Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 21 of 101 1 2 19 20 21 22 23 100 101
Joined: Jul 2014
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: Jul 2014
I mentioned it in another post but - why not just make "easy" mode allow 5-6 party size. So normal game mode would be 4 party members, and easy game mode would be normal with the additional 1-2 party members. That way Larian doesnt need to go back and rebalance the whole game for 5-6 players.

Joined: Oct 2020
U
stranger
Offline
stranger
U
Joined: Oct 2020
I personally really enjoy the party size, played through all of the early access and the difficulty seems just right.

Joined: Oct 2020
P
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
P
Joined: Oct 2020
I think 5 members in the party would be better, one more person could make all the difference in a fight and it would also be nice to have an extra companion to interact with. I really just hope that more companions are available at some point down the road, I'm guessing making one companion for each class isn't really something they're going to do it would be fantastic if they did, because as things stand party composition is really limited. If the available companions are the exact same at full release, then we won't really be able to have a party based around which characters we like or which characters our character would have with them in terms of RP.

Let's say I make a stereotypical paladin who wants to smite everything he would consider evil. Welp, there goes Astarion, Shadowheart, and probably Wyll, since one is literally a vampire, one is an Evil Cleric, and the other made a pact with a demon. Now I don't even have a full party, and the only ones I have left are the Warrior Lae'zel (who I'd probably leave to do her own thing since she's just constantly a jerk anyway), and the Wizard Gale.

Now, I did find a side quest where I helped out a tiefling and it gave me the option to ask her to join my party, and she said maybe one day but she has business to take care of now. So maybe she'll be a possible companion at some point down the road, but there's still plenty of ways to put companions into the game as well. For instance, a druid companion could obviously be found in the druid's grove. Not every single companion has to have the same exact goal or some super mysterious backstory to make them a good companion.

A druid who decides to join my party to help out because they don't agree with Kagha's ways, and so they can kill us if we turn into a mindflayer? There's the motivation for coming with us. Doesn't need some super mysterious and amazing backstory like a wizard who might destroy the world or whatever if he dies, just a simple druid who wants to get away from her crazy leader and try to help keep people from turning into monsters, or kill them as a last resort. I'd take them with me, cause who wants to be a mindflayer?

Not every companion needs to be a playable character either, in fact having companions you can't play as might increase replay value. If I play through the full release game once with Wyll as my character, and then have Gale, Lae'zel, and Shadowheart for companions, then by the end I will have experienced every single character side story apart from Astarion. Even if I make a custom character, that would still leave only 2 companion side story's unexplored, and I'm not sure that finding out what happens to those 2 is convincing enough to sink another 60+ hours or however long into playing through again.

But if there are other companions that don't have some grand backstory that I prefer as companions over the other PC companions, then I'd take some of them along instead on that first playthrough. So say I play as Wyll, and fill my party with Shadowheart and 2 other NPC companions, that still leaves me with Gale, Lae'zel, and Astarion's side quests to discover, which might be enough of a change in content to warrant me another playthrough to see all 3 of their side quests. If I just play as Wyll and take 3 NPC companions along, I'm guaranteed another playthrough because I want to see at least 1 or 2 of the other companions side quests. All in all, it's easy enough to come up with ideas for NPC companions to join us, they don't all have to have an evil worm in their head or some insane backstory and side quest, they just need a motivation to join up with us and a personality so they can have some small chats with us and determine if they like or dislike our actions. Also, more romance choices :P

Last edited by Pupito; 12/10/20 01:02 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Oct 2020
+1

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Plazim
That way Larian doesnt need to go back and rebalance the whole game for 5-6 players.

There no balance right now, even difficulty options not implemented yet.
So i don't understand such arguments, this work(balancing) they will still have to do in the future and it is better to do it with an eye on 5-6 ppl party(as the desire of the majority).
The sooner they change it, the better.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
There are something like 40 +1 on this thread.
I just create a poll on reddit and other forums to see what players think about it.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
4 enough, more people are a herd

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by lewe0fun
4 enough, more people are a herd


Let's say that to Drizzt.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Pupito
I think 5 members in the party would be better

yep and that kind of middle ground of 4 vs 6 debate

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Since I just mentioned it in my thread about party controls, I should probably give a quick reminder to anyone in favor of a six-members party:

don't overlook giving feedback on the issue of how the party is managed/moved around, because solving it is basically a pre-requirement to actually get the party expansion you want.
The chain/unchain system and its clumsy auto-follow work already poorly enough now. With six men in your party it would turn into an unmitigated disaster.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Anyone who's saying that a four man party means that your restricted to player the cookie cutter party are simply not aware of the flexibility 5e offers, or are just not creative. In most my playthroughs I haven't used a cleric, and even when I do I don't use them for anything more than emergency healing, preferring to use them instead for actual combat (with in tabletop 5e they can really excel at). Why do you need a tank? I mean unless you're building something around the sentinel feat (which doesn't seem to be implemented yet), there's not even a viable way for them to maintain threat? Even when playing tabletop, the idea you have to have certain classes is self-limiting. Why have a rogue when you can have a ranger with the criminal background? Or a cleric when you can have a wizard with the magic initiate feat? One of the amazing things about 5e is that it doesn't restrict things to people playing that specific class, and so far that has transferred reasonably well into bg3 and I imagine it will continue to do so as more classes/races are added. I mean the 5e bard in itself can simultaneously fill the typical cleric, wizard and rogue roles of a classic party. That means one slot for your obligatory fighter, and 2 cool looking meat shields.

This doesn't even factor in if they end up adding multiclassing to the game, which adds so many more options.

While I wouldn't object to them doing a 6-man party, I think four is easier to manage, is more engaging in multiplayer (as from experience playing tabletop I think anymore than 5 players just detracts from the experience), and actually encourages people to have more creative character ideas and finding different ways of approaching the same solution. Also for single player, 3 AI companions having interactions is interesting but managing, with (hopefully) plenty of replayability options. 5 AI companions, I feel like that just gets messy.

I'm actually pretty hyped by the idea of having a 4-man drow ranger squad, and as this game stands I feel like there is very little that would stand in the way of such a team.



Anything you can do, a bard can do better.
Joined: Oct 2020
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Oct 2020

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I would also like to support this but I am worried bigger party sizes means easier fights.
So unless just about everyone will do more damage than me to balance things that means there needs to be more mobs in each encounter.

I think we should compromise on a 5th member maximum. That should be enough.

Last edited by Eddiar; 12/10/20 02:10 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Athann


That's a bad poll, because it puts the question in a very unclear and questionable form.
We don't want "the option" to add two party members as some sort of fancy extra.
We want the game to support a party of six as a default interface and then let people who are happy with less party members do as they will.

Joined: Mar 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Athann


That's a bad poll, because it puts the question in a very unclear and questionable form.
We don't want "the option" to add two party members as some sort of fancy extra.
We want the game to support a party of six as a default interface and then let people who are happy with less party members do as they will.


Precisely this.
Your options should simply have been something along the lines of:

6 - As standard (but players can choose to play with fewer)
5 - Cap it here, its a fair compromise
4 - It's fine as is and Modding can do the rest

Joined: Oct 2020
R
stranger
Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Oct 2020
5 or 6 party,4 person i can have already in DOS and even there its limiting. Yes characters are flexible, but more companions are just fun for me.
ideally i have 6 + 2 extra npc like in Wizardry 8-that was a great game with epic characters ;D.

Last edited by Roarro; 12/10/20 10:01 PM. Reason: add a line xD
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
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.


Last edited by MasterRoo09; 15/10/20 07:21 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
I'm okay with the current 4 member party, but I wouldn't be against options where you can go out as a party of 2 or 6. They could adjust the number of actions we have or just enemies' health to fit your party size. Balance would definitely be the big issue. If I am going out with a party of 6 though, I would like the AI to do my companions turns just to speed the game up. Maybe incorporate a tactics system similar to Dragon Age.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
+1

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
+1
I have noticed how easily you can be defeated if you are fighting against a horde of enemies. Your party will get obliterated quickly and your like "What the hell just happened?" If you have a party of at least 6 members then it raises your chances of survival especially against tougher enemies or larger groups.

Page 21 of 101 1 2 19 20 21 22 23 100 101

Moderated by  Nicou 

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