Since this topic is already a 90 page shitstorm let's add a bit more to it. I think 5 member party size is the optimum. Prove me wrong over the next 90 pages. Have fun!
Um, when it comes to opinions, it's your job to prove yourself right, not someone else's job to prove you wrong.
Just kidding obviously. Never understood why some people on the forum are so determined 6 people in party is a determining factor for anything. I've read pages and pages of people trying to prove their point about it. The only one that actually makes sense is party compositions might be a tad more intereseting with 6 characters since you have more classes to mix together. But ...that's it. Everything else is really a matter of taste.
Is it? Maybe you missed ALL the reasons I've given previously as to why Party of 6 makes more sense for this game. It isn't just a matter of taste.
What about:
1. Party of 6 allows for Party of 4 actual Players in multiplayer mode and 2 origin characters, thus allowing people to play together and still have a couple of character slots so you can do origin character story missions/quests and so forth - allowing for origin character dialogues and so forth with a full party of 4 players. 2. Party of 6 allows for more party dialogues. I did the party of 6 mod where you tweak the max party size number. I hate mods, but I made an exception because I cared about this one so much. Turns out, your characters have a lot more dialogues and seem more like a cohesive party and unit when you have 1 Custom Character and the 5 origin characters all traveling together in one party at one time. Yes, they actually talk more when you have all of them together. 3. Party of 6 allows for less frustration in tougher combats. For example, if a duergar shoves Lae'zel 30+ feet into lava for a 1-Hit KO, you still have 5 other party members, meaning you aren't quite as hindered in the fight as you would be with only 3. Instead of losing 1/4th of your team in just one stupid move, you only lose 1/6th. Still a sucky thing, but you can live with it. 4. You can carry more with a party of 6, meaning you don't have to manage items as much, constantly shifting things around or sending one item at a time to camp because you just can't pick up that beloved spoon you spotted in the treasure chest in the basement of the toll house. When I was traveling with the party of 6, I could easily spread out the items and keep going without having to stop and manage them so much. (This one wasn't as big a deal for me, but it was still something.) 5. Party of 6 makes it so you don't have to constantly return to camp and switch out party members when wanting to do an origin character side quest like Lae'zel and Zorru or Wyll and Spike. You can keep all the current origin characters with you all the time and not have to worry about constantly switching them out. 6. It makes more sense that if you are going to go face a squad of gith who have a dragon, that you might bring everyone you have with you for the fight. Makes no sense to be "full up" with a party of 4 and then go to face some super tough enemies one-on-one. If I'm going to enter a phase spider matriarch's lair or face a horde of goblins, I might want to bring a bigger party. 7. Combat would be actually more balanced with a 5e ruleset if they implemented party of 6 instead of party of 4. EVERY combat currently is a Deadly encounter if they were to actually implement 5e rules and stats for monsters. 3 Imps against 2 Level 1 characters is insane. 3 Imps against 5 level 1 characters (4 custom and Lae'zel and/or Shadowheart) is not so insane. Same with 3 intellect devourers. Same with skeleton magic users. Same with actual bandits/mercenaries. Same with gnolls on the road. Same with 4 githyanki. Same with phase spiders.
I could go on and on and on and on, as I have in this thread, but I think that should be enough to show that it's more than taste. There are a LOT of gameplay elements that are currently hindered by a party size of 4. Again, party of 4 limits people who want a party of 6 while party of 6 does not hinder a party of 4.
So why?
I'm currently playing Divinity original sin 2 with a party size of 7 and another with 8 the only issue I have, is that the game was meant for 5 at max when it comes to UI compatibility. At least when playing with a controller, it works fine with a mouse and keyboard. So Baldur's gate 3 will definitely suffer the same issue. Which is why I'm saying it's better if it was a real option instead of a mod.
Fights are fun, the story feels extremely fresh and more indepth as everyone now interact in ways that wasn't there when there was just 4 of us. I'm playing on the hardest mode and don't have to cheese as much, there's no "abusing the system" needed, I can really enjoy the game without breaking immersion, I'm finally using weapons I'll never used and tbh, I probably can't go back to 4, because I play co op too, and it's fun asf.
There's no extreme Min and Maxing needed, I can casually enjoy the game.
Options is always great imo, the more freedom of choice the better.
I'm on one side of the map doing the Lizard's mission, my co op buddy has her own squad on the Blood island, we're both enjoying the story with no real limitations. Fights are fun and when we both fight together or separatly with our team it feels great. Because for once, the story doesn't revolve around me alone, like I'm some omnipotent being who have to deal with every single issue that comes up, whoever stumbles here or there first deals with this or that first it changes the story up, the game feels more alive, she has her own choices that I have no say in. Her party members don't even like me, and that's refreshing, because their loyalty lies with her. I bet you can't give another game that gives this kind of experience out there, or if there are games, it doesn't number more than fingers on our hand.
So imagine if Baldur's gate 3 allows more party members, a game that's suppose to be bigger than Div 2? It'll make it that much better tbh. People whining about difficulty act as if you can't up or lower it to suit yourself. It's literally a single player, co op game, it'll not affect anyone besides those playing together.
The funnest thing about games like Skyrim with mods is that, you're making your own game, the way you want with all sorts of options, the reason why today, it's still being enjoyed by people around the world is the freedom to choose and tinker.
Hell, even today they've finally made a multiplayer, co op mod for Skyrim, which took near 5 years to make. If it was offered already in the first place, modders wouldn't have to struggle.
So I don't see how adding more option is going to hurt the game and anyone besides these players who enjoys telling other people how to play.
These same players are probably the same folks saying they paid for college and people today should too, when stuff like taking college debt away comes up or making it free in general pops up. It's full of the "I don't get the option or don't want to use it so you shouldn't be able to" mentality.
"Oh you play with friends? Well I don't have friends, so that option should be limited because it makes us socially inept folks feel better when you guys can't enjoy the game to its maximum potential."
Kind of childish imo.
I'm currently playing these new dnd games I've never before and the only thing holding me back from buying Baldur's gate 3 is the inability to get more than 4 players, I'm playing part one rn and it's fun, in its own way. I got Pathfinder wrath of the fury too, bound to play that soon in a few months, so I'm not really strap for options when it comes to game tbvh. It's not like I'll miss out om Baldur's gate 3.
Because by the time it comes out, I bet there's already other gamss out to play.
Been waiting to test Ghost of Tsusiba or whatever too.
