Party size not big enough

I’m very disappointed that Larian is cutting the party size down to 4. I don’t feel like a 4 person party is going to be a true representative of a Baldur’s Gate game.

1 Like

That’s because it is baldur’s gate only in name.

1 Like

Whilst it’s a negative for me too, isn’t a 4 member party the standard that the modern tabletop RPGs write for? Even Pathfinder.

1 Like

If it’s a choice between three party members with actual storylines and reactivity, or five party members with random one-liners and inconsistent content, maybe it’s best to let the past stay in the past.


Install the inevitable Party Size mod and don’t look back. :+1:


Whilst it’s a negative for me too, isn’t a 4 member party the standard that the modern tabletop RPGs write for? Even Pathfinder.

Yes it is. It seems to me that BG3 is getting really praised by those who love PnP Tabletop Games (D&D, Pathfinder, etc) while getting bashed by some diehard old style cRPG fans. The game will be good, just not the same as before but there’s nothing wrong with it.


I loved the main-character driven narrative of BG, the multiple party (and relatively shallow) IWD, and both styles of play in Kingmaker care of the mercenary and Tenebrous DLC.

I’m fine with this, and fine with larger parties that might come with future BG3 DLC etc.

My only concern is where I’m going to find time for any of this to matter…


Yeah, true story. :sweat_smile:

I am fine with Party size, and honestly I just need to see more of the game. The little bit I saw was very Divinity 2 in appearance, and very little of the Baldur’s Gate vibe. I fully get and accept it’s a new generation of gamers. That said there were certain things that made it Baldur’s gate(character driven story, party combat, interesting npcs, choices, etc). Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2 were very different games but kept a lot of the fundamentals of what made the story good and interesting. They clearly chose to make Baldur’s Gate 3 and not Divinity Original Sin 3. To me that is more than just Divinity in a Faerun setting, and I hope they understand that.

One of the major issues I had with Divinity Original Sin 2, and it was mentioned in several reviews, all the characters with premade backstories were far more interesting than making a character created from scratch. Ultimately Baldur’s Gate was about the fact any man, woman, race, class, could fit the narrative. I fear this time they have stories they want to tell, rather than the story I want to experience.

1 Like

Sure, but playing as them was less fun because you didn’t really get to banter with them, or hear their voices/personalities clearly. You spend the whole game playing as someone else, not “your” character.

This is what I would be counting on as well. Clearly the party size reduction is a decision made to support co-op in the game and makes me think single-player is secondary to the devs and co-op is what they are building the game for as the default way to play the game. As someone who will NEVER do co-op/multiplayer, that does make me a little angry.

I had the same reaction: 4 characters, WTF. As I thought about it more, though, 4 characters was plenty for DOS and I now wonder whether my reaction was knee jerk because it was different for BG1/2. That said, I do think that the 5th and 6th slots are important to personalize your party. Slots 1-4 almost always cover the 4 roles of meat shield, full divine, full arcane, and lockpicker/trapdisarmer. It isn’t until the 5th and 6th slots that you can indulge in “fun” picks. For me, that means the warlock monster hunter will never make the cut over Gail, the full arcane caster. I remain open to persuasion.

I didn’t know this until I stumbled across this post. I’m a little disappointed myself but like others say theyll almost 100% be a mod that fixes this issues. Though to be honest the more i see about this game the more I lose interest in it.

Who says your roster has to stay the same throughout the entire game? Unlike BG2, it’s probably going to be a simple enough thing to swap party members in and out; when you get tired of Gale, bring Wyll in and vice versa. The same will be true if they introduce another meat shield.

[quote=“Raikan, post:13, topic:19693, full:true”]
I had the same reaction: 4 characters, WTF. As I thought about it more, though, 4 characters was plenty for DOS and I now wonder whether my reaction was knee jerk because it was different for BG1/2.[/quote]
But this is not a D:OS game, is it? How come party size 6 isn’t justified by the original BG games having had party size 6, but party size 4 can be justified by the D:OS games having party size 4?

This is a big problem with the discussion: treating the first two BG games like they did everything right. Who says having 6 companions was for the best? It’s not like they all had sidequests and equal amounts of story content. Most players didn’t even use companions like Cernd or Valygar. Sometimes less really is more.

You’re completely missing my point. I’m asking why some people want to treat the D:OS games like they did everything right. Fine, don’t treat the original BG games as having got everything right. But equally you can’t treat the D:OS games like they got everything right. You can say six is not the best number, and I will say four is not the best number. Why are you right and I’m wrong?

I don’t mind it… 4 party members is really old-school (Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Mage) and enough - but I’ve to admit that I love & prefer to have a party of 6, too… but for that we have Kingmaker (and WotR in the future). :slight_smile:

But this is it exactly! Where’s the place for a bard or a druid or a barbarian, or that wacky weirdo character who doesn’t help you at all in combat but is so interesting you want to have them in your party? Party of four automatically means fighter, thief, cleric, mage, and that is just too boring and limiting. And please don’t try to tell me I don’t need to have those exact basic four classes in my party. If the game is truly a D&D game, yes I should have those basic four classes as standard in my party. I would never play a D&D game in any other way.

Well, I won’t try to convince you but I usually saw/see it as a challenge to replace exactly those standard classes with ‘fitting’ replacements such as Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, etc. instead of a Fighter or Druid instead of a Cleric and so on. Like I said - I prefer to have 6 chars, too, but I definitely can enjoy a RPG with just 4, too - esp. if they don’t offer that many classes anyway.