Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides Party Size Discussion

Re: 4 player multi-player - what's stopping you from brining six players in that circumstance? You'd have the same problem.

I think you misunderstood me. I agree that adding enemies would drag out combat and is the ~worst way to rebalance for a 6-person-party.

Let's assume that Larian balances for an optional 6-person-party in such a way that combat difficulty and length remain the ~same as for a 4-person party (split exp or increased enemy HP). Would you be perfectly fine with playing a party of 6 in this scenario? Or would you reluctantly play with a 6-person party, feeling compelled, but would have been happier if Larian had stuck with 4?

So long as the difficulty is exactly the same, which I'm afraid won't be possible. And that it's a hard toggle, and no way to recruit past 4 without it on.

Because if you can, you have to. That's just how it works sometimes.

First of all?
Game engine ... to allow party of 4 players bring two companions with them (wich is allready implemented fully, just require adjustment in value "maxpartymembers" from 4 to 6) that is not a problem ...
But if you would like to add two additional players, you would need to rework whole engine.

Same encounters as now.

Use Proper D&D 5e stats and XP rewards with XP split.

No additional enemies and no removing enemies. Same exact number of bad guys everywhere.

Lift level cap.

Increase party to 6.

The game would be perfectly balanced.

Player tested via tabletop, which the game is based on and designed to mimick. It works. Encounters are fun and rewarding.

No rebalance necessary. All they'd have to do is what I just mentioned above as an option for players.

Option 1: Play 1-4 character party. All stats and enemies as is right now with current XP rewards.
Option 2: Play 5-6 character party. All stats and enemies are set to D&D 5e with D&D 5e XP rewards. Same exact number of enemies as 1-4, just different stats and special abilities, like resistance for imps and intellect devourers and so forth.

Are you sure using DnD stats without changing anything else would work ?

We're fighting a bulette at level 4 and 4 harpies at level 3.
Too powerfull and/or too weak ennemies if I trust the CR. In other word, unappropriate ennemies...

What level should be a party of 1, a party of 2, a party of 3 (and so on) to fight 2 ettercaps and 2 phase spiders with DnD stats ?

You obviously know DnD better than I do but if I'm trying this specific combat in an encounter builder for DD5, it does not seem easy to balance...
- party of 4 (average if everyone is level 8)
- party of 5 (average if everyone is level 7)
- party of 6 (average if you're level 5)
- party of 2 (average if you're lvl 14...)

Why do you think it's impossible for the difficulty to be exactly the same? Or at least similar enough that a single individual wouldn't be able to notice it?

There are so many knobs that can be tweaked to adjust balance: enemy HP, enemy damage, enemy to-hit, enemy proficiency bonus, type of enemy, placement of enemies on high ground, items enemies have available, enemy AI, split exp between party members, the list goes on. I find it hard to imagine that it's impossible for the difficulty using a 6-person-party to be effectively the same. DMs do it commonly in tabletop after all, tweaking encounters when a player join or can't make the session.

It's reasonable to argue that Larian won't be able to implement it properly, but that's different than "impossible" and is a different discussion.

I agree that any 6-person-party option should be a hard toggle.

I think most of us who play solo like it for the challenge and don't want the game to be changed to make it easier, takes all the fun out of it.

There was a whole discussion about this...maybe earlier ITT, maybe in a different thread. But while you play solo for the challenge, that doesn't mean everyone or even most people who play do. For example, some people may just not want to go through the hassle of controlling multiple characters, especially with Larian's toilet chain.

As always, this is easily solved by options and exp splitting. If you want to play a challenge solo mode, don't enable exp splitting and level up at normal speed. If you want to play a normal-difficulty solo mode, enable exp-splitting (and/or Lone Wolf). It'd take Larian ~zero additional effort to make such changes optional instead of mandatory settings.

Why do I think it's too difficult to balance? Because this game isn't my first rodeo and balance in games that are 15 years old is still not possible. You'll never have perfect balance, especially if you get new content added.

I'm done with this discussion. Larian changed it to four for a reason, I don't get why it MUST be changed. I'd rather them leave it alone and get the game finished faster.

And the graphics problems fixed. Grr.

Not sure why you're done with this discussion, because this ^ combined with your earlier post about "feeling compelled" actually echoes/complements my thoughts.

It's not that it's impossible (you've used "impossible" and "difficult" interchangeably) for a 6-person party to be good, it's that you think it will take too much development time away from other parts of the game. OR if Larian implements a simple fix - adding the option for a 6-person party without adjusting balance - you'll feel compelled to play with 6, making the game too easy.

I feel similar; if the game is not locked to 4 players by default, I'll feel compelled to play with 6. And, particularly because of the toilet chain/UI but also just in general, I think I'd have less fun playing with 6 characters. And thus the argument for a hard toggle hidden in the game settings as a compromise between my and others' desires.

Positive. I tested it several times with different characters.

Let's just take the spider matriarch battle. Characters were level 4 by this point. Rogue, wizard, barbarian, druid, fighter, and ranger. They faced 2 phase spiders with typical stats for phase spiders plus their ability to do ethereal jaunt. I gave the matriarch double stat values, so double HP, double attack value, and double the attacks per round, plus 1D extra for damage. I gave the babies a quarter of the standard value because they just hatched.

Most of the party was taken down by the end. One person was left standing when the last spider fell. I didn't have the spiders porting all over. They would disappear, and then phase back and pounce. The matriarch focused first on hatching the eggs. Then they swarmed the party.

Take the first battle at the gate. Fighter, cleric, ranger, Rogue, wizard and another fighter. What makes the fight right now in the game so easy is that they don't attack you. When we did this fight, they fought back. I used a goblin chief, and a bugbear chief. Then I used normal stats for the other goblins and the worg. The only thing I added was I made one of the goblins a spellcaster with basic spells. That was to mirror what they had in the game. It was still a somewhat easy fight, but it was actually more challenging then what you have in the game currently.

The skeleton scribes took down 2 level 2 characters out of six because they were hurling spells like magic missile. Over and over again I've tested these encounters with proper rules and stats. They are insanely difficult for four characters but doable for 6.

Of course it would not ...
There even arent some creatures like exactly that mentioned matriarch ... it depends on GM thoughts what stats he would give them ...

For example here:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/giant-spider > Regular giant spider.
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Giant_Spider_Matriarch_(5e_Creature) > Giant spider Matriarch (yes im aware its also a Homebrew creature ... but notice she is certainly NOT created with "just double stats")

Not even mention all those differences between tabletop rules and *curently used* BG-3 rules ...
Like sorcerer being able to cast up to 3 Full spells per turn ...
Like anyone being able to Hide or drink Potion as Bonus Action ...
Like Wizard being able to Bless and Heal party members ...

The lesson here is simple ...
GM4Him's tabletop simulations is usable only for his own simulations ... and there is no relevance for BG-3.
If Larian would change everything to fit them, then they would be relevant ... but not any time sooner.

//Edit:
It would be just the same as to say:
Hey i played this encounter in Pathfinder ruleset and i like it more ... therefore whole game should be imediatly reworked to fit Pathfinder rules.

I tested it again last night.

Party of 5. 3 imps. Regular D&D stats and rules. 4 Custom + Lae'zel. Imps took 2 down, but my cleric revived them and brought them back into play. Challenging first fight, but easy enough that unless you roll REAL bad you won't game over.

Same group with Shadowheart. Faced 3 intellect devourers. Level 1. So party of 5 versus 3 intellect devourers. The barbarian was taken down by Devour Intellect. One other suffered serious injury but didn't fall.

Battles totally doable and challenging with party of 5. Totally UNdoable with 2 UNLESS you need the system.

Also started over with party of 4 in BG3. SUPER easy. Boring multiplayer because battles are so nerfed. They let me get Lae'zel for party of 5, but saved SH and she's like, "Um. Your full up. See ya.". Lame. "I know you just rescued me and all, but you have 5 people. Sorry. I'm going it alone.". ON THE NAUTILOID! Come on.

True D&D stats and rules, party of 4 + Lae'zel + SH against 4 imps and 2 hellhogs is much more fun. Right now, party + Lae'zel versus nerfed enemies. Snore.

And the worst part is, SHs excuse. "You have a large group with you. One more might draw too much attention. Best go it alone.". Then she runs off ahead of you TO THE HELM. This ain't no stealth mission. We're storming the helm. The more the merrier, and 1 more ain't gonna draw more attention. Besides, WE'RE GOING THE SAME WAY.

Dumb. Just increase to party of 6 and use proper stats like you should.

Look. I don't care what way you slice it. For multiplayer, a party of six and proper DND stats is absolutely necessary. Without it, multiplayer is severely limited. If nothing else, they need to at least allow a party of six for multiplayer.

But why is this Larian's problem? Isn't this your problem? You are choosing to make the game easier for you by taking six, in exactly the same way as those who are choosing to make the game harder for them by taking only one. You cannot legitimately complain about the game becoming easier by saying you are somehow "compelled" to take six. No one from Larian showed up at your home, put a gun to your head, and made you do it.

Right. Exactly. So how is it any different for those of us who want to play with six? If you get to have the choice to make the game harder for you (by getting to play solo), why shouldn't I have the SAME choice to make the game easier for me (by playing with six)?

I don't want the game easier for a party of 6. I want them to balance it for 6 simply by implementing ACTUAL D&D stats, because by doing so I'd actually get a more authentic D&D experience, the game would work best for multiplayer this way, and everything would work SO much better.

Imagine imps with resistance and a poison sting. Imagine intellect devourers with Devour Intellect... You know, their PRIMARY attack that makes them what they are. Imagine phase spiders that actually phase and pounce on you with hit and fade assassin-like attacks instead of teleporting around and spitting poison at you. Imagine skeleton scribes hurling magic missiles and chromatic orbs two or three times each and proving a challenge for 6 party members instead of being kinda sorta easy for a party of 4.

Imagine a goblin boss during the first Grove gate fight having multiple attacks and using redirect attack. Imagine facing a Bugbear Chieftain with 65 HP and AC 17 and multi-attack with a party of 6 when saving Nadira, the pink haired tiefling instead of this lame weak-butt Bugbear that can die in 1 round and is kinda like, "What the flip was that" when facing it with a party of 4.

Over and over again, all I can see is how much better the game would be with a party of 6 and using proper D&D stats. They do this entire game such an injustice with a party of 4 and everything nerfed. It saddens me, which is why I'm so passionate about the party of 6.

Make it for party of 6. THEN create options for people to be able to play it with less than 6. The prologue is built with proper D&D stats for a party of 4 Custom PCs + Lae'zel and maybe Shadowheart or Us or both. The intellect devourer battle on the beach is similarly built for a party of 4 + Shadowheart. The battle in the crypt is built for a party of 6. The grove battle is built for a party of 6. The phase spider battle, the hag battle, the ogre fight, the githyanki fight, the gnoll fight... all of them! IF they used proper D&D stats.

So the reason we have these nerfed monsters without their proper special abilities is simply because they decided at some point to go with a party of 4 without changing any of the monsters and such that they're using. It just makes no sense to me. They made the game so much less D&D in order to go with a party of 4 which is so limiting in both single and especially multiplayer.

This is similar to the "don't like it? don't use it" argument that's also used for other Larian homebrew like lack of long rest restrictions, eating food to heal, shove instakills, bonus action jump+disengage, wizards learning cleric scrolls, trivial stealing from merchants, etc. (Note: I restricted these examples to things that are actually possible to avoid, unlike e.g., BA Shove which enemies will use against you.)

This is Larian's problem because games require restrictions; it's not fun to have to purposefully nerf yourself as a player. And Larian allowing a party size of up to 6 by default (meaning: the 5th+6th companion you find will automatically join your party if asked, and the game wont warn you that "BG3 is balanced for parties of 4") is poor game design. Players will have to consciously decide to continue to play with 6 or play with less than a full party, either making the game easy or having a game with less party banter & companion-specific-story-interactions respectively.

My proposed solution to the above is a hard toggle in settings that defaults to off, that isn't advertised, and that comes with a warning "this game is balanced for 4-person-parties." This would be enough of a disincentive that I wouldn't feel bad playing with 4, but would still allow people to play with 6 if desired. Also add a "split exp" toggle, so your party-of-6 can either be balanced or not: the player can choose.

Ugh. But it isn't balanced for 4. It's ONLY balanced for 4 because of nerfing. That's the problem. They've nerfed EVERYTHING to MAKE it party size 4.

It's like saying, "Here's the rules to chess. Now, play chess."

"Wait! We're changing the rules because chess is too hard. So, knights can move in an "L" shape but also can teleport to the other side of the board in any random location. Oh, and rooks can move in "L" shapes too. Oh, and kings can also move anywhere, like queens. Pawns seemed lame, so we decided to let them move in any direction."

Are you still playing chess?

Oh I don't either. I was being rhetorical, essentially pointing out that there is no logical difference whatsoever between people playing with a smaller party versus a bigger party.