Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Well met Adventures and Larian!

So far I've really been enjoying BG3 EA. One thing that's really bothering me right now is not having the option to have a maximum of 6 party members in a group.

Hear me out, I've had many conversations with many fans telling me why 6 party members can't be possible.

1. Original BG and D&D party limits
We all know that original BG gave the players option to 6 party members. It was optional and gave players more choices on how they wanted to take on their journey. I know very many BG players loved that option and usually had 6 party members. It was that feeling of comradery and hilarious interactions between the characters. It was made the original such a masterpiece in it's play style. D&D 5e even states that 4-5 being the ideal party size with the option for 6 and more. I would also like to point out that most 5e adventure models are set for 4-6 players.

2. Having essentials and more
This was a big problem for me having only 4 party members. Most players have their essentials in their party, Fighter, Cleric, Mage or Rogue. For a game to only have 4 party members, I feel like I'm stuck with only these four class types and miss out on the other interesting characters or classes. Having 6 would solve that problem for me and many players because it allows more creativity for combos in combat. You can have the essentials and include a bard for fun buffs, an extra mage for more spell casting on the battlefield, a barbarian for some damage or a Warlock for hexing foes. Not only for combat but for role-playing and exploration. When I first started playing BG3, I started off as a wizard but noticed my party didn't have anyone with decent charisma except for Wyll. But, having Wyll in my party meant I had to get rid of the fighter, the cleric or the rogue. It was an annoying limitation for me. With that extra character slot or two, players would get the job done and have more fun interactions without having to go back and fourth to the camp to exchange characters.

I understand many DoS players love the painful difficulty and makes players think outside the box more often. Completely understand that. I understand having 6 would probably make combat a little less difficult and players would already know that. Encounters would still be challenging but the creativity will still be there. Plus, it would only be an option. You can still go with 4 party members if you want that challenging difficulty. Original BG players will also feel at home with 6 party members. I still remember BG 1 and 2's encounters still being crazy difficulty with 6 party members.

Some players have even said that 6 members would make battles way too long. But with BG3's faster battle system, I doubt everyone would be watching their clocks during fun combat encounters.

I also understand multiplayer is also another reason why the number has to stay with 4; but many D&D players will tell you that they've played many games with more than 4 party members. I would love myself and 5 other friends to play BG3 multiplayer.

Larian, please take this into consideration. I'm really enjoying BG3 EA but I'm still longing for the option for more party members for my team.

Sincerely,
Roo

Joined: Oct 2020
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Oct 2020
++++1 Larian should really add 2 more companions in the party, it has been asked in their previous game (the DOS 1 and 2), i know they didn't want at the time due to time limit ( for DOS2 it was early access and they lacked time) and the game would have been too easy (their words if i remmber correctly) i hope Larian doesn't make the same error thrice.
I they must add some month for it (nota whole year) i think some players wouldbe ready to wait ( or add in a dlc so it add more depth to the story)

Joined: Oct 2020
L
stranger
Offline
stranger
L
Joined: Oct 2020
+1 used a mod for D:OS 2 that increased party size, and even with it being easier I enjoyed having more options in builds and being able to see more (all for D:OS2, but I read there will be more origin characters in BG3) stories play out in a single play-through.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
I'm all in favor of that, but can't you guys at least give a look around before starting new threads?

This has been already posted multiple times and we already have one BIG thread on the topic that is rarely leaving the first page of this board: http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=679595#Post679595


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
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I would also like to have more party members for balance sake and to also get a chance to get to know all of the characters offered to us. I don't switch people out because of balancing and security. I've used mods with 6 characters and it's just so much fun. Plus I don't feel like it would be too long. Considering how much we get swarmed in fights (IE Goblin Camp).

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
+1

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
So, Larian, if 6 is too much for you, I am sure we could come to an agreement and make it 5 party members... right?

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by MasterRoo09
Well met Adventures and Larian!

So far I've really been enjoying BG3 EA. One thing that's really bothering me right now is not having the option to have a maximum of 6 party members in a group.

Hear me out, I've had many conversations with many fans telling me why 6 party members can't be possible.

1. Original BG and D&D party limits
We all know that original BG gave the players option to 6 party members. It was optional and gave players more choices on how they wanted to take on their journey. I know very many BG players loved that option and usually had 6 party members. It was that feeling of comradery and hilarious interactions between the characters. It was made the original such a masterpiece in it's play style. D&D 5e even states that 4-5 being the ideal party size with the option for 6 and more. I would also like to point out that most 5e adventure models are set for 4-6 players.

2. Having essentials and more
This was a big problem for me having only 4 party members. Most players have their essentials in their party, Fighter, Cleric, Mage or Rogue. For a game to only have 4 party members, I feel like I'm stuck with only these four class types and miss out on the other interesting characters or classes. Having 6 would solve that problem for me and many players because it allows more creativity for combos in combat. You can have the essentials and include a bard for fun buffs, an extra mage for more spell casting on the battlefield, a barbarian for some damage or a Warlock for hexing foes. Not only for combat but for role-playing and exploration. When I first started playing BG3, I started off as a wizard but noticed my party didn't have anyone with decent charisma except for Wyll. But, having Wyll in my party meant I had to get rid of the fighter, the cleric or the rogue. It was an annoying limitation for me. With that extra character slot or two, players would get the job done and have more fun interactions without having to go back and fourth to the camp to exchange characters.

I understand many DoS players love the painful difficulty and makes players think outside the box more often. Completely understand that. I understand having 6 would probably make combat a little less difficult and players would already know that. Encounters would still be challenging but the creativity will still be there. Plus, it would only be an option. You can still go with 4 party members if you want that challenging difficulty. Original BG players will also feel at home with 6 party members. I still remember BG 1 and 2's encounters still being crazy difficulty with 6 party members.

Some players have even said that 6 members would make battles way too long. But with BG3's faster battle system, I doubt everyone would be watching their clocks during fun combat encounters.

I also understand multiplayer is also another reason why the number has to stay with 4; but many D&D players will tell you that they've played many games with more than 4 party members. I would love myself and 5 other friends to play BG3 multiplayer.

Larian, please take this into consideration. I'm really enjoying BG3 EA but I'm still longing for the option for more party members for my team.

Sincerely,
Roo

I think you was able to articulate your thoughts a little more concisely then I did, I absolutely agree with you. I remember playing dragon age origins and been disappointed at the party size, I always have to take a thief with me because I hate leaving chests unopened, Then you normally need a fighter to tank and hopefully a wizard that can buff deal damage and heal to leave space for the story relevant companion, and you never really change what party composition you take making most runs the same when it comes to gameplay, six allows for a lot more variety that I think is very much needed in this type of game, and I'm worried that my party comp will always be the same in BG3 meaning I can never try any cool and fun compositions, or have a truly epic hold the line moment like I did in BG.

My favourite memory from BG1 is the end dungeon on the way to fight Saravok, I had 2 front line fighters and a cleric holding the line against a hoard of enemies while my rouge archer and two mages attacked from behind the front line, it felt so epic to set up a formation and use tactics to face of against overwhelming odds and I just don't see that sort of scenario happening with only four party members.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Athann
++++1 Larian should really add 2 more companions in the party, it has been asked in their previous game (the DOS 1 and 2), i know they didn't want at the time due to time limit ( for DOS2 it was early access and they lacked time) and the game would have been too easy (their words if i remmber correctly) i hope Larian doesn't make the same error thrice.
I they must add some month for it (nota whole year) i think some players wouldbe ready to wait ( or add in a dlc so it add more depth to the story)


I'm with you. I remember being frustrated with sticking with only 4 members in DoS. Not because of difficulty but limited to a small variety. I'm sure it's not going to be the biggest pain in the butt for them to add 2 more companions. Put it this way, If I can have my pet or familiar with a henchman in BG3, I might as well should have a 2 actually party members/characters from the game.

Originally Posted by Lenitas
+1 used a mod for D:OS 2 that increased party size, and even with it being easier I enjoyed having more options in builds and being able to see more (all for D:OS2, but I read there will be more origin characters in BG3) stories play out in a single play-through.


I'm open for mods but it's a shame the actual developer can't add in this feature for themselves. Especially when it's one of the most requested features.

Originally Posted by Tuco
I'm all in favor of that, but can't you guys at least give a look around before starting new threads?

This has been already posted multiple times and we already have one BIG thread on the topic that is rarely leaving the first page of this board: http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=679595#Post679595


Yes and thank you! I was already aware of that thread and thankfully it's one of the top threads. I just made this one to support it and give my point of view on the topic. I believe I put this link on that big thread.

Originally Posted by Divine Star
I would also like to have more party members for balance sake and to also get a chance to get to know all of the characters offered to us. I don't switch people out because of balancing and security. I've used mods with 6 characters and it's just so much fun. Plus I don't feel like it would be too long. Considering how much we get swarmed in fights (IE Goblin Camp).


Exactly my point. Do people love the fact of 4v25 in a battle? Having 6, I could've killed those goblins a lot faster. By all means, if players want to only have 4, then they can stick with it.

Originally Posted by Sigi98
So, Larian, if 6 is too much for you, I am sure we could come to an agreement and make it 5 party members... right?


At the very least one more companion, it total 5. I agree and also, someone pointed out that Drizzt had 5 total party members. So it's in the Lore to have the option of more than 4 party members.
Originally Posted by Sir Sparhawk
Originally Posted by MasterRoo09
Well met Adventures and Larian!


I think you was able to articulate your thoughts a little more concisely then I did, I absolutely agree with you. I remember playing dragon age origins and been disappointed at the party size, I always have to take a thief with me because I hate leaving chests unopened, Then you normally need a fighter to tank and hopefully a wizard that can buff deal damage and heal to leave space for the story relevant companion, and you never really change what party composition you take making most runs the same when it comes to gameplay, six allows for a lot more variety that I think is very much needed in this type of game, and I'm worried that my party comp will always be the same in BG3 meaning I can never try any cool and fun compositions, or have a truly epic hold the line moment like I did in BG.

My favourite memory from BG1 is the end dungeon on the way to fight Saravok, I had 2 front line fighters and a cleric holding the line against a hoard of enemies while my rouge archer and two mages attacked from behind the front line, it felt so epic to set up a formation and use tactics to face of against overwhelming odds and I just don't see that sort of scenario happening with only four party members.


Exactly my point! I notice many players say that "4 party members requires more strategy, 6 would be way too easy" or anything along those lines. They funny thing is, I don't think many of the people defending the max 4 party members, never played BG or played very little of it. Those battles were epic in BG 1 and 2 because they had moments like that. To list a few situations where I had to use crazy tactics in BG3 was fighting the queen spider and Goblin camp. With the spider, I cheesed the hell out of the stealth with all my companions. Somehow, Lae'zel was able to sneak up against queen spider for many surprised attacks. Perception checks are only light of sight is kind of bogus but whatever. In the Goblin camp, I just made sure every range character was sniping from the top while Lae'zel was sitting by the stairs, taking out any goblins approaching. That was the only fun, bottle necking or hold the line moment. That battle would've been a lot faster with an extra melee fighter with Lae'zel at the very least. That's another point, Yes battle is technically "longer" when you have more people in battle. Logical sense but, I find it BS that the enemy that has a platoon vs my companions that can't even make a squad. (Squad 6-10 soldiers) Not BS in difficulty but BS in waiting on the enemies turn. I want, more companions on the field so the computer can wait for my turn and thus killing enemies faster.
I've been going back to BG1 and realized it required as much or even more tactics. That's me saying in those most unbiased approach. I in fact had more fun with combat in original BG than in this. Okay, you can't have those fun moments of height advantages (or disadvantages) or fun surface area tricks but the tactics are still there in BG for a 98' game.


Last edited by MasterRoo09; 13/10/20 11:53 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Please dont start yet another thread on this


What is the problem you are solving? Does your proposed change solve the problem? Is your change feasible? What else will be affected by your change? Will your change impact revenue? Does your change align with the goals and strategies of the organizations (Larian, WotC)?
Joined: Mar 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Mar 2020
i agree 4 man is to small ! Currently companions dont really give a shit about each another and mostly dont care about protagonist either, so adding 2 more guys wouldnt matter.
Experience should be divided between each member to balance out the difficulty, more people, slower level up, fewer people faster level up..... its obvious.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by alexawow2006
i agree 4 man is to small ! Currently companions dont really give a shit about each another and mostly dont care about protagonist either, so adding 2 more guys wouldnt matter.
Experience should be divided between each member to balance out the difficulty, more people, slower level up, fewer people faster level up..... its obvious.


Do you know what some answer to that ?
-> that mean I won't be able to reach the maximum level if I'm playing with the maximum companion numbers ?
-> that mean that companions that stay at camp won't have any XP... They'll be weak when I'll choose to swap my companions...

You find it ridiculous ? So am I...

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by alexawow2006
i agree 4 man is to small ! Currently companions dont really give a shit about each another and mostly dont care about protagonist either, so adding 2 more guys wouldnt matter.
Experience should be divided between each member to balance out the difficulty, more people, slower level up, fewer people faster level up..... its obvious.


Do you know what some answer to that ?
-> that mean I won't be able to reach the maximum level if I'm playing with the maximum companion numbers ?
-> that mean that companions that stay at camp won't have any XP... They'll be weak when I'll choose to swap my companions...

You find it ridiculous ? So am I...

Personally I wouldn't mind only hitting level 7 or 8 if it meant having 6 party members, and as for the camp, I'm playing this like BG 1&2, if I don't have roome to take them with me I'm not recruiting them to be dead weight sitting at the camp not doing anything.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by alexawow2006
i agree 4 man is to small ! Currently companions dont really give a shit about each another and mostly dont care about protagonist either, so adding 2 more guys wouldnt matter.
Experience should be divided between each member to balance out the difficulty, more people, slower level up, fewer people faster level up..... its obvious.


Do you know what some answer to that ?
-> that mean I won't be able to reach the maximum level if I'm playing with the maximum companion numbers ?
-> that mean that companions that stay at camp won't have any XP... They'll be weak when I'll choose to swap my companions...

You find it ridiculous ? So am I...

Two words: action economy.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by MasterRoo09
Well met Adventures and Larian!

So far I've really been enjoying BG3 EA. One thing that's really bothering me right now is not having the option to have a maximum of 6 party members in a group.

Hear me out, I've had many conversations with many fans telling me why 6 party members can't be possible.

1. Original BG and D&D party limits
We all know that original BG gave the players option to 6 party members. It was optional and gave players more choices on how they wanted to take on their journey. I know very many BG players loved that option and usually had 6 party members. It was that feeling of comradery and hilarious interactions between the characters. It was made the original such a masterpiece in it's play style. D&D 5e even states that 4-5 being the ideal party size with the option for 6 and more. I would also like to point out that most 5e adventure models are set for 4-6 players.

2. Having essentials and more
This was a big problem for me having only 4 party members. Most players have their essentials in their party, Fighter, Cleric, Mage or Rogue. For a game to only have 4 party members, I feel like I'm stuck with only these four class types and miss out on the other interesting characters or classes. Having 6 would solve that problem for me and many players because it allows more creativity for combos in combat. You can have the essentials and include a bard for fun buffs, an extra mage for more spell casting on the battlefield, a barbarian for some damage or a Warlock for hexing foes. Not only for combat but for role-playing and exploration. When I first started playing BG3, I started off as a wizard but noticed my party didn't have anyone with decent charisma except for Wyll. But, having Wyll in my party meant I had to get rid of the fighter, the cleric or the rogue. It was an annoying limitation for me. With that extra character slot or two, players would get the job done and have more fun interactions without having to go back and fourth to the camp to exchange characters.

I understand many DoS players love the painful difficulty and makes players think outside the box more often. Completely understand that. I understand having 6 would probably make combat a little less difficult and players would already know that. Encounters would still be challenging but the creativity will still be there. Plus, it would only be an option. You can still go with 4 party members if you want that challenging difficulty. Original BG players will also feel at home with 6 party members. I still remember BG 1 and 2's encounters still being crazy difficulty with 6 party members.

Some players have even said that 6 members would make battles way too long. But with BG3's faster battle system, I doubt everyone would be watching their clocks during fun combat encounters.

I also understand multiplayer is also another reason why the number has to stay with 4; but many D&D players will tell you that they've played many games with more than 4 party members. I would love myself and 5 other friends to play BG3 multiplayer.

Larian, please take this into consideration. I'm really enjoying BG3 EA but I'm still longing for the option for more party members for my team.

Sincerely,
Roo

Bueno yo ame DOS2 pero usando mod para mas companion con un juego de character creation es horrible te limiten ha 4 personajes y renunciar a los companion apoyo la idea de 6 personajes me limitan mi creatividad u mi nivel estrategico sumale , que los enemigos superan muchas veces el número y el nivel , necesitas sacrificar una clase para tener tu party ideal pero siempre sientes incompleta si no fuera mod aumento de grupo te hace que se peguen todos personajes extras en las escenas de recortes seria genial pero no funciona bien. Necesitamos cumplan que iba haber 6 personajes permitidos en el grupo

Joined: Oct 2020
R
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by MasterRoo09
Well met Adventures and Larian!

So far I've really been enjoying BG3 EA. One thing that's really bothering me right now is not having the option to have a maximum of 6 party members in a group.

Hear me out, I've had many conversations with many fans telling me why 6 party members can't be possible.

1. Original BG and D&D party limits
We all know that original BG gave the players option to 6 party members. It was optional and gave players more choices on how they wanted to take on their journey. I know very many BG players loved that option and usually had 6 party members. It was that feeling of comradery and hilarious interactions between the characters. It was made the original such a masterpiece in it's play style. D&D 5e even states that 4-5 being the ideal party size with the option for 6 and more. I would also like to point out that most 5e adventure models are set for 4-6 players.

2. Having essentials and more
This was a big problem for me having only 4 party members. Most players have their essentials in their party, Fighter, Cleric, Mage or Rogue. For a game to only have 4 party members, I feel like I'm stuck with only these four class types and miss out on the other interesting characters or classes. Having 6 would solve that problem for me and many players because it allows more creativity for combos in combat. You can have the essentials and include a bard for fun buffs, an extra mage for more spell casting on the battlefield, a barbarian for some damage or a Warlock for hexing foes. Not only for combat but for role-playing and exploration. When I first started playing BG3, I started off as a wizard but noticed my party didn't have anyone with decent charisma except for Wyll. But, having Wyll in my party meant I had to get rid of the fighter, the cleric or the rogue. It was an annoying limitation for me. With that extra character slot or two, players would get the job done and have more fun interactions without having to go back and fourth to the camp to exchange characters.

I understand many DoS players love the painful difficulty and makes players think outside the box more often. Completely understand that. I understand having 6 would probably make combat a little less difficult and players would already know that. Encounters would still be challenging but the creativity will still be there. Plus, it would only be an option. You can still go with 4 party members if you want that challenging difficulty. Original BG players will also feel at home with 6 party members. I still remember BG 1 and 2's encounters still being crazy difficulty with 6 party members.

Some players have even said that 6 members would make battles way too long. But with BG3's faster battle system, I doubt everyone would be watching their clocks during fun combat encounters.

I also understand multiplayer is also another reason why the number has to stay with 4; but many D&D players will tell you that they've played many games with more than 4 party members. I would love myself and 5 other friends to play BG3 multiplayer.

Larian, please take this into consideration. I'm really enjoying BG3 EA but I'm still longing for the option for more party members for my team.

Sincerely,
Roo

Bueno yo ame DOS2 pero usando mod para mas companion con un juego de character creation es horrible te limiten ha 4 personajes y renunciar a los companion apoyo la idea de 6 personajes me limitan mi creatividad u mi nivel estrategico sumale , que los enemigos superan muchas veces el número y el nivel , necesitas sacrificar una clase para tener tu party ideal pero siempre sientes incompleta si no fuera mod aumento de grupo te hace que se peguen todos personajes extras en las escenas de recortes seria genial pero no funciona bien. Necesitamos cumplan que iba haber 6 personajes permitidos en el grupo
Originally Posted by Lenitas
+1 used a mod for D:OS 2 that increased party size, and even with it being easier I enjoyed having more options in builds and being able to see more (all for D:OS2, but I read there will be more origin characters in BG3) stories play out in a single play-through.

Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by alexawow2006
i agree 4 man is to small ! Currently companions dont really give a shit about each another and mostly dont care about protagonist either, so adding 2 more guys wouldnt matter.
Experience should be divided between each member to balance out the difficulty, more people, slower level up, fewer people faster level up..... its obvious.


Do you know what some answer to that ?
-> that mean I won't be able to reach the maximum level if I'm playing with the maximum companion numbers ?
-> that mean that companions that stay at camp won't have any XP... They'll be weak when I'll choose to swap my companions...

You find it ridiculous ? So am I...

no entiendo si cuando cambias de personaje le dan misma exp que tuvieron los que están fuera del campamento de donde sacan esa idea los otros jugadores :o?

Joined: Oct 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Nice, but...

It won’t happen because the 4 man party is tied in with their Co-Op Multiplayer model so there’s about 4-5 other hard coded systems that make it necessity.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Marshmallow
Nice, but...

It won’t happen because the 4 man party is tied in with their Co-Op Multiplayer model so there’s about 4-5 other hard coded systems that make it necessity.

We are repeating these same arguments across a dozen different threads at this point, but just to summarize...

There would be NOTHING preventing co-op to stay as it is and STILL allowing to expand the party up to six slots.
Even keeping the cap to four players, IF Larian thinks that's a necessity. You could just make the multiplayer cap at four OR allow the two extra NPCs to assigned to the two most experienced/willing players.

Or, you know, raise the cap to six players altogether.
And a smart dynamic exp system (like the one used by past BG games or by, uh, D&D in general) would easily compensate for it: less characters in your party = more exp to each party members.



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
C
stranger
Offline
stranger
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Marshmallow
Nice, but...

It won’t happen because the 4 man party is tied in with their Co-Op Multiplayer model so there’s about 4-5 other hard coded systems that make it necessity.


Only Larian said it would be easy to mod as there is support for it.

I'm all for the six party member constellation. It makes the party more varied, speeds up combat, present greater tactical play and would, to me, simply be more fun.


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