Sorry if I'm giving the impression that I'm upset. I am not. Well, unless it's about overall expectations for BG3 in general I would say. Currently just struggling to comprehend the desire for party of 6 while disregarding any issues that might come with it.
And while I probably won't have time to make a 6-ppl playthrough to compare everything myself I cannot believe that ramping up party from 4 to 6 with current rules and no other adjustments changes very little in terms of combat. More carry capacity, more talk - no disagreement here, that is perfectly fine. But combat... Let's take the party I had for example - Warlock Tav, Shadowheart, Thief Astarion, Gale. Tends to fight at range but everyone outside of Gale can take a hit, although SH gets a staff later and becomes more of a backliner. Now add Laezel and Wyll - suddenly there's a pure frontliner and another Warlock that will most likely help keep enemies at range (unless he gets a more fitting subclass for his origin, then there's another frontliner). Balance immediately swings - now I suddenly have clearly dedicated frontline and clearly dedicated backline, so backline has much less worries about being hit while nothing changes for the enemies; that is already a much safer situation for the player. And the newcomers aren't just going to sit there - they are still adding to damage output of the party so it becomes much easier to pile up on enemies to remove them out of combat with lesser effort.While incoming damage remains teh same and can be managed much more efficiently. And that's not counting that level 5 will shake things even further eventually.
And while party of 4 is a more rigid composition every decision becomes much more important and more tactical. As I see it, party of 6 lessens the impact of a single character in current circumstancses as you get significantly more turns, more damage, more spellslots, etc. Gith patrol? IIRC there are 4 or 5 of them so now they're outnumbered and much more vulnerable to being focused, although they still have high HP and damage on their side. Bulette can probably die in one, max two turns. Goblin camp - as it takes some turns for goblins to converge on the party it becomes much easier to remove them one by one and get yourself into a better defensible position.
Yes, it would be different if Larian used true D&D stats, maybe better and I would actually like to see it. But that's not the approach Larian chose and I'm looking from currently existing gameplay perspective - and I think outside of few issues, BG3 has a decetly balanced and healthy difficulty. I think it's a little too late for "true D&D mode rebalance" simply because that will requre fully rebalacing every existing encounter - not just ones we know, but everything we did not get to see yet, and that's unlikely to be just copying numbers from books. I can see this happening after release though - so, when Larian's resources can be fully dedicated to the rebalance.
And I'm only against "give us party of 6 just by changing a number in a setting" approach, hell ,even throw the balance out of window. Because we do not know how tangled BG3's code is. We do not know how event and quest triggers interact if there are more people in party than intended and how much it can affect down the line. We do not know how easy it is to find and fix potential issues stemming from increasing party size. Maybe it's super easy and barely affects anything. Maybe it's surprisingly rigid and needs more effort to work out. But we do not know, hence I think it's better to assume the worst (or at least the worse). Asking for 6ppl mode is fine. Asking for it to be improperly implemented via a simple but lazy, untested and potentially unstable solution? Not a fair trabe-off as I see it. And I'm not a very fast at typing, so sorry if my answers might take too long to appear sometimes.