I don't mind a 4 person party. It's not the worst thing in the world. But 5 would be far more comfortable and also make for more diverse party compositions.
I'm going to make a comparison to MMO's. Completely different genre, I know and that might not be fair. But the Problem is very similar and relates. Particularly compared to FFXIV Online. But it is a problem many "new" (post WoW) MMO's have.
That is called the Trinity. Let's say you have a raid, you have 2 tanks, 2 healers, 4 DPS. There are no utility jobs. Or if there are, they are niche and not desired to be in the party. But in most cases with MMO's nowadays, again, using FFXIV as an example, a Bard is considered a DPS. A red mages is a DPS, and so on. It's a set group of those 3 kinds of jobs. No room for a true support job. Those classes may have support abilities integrated into them, but they're still a DPS. Certain jobs are preferred over others. Because there is no room for a class that doesn't offer the maximum amount of optimal output.
Final Fantasy XI Online did it extremely well. A standard party is 6. A tank, mage, healer, 2 DPS, support job. In that game there were several support jobs. You were encouraged to experiment. Much of the content in that game required support based classes.
Granted BGIII isn't a MMO but I feel a similar can occur. Instead of a Trinity we have a Rectology? lol. Or Rectangle based system. By having only 4 members, you limit the ability to designate someone to a utility/support job. Granted we can still have a varied composition of members, but many people are presumably less likely to experiment with classes. The average player will probably go Warrior/Rogue/Damage Dealer x2. Otherwise they might think their damage output is too low. Or survivability. Adding even 1 extra slot to party members creates a possibility of so much more diversity and party experimentation. I hope 5 members at the very least get considered.
I know exactly what you are trying to say and agree completely, I may be boring and not thinking outside the box if i want a rouge to open locks and disarm traps, and a cleric for healing with a wizard for offensive spells and a paladin as my tank, hell I like having two tanks and a fighter that can all hold the line and then a ranged backline that can rain hell down from above.
Also off topic side note: I've been a White Mage main since 2.0 PS3 beta, but my favourite FF job has always been Red Mage, however I never switched over when they added it because it didn't feel like the jack of all trades master on none it was meant to be, as a healer I was hoping for something that would fill the role of a healer in a pinch when desperate. But because it had to fit the trinity everything just feels lacklustre. But I do plan on my first or second character been a Bard in BG3, if they do it right I should be able to build it fairly close to the Red Mage archetype, they may even put in an appropriate feathered hat, or at least that's my hope. My first two full playthrough is going to be Cleric and Bard because i'm boring and sticking to what I know and like.
Originally Posted by coredumped
Hi, I am also in favour of having a maximum of 6 party members.
As many people have already argued here, using the argument that it slows down the game is silly. What slows down the game is the fact that they turned this into a turn based game (I think it's a horrible approach, but not gonna get into that here). The combat is already incredibly slow and dull with a 4 man party. And guess what... It's even slower and duller the more you reduce the party size because you have to wait longer and longer for the enemies to finish whatever they're doing before you can play again. So, if the issue at hand was merely the fact that it would "slow down the game", it would in fact improve it in every way as you can dispose of enemies faster, have more synergies and most important of all, you can actually play more often during combat.
Using balance as an argument is pretty uninformed (I guess it's the best way to put it without using other less cordial terms). Balance is something for the developers to worry about. We as early access players giving feedback are pretty much a sweat-shop QA team. Our job as individuals who want to better the game is give the suggestions we feel would do exactly that. We are not here to babysit them and say "oh, but the poor lonely devs already have other Jira cards open in their dashboard... let's not give them more work". That's... stupid. A 6 man party would better the game for a great variety of reasons which have already been stated here, so if you're gonna argue, use arguments that actually have an impact in the GAMEPLAY AND THE PLAYERS, not the developers. This is their job, they are paid to do it, and you pay for the end product. Not to mention that balancing in this area of party members has been done for many years successfully. As anyone who's played the original Baldur's Gates can tell you, and they are over 20 years old.
With these issues aside, I feel the biggest problem with having a 4 man party as a maximum is that it is extremely restrictive to the player. Most people will want to have a balanced party. I don't care if you can make Gale into a swiss-army man and have him lockpick, disarm traps, charge a boss on a flaming unicorn wielding a staff and magic missiles. To me this just seems like I'm playing DOS 2 again, where every character does everything. This just removes uniqueness from your companions and the idea of roles (which I feel most people who enjoy DnD games like) kinda goes out the window. DnD games are amazing for many reasons and party management is one of them. 4 man means you're locked into a core that you can't really change without gimping yourself in effectiveness and/or fun. You'll most likely want a front liner to deal melee damage and/or tank (say a fighter), a support which can buff, heal, disable (e.g. cleric or druid), someone with utility for exploring, scouting, lockpicking, disarming traps, etc. (like a rogue) and a spell caster. Sure you have a party that can finish the game but you have no room for imagination or fun.
Also, regarding the mods argument: Sure, eventually modders can make a mod for the party to have a maximum of 6 members if Larian does nothing about this, but it is much better to have the actual people who are developing the game and have the insight and ability to fine tune it and balance it properly to do so as it would no doubt lead to a much better experience for everyone.
But people in sweatshops actually get paid for their work, It might not be a lot but they still get something, whereas we are paying Larian for the privilege of been exploited. I agree with you on pretty much everything, and while modders could do it it would never not be janky, temperamental and or work as well as what Larion could do while they are still finishing off the game, they are big enough now and well funded enough that they should have the resources to do this themselves. Regardless of who is making the game it has the name Baldur's Gate attached to it so I expect it to feel like Baldur's Gate and not another part in their own franchise that they already have, differentiating the party size and allowing us the party flexibility and compositions we are used to from previous entries would go a long way to make it feel like a Baldur's Gate game, at least to me.
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Maybe less EXP for bigger parties and more for smaller ones
That's exactly how it works in D&D and in the old BG. I'm sure Larian know it.
More specifically, since in Larian games basically only the main character levels up and others simply keep up with him, what you are supposed to do is to adjust how much exp he gets according to how many partners he carries around. Which is the norm. People talking about it as an obscure method that would require the longest, most elaborate inspection when it has been tried and tested over YEARS of practical use are ridiculous.
Vaguely legitimate worries, if any, would rather be that: - you can eventually exploit this system levelling up faster and THEN grouping more companions anyway. - at some point all characters are going to hit a level cap anyway.
To both the most appropriate response is "SO FUCKING WHAT?" It's irrelevant. Just more fake concerns, in practical terms. These games are never "finely tuned" to make possible barely edging them. There's always a massive headroom making them completable at any skill level with a far from optimal setup.
That is true. You could level up with 2 early on and then turn act 3 into butter with your high level group of 6. I like a more challenging and less exploitable game. I think DOS2 had extra game options you could select that would change the game, but disable achievements. Maybe they could do that for 6 player party mode
That was what I said in my OP, make it a toggleable option before you start a new game that comes with a disclaimer about wonky balance and achievements will therefore be disabled.
Originally Posted by pincup
I'm content with 4 companions, someone at Reddit summed it up nicely but judging by responses, this forum is filled with die hard fans of 6 members and no matter arguments everyone against them will hit a wall so why bother. 4 that's the number and I hope it stays that way
All we are asking for here is an option that a large portion of the player base wants, we don't want to take away your option to play with the settings that you find best and most fun, would you deny us even the possibility of having simply the option to play with the settings and party size we want?
Originally Posted by arion
Originally Posted by Sir Sparhawk
Larian has already confirmed that the level cap is 10
I just love these arguments-4 person party was good enough in DOS, why change? Well maybe ask Larian to make another DOS game and leave Baldurs Gate to us ?
Here here +1
Originally Posted by kanisatha
It's clear to me what's missing in these discussions is that four takes away from those who like six, but six does NOT take anything away from those who like four. They can still play their game with four (or less). As for game "balance," you just balance the game for whatever number you decide as the developer, and then have a warning with the toggle to increase party size that says: hey, doing this may make your combat unchallenging. Including choices so different players can play and enjoy their game as they want is NEVER a bad thing. Not ever.
I also think that thats what a lot of the people who like the 4 man set-up are missing, we only want the option to have 6 party members, and they never give an opinion on us simply have the option to choose how many people we can take with us.