Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Four is a party. Six is the crowd.

I'd go for 5, that's 4 Companions + your PC, it's the same as your would find at most Tabletops (I've tried to DM for more and it tends to make any turn-based elements of the game a slog as people tend to lose interest as it takes so long for their turn to come around).
Larian have already indicated that there may be the option to add custom party members in a similar way to the IWD games and if they do then with 4 Companions you can have 2 of the Origin NPCs (for storyline purposes and animated cutscenes) and 2 custom ones to fill out the roster.

I also think 4 is enough. I like the replayability I get with not being able to do everything in every playthrough.
But, I understand it's important to some people and I can work around it, so I'm objecting to an increase.

Seems like this subject was best left untouched

A poll is usually a good indicator.

For the scale they're clearly wanting to portray, a party of 4 is way too small. When (I hope not if - they really need to) normalize the 5E implementation, this should be an obvious realization. In TT, 4 people, no matter their skill level are supremely limited before level 5. That's where the full featured-ness of D&D comes online. You don't even define your class kit until level 3.

You're literally just a rando before that point rules wise. So, you're NOT going to be fighting hags, storming goblin war camps, adventuring in the underdark, and so on. If you try, the rules say you die in most circumstances. These types of missions are absolutely level 5+, and I'd not feel comfortable doing the latter two until after level 7 especially the underdark. That is a scary, scary place.

Bumping it up to 6 not only lets more people from your camp join (which there will be even more companions coming later) but also matches the scale of the world they're being thrown in. This also reduces the reliance on all the surface shenanigans and puts the focus on the player characters which is the core thesis of D&D - gather friends and kill monsters.

Don't qutote pathfinder when you can play 6 characters in their game, they are crpg (Pathfinder kingmaker and wrath of the righteous)

My point is precisely that a six-men party in a videogame is BETTER regardless of what's the "default baseline" for a pen & paper, so I'm not sure what you are even trying to say here.

I assume he's talking about Pathfinder: Kingmaker. In any case, both Pathfinder: Kingmaker, Baldur's Gate 1/2 and Baldur's Gate 3 are all CRPGs.

A party of 5 or 6 really allows characters to specialize and use specific spells, skills and feats. With 4, you need at least 1 tanker if not 2, a rogue, a cleric (or "medic" in general), there is little room for anything exotic.

I really see the difference between that and P:K, in which you can be more relaxed with the characters and experiment, it's a lot funnier.

We mustn't forget that D:OS series has a party of 4, but there is much more flexibility in the characters and they can be less specific, so what may work there doesn't necessarily work as easily in other rulesets (even if it's possible, just more demanding). D&D is the other extremity of the spectrum, even if D&D 5e allows for a little more flexibility than 3.5.

+1

I prefer more replayability, less micro-and inventory -management and quicker combats.

+1 I'd prefer a max party size of 4 as well.

My thoughts exactly.

None of this seems to be related to the number of party members.
In fact, several games with more party members managed these aspects better than Larian so far.

Yeah, we talked extensively in the other thread (you know, the popular one, the one in FAVOR of 6 men).

That's precisely what I hate about the 4-members limitation.

I don't get the people who keep saying they want to keep 4 as the limit, when most people who want 5 or 6 just want the choice of having 5 or 6. If they up the number to 6, you know you can still keep 4 right? Anyway, I'm for upping to atleast 5. The only reason I see them keeping it 4 is if they're planning to kill off the rest like in DOS2. Which was garbage. Otherwise it's pointless just to let companions you are not using rot in camp.

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.

No, it wouldn't.
It would require a re-tweak of the control system (which is DIRELY needed anyway, because the current one is terrible even for four men) and a fairly simple revamp of some encounters. Which is not an issue since most encounters in the game will have to go through months of tweaking and rebalance regardless of any change.

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

Bg3 isn't even a budget-restrained production, so let Larian worry about how much work it would need and let's talk about the merits and demerits of the design itself.

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.

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

THIS! You can play with 2 for all I care, just let me play with 6 like in BG and BG2 because that's what made it fun (well at least one of the reasons)

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.

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

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. 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.

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

I suspect it could be a lot of work to change and could easily be worse for it.