Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback 4 is too small

45% of survey people are disatisfied with it and 55% are ''okay'' with it. Being okay with 4 is different of ''not supporting 6'', its means they can enjoy the game in the stage its in. For instance, I'm okay with 4 , I could enjoy the game as is, but I would totally support an increase to 6 party member .

when you say 40%, you mean 40% of the people who bought the game? I seriously doubt it

I'd about providing proof. But with such toxic/amature replies...
Yeah, you just do you...

It's quite literally the most requested feature on this forum. dwarfing everyone else. The dedicated thread doubles in size all the others. And a second thread on the same topic is STILL among the ten most popular in this section.
Fun fact: that second thread started advocating that a party of 4 was better but unlike the first most of the posts in it argue AGAINST the original thesis.

Even my personal crusade about the current party controls comes only second, and by a long shot. Which is ironic in some sense, because it's probably basically a prerequisite to make a party of six viable.


Anyway, this is why we ask people to do a search before posting and to go back to other popular threads, because this discussion
is wasting everyone's time making most of us repeat over and over arguments we already had more than once.

+1

Once again - replies. Not just topics.
If one would go observe only topics names, to see what features are requested - that would be very misleading. As replies very often proves otherwise.

Funny enough, since supporters of 4-party size NOT spamming counter-topics - they are definitely more trustworthy ppl, when it come to devs to listen and make decisions.
No one likes deal with rage-kids and/or special snowflakes...

Honestly though. I personally can't even bother defending any of sides. I know how game development works, and i know that party size simply with stay with 4. Reason for this - too much work for devs to make it different. And it already been done by modders.
And where mods not always work well in game, they tend to improve over time, especially since game JUST hit EA.

So, if you really want best experience in BG3 while having party-size of 6(+) - you would have much better chances of getting that, while been active on Nexus forums, not here.

I do as well, which is precisely why I find most of the recurring excuses about how it "would be too much work" or "it would compromise the current perfect balance" (?) absolutely infuriating and hard to take seriously.
But once again, this is all stuff we already discussed more than once in far greater detail.

Wasn't there 6 in BG one & two?

If modding the game into giving you more party members would create imbalance in gameplay, there will be other solutions. I just think Larian has much bigger problems than party size

There was.
There was a six-men party in he overwhelming majority of titles in this genre too.

Icewind Dale 1 and 2, Temple of Elemental Evil, Pillars of Eternity, Planescape Torment, etc.

But somehow now we need to pretend it would be an "incredibly complex setup that would take too much work to function properly" or something.

Im honestly sick and tired of this topic. Saying that the previous titles had it and therefor this one should have it is disengenous. All those games pretty much came out roughly the same time. If your competition has a popular setup it makes sense to 'borrow' the idea.

Dnd itself isent balanced around 6 man parties and saying that upping the party size by 50% brings no balance issues to the table makes you look like you dont know what you are talking about.

Encounter difficulty sits on a very narrow balance. They shouldnt be to easy nor to hard. Adding 50% more fighters to 1 side and not giving the other side something completly throws that balance out of the window.

That said its complained about so much by people that maybe they should add a '6 man party' option to the game and just say thats its balanced around 4 man parties. That way people can still have it and if people want the intended challenge of the game those peoplecan also stil have that.

No, it's not. But morei mportantly that's not even the main argument for it.


Uh, no, they didn't.


D&D can work with parties of most sized above 2 (3 suggested) but that's irrelevant because as we aready argued coutless times the ideal setup for a 4 players tabletop session and a single player RPG where your party is made out a bunch of premade characters are entirely different things.


The concerns about "perfect balance" in a game that 1) was never that balanced to begin with 2) it's still in early development with not a single encounter still being set in stone 3) it's a "player(s) versus environment experience where no one cares about perfect tuning are completely laughable.



No, it doesn't. Since the dawn of the genre encounter design has always been sitting on a very precarious line and basically any degree of inside knowledge about its inner work can break things to a hilarious degree.
Hell, some times breaking things is precisely what makes it fun.

WHo said shit about not giving the other side anything?
We are asking for six to be an officially supported setup precisely because it makes a difference compared to brute-forcing things with a mod.