Party size must be 6 people

[Janissary]

There are many classes in the game. However, the fact that the party size is 4 people prevents us from enjoying all of these classes.
If this is a baldur's gate game, the party number must be 6 people.
Also, there are few side characters right now. There were more than 15 side characters in previous games. The number of side characters should be increased.

[Planeforger]

I'm sure there'll be more recruitable characters. I think we've even met a few of them, but they're from classes that aren't currently playable.

I doubt there'll be 15 playable characters though, because these characters have more interaction and more voice acting than the characters from the previous games.

As for the party size...5e campaigns tend to be balaced for ~4 party members. More would be nice, of course, but then Larian would have to completely redesign every encounter so far (plus combat would be so much slower with two extra characters and two characters' worth of enemies).

[Edstyles]

NO thanks. Turn based takes too long as it is. IF you want to enjoy other chars why not do a different playthrough?

[Яeplicant]

You know, party size could actually be anything. Also, it's not what defined Baldur's Gate in the first place... and just to get it out of the way, neither did RTwP.

As for companions, there will be more to come. Not sure how many, though.

[aclyte]

At one hand, yes, 6ppl is more Bg like and it's good when u can get more dialogue interactions/replics with your party in game situations

At other hand, 6ppl party become powerhouse too quick in D&D games - too much synergies between classes and when Priest + bard + mage buffs 6ppl party they just obliterates everything after lv7 or so...

So 4 it's ok, imo - we should try first

[Slapstick]

No thanks. I'd rather have more replayability and less management and quicker combats, thank you very much.

[Mr_hanky]

Nahh four is fine

[larsh1964]

I find 4 characters more than enough. If you want to play the other followers you just shift them around. I do that depending on what I am up to. Also it adds to the replayability if you want to stick to one specifik group, the time you play other class and have different parties. Works fine for me. 6 player group is to crowded and makes it most of the time to easy.

[dolby]

+1 sick of explaining why... just do it!!!

Originally posted by larsh1964:

I find 4 characters more than enough. If you want to play the other followers you just shift them around. I do that depending on what I am up to. Also it adds to the replayability if you want to stick to one specifik group, the time you play other class and have different parties. Works fine for me. 6 player group is to crowded and makes it most of the time to easy.

and? you do you!

So cos you 4 man party we got to suffer? You can still do all those things if you want even if they raise the party cap. Nothing is stopping you form playing with 4 is there...

And about crowded that just bull cos if you look at combat like the gates at Druid grove there is way more then 4 combatants per side and it's not crowded at all and one more or two wouldn't change one thing...

the game is to easy as it is with 4 so not a valid complaint...the only valid reason could be Multiplayer and Larion not wanting to do it the rest is just crap talk..

[Dornbrötchen]

Not sure why people are against it. There is always the option to lower the party size but for now there is no option for a bigger party, which i like more so, i support the 6 man party

[Trotzki's Strongest Soldier]

6 would be great, but I think just 5 would do the job as well. In my experience, 5e is best played in groups of 5. 4 just doesn't give us enough space to breathe when building a balanced party as you have barely enough space to fulfill all the mandatory roles of a D&D party (the standard party is (melee) fighter, cleric, wizard, (charismatic) rogue as that covers all the bases: frontline, healing, utility, AOE, skills). It's also a shame to have so many companions just sit in camp.

[ThatMetalHead]

4 party members is perfect for this game and on the companions, they are interchangeable you can literally just go to camp and swap your entire party if you want.

There will be more companions, the ones in now are the "evil" companions as they want to see how players react to the evil path while they tailor the "good" path.

[Planeforger]

Originally posted by Dornbrötchen:

Not sure why people are against it. There is always the option to lower the party size but for now there is no option for a bigger party, which i like more so, i support the 6 man party

My only hesitation is encounter balance.

If they allow up to 6 party members, do they design encounters for 4 party members or 6? If they design it for 4, will the game be too easy if you add another 1-2 party members? If they design it for 6, will the game's difficulty essentially force you to use 6 members - and endure the much slower battles that would bring?

It's a tricky problem. Adding or removing a single party member significantly changes the balance in 5e, so it's not something that can be done lightly.

[NotMisty]

I think 5 is a good middle ground. I, too, want to use other characters and see them interact but one spot is always reserved for Astarion lmao. Combat wise 4 is just fine tho

[Enigmatory]

Originally posted by Janissary:

There are many classes in the game. However, the fact that the party size is 4 people prevents us from enjoying all of these classes.
If this is a baldur's gate game, the party number must be 6 people.
Also, there are few side characters right now. There were more than 15 side characters in previous games. The number of side characters should be increased.

Thing is that you don't need rogue ro pick locks and disarm traps. There is no irreplaceble classes in 5e. Just take characters you want and adapt them to your playstyle.
5e have 13 classes. Do you want 13 party size?

[Admod, the Equivocal]

Originally posted by Edstyles:

NO thanks. Turn based takes too long as it is.

Welcome to DnD. lol