why only 6 people in a group?

unavailable

I can't recall... did the game at any point speak of the logic of this? Maybe someone in candlekeep or one of the early parts had something to say? I get that the game balance is already kind of precarious with its current arbitrary limit of 6 people with the appropriate encounters and experience point scaling for party sizes of 1-6. Just curious is all. I suppose it makes good sense in BG1 because you're been hunted and larger groups attract too much attention, and... I suppose it doesn't really matter much by the time you get to BG2 because outfitting large numbers of people with the gear needed to be useful is fairly cost prohibitive.

Zaghoul

It's just game mechanics as far as I know and what it was decided upon by the developers. For myself even six is pushing it with having to micromanage them all, even with AI, 1-4 being much more comfortable personally. Seems like that number has been since the eighties when I journeyed The Forgotten Realms in Pool of Radiance when it came out on the C64.

Permidion_Stark

It's one of those things I have never actually questioned but six does feel like the optimal number to me. You can have small cliques within the party (Minsc and Dynaheir, Xzar and Montaron, Khalid and Jaheira) and this allows conflict and friendships without any of them being able to dominate the group as a whole. I sometimes try playing with fewer but I always find I miss having a full set of companions.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

ThacoBell

@subtledoctor "Arbitrary? Definitely. But, it's really on the high end of arbitrary. '"Why only 6" is kind of the wrong question. The real head-scratcher is, "why so many?" "
Because it would be criminal to make you miss any MORE amazing party interactions than 6 already does.
Personally, I'd love a 7th slot.

tbone1

subtledoctor said:

I believe it stems from the old typical pen 'n' paper Dungeons & Dragons game. Most groups were around 3-6 people... any more than that can get unwieldy.

This. The last time I played PnP it was six people plus the DM, and it was possible to get lost in the shuffle if you slacked. They added two more people, for eight PCs total, and it got unwieldy.

OrlonKronsteen

tbone1 said:

subtledoctor said:

I believe it stems from the old typical pen 'n' paper Dungeons & Dragons game. Most groups were around 3-6 people... any more than that can get unwieldy.

This. The last time I played PnP it was six people plus the DM, and it was possible to get lost in the shuffle if you slacked. They added two more people, for eight PCs total, and it got unwieldy.

And gosh help you if you add alcohol to the equation.

tbone1

OrlonKronsteen said:

tbone1 said:

subtledoctor said:

I believe it stems from the old typical pen 'n' paper Dungeons & Dragons game. Most groups were around 3-6 people... any more than that can get unwieldy.

This. The last time I played PnP it was six people plus the DM, and it was possible to get lost in the shuffle if you slacked. They added two more people, for eight PCs total, and it got unwieldy.

And gosh help you if you add alcohol to the equation.

These were guys I knew in high school, three civil servants, and a daycare worker. Alcohol was a given.

scriver

At that point alcohol is a necessity just so the quiet ones don't get left out!

fateless

PnP's responsible for this number really. For a long time most published adventures and the like were balanced for 4 to 6 characters in most cases. The game has heavily returned to this in 5e as well with the by the book calculations being heavily balanced around the idea of a 4 man party.

4 was considered a standard minimum, althrough games could be worked out for less, because of your 4 basic classes, The fighter, the thief, the Wizard, and the Cleric. Serving kind of the 4 basic rolls of the party. Things like Paladin's being technically seen as a variation of the fighter and druid as a variation of the rogue kind of leaned into this as well.

6 was given as a not to large number but allowed for a bit more realistic overlap while likely still covering all of the bases. I'd say this is also likely why 6 was chosen for the BG games rather than the base 4. The ability to kind of overlap characters a bit and have a bit more personalities involved.

OlvynChuru

Keep in mind that even if you could have seven people in a party, someone would eventually ask, why only seven?

Lathlaer

Well, the Fellowship of the Ring had higher body count and that is some classic fantasy but let's be honest, the hobbits needed some plot armor ;-)

Shikao

Lathlaer said:

Well, the Fellowship of the Ring had higher body count and that is some classic fantasy but let's be honest, the hobbits needed some plot armor ;-)

True, but one gets killed pretty quickly and then they get separated. Then in last battle there is 6 of them and they make quite standard mix:
- Human Paladin
- Elf Archer
- Dwarven Fighter
- Aasimar Sorcerer
- Halfling Thief -> Fighter
- Halfling Thief -> Fighter

(It's been long since I read LoTR, but I hope I didn't mix who was in the battle

Grond0

I think there was only 1 hobbit in the battle outside Mordor (assuming that's the one you meant and not the one in the Shire) - Merry was still recovering from backstabbing a Nazgul and Sam & Frodo were in Mordor). It's also a bit odd to call Strider a paladin, given how often he's described as a ranger in the book. I'll give you Gandalf though, as I don't think there is any equivalent class to him in D&D .

Zilber

It's because in Arcana, a dutch LARP group, only six players are allowed to move together to give the monsters a chance (they are usually outnumbered 2 to 1 anyway). This was just copied in Baldur's gate.

Wesboi

6 is 5 too many most the time.

Shikao

@Grond0, I actually meant Battle of the Pelennor Fields (which now realize wasn't the last one). As for Strider, I would have to agree ranger would be more fitting, in particular in the beginning of story. But once he accepted his destiny, he clearly multiclassed to Paladin as Elassar =P

Grond0

@Shikao I agree Aragorn moves a long way from the prototypical ranger. Rather than changing class to paladin though I wonder if we could settle on a new ranger kit that embodies some paladin characteristics - say turn undead (see Paths of the Dead) and some form of lay on hands / cure disease (athelas)?

fateless

Aragorn is a fighter/ranger depending on just how you view him. With some unique/named magical items with particular properties as well as immaterial boons to really build his character. The ghosts from under the mountain are an example of a boon reward rather than a physical/monetary reward for a quest.

As for the Hobbits. They are all pretty much pure thieves throughout the series. Towards the end the couple of them that put on heavier gear that could be considered fighter in nature could be considered either UAI or disguise as justification.

But yes. They do technically break up the fellowship pretty early. They are more an alliance of smaller parties with a common overall goal than a single adventuring party. It's best to think of them as separate parties taking part in an intertwined set of storylines much of the time.

Grond0

If you want an example of an adventuring group larger than 6, the Hobbit is rather better than LotR. However, it's not a coincidence that the recent film of that featured a number of non-speaking roles for the dwarves. If made into a game, I think there would be the same problem about being able to properly pay attention to and develop so many characters.

scriver

The Danger class was actually based on Aragorn similar to how the Barbarian class was added so people could play Conan. Back then, however, it was less a nature fighty guy and more of an arcaney fighty guy. If I remember correctly.

Fun fact: the Night's Watch rangers of ASoIaF/GoT are also totally based on the LotR rangers of Gondor. Which is funny because the Rangers of Gondor in the game Shadows of Mordor is obviously based on the Night's Watch. It's a circle ripoff! :P

Elendar

I want 16 people in my group!