that the only reason this game is being made, at all, is because Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 are probably the most popular (and highest reviewed) cRPGs of all time, despite being made in the 1990s/early 2000s? And both those games had party sizes of 6? That is proof alone that your argument is wrong. In terms of party composition, bigger party = easier to take risks/try new things. There's a reason BG 1&2 had *so much* replayability, to the point where they still have healthy communities 2 *decades* later.

Again, for the dozen+ time, the most people are made the most happy with a party of 6. If developers could balance encounters 20 years ago with a party of 6 (and *significantly stronger* player abilities in the old edition rules) I trust they can figure it out now in the simplified world of 5e. That's the only argument against 6 players that doesn't fall flat, because if you don't want a party of 6, just make yours smaller. We who want bigger parties don't have that option when you limit the size to 4.

Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Pillars got the number right but this game is so easy atm that it can be beaten with 1 char and mad cheese.



Do we really count cheesing something in a discussion against if something is easy or hard? I certainly don't.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Can we start by agreeing with 5 first? lots of people think 6 is too many, but how many people think 5 is too many? With 5 you have at least one flexible option on top of the traditional "mandatory" roles being filled (Tank, Healer, lockpicks, Damage).

Personally I dont feel like I "need" 6 but I do need more than 4. I can see 6 being too many. I just want a lil more room for Monk/Bard/Druid anmd to feel slightly less like the computer is the only one taking turns.

Last edited by pill0ws; 14/10/20 02:10 AM.
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
I would want 5. If I do six it would just be from a mod or something, but 5 is optimal for me.

Leaves me with my character and 3 other to be a good comp and the next one for some exotic type class, or pursuing that companions quest, etc. 5 is a good number for me.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Whether the game gives me six or I am forced to use a mod, six is the correct number for me.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Only wimps cheer for four.


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
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Oct 2020
at least give us the OPTION of having 6 (even 5 would be okay) like in the original Baldur's gate. this isn't DOS. Baldur's gate historically has had a max party of 6. never have you HAD to use all 6. I dont understand why people cant understand this.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Four is a party. Six is the crowd. Five is a ideal party )

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by arion
Four is a party. Six is the crowd. Five is a ideal party )


6 is better, but 5 is a good compromise for everyone's whish grin

Not too hard for those that want to play with only 4, not too unbalanced for those that want to mod the game for one more companion slot.
And probably a number the vast majority of us would deal with and enjoy.

I'm asking for 6 for a long time but I can reconsider 5 if that suits better to everyone.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 14/10/20 07:02 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Evidicus
Hard pass.

Restricting the party to four players may allow for a more "balanced" experience from a design perspective, but it makes the game feel less like Dungeons & Dragons and more like Gauntlet. With only four characters, the party composition will almost be locked to Tank, Healer, Thief & Mage. Classes may vary in those roles, but it limits a lot of the creativity and flexibility that D&D has always offered.


So true. Right now I can't ever recruit Wyll, because not having a wizard feels too limiting. And using wizard or cleric scrolls with non wizards kills my immersion. So I need to recruit Shadowheart and Gale ALWAYS. Unless I roll a wiz or cleric. Can't not have a melee tank, either, and Shadowheart has too low AC, so... all this pretty much means that I can't play with a warlock. I need someone to pick locks and disarm traps, and I don't want to kill immersion by using wyll or gale for that. 4 people isn't enough to fill all roles and still get space for experiments, and Larian knows that. THAT'S WHY they allowed fighters to disarm traps and resurrect partymembers. I disagree with that reasoning, because it destroys immersion and makes everything just not serious about role playing. Solution? 5 or 6 party slots.



Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by arion
Four is a party. Six is the crowd. Five is a ideal party )

Nah, six is better.
But five would be a decent compromise.


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
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Mar 2020
6 man would be ideal !

my current party:
Me human dual wield with double maces, one from drow in the goblin city other from the gnoll leader
Lazael with two handed sword of Tyr
Shadowheart who still doesnt want to have sex
And Gale he is the man!! sleep spell alone makes him awesome plus some magic missiles smile and also before i found out that he wants to eat my epic artifacts i thought he was the best guy in the party.

Have you noticed im missing something?? yea its the thief, and everytime i find some chest i have to go to camp and switch to Astarian and come back etc... really stupid...

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Yeah. I'd rather see a six character party. But if a compromise has to be made then i guess I can settle with five. At least that gives you one character to try out a more "exotic" build with,
As so many people have stated already, a four player party will almost always be locked to the Tank, Healer, Thief and Mage setup.

Joined: Oct 2020
H
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
H
Joined: Oct 2020
I would go for six, but if its seems to overwhelming for people 5 would be okay as well. I mean, 4 is okay too but I'd like one or two more.


If it's what it's takes to save the world, then the world doesn't deserves to be saved - Geralt
Joined: Oct 2020
K
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
K
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't see why we need to compromise on this. A party of up to 6 could have a party size of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. Let the player decide if they need the extra companions or not. Settling on 5 as a "compromise" seems arbitrary to me. 🤷

Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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