Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Is there a chance party size will be increased or are we stuck with 4 ?

They could, but when you tell them that larian has changed their minds about something.Then you will more often than not find that the average player also has changed his/her mind.

The main reason I prefer 4, is the fact that I would prefer to play as many characters as I would in tabletop: One.

I doubt many would agree with me, but I'd actually prefer a cRPG with one controllable protagonist per player (multiplayer) and rest being fully AI controlled NPCs. I don't play four characters at the same in D&D, let alone six. So realistically I'm indifferent past that initial preference 😂 It'd actually also increase my interest in companions as companions, because anything I personally control, I consider to be *my* character, not a companion. So by having control over multiple characters, it actually lowers the value I put in them as companions.

I'm weird.

As I said a few times already, I would like to have a party of 6. It gives more flexibility.

The game does allow you to play with a one man party. It might even be a fun run, but we who want to play with a larger party must use mods that doesn't work as well. You've got an interesting take composer, but I disagree with you. Maybe an optional game mode where the AI controls your companions would be to your liking, however I doubt it would ever be used by a significant number of players.

This makes perfect sense to me, and also is why I greatly prefer real time or RTwP over TB. Much more fluid having a party that is capable of doing their own thing and they feel less like board game pieces and more like actual companions. I can actually rp my character then and not babysit. In games I have played with 6 companions, I find myself micromanaging only one or two after the initial combat setup because 6 becomes really tedious. I could use less companions but always feel obligated to bring a full party for the story.

Curious, have you tried to play this game solo yet? I did a few updates ago and had a lot of fun. Going to try again with Grymforge, never did that part solo.

I would be happy if the people who want it get an option to play with more but not at the expense of fixing other thing first. This is not intended to be an offensive statement, we all have different priorities for things to be fixed/changed.

I haven't nor do I think I ever would. I prefer the concept of a party, particularly in a D&D setting. I just also prefer games where I follow one lead, a main character. A tangent is this is precisely why I couldn't get into Watch Dogs: Legion, because of its concept that you can recruit and play as anyone. It completely removed any chance for me to get invested and interested in who I'm playing. But D&D must have a party, it's half the point of D&D. But if I am the entire party, there is no party, only me, no matter if there's four or six of me. 😂

I mean, the first mod for Bethesda games tends to be murder children and nudity, so why don't we include that in the base game?

I'm being hyperbolic, but I don't consider this a good faith argument. I think 4 man parties are a perfectly sensible number considering the pace of a turn-based game.

Yours?
It doesn't sound like one, admittedly.


EDIT- And I'm not sure what do you even mean with "sensible". No one was questioning if the game can or can't work with a party of 4, 3 or even 1.
The argument was (predominantly) that it would be better with a larger one, for one million reasons we already argued to death and back one million times:

- more chances to have companions interact with each other and with the player
- more access to their quests and story tidbits.
- more flexibility in party composition where even not optimal, prioritary or minimaxed characters would be welcomed. Or partially redundant ones.
- more chances to make more use of loot of different types in general.
- more tactical options and less reliance on RNG to pass successfully critical situations.

etc, etc, etc.

I like controlling party members in combat for turn-based games and just the main character for RTwP or action games. In either case I love having companions, though! Any number of companions is fine with me.

My counterpoint to these arguments is that less is more.

With 6 characters you can cover all bases, use all gear, easily optimize your tactics, see through most companions stories to completion, etc.

Having only 4 makes choosing your party have much more tangible implications and makes many choices more meaningful. If you can't fill every conceivable party role or have every spell you might need, tactics matter a lot more than if you had the expansive breadth of options you get with 6 PCs worth of tools.

No, it's not unless the "more" is bad in quality and goes to affect the good parts in some ways. Which additional characters wouldn't do.

Oh no, the horror.

That aside, the claim is questionable on a good day, in a game where the number of basic classes and races would still double the number of party slots we are talking about.
Which means a lot of "bases not covered" and "things not seen" regardless.


Buzzwords. You aren't making any point, you are just saying things and pretending they are accepted as reasonable.



Ok, not even remotely true, but let's pretend you'd have a point here...
Who's stopping you from doing it, again? Why aren't you sticking to less characters, even with a larger number of party slots as a theoretical limit?

Okay, dude. You are a bit too butthurt to have an actual debate with, so I'mma step out here. I can tell when I'm wasting time.

See ya, mate.

You can do this with your 4 character party. But let others the bigger party for more variety / opportunities / fun. I can easily reverse your reasoning. Precisely because there are several characters with different classes etc., one can give foes the "coup de grace" in several ways. With more Characters you can have more "backgrounds" for more background goals. If implemented well into the game, you will addionally have to make tough decisions. For example the fisherman at ravaged beach. If you have a folk hero & a criminal then you have to choose what to do. This could be nice for a further alignment / reputation system and maybe combined with some deity buffs or similary stuff (e. g. unique abilities for classes or from artifacts / weapons like in Tyranny).

I am fine with a party of 4 origin charecters, but I am hoping to be able to hire on a merc and have them in the “5th” slot with out substituting one of the 4 origin slots. Even better give five slots to mix and match as I see fit.

Got one PC that will kill any origin charecters that attempt to attack them without due provocation (looking at you pale skin toothy elf and yellow toad girl). If the others have scenes where they attack you without provocation - they also die. He’s not a very charismatic barbarian, so if anyone wakes him with intent to harm, they die…

Plus I would like to have my Barbarian rock band

The problem with party member quests will exist in any game where party members > party slots. Going from 4 to 6 mitigates that a bit, but it does not solve the underlying problem, which is that most games require you to have a party member in the party in order to do their quest.

This is really an arbitrary restriction and it seems like it would be fairly easy to lift. Just make up some handwaving BS about how only 4 people can fight at a time, but they are all with you. This isn't really any sillier than leaving multiple people in the camp. Realistically, if you have 9 powerful allies you would have them with you all the time, not just twiddling their thumbs in a camp.

All of these restrictions are arbitrary. Just balance encounters around N party members, and then lift the restrictions on requiring particular party members to be one of the N to complete their quest.

Larian is not increasing to 6. These arguments are moot & pointless on either side.

I'll repeat my thoughts since I haven't yet commented on this specific 4-vs-6 thread. We should have the option to use a 6-person party. Specifically,

- The default should be 4, and in the game settings there should be a checkbox "Enable 6-person party?" Personally I'd prefer 4 characters as it is less to micromanage, and if by default there was clear UI indicative of a 6-person party (e.g., empty portrait slots), I'd feel obligated to fill them and play with 6. Putting this option in game settings makes it seem like an *optional* way of playing instead of the *intended* way.

- The game doesn't need to be changed otherwise (aside from making sure the game *functions* for 6 players). Larian could just add that checkbox and 6-person functionality and change none of the encounters. If done this way, the checkbox should also say "Warning. BG3 is intended and balanced for a party of 4. Your experience with a 6-person-party may vary." Players could then play on higher levels of difficulty and/or install mods if they wanted a more challenging game.

- The easiest way to balance the game for a variable party size is using split exp. Each character in a 6-person-party gets less exp than a character in a 4 (or 3, or 1) person party. With some slight & relatively easy tweaks to this exp gain formula, the game would be balanced for all different party sizes, 1 to 6. I'd suggest that only the characters currently in your party gain exp, and party members left in camp are auto-leveled to always be no more than 1 level behind Tav.

You are all but guaranteed to get a mod for it, but native support is highly improbable.

It's almost like the argument wasn't about making predictions. Which is something that was already pointed.