For everyone who thinks having the option of 2 more party members is bogus or "makes the game or combat too long" or makes "it too easy" or "you can multiclass to fix most problems", hear me out a bit. Here's my link to my thoughts on why I think it would be a lot of fun for the option of 6 party members. http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=685704#Post685704
I would like to add a few things to back that up.
1. 5e Core Rules
"The preceding guidelines assume that you have a party consisting of three to five adventureres... If the party contains six or more characters, use the next lowest multiplier on the table." - Page 83 D&D Dungeons Master's Guide
5e considers 4-5 to be standard while 6 or more being optional, totally up to the players and DM for party size. So Larian at the very least can give us max 5 party members if they're being picky with the rules. The reason why many players want the option (keyword option), is because it was an option in the original BG 1 and 2. This is a Baldur's Gate game, doesn't matter who's developing it. I wouldn't mind more elements from the original BG that would further improve BG3. (Party management and maneuvering being a few to list) I also would like to mention that many official WofC D&D adventure modules of both current and past editions are geared for 4-5 and/or 4-6 players. If you want "lore" to further prove my point, take a look at Drizzt companions. He has 5 total in his party. So what if players wanted to have fun and roleplay as Drizzt in BG3 and (hopefully have an option later to add fully other customize companions) his companions from the books?
2. Time management.
The fact that I have to sit and watch my clock during enemy turns against my party of 4 is bogus. For example: Goblin camp. That was about 25 enemies which would be considered a platoon (18-50 soldiers) against my 4 companions which is not even considered a squad (6*-10 soldiers), So already players are watching their clocks for the enemy to take their sweet time in current Early Access. If I had those extra 2 members, I would've had more chances taking out Goblins quickly.
3. Difficulty Levels
If players want a challenge, you have every right to do that and the option of 6 companions will not sour that experience. I honestly think the game should reward players who decide to take these challenges for a smaller party, just like in the original BG. The same amount of experience will be earned for encounters but if your party is smaller, each companion gets a bigger piece of the pie. So far it seems that the game rewards the same amount of exp. no matter how big or small the party size.
4. The game world is not designed for a bigger party
I'd beg to differ. Most battles have a large number of opponents and there is plenty of space for 2 more party members. If a warlock can have their minion and a ranger can have their pet in the same party of 4, It can fit more than four or even 6 playable characters in practically every area. For many of the old-school BG players. Remember Firewine Ruins and how claustrophobic it was? You almost had to move the party in a single file line in that dungeon. BG3 EA hasn't had any dungeons or areas as claustrophobic as Firewine Ruins and if they did, I'm sure it would be a challenging dungeon. Also, I hope to God Larian fixes the party movement and controls.
I don't see how an optional party of 6 would sour your experience if you really hate that idea. In fact it gives you more options and variety on how you want to approach the game. I thought that was the whole reason why we love RPG's the variety of possibilities and customizations.
Larian, if you're reading this, at least let us know why this wouldn't be possible. Many people who don't like the idea say because it's also "balancing issue" and needs a lot of resources. I'm positive that is an issue but if that is true then let's hear it from the horse's mouth and let us know why.
you have argued my points far better than i could, thank you and I could not agree more.
Originally Posted by jonn
Originally Posted by RKane
Originally Posted by Ghorunt
Originally Posted by RKane
So don't play in a 6 man party. What he's advocating for is the ability to do so. I think you're both shooting down the idea in spite of the fact that the game will be balanced around 4 people anyway so your experience wont change
If you balance the game around 4 characters but allow a party of 6, everyone will have 6 characters in their party anyway
How do you know?
Originally Posted by Ghorunt
and this would make the game too easy. If you want to go that route, it makes more sense allowing this option with a mod instead.
Why do you care if it makes the game easier for a group of 6? You're not asking for this feature so you have no business talking about balance
Also, I should point out that in divinity, the number of people who did lone wolf duo's seemed to be just as many people looking for 4. In fact, I'd be interested in the ratio between the number of 2:3:4 man games played. I would put money on the fact that full 4 man runs would have the lowest percent as it seemed impossible to find a group of 4 people to actually commit to the entire game.
Also, as I've said in a previous quote, and countless times, balance is a completely pointless criticism to an otherwise reasonable and valid suggestion / request. It's not your job to worry about such a trivial task. Anything can be balanced after the fact.
Opposing a feature request because you 'worry about the balance' is childish and annoying. It's a deadweight opinion based on an entirely selfish desire to cockblock others for no reason whatsoever.
TL;DR, I've yet to see any valid reasons to oppose this idea. If your only concern is balance, just say "I'd wouldn't mind as long as the balance is done right". Don't go round saying "I oppose this because I worry they might ruin the balance for a situation I never intend to play". It's really selfish. Stop offering dead weight opinions and use your head. There is a very simple solution to this and would be trivial to keep everyone happy.
I'm only opposed to it until the devs come out and say that it is something they will be able to manage along with all the other improvements they want to make. Until then it is a possibility, no matter how much you shout, scoff and name-call, that this could use up resources that could be better used elsewhere. For me and many others the extra party size isn't that big of a deal.
I don't see why this should be such a big problem for them to implement, they are not a small indy dev that needs kickstarter to fund there games anymore. This is a AAA game with a AAA level amount of staff behind it, I believe they have over 200 people working on this so a few set aside to create a valid way to play with a six player party should not be too big of an undertaking for them or divert many resources away for the 4 man experience.
You say that for you and many others that the extra party members is not a big deal, but what about those of us that clearly want this quite a lot, do you deny us that option because you don't want it? Also what if it was a quarter of the player base that wanted this, or half, what then would you say to the party size been an option so people can choose what they want? Because thats all we want, the option to play how we want, not to take away the options already implemented that allow you to play how you want.
