Originally Posted by zsuszi
If we got more companion later 4 is extremly few and lacking, especially if u make your own hero (and why the hell not) . Plus yes I not really bothered the updated DOS engine + combat, and to be honest I think its really fitting for BG3 and close to the tabletop type gameplay BUT with bigger party size would be mor BG for me too.

When they announce that Larian was making BG3 I just assumed that it would be a six player party since it was BG3 and not DOS3, been an old school player and growing up with the original BG games I was really against it been turn based instead of RTwP but have since come round to the idea and am willing to give it a fair chance, but for this to feel like BG over DOS you are absolutely right that 6 party members will go a long way.
Originally Posted by PumatsHole

Adding a dissenting voice here. You do not "need" a mage / cleric / any one role in a game based on the 5e system. The difference between a party of 4 and party of 5 is massive and will trivialize most encounters in a way that cannot be fixed by simply adding more HP. A party of 6 in this game would be preposterous.

You can heal by eating food (let alone by resting essentially at any time for free), and the game is much more combat focused than a traditional session of D&D where skills and utility spells are not nearly as significant. There is much less need here for a balanced party that covers all possible bases than there is in D&D 5e, which is already very forgiving in terms of party composition needs.

Originally Posted by tieboyx
The tabletop recommends a party size of 4, and in the turn based system, trash encounters would become a slog if they were balanced for 6 players, since they would have to add more mobs in each encounter to compensate.

Are you absolutely against a six man party under all circumstances? I agree maybe four would be a good base the game to be built on but do you disagree with even just the option to increase the party size for those that want it?

And I don't think bringing up D&D in its TTRPG form is a good argument, their you have a flesh and blood DM that can tweak every aspect of the game on the fly to accommodate the party and even fudge his own dice roles behind the screen to make things easier or harder as needed, where as every encounter in a computer game will be pretty much set in stone where suboptimal party builds will either not be viable or require immense amounts of grinding to overcome the challenges, where the DM around the table can naturally and seemlessly taylor the difficulty to said suboptimal party build.
Originally Posted by YelloB

I understand there are arguments for a 4 man party max, having to do with encounter length and people apparently having trouble keeping up with managing 6 characters and their abilities. At least some such arguments were being made when Pillars of Eternity wanted to cut down the party from 1 to 2. Also there is and argument for wanting to limit the tools a party has at their disposal to encourage creative solutions to problems and Larian seem to like that kind of thing. But the truth is this will lead to pretty much every party being the same utility based one with 1 healer 1 rogue and the other 2 switching depending on the PC class.

6 characters wont take away the utility party problem entirely. Even with Baldur's Gate 1&2 There is always high pressure to have at least the healer and rogue. But atleast 6 party members leaves some slack there to play with.

Now BG3 is obviously turn based which makes the encounter length problem more prominent than in the real time with pause titles. But I would rather leave this up to the player and perhaps inform the player that with a bigger party combats will likely take longer.

I disagree with the OP about just plonking in the option for 6 party members without any balance considerations. I'd actually prefer a tweakable difficulty with the option for the player to increase the amount of enemies in combat situations. Give the player some of the DM's balancing power so to speak. I recently played BG1 again and I was kinda sad that I could not simply increase enemy amounts and would have been forced to also give them more health. I wanted core rules but with a bit more enemies.

Ofcourse this also puts a bit more pressure for having more companions. BG1 had tons, and I'm still not sure I've ever met them all. BG1 companions were also super simple with just a few combat barks and no dialogue. So it is going to require way more resources from Larian to add a full fledged companion. Pros and cons.

Originally Posted by Zress
The thing with 4 characters is that you are kinda forced to take specific members. In my playthrough I feel forced to take Shadowheart, Astarion and Lae'zel because they add something I need like a frontliner and healer and a rogue that can lockpick and find traps. But I would really rather hang around with Wyll and Gale which are much more nice and friendly and interesting to me. But in a way I feel I can't because then combat and exploration will be really really hard.

Please don't mistake my OP, I would dearly love for a six player party game to be properly balanced, but I think that if the difficulty settings are varied and good enough Larian wont have to do to much them selves to balance it as it will be achievable in the difficulty settings, if you can increase enemy group sizes or have it so stronger or evolved forms or better classes of the same enemies appear there will be a lot we can do with game rules to balance a party of six our selves.