Every D&D game so far that allowed for a party ranged from 1 to 6 characters, starting precisely with the two previous Baldur's Gate games, had to face the same exact "problem" of being capped with the exp/level at some point and it was never a particularly limiting factor. Not even for playing SOLO, let alone for having an oscillation of one or two party members. Some players enjoyed the added challenge and weren't particularly troubled by it, others went for the bigger party because liked to manage more characters.
It's a fake problem you are advocating for just for the sake of being petulant about an "issue" that wouldn't even affect you to any degree.
Also, the very assumption that turn-based combat would make HARDER to manage more characters is a load of bullshit, especially when it's most likely the opposite. Josh Sawyer himself went on record saying that if POE II was designed to be turn-based from the get go he probably wouldn't have lowered the party size to 5 and mentioned as an example Battle Brothers being great with a default party of 12 characters.
Quote
It very relevant. Every other game like Pathfinder or Pillars of Eternity has braindead enemies that walk into fire, never wake their allies from sleeping, get tanked by summons immune to damage, etc. Difficulty in these games is superficial, because no matter how many hps or damage your enemies have they can easily be defeated by using very basic tactics that simply do not work in BG3 because of better AI.
What part of the point "If your encounter requires the AI to get dumber to work, then you probably have to redesign the encounter itself" did you miss?
Last edited by Tuco; 17/10/2109:41 AM.
Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
