Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 91 of 95 1 2 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Archaven
due to the problem with concentration i find alot of stuffs are not being used and hence more party characters defintely helps. for one putting a sorceror? for twinning that may be really great. Btw.. i'm not sure how action surge works in baldur's gate 3. actually i havent try action surge in solasta either. so if action surge grants additional action in one turn that means a fighter with 2 attacks can have 4 with action surge. as extra attacks are based on attack action. so having 2 actions would mean having 2 attack actions. how is it supposed work actually?


You have it correct. Action surge gives you a second full action, so if the attack action normally gives you two attacks, you can have two additional attacks, or use that other action for something else. However, it does not give you an additional Bonus Action.

Joined: Mar 2013
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Mar 2013
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Archaven
due to the problem with concentration i find alot of stuffs are not being used and hence more party characters defintely helps. for one putting a sorceror? for twinning that may be really great. Btw.. i'm not sure how action surge works in baldur's gate 3. actually i havent try action surge in solasta either. so if action surge grants additional action in one turn that means a fighter with 2 attacks can have 4 with action surge. as extra attacks are based on attack action. so having 2 actions would mean having 2 attack actions. how is it supposed work actually?


You have it correct. Action surge gives you a second full action, so if the attack action normally gives you two attacks, you can have two additional attacks, or use that other action for something else. However, it does not give you an additional Bonus Action.

if that's the case fighter is far superior than other martial classes. even paladin wouldn't be able to match fighter damage at higher levels? also action surge is per short rest. in dnd5e it seems like there's no limit to how many short rest you can take. dual-wielding on the other hand seems really bad to me. was wondering if the off-hand weapon procs elemental damage? it seems in solasta the off-hand weapon doesn't proc elemental damage. correct me if i'm wrong? if it procs elemental damage then dual-wielding maybe better than two-handed weapon. my ranger in solasta currently is dual-wielding 2 longswords one with 1d8 lightning and the off hand is 1d8 cold damage. however i don't seem to see the cold damage being proc. i have previously tried a rogue for few levels and then i abandon the party. rogue seems very bad at damage compared to my pally that burst down bosses fairly quickly.

also that makes multi-classing with fighter would be really strong. just 5 levels in fighter with action surge could net 4 attacks per turn excluding haste. not sure follow-up strike is a solasta thing does bg3 has it?

Last edited by Archaven; 11/05/22 07:33 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Archaven
if that's the case fighter is far superior than other martial classes. even paladin wouldn't be able to match fighter damage at higher levels? also action surge is per short rest. in dnd5e it seems like there's no limit to how many short rest you can take. dual-wielding on the other hand seems really bad to me. was wondering if the off-hand weapon procs elemental damage? it seems in solasta the off-hand weapon doesn't proc elemental damage. correct me if i'm wrong? if it procs elemental damage then dual-wielding maybe better than two-handed weapon. my ranger in solasta currently is dual-wielding 2 longswords one with 1d8 lightning and the off hand is 1d8 cold damage. however i don't seem to see the cold damage being proc. i have previously tried a rogue for few levels and then i abandon the party. rogue seems very bad at damage compared to my pally that burst down bosses fairly quickly.

also that makes multi-classing with fighter would be really strong. just 5 levels in fighter with action surge could net 4 attacks per turn excluding haste. not sure follow-up strike is a solasta thing does bg3 has it?
For pure basic attacks, sure fighters get more --> more total damage. But other classes (e.g., Paladin) have powerful abilities (e.g., Smite) which can make up for the fewer attacks. Action Surge is essentially 1x per combat, but a Paladin can Smite as many times as they have spell slots, a rogue can sneak attack every turn, etc.

If the weapon itself deals dice of elemental damage, then the offhand attack should deal that damage. The only restriction for off-hand attack damage is that it doesn't deal your modifier in additional damage. So your ranger's MH should do 1d8+Dex (or Str) lightning damage, and the off-hand should deal 1d8 cold damage. You have to specifically use your bonus action to attack with your off-hand weapon though; it doesn't happen automatically like in BG3. And you presumably have some feat or ability to dual-wield long swords..??

Rogue is great if you constantly get sneak attack damage on your turn AND if you also make frequent opportunity attacks (which deal sneak attack damage); otherwise yeah the damage is only okay.

"Just 5 levels in fighter" ... 5 levels is a lot, especially since most campaigns don't go above level ~10. Most people take 2 levels in fighter for the Action Surge, and rely on their base class for either Extra Attack or other features that benefit from action surge.

Joined: May 2022
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: May 2022
Leaving it open to mods is a good idea. From a tactical perspective I think 5 party members are often the sweet spot but 4-6 are fine. The issue with 4 is that it often leads little flexibility in party composition if you want to cover the usual roles.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Not only does four limit party composition on party roles, but it also keep you from taking along that oddball/eccentric/quirky companion who doesn't bring much to combat but is a great companion for roleplaying and party interractions. With only four party slots I could never justify taking along that companion, which would be a huge shame.

Joined: Mar 2013
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Mar 2013
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
For pure basic attacks, sure fighters get more --> more total damage. But other classes (e.g., Paladin) have powerful abilities (e.g., Smite) which can make up for the fewer attacks. Action Surge is essentially 1x per combat, but a Paladin can Smite as many times as they have spell slots, a rogue can sneak attack every turn, etc.

If the weapon itself deals dice of elemental damage, then the offhand attack should deal that damage. The only restriction for off-hand attack damage is that it doesn't deal your modifier in additional damage. So your ranger's MH should do 1d8+Dex (or Str) lightning damage, and the off-hand should deal 1d8 cold damage. You have to specifically use your bonus action to attack with your off-hand weapon though; it doesn't happen automatically like in BG3. And you presumably have some feat or ability to dual-wield long swords..??

Rogue is great if you constantly get sneak attack damage on your turn AND if you also make frequent opportunity attacks (which deal sneak attack damage); otherwise yeah the damage is only okay.

"Just 5 levels in fighter" ... 5 levels is a lot, especially since most campaigns don't go above level ~10. Most people take 2 levels in fighter for the Action Surge, and rely on their base class for either Extra Attack or other features that benefit from action surge.

Paladin once depleted the smites he has to long rest. Meanwhile fighter only need a short rest. Very useful in cases where long rests are being policed by developer. Paladin has alot of nice tricks unfortunately he has to use them carefully especially again when long rests are being used as a difficulty barrier by developers. It's being used in solasta, i'm quite sure it's possibly could be used by Larian as well. I much prefer rations where you can rest anywhere as opposed to "fixed" and "static" area where rests were intended by developers. It seems more like a "scripted" experience by developers to play the game it's mean to be played as dictated by developers.

I'm not sure if solasta is buggy or not. I have only once twin blade ever triggered as a reaction. I'm pretty confident that some attack rolls where my existing AC +3 would actually beat the enemy attack roll. Longsword on it's own is a 1d8 and lightning should provide another 1d8. so the calculation should be 1d8 + 1d8 + [STR modifier]. i have the ambidexterous feat and longswords are not finesse. as pointed, i didn't actually seems to notice that my off-hand proc the additional 1d8 frost damage. i do have the dual-wield feats so i believe my off-hand should add the STR modified as well. anyway with the damage comparing to pally i was to the point of depressed. maybe.. well maybe once i'm dual-wielding 2 longswords of dragonblade (1d8 + 2d6 Fire) and another Punisher (1d8 + 2d6 Piercing) on off hand that damage may actually compete with paladin?

IMO maybe rogue should get 2 times sneak attack per turn that probably would be much better. I'm really excited about multi-class i hope Larian really put it in. Now that's the only edge Larian has over Solasta at the moment.

Also... yesterday i just got counterspell... it was freaking amazing. I'm not sure if it's bugger.. but i can counterspell the enemy counterspell? woahh.. my melee was about to hit the enemy caster and he counterspell.. and i got a reaction to counter him!. that's pretty cool.

Joined: Oct 2020
N
member
Offline
member
N
Joined: Oct 2020
+1

'i am once again asking for your 6 party slots support'

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Since this topic is already a 90 page shitstorm let's add a bit more to it. I think 5 member party size is the optimum. Prove me wrong over the next 90 pages. Have fun!


Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.
Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
I suppose 5 is also fine. To me, 6th party slot mostly exists for characters I really like but probably can't optimize them for combat very well due to not really synergizing with the rest of the party.

I feel like the only game I've played with 6 party members where I actually got extra tactical mileage out of the 6th slot were the Pathfinder games.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by virion
Since this topic is already a 90 page shitstorm let's add a bit more to it. I think 5 member party size is the optimum. Prove me wrong over the next 90 pages. Have fun!
Um, when it comes to opinions, it's your job to prove yourself right, not someone else's job to prove you wrong. wink

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by virion
Since this topic is already a 90 page shitstorm let's add a bit more to it. I think 5 member party size is the optimum. Prove me wrong over the next 90 pages. Have fun!
Um, when it comes to opinions, it's your job to prove yourself right, not someone else's job to prove you wrong. wink
Just kidding obviously. Never understood why some people on the forum are so determined 6 people in party is a determining factor for anything. I've read pages and pages of people trying to prove their point about it. The only one that actually makes sense is party compositions might be a tad more intereseting with 6 characters since you have more classes to mix together. But ...that's it. Everything else is really a matter of taste.


Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by virion
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by virion
Since this topic is already a 90 page shitstorm let's add a bit more to it. I think 5 member party size is the optimum. Prove me wrong over the next 90 pages. Have fun!
Um, when it comes to opinions, it's your job to prove yourself right, not someone else's job to prove you wrong. wink
Just kidding obviously. Never understood why some people on the forum are so determined 6 people in party is a determining factor for anything. I've read pages and pages of people trying to prove their point about it. The only one that actually makes sense is party compositions might be a tad more intereseting with 6 characters since you have more classes to mix together. But ...that's it. Everything else is really a matter of taste.

Is it? Maybe you missed ALL the reasons I've given previously as to why Party of 6 makes more sense for this game. It isn't just a matter of taste.

What about:

1. Party of 6 allows for Party of 4 actual Players in multiplayer mode and 2 origin characters, thus allowing people to play together and still have a couple of character slots so you can do origin character story missions/quests and so forth - allowing for origin character dialogues and so forth with a full party of 4 players.
2. Party of 6 allows for more party dialogues. I did the party of 6 mod where you tweak the max party size number. I hate mods, but I made an exception because I cared about this one so much. Turns out, your characters have a lot more dialogues and seem more like a cohesive party and unit when you have 1 Custom Character and the 5 origin characters all traveling together in one party at one time. Yes, they actually talk more when you have all of them together.
3. Party of 6 allows for less frustration in tougher combats. For example, if a duergar shoves Lae'zel 30+ feet into lava for a 1-Hit KO, you still have 5 other party members, meaning you aren't quite as hindered in the fight as you would be with only 3. Instead of losing 1/4th of your team in just one stupid move, you only lose 1/6th. Still a sucky thing, but you can live with it.
4. You can carry more with a party of 6, meaning you don't have to manage items as much, constantly shifting things around or sending one item at a time to camp because you just can't pick up that beloved spoon you spotted in the treasure chest in the basement of the toll house. When I was traveling with the party of 6, I could easily spread out the items and keep going without having to stop and manage them so much. (This one wasn't as big a deal for me, but it was still something.)
5. Party of 6 makes it so you don't have to constantly return to camp and switch out party members when wanting to do an origin character side quest like Lae'zel and Zorru or Wyll and Spike. You can keep all the current origin characters with you all the time and not have to worry about constantly switching them out.
6. It makes more sense that if you are going to go face a squad of gith who have a dragon, that you might bring everyone you have with you for the fight. Makes no sense to be "full up" with a party of 4 and then go to face some super tough enemies one-on-one. If I'm going to enter a phase spider matriarch's lair or face a horde of goblins, I might want to bring a bigger party.
7. Combat would be actually more balanced with a 5e ruleset if they implemented party of 6 instead of party of 4. EVERY combat currently is a Deadly encounter if they were to actually implement 5e rules and stats for monsters. 3 Imps against 2 Level 1 characters is insane. 3 Imps against 5 level 1 characters (4 custom and Lae'zel and/or Shadowheart) is not so insane. Same with 3 intellect devourers. Same with skeleton magic users. Same with actual bandits/mercenaries. Same with gnolls on the road. Same with 4 githyanki. Same with phase spiders.

I could go on and on and on and on, as I have in this thread, but I think that should be enough to show that it's more than taste. There are a LOT of gameplay elements that are currently hindered by a party size of 4. Again, party of 4 limits people who want a party of 6 while party of 6 does not hinder a party of 4.

So why?

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by virion
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by virion
Since this topic is already a 90 page shitstorm let's add a bit more to it. I think 5 member party size is the optimum. Prove me wrong over the next 90 pages. Have fun!
Um, when it comes to opinions, it's your job to prove yourself right, not someone else's job to prove you wrong. wink
Just kidding obviously. Never understood why some people on the forum are so determined 6 people in party is a determining factor for anything. I've read pages and pages of people trying to prove their point about it. The only one that actually makes sense is party compositions might be a tad more intereseting with 6 characters since you have more classes to mix together. But ...that's it. Everything else is really a matter of taste.

Is it? Maybe you missed ALL the reasons I've given previously as to why Party of 6 makes more sense for this game. It isn't just a matter of taste.

What about:

1. Party of 6 allows for Party of 4 actual Players in multiplayer mode and 2 origin characters, thus allowing people to play together and still have a couple of character slots so you can do origin character story missions/quests and so forth - allowing for origin character dialogues and so forth with a full party of 4 players.
2. Party of 6 allows for more party dialogues. I did the party of 6 mod where you tweak the max party size number. I hate mods, but I made an exception because I cared about this one so much. Turns out, your characters have a lot more dialogues and seem more like a cohesive party and unit when you have 1 Custom Character and the 5 origin characters all traveling together in one party at one time. Yes, they actually talk more when you have all of them together.
3. Party of 6 allows for less frustration in tougher combats. For example, if a duergar shoves Lae'zel 30+ feet into lava for a 1-Hit KO, you still have 5 other party members, meaning you aren't quite as hindered in the fight as you would be with only 3. Instead of losing 1/4th of your team in just one stupid move, you only lose 1/6th. Still a sucky thing, but you can live with it.
4. You can carry more with a party of 6, meaning you don't have to manage items as much, constantly shifting things around or sending one item at a time to camp because you just can't pick up that beloved spoon you spotted in the treasure chest in the basement of the toll house. When I was traveling with the party of 6, I could easily spread out the items and keep going without having to stop and manage them so much. (This one wasn't as big a deal for me, but it was still something.)
5. Party of 6 makes it so you don't have to constantly return to camp and switch out party members when wanting to do an origin character side quest like Lae'zel and Zorru or Wyll and Spike. You can keep all the current origin characters with you all the time and not have to worry about constantly switching them out.
6. It makes more sense that if you are going to go face a squad of gith who have a dragon, that you might bring everyone you have with you for the fight. Makes no sense to be "full up" with a party of 4 and then go to face some super tough enemies one-on-one. If I'm going to enter a phase spider matriarch's lair or face a horde of goblins, I might want to bring a bigger party.
7. Combat would be actually more balanced with a 5e ruleset if they implemented party of 6 instead of party of 4. EVERY combat currently is a Deadly encounter if they were to actually implement 5e rules and stats for monsters. 3 Imps against 2 Level 1 characters is insane. 3 Imps against 5 level 1 characters (4 custom and Lae'zel and/or Shadowheart) is not so insane. Same with 3 intellect devourers. Same with skeleton magic users. Same with actual bandits/mercenaries. Same with gnolls on the road. Same with 4 githyanki. Same with phase spiders.

I could go on and on and on and on, as I have in this thread, but I think that should be enough to show that it's more than taste. There are a LOT of gameplay elements that are currently hindered by a party size of 4. Again, party of 4 limits people who want a party of 6 while party of 6 does not hinder a party of 4.

So why?


1)You're missing the point of origin characters here.And you talk about 2 different subjects.
1.a)To some extent I agree, don't get me wrong. It's cool to have the impression your party is " living it's own life" despite following your "left clicks". But you don't have to have 6 characters to achieve this effect. You just need at least 2 origin characters. What if you have 4 of them? In the same party? Because yes, they are playable.

1.b)If you have 4 players in the same team everyone can still play as one of the origins characters and have his " side quests" as your own missions to follow. And that's the entire idea behind origin characters to begin with. Everyone can be a hero of their own story. From Larian perspective they are making as many games as they are making origin characters.

This option is not available in EA of BG3 so far( or at least it wasn't when I played the game last time) but it did make some quite interesting scenarios in DOS:2 multiplayer(Origin characters missions if played by the player could be played out entirely differently than if the character was a companion.Some quests were requiring certain origin characters to murder an NPC a different origin character had to protect). Their in-party dialogues would still activate even if players are using them as main characters. Players will be the ones making those dialogues happen once trigerred (assumably randomly) by in game scripts.

Only issue was you could take 4 origins characters with you. Others would die at act 1 so that would lead to a set of limitations when it comes to origin characters stories(Not like their story would lead to their death or something since you can't really replace them). But that's last bit is off topic.


2) I won't argue here. Didn't try the mod but yeah seems logical if you have more characters they talk more. That aspect would make it more interesting in solo/ duo. From 3+ players you can probably come back to #1.


3) Linking game difficulty or balance to the number of available characters is a bit silly. You balance the game around the max amount of characters not the other way around.


4) I'm tempted to dismiss this as a balance issue[More items = more money]. But it could be a valid argument for more QoL when it comes to item management. Either easier transfer of items to camp or ....backpacks.

5)Oh don't worry about switching them all out, they will most likely all die apart from the ones in your current active party. So you will never complete their side quest until your next playthrough. Just an assumption based on Dos:2 origin characters fate. Sven said " at the end of ACT 1 players will have to commit when it comes to their companions". Whatever that means.

6) Makes sense to some extent. Bigger fights could use a "highlight" in the form of more allies following you for a particular fight. It can be done on " case by case" basis though, doesn't require a 6 man party. Like...if story wise it's justified to " bring as many people as we can" then....why only bring 2 more guys? Why not every one?

7)Again, I completed the game on release while sleeping 3 times max for the most part. The hag+the patrol kinda bit the living shit out of me. Started sleeping a bit more often in the underdark. Cleric OP. Phase spiders -> Tough but cleric rolls over them head first.

After me you want 6 characters party and because of that fact alone you start seeing some things as they were unconditionally supporting this idea. But they really aren't.
I'm not advocating AGAINST it. I'm just stating all arguments used above can be used to say the exact opposite with ease.


6 characters cause more party banter so more immersion, more classes,so it's kinda cool and Larian please give us the option to make it happen and pls balance the game for it ?Or at least make a difficulty level that kinda balances out the possibility of having 3 barbarians ( god forbid backed by a cleric+sorc+ thief covering the sorc?). It won't be perfect but at least we can play the way we want? Yeah sure. But don't try to prove there's more than this to it cause there really isn't.

There are a few issues mentioned in this thread or even in your last post that are far from ignorable but 6 man party isn't a solution to it. It's a seperate subject. A seperate request. Not an ultimate truth.


Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Everything else aside... Party of four players. Doesn't matter who you go with. There are five current origin characters and they have said there will be more. Therefore, with a Max party size of four, you will never have the ability to go on any other companion side quests when you are playing the game with three other players.

If one of you is not Wyll, then even meeting him in the game is pointless because you can't do any of his side quest story lines. Doesn't matter if you ever run into his little devil mistress at any point in the game, you're stuck because you didn't pick him as one of your four player characters.

But with a Party Max size of six, you can at least switch out one of the two extras that you have in the party and make sure he is one of them so that you can do his side quests.

Likewise, if you play a party of 4 customs, you can literally have NO origin characters in the party, thus you are unable to do ANY side quests belonging to them.

So, party of 4 locks players out of content. Party of 6 does not.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Everything else aside... Party of four players. Doesn't matter who you go with. There are five current origin characters and they have said there will be more. Therefore, with a Max party size of four, you will never have the ability to go on any other companion side quests when you are playing the game with three other players.

If one of you is not Wyll, then even meeting him in the game is pointless because you can't do any of his side quest story lines. Doesn't matter if you ever run into his little devil mistress at any point in the game, you're stuck because you didn't pick him as one of your four player characters.

But with a Party Max size of six, you can at least switch out one of the two extras that you have in the party and make sure he is one of them so that you can do his side quests.

Likewise, if you play a party of 4 customs, you can literally have NO origin characters in the party, thus you are unable to do ANY side quests belonging to them.

So, party of 4 locks players out of content. Party of 6 does not.

Yeah I can see what you mean.

The same problem appears if you have 6 players playing together though. So again it doesn't solve the problem entirely(it definitely adresses it to some extent ngl). Having some of those characters not controlled by players despite playing in coop and still having their things to say+their quests. Only Larian knows how often people play with 4 players coop though. Is it actually a thing? I guess it is.

To be honest I think we simply can't have it both ways? Like...either you have you+ a friend on custom characters + a party of NPC's roleplaying being a party or you have a lobby full of custom characters manned by players. Arguably you can have a coop playthrough and a seperate solo playthrough.

Just for this aspect alone( having multiple points of view collide with each other) party of 6 would be nice. That's definitely one of the things missing from the older BG's too. You could have 1 character commenting on one of your choices and a 2nd one disagreeing with it to the point of attempting to murder one of your own team members. The more the merrier in this case.

Fun fact in the example I provided in the previous post Larian actually proved they already had this exact same conversation and their implementation of origin characters in DOS:2 is a way to adress this exact issue. " Party members should disagree over something sooner or later. Players playing together won't sabotage each other by instinct. Unless...they have a reason.Their origin character story". So they already tried to give us tools to roleplay those situations in game (assuming you play one of the origins characters. In DOS:2 you could fully customize their class and appearance so there was theoratically no reason not to play one).

I think the entire "6 players party" makes way more sense if you place it in single player context tbh.
It does create a bit more space for custom characters(And...ngl, despite my 2 last posts I actually prefer playing custom characters lol) if you play with a lower amount of people too while leaving space for more origin characters so in this sense it adresses multiplayer too but question remains do most people play alone/ in small parties or do they actually go for full lobbies? God knows, Larian knows.


Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
@virion

If anything, it seems you are the one attempting to justify your own arguments, and you're making a number of assumptions to do so. You're assuming, for example, that BG3 will be exactly like DOS2, that party members will die at some point - among other items you mentioned. Though it is possible, and maybe probable, it is still an assumption. They certainly don't have to do it that way, and in my opinion they shouldn't if they don't want even more people griping about how this is a DOS3 and not BG3. You are also assuming that if they increase max party size to 6 that they have to then increase multiplayer max party size to 6. They COULD do a max party of 4 players with a max party of 6 or even 8 (2 to 4 NPC members). In fact, if they really wanted to make some people happy, they'd make it so you could play a party of 4 players with each player being able to control an origin character and allow up to 8 max party size with 2 characters per player

Anyway, my point is that there is legit reasons why some of us want a party of 6. It's not just, "I want a party of 6, so you people who want party of 4 just shut up." Again, party of 4 limits the game and locks out content and makes things less fun, especially since I've played the mod and enjoyed party of 6 so much more. It's like getting a taste of something good and having people tell me I can't continue to have it. Screw you because I only want my limited version.

But I'm asking for both, and that's why I said they COULD balance a party of 6 by making a 5e Core ruleset and allowing 4 custom characters to start, even in single-player mode. Then those who want to play party of 4 can do so on the janky homebrew ruleset and those who want to play hard core 5e AND party of 6 can do so. They wouldn't even have to add or remove more monsters. Then everybody is happy.

Last edited by GM4Him; 17/05/22 01:10 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
@virion

If anything, it seems you are the one attempting to justify your own arguments, and you're making a number of assumptions to do so. You're assuming, for example, that BG3 will be exactly like DOS2, that party members will die at some point - among other items you mentioned. Though it is possible, and maybe probable, it is still an assumption. They certainly don't have to do it that way, and in my opinion they shouldn't if they don't want even more people griping about how this is a DOS3 and not BG3. You are also assuming that if they increase max party size to 6 that they have to then increase multiplayer max party size to 6. They COULD do a max party of 4 players with a max party of 6 or even 8 (2 to 4 NPC members). In fact, if they really wanted to make some people happy, they'd make it so you could play a party of 4 players with each player being able to control an origin character and allow up to 8 max party size with 2 characters per player

Anyway, my point is that there is legit reasons why some of us want a party of 6. It's not just, "I want a party of 6, so you people who want party of 4 just shut up." Again, party of 4 limits the game and locks out content and makes things less fun, especially since I've played the mod and enjoyed party of 6 so much more. It's like getting a taste of something good and having people tell me I can't continue to have it. Screw you because I only want my limited version.

But I'm asking for both, and that's why I said they COULD balance a party of 6 by making a 5e Core ruleset and allowing 4 custom characters to start, even in single-player mode. Then those who want to play party of 4 can do so on the janky homebrew ruleset and those who want to play hard core 5e AND party of 6 can do so. They wouldn't even have to add or remove more monsters. Then everybody is happy.


Fair enought, I'm not immune to personal bias either I guess. I have to make certain assumptions since Larian didn't confirm everything for obvious reasons ( work in progress). The assumptions about DOS:2 origin characters and how it will look in BG3 is indeed just that: an assumption. But" player will have to commit" said by Sven in early stages kinda supports this claim you can't say the opposite. In that light the part of " switching characters left and right to know their story" isn't exactly an issue since you most likely won't have the option to switch them. But assuming they don't die and stay alive somewhere in the world indeed what you said makes sense. Never denied that particular aspect.

Regarding increasing the party size without necessarily increasing the amount of players kinda solves the issue i highligthed above so fair enought on that.
Good to know it's moddable cause it kinda gives me hopes. Like worst case in a couple months post release we can mod it ourselves if Larian doesn't commit to 6 man party.


Now I think it's important to clarify one thing: From the very start of this conversation I genually would prefer 6 characters too. Mostly cause the more the merrier and the party feels more alive( in my opinion). So we agree on that part which is nice.
However arguments can be made in the opposite direction :

1)With the current movement system too much characters to manage can be a burden to some.

2)It can compromise replayability to some extent ( Depends on the max amount of characters in the entire game. In the end we have 0 idea how many there will be. Considering their origin stories seem VERY built up with their own cinematics etc we could make an assumption there won't be that many. In which case that issue applies).

3)More characters = different balance so while it doesn't have to lead to encounters re-design it will lead to more testing for Larian. They can't just release a 6 man party with an info" we didn't test it , don't use it". That's equivalent to making it moddable.

4)On the same side of more work all encounters teleporting your players or acting on your entire party would also need to be done twice: For a party of 4 and a party of 6. Not undoable obviously since it was modded in EA but still something to consider.

5)Regarding the last two points: Do we want to convince Larian to double down on something that theoratically isn't game defining(Theoratically as in for me and you it might be important not for others)? Well it's a hard sell.

Don't comment on the "arguments against" cause that's not my point. I don't think either of us wants to talk about why it doesn't make sense to have 6 characters.We both think it does.
My point is rather there are implications to that and having it "half-assed" isn't really an option(Like in that case you can get the 6 man party mod and you will achieve a similar result). So should Larian work on it ? Well would be cool but we can't say it's superior or problem free. It comes with it's own issues to solve and adress.

AKA what is there to prove over 90 pages? We can't deny it has it's pros and cons. Some will matter to some others won't. It's not something tengible or easily explainable like the critic of "Advantage given on attacks from highground" which Larian listened to and patched out.

That's the only reason there's 90 pages about it. There's no middleground for taste. Larian taking under consideration everyone's taste? YES please. But for the love of god we agree on having a party of 6 and yet we can't agree on everything.
So its there a better proof this is really a case of " taste" and not arguments and reasons due to the main impact being immersion (It's positive/negative influence on combat and how to adress this is probably the main thing there is to discuss but you already said about it more than I will ever know or test in EA so i can shut up on that subject) ?


HENCE WHY my first comment about proving me wrong 5 man party is the optimal solution. Voila. have a good day, I hope we agree to some extent.

Last edited by virion; 17/05/22 08:21 AM.

Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
@virion

I get where you're coming from, and to a large extent I agree. Regardless of what they decide, I'm good. I want 6, but after all is said and done, I'm not going to cry of they don't. I'd rather they just finish the game.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by virion
But" player will have to commit" said by Sven in early stages
Personaly i believe this "have to commit" can quite easily mean that our companions will all go their ways after Act 1 ... just as Shadowheart says, when you ask her what will be do afterwards ... after all, the only thing that hold them together was tadpole and if that will get (at least seemingly) resolved in end of first act, there is no reaspon for them to stay together ... especialy for those who dislike each other. laugh

+ note that even full custom party will most likely "have to commit" to someone. wink


Originally Posted by virion
In that light the part of " switching characters left and right to know their story" isn't exactly an issue since you most likely won't have the option to switch them
Asuming we will get locked all party members since then ... maybe.
But since we were allready told that there WILL be mercenary system included, and so far we didnt seen any mercenary NPC, nor any hint that any of them presented in Act 1 would be potentialy used as one ... its safe to presume that some mercenaries will join us even later, and in such case you certainly should have option to switch your party members however you need. wink


Originally Posted by virion
Good to know it's moddable cause it kinda gives me hopes.
I remember Swen talking about that they count with this mod, since day 1 ... so they want to create their interface in a way that would not interfere with party of 6 ...
When you then take under concideration that its just matter of switching single value, and people dont demand any futher ballance changes ...

Seems almost silly that they refuse (or at least dont agree) to include this option to base game. O_o


Originally Posted by virion
1)With the current movement system too much characters to manage can be a burden to some.
Since all people asking for is option ... people who would concider it a burden would most likely keep it off ...
NEXT! laugh


Originally Posted by virion
2)It can compromise replayability to some extent
Quite small extent ... especialy if we count interactions between our characters.
Personaly i never felt discouraged to replay DA:Inquisition just by the fact that i allready know side quests for my companions ... after all, i kinda also know all (or at least most) other quests, including main one and plot ... wich is a little bit more important. laugh

Quite the oposite actualy ... since interactions between companions is interesting for me, i was encouraged to replay using different party members bcs i was curious about it. smile
For example head-chess game between Iron Bull and Solas is legendary. ^_^


Originally Posted by virion
3)More characters = different balance so while it doesn't have to lead to encounters re-design it will lead to more testing for Larian. They can't just release a 6 man party with an info" we didn't test it , don't use it". That's equivalent to making it moddable.
Yes they can.
But that sign should be "this game was created and optimised for party of 4 ... by switching this option on, you may compromise your experience". wink

As it was also suggested few times before. smile


Originally Posted by virion
4)On the same side of more work all encounters teleporting your players or acting on your entire party would also need to be done twice: For a party of 4 and a party of 6. Not undoable obviously since it was modded in EA but still something to consider.
I dunno what do you mean ...

Are you talking about situations as there is on raft in the Underdark?
That can be easily resolved by short dialogue like:
Narrator: "There is not enough space on this raft for your whole party ... pick 4 people who will scout ahead with you."
or Narrator: "Your whole group would be too heavy for this raft ... pick 4 people who will scout ahead with you."


Originally Posted by virion
5)Regarding the last two points: Do we want to convince Larian to double down on something that theoratically isn't game defining(Theoratically as in for me and you it might be important not for others)? Well it's a hard sell.
Yes we do.


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Oct 2021
V
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
V
Joined: Oct 2021
I think that party of 5 is the most balanced variant - it can allow to cover party basic roles (arcane caster aka CC / AoE damage, divine caster aka healing / support, tank, single-target DPS) and allow main PC to play any class they want to complement it. As far as I know, there are also 8 planned companions, so 4 companion slots make perfect sense - game can still be replayed with totally different set of companions. It is also not a very big increase to player party power (around 25%), so maybe Larian would not even need to rebalance encounters much to adjust. Something like:
Current game design for 4 party -> Easy difficulty for 5 party (so they do not even need to scrap it)
Their planned hard difficulty for 4 party -> Medium difficulty for 5 party (so they do not need to scrap it as well)
More enemies / harder stats / additional abilities for them -> Hard difficulty for 5 party

So, the only additional work Larian would need to do in addition to already planned is change party number to 5 and implement "hard" difficulty for 5 party.

Though, many of these points could be applied to party of 6 as well, but it would require more work to balance the game for that.

Last edited by Volsalex; 23/05/22 06:48 AM.
Page 91 of 95 1 2 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

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