Having the possibility to play 6 adventurers is far from being my top priority (the low quality of the gameplay makes me put a lot of things higher than this). But I don't like seeing bad arguments. And this argumentation is flawed on such a large, large scale.

1.a. At the moment, the game is anything but balanced. You can't break something that was never whole to being with. (Note/digression : I don't necessary view this as bad. I'd prefer that Larian waits until they have implemented all the classes and the game's max level, before they move to the balancing/fine-tuning of encounters.)

1.b. That it would take a long time is light years from being obvious. In fact, adjusting a game that would be balanced for 4 adventurers to a game balanced for 6 adventurers can start with a simple rule of thumb. With 6 turns per round instead of 4, the player has 50% more actions and thus firepower : increase enemy HP by 50%. Also, the player's team has 50% more HP. Increase enemy damage by 50%. Bam, first draft done, 30sec of dev time. Of course, that may need testing (perhaps adding goblins is better than buffing their stats, etc). But the first draft is fast.

Also, nothing prevent Larian from saying "hey, we balanced the game for 4 adventurers. If you have 6, nothing in the game will be adjusted and you'll have a much easier game. Feel to increase the difficulty to whatever seems appropriate for you". Indeed, the game will have difficulty options.

2. Really bad argument. A poor movement/party control system isn't a good reason to keep the number of characters low : it's a poor feature to ditch and rework while it's still Early Access. If anything, your argument would call for playing BG3 single player with a solo adventurer.

(Side note : in DnD 5E, allies can move through each other. Larian just didn't get this part right. But their engine allows character to move through each other, as can be seen when they climb ladders.)

3. Really depends at what you choose to measure. If the number of enemies is unchanged, having 6 adventurers instead of 4 means you spend a larger fraction a round's time actually playing.

4. Agreed, you don't need 6 classes. But if some players want more companions and banter in their games ?

5. Artificially increasing replayability by limiting the number of companions you can have is a very poor tactics.

And speaking for myself, given how horrendous the UI is across the board (and how shallow the ruleset feels), I'm not sure I'll want to be forced to make a 2nd/3rd/4th playthrough to experience more narrative content.

6. False. As you mentioned in your point 1., there is this notion called balance. Playing with 6 adventurers does not have to be less challenging. Also, for the record, different players find their fun in different ways.

p.s. : sigh ... I'm really much too slow at writing.

Last edited by Drath Malorn; 24/02/22 10:40 PM. Reason: p.s.