Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
larian please reduce the party size to 3, but only for the OP, tia

Joined: Jul 2014
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Abits
It's safe to say the only reason it is 4 is because dos2 had 4, and to do anything else means changing the system, hence extra work. I don't find it particularly problematic, but a lot of people here find it to be a very bad decision


I guess Solasta has 4 because DoS2 had 4 too?

No, it's because 4 is D&D adventures recommended party size.

Last edited by Gaidax; 08/11/20 12:39 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I, for one, would love to individually jump my 12 party members over every gap.

I know funny, and that right there is funny!

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by KingTiki
Originally Posted by JustAnotherBaldu
How hard can it be to put just one more character in and make it five?


It is already implemented. When you start a custom 4player Party you can have 5 and possibly 6 people in your party (your 4 customs + Laezel + Us)

It is a conscious decision and has absolutely nothing to do with Larian being lazy or any of the other "reasons" people give just because they are salty about it.

O don't think it's about being lazy, it's about not putting the resources into it. Totally legitimate imo. Just mean they can put more time and resources into something else


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Jul 2009
I
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
I
Joined: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by Maldurin
I highly doubt it has anything to do with DOS II.
4 is a very common party size, especially for Games which support Multiplayer and even more on Console.

That you can not have any utility in the group is exactly the point i think.
You have to make choices and this also adds more replayability to the game.

To me it doesnt matter if ots a 3, 4 oder 6 Party, but blaming DOS again is just random., i think there are good reasons for a 4- party


Its certainly DOS 2's fault.

It is obvious that Larian is taking DOS 2 and do small modifications to the game to make it look more like D&D. So the reason why we have such a small party is because DOS 2 had a small party and Larian did chose not to change it.
Why? I guess because of the origin system. As all NPCs are playable origin characters who all require voiceovers, etc. a larger party means they have to create even more origin characters which takes a lot of money.

Last edited by Ixal; 08/11/20 01:21 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
B
member
Offline
member
B
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't really care if 4 or 6, but if it stays 4 and I can create a custom party I've already a group in mind with no rogue, cleric or wizard. Not the most optimized party, but I'm confident it will work.

Expecting lvl 12 as cap and subclasses from the player handbook:
Vengance Paladin (maybe multiclassed with Warlock for roleplaying)
Dual wielding Hunter Ranger with urban terrain for thief tools (multiclassed to Battlemaster)
Lore Bard
Wolf Totem Barbarian / Moon Druid

Everbody has a sprinkle of healing, bard as support and a it of magic since I don't like mages anyhow and the other 3 should have no trouble to stand on their own two feet. Would I recommand this party to others? Nope, but nothing that I've seen so far in BG3 makes me think that I would need to play a classic tank, utility rogue, wizard and cleric group. I've played with such a group (because of available NPCs) through EA and they never felt really needed. I noticed even beyond the added stupid DOS2-gameplay you can play how ever you like in combat and it works.

If the party size gets increased it will probably just mean I will give the companions a shot, but at this point BG3 could be the first game with NPCs were I won't even bother with them. Not ment as a disrepect to the writing team, but I'm a bit annoyed by them and all this DOS2 companions approach. I simply am not interested in the DM's player characters.

Joined: Oct 2020
F
stranger
Offline
stranger
F
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by Abits
It's safe to say the only reason it is 4 is because dos2 had 4, and to do anything else means changing the system, hence extra work. I don't find it particularly problematic, but a lot of people here find it to be a very bad decision


I guess Solasta has 4 because DoS2 had 4 too?

No, it's because 4 is D&D adventures recommended party size.


It is with a huge percent. People thinks that way because look at the whole game dynamic, from the surface mechanic to origin system. This game smells like dos2.
And its pretty good indeed. But still think 5 is the optimum option.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
O don't think it's about being lazy, it's about not putting the resources into it. Totally legitimate imo. Just mean they can put more time and resources into something else


The technical possibility is already there, so the only thing would be balancing encounters. Which is possible, but as you say: at what cost and what benefit? So I think we have strong points speaking for 4 PCs and not too many points speaking against it. The whole thing "but I NEED X or Y or Z in ANY party" is plainly wrong and the only factor that would drive such an argument are the balance changes away from 5e.

Joined: Jul 2014
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Gaidax


I guess Solasta has 4 because DoS2 had 4 too?

No, it's because 4 is D&D adventures recommended party size.

Solasta has 4 generated characters but let you hire two additional temporary NPCs when the chance comes.

In the same way TOEE has 5 generated characters but let you group up to three more (charisma permitting).

Anyway I will never grow tired to stress that “pen & paper suggests four” is a stupid, irrelevant argument that misses the differences entirely.

Last edited by Tuco; 08/11/20 05:04 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. You too can join the good fight HERE
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Mostly agreed. Try the mod. 6 works just fine. Needs to implemented. Otherwise it's not Baldur's Gate, full stop.

Haha. The dogmas are for realsies. Full stop beats Time Stop 9 times out of 10.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
This. And the recommended party size in the modules 4-6 with advice on how to modify for more characters. Watch critical role run 6-8 member parties. The idea that 4 is optimal for D&D is a 4th ed hangover and doesn't really apply in 5th.

BG was 6, ToEE was 5+

@KingTiki points in favor or 6 party

* Increases the BG feel
* More tactical combat -- tactics come from party formation and not just environment
* More banters, more interactions
* More NPCs

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Another one, well, here we go again lol

Why aren't any of these party size threads pinned yet? There is room for half a dozen stickies in this section and so far the only one here just refers/redirects to another forum section. This forum needs more than a single moderator, and more than 1 sticky, just so hotbutton issues can be pinned and discussed without needing new threads retreading the same subject every couple weeks.

I think a strong case has already been made for 6, and that they are underestimating how keeping with a party of just 4 is going to impact replay.

In 3 full playthroughs I feel like I have already exhausted the possible party combinations in this game and seen most of what there is to see. Boredom is encroaching and its only been a month in EA.

They need to start dropping more companions soon. They are recycling these same 5 origin characters in all the splash screens and promo art and its getting a bit tired. There are only so many times you can collage and flip the same artwork before it just starts to feel lazy. Hire some painters, let's get some more monsters in these loadscreens or tease what else is coming with companions.

At least if we can get them to provide support a party of 6, there'd be at least some pressure to produce more than a handful of companions. I heard someone above say 8 PC companions? Where is that info coming from? If there aren't at least a dozen companions we can recruit from I will be hella dissapointed.







Last edited by Black_Elk; 08/11/20 09:27 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
The battle maps feel congested with 4 characters most of the time. Extra characters with added extra enemies would make the maps even more so. The map is one encounter after another and condensed to the point "fast travel" is hilarious. It is hard enough moving round things to position now and even enemies give up because they cannot path.

Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Gaidax

No, it's because 4 is D&D adventures recommended party size.


Not a tabletop player or regular visitor of the genre, but this weak and tiny setup is the recommended size?
Sounds weak and unambitious not gonna lie.

Joined: Mar 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by JustAnotherBaldu
Originally Posted by Gaidax

No, it's because 4 is D&D adventures recommended party size.


Not a tabletop player or regular visitor of the genre, but this weak and tiny setup is the recommended size?
Sounds weak and unambitious not gonna lie.


To be fair, when talking about PnP you have to take into consideration bodies round a table. Designing a game where the recommended number is more than 4-5 players is a tricky sell. Most board games go for 4 as a general number with some looking at optional 5 or 6, but inherently the design will be aimed at the 4 mark.

That said I want 5 or 6 here :hihi:

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
You are right that it's about marketing -- getting 7 friends together on the same day is no small feat.

But the "4 is the recommended size" is just objectively false. I hate when putatively authoritative facts are at odds with available evidence. 4-6 with advice on how to increase past 6 is not '4'. Neither is it 5. It's 4-6 or more if you want.

Look at the modules themselves and listen to what DMs are saying about the official modules:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DescentintoAvernus/comments/ejqf6t/ideal_party_size/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DescentintoAvernus/comments/d6tbfz/party_balancing/

"I had 6 at my table last night and they came alarmingly close to getting TPKed in the very first fight.

They only survived because I ruled that the pirates ran away when their leader was slain.

If you're gonna run a party of 4, you need a well-balanced party with the Holy Trinity otherwise I think they may struggle."



Last edited by KillerRabbit; 09/11/20 02:23 AM. Reason: kant spel
Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

"I had 6 at my table last night and they came alarmingly close to getting TPKed in the very first fight.

They only survived because I ruled that the pirates ran away when their leader was slain.

If you're gonna run a party of 4, you need a well-balanced party with the Holy Trinity otherwise I think they may struggle."


This is just hilarious. Sometimes I think that the more people you have, the more likely people are to be stupid. Also people tend to take unnecessary risks when they expect certain roles to be covered. If you are missing a healer and a tank for instance, you will be much more careful and creative to survive, at least this is my experience.

Obviously it will be different in a single player video game since one person controls everyone but it is still not necessary to have specific roles in the party.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Zarna


This is just hilarious. Sometimes I think that the more people you have, the more likely people are to be stupid. Also people tend to take unnecessary risks when they expect certain roles to be covered. If you are missing a healer and a tank for instance, you will be much more careful and creative to survive, at least this is my experience.




This! Three smart, careful players can handle things that six reckless yahoos would die to.

Joined: Mar 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
Certainly in my experience the more you are in a TTRpg the more combat orientated and reckless you become. This often made worse by players becoming bored in larger parties, especially if you are a fighter.

Tighter smaller parties and a considerate DM will usually have more dynamic games. But I still really want 5 or 6 for BG3!!!

Also I love larger parties in general, even on board games, but it is hard to balance a board game at larger numbers and that is often were the 4 player design aspect comes (I.e board games vs others). Like I said, ry getting more than 4 round a table on a regular basis!

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
D:OS2 is not the only turn based RPG to have a party limit of four. What a weird accusation.

Also I didn't realize you needed a healer and a tank for a DnD group. I should go ahead and delete my current game where my party of all ranged DPS/control have been having an easy time of it so far.

Should also go and talk to Wizards of the Coast about adding tank mechanics to the game. They've clearly left out the taunt feature.

That being said I don't fundamentally disagree with an option for bigger parties. Especially for multiplayer as I'd rather cakewalk through the game with five players than have four friends and have to tell one of them they can't join.

I just think the logic in the OP is lacking.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

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