Originally Posted by Malkie
Originally Posted by Alodar
I disagree completely.

Six players would slow down combat.
Not only would you be adding 2 more bodies on the players side you would need to add additional monsters to make combats challenging.
Six players could mean as many as 6 more turns for combats and that's just too much.

Nonsense, this is the entire reason encounter difficulty exists in 5e. This is the opinion of DM that doesn't know how to tailor encounters to a party.

I hope the irony of you referring to 5E's encounter balance system is not lost on you. 5E Challenge Rating is based off a party of 4 ...

It should be obvious that a combat balanced for a party of 6 takes longer than a combat balanced for a party of 4 even with the same number of bad guys.
You are taking 2 extra turns every round compared to the party of four.

If you are facing more bad guys to challenge your increased numbers the bad guys turns will take longer as well.

There is no situation where combat balanced for a party of 6 doesn't take longer than combat balanced for a party of 4.

Originally Posted by Alodar
You really need to explore the backgrounds in 5E. A dedicated thief is no longer necessary. With the Urchin background you gain proficiency in both stealth and Sleight of hand which allows any Dex character to sneak and pick locks/remove traps.

Originally Posted by Malkie
True to an extent, however proficiency and expertise are different things, and is not allowing for party diversity instead your just making a sub par rogue crossed with a sub par something else. Background don't fix this.

Except the character you add the Urchin background isn't sub-par at anything. Any Dex based character can have the Urchin background, lose nothing from their main class and still be able to lock pick and go stealthy when needed

Originally Posted by Alodar
There are lots of options, and the smaller the party the more re-playable the game and the more strategy you have to employ.

Originally Posted by Malkie
So less party flexibility and player agency means more replay value? That's not how that works. Go read my lengthy post above where I talk about the notion of "more strategy and inventive solutions" with smaller party, 9 times out of 10 this means go find your own favourite way to cheese.

Just so you are aware pulling statistics out of your butt is a common tactic for folks who don't have a viable argument.
Players who want to cheese encounters will cheese encounters. Here's a site that lists many of the cheese tactics players used in BG2 (https://sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/SpellsReference/Stuff/Cheese.htm) which should be noted had a party of 6.

Originally Posted by Malkie

Your argument for replay value works in a system without classes, not one with rigid class progression, smaller party means less flexibility, in turn this means each playthrough has a much more cookie cutter party composition which results in much less replay value. Your dialogue and decisions might differ from one playthrough to the next, but that is only one aspect of replay value, the more places you provide the opportunity for variety the more your overall variety grows exponentially. Akin to RNG layering, each layer provides exponential growth in possible outcomes. To make your claim of replay value is to show a staggering lack of understanding of how mathematics applies to the implementation, of course you make other mathematically anomalous claims in your post but i'll get to that.

So many accusations and so wrong.

Let's assume 5 in game companions ( B,C,D,E,F) and a party of 6. (You're playing character A)
First time through your party is A,B,C,D,E,F
Next time through your party is A,B,C,D,E,F
Third time through your party is A,B,C,D,E,F

Conversations don't change. Tactics don't change. The only variety is your character.

Same scenario, but party of 4:
First time through your party is A,B,C,D
Next time through your party is A,C,E,F
Third time through your party is A,B,D,F

Conversations are different, Tactics are different. By definition more variety.
If you do the math, which you seem to think you're an expert in, 6 choose 4 has 15 different combinations. 6 choose 6 has 1 combination.

Originally Posted by Alodar
There has been no combat in Early Access that I've thought that I needed two more characters to be more effective

Originally Posted by Malkie
This has nothing to do with why people want more party members. Its about player agency and replay value, about having variety in your playthroughs.

As shown above a party of 4 has more replay value and more variety.

Originally Posted by Alodar
Six players would slow down combat, decrease re-playablity, and lessen the strategy required to succeed.
That's a hard no from me.

Nothing you've said disputes any of these points.
Larian has already said that they have not hard coded the party size and that those who wish to Mod a party of 6 are free to do so after full release.