@Warlocke I'm a casual so I can't claim to have my ear the ground as far as gamer's preferences but from the places I tend to hang out -- here, obsidian, beamdog, reddit 4 party members seems to a narrative particular to this game. In fact on Obsidian people were upset that the game only had 5. I suspect that '4 party keeps combat from dragging on' is narrative that started with talking points from the devs.
So yeah, we agree that were speaking in the absence of data and such. And this is also response to @danieldba --
When I think of the battles I've really like in turn based games -- second level of TOEE, the demon doctor from DOS2, the pirates in POE2 (turn based) I think that they were much longer than the battles in BG3 so far. In BG / DnD the tactics should come from the party.
A good IWD party was 1 fighter, 1 ranger, 1 thief, 1 cleric, 1 buffing mage, 1 striking mage Tons of fun. Then you could replay with putting bards, buffing clerics and the like into the slot. Felt like D&D and not DOS.
Using Argyle's metaphor. 4 party members feels like cold porridge, 6 like cold ice cream. Dunno what that does with his Goldilocks analogy but it gives me an excuse to talk about oatmeal and ice cream
As the OP said, 4 party formations work best in a classless game. In DOS2 I just went back the mirror whenever I wanted new tactics -- not something you can do in BG. In BG a diverse party is the equivalent of the respec mirror.
6 member party is essential if the devs want to end the DOS3 complaints.
