Go read the about half the comments in any one of these threads to find out
@JuliusBorisov Actually, coming back to this: "It can't follow the formula from 2000, though."
You're right, it should iterate and improve on it, not just ignore it. The whole, "BG2 is old and shouldn't be followed" argument just rings hollow to me. BG is one of the most respected rpg series of all time. If people didn't want more of it, the name announcement would have just fizzled and died with no discussion whatsoever.
The way D&D worked in the old games having six character parties opened up the number of potential party combinations a lot - not simply numerically because you get more slots, but also since you wanted to cover the four basic roles of fighter, thief, cleric and mage.
With four characters you could do theoretically form a party with both Alora and Imoen in BG1, but you would definitely lose out on at least one of the other 3 areas. With 6 party members it is not an issue at all.
Mass Effect worked fine with 3 characters due to how combat worked. Dragon Age would have benefited from a 5th and maybe even a 6th party slot.
As Ammar says here, six was the standard because of the older rulesets, where classes were severely limited in their scope. So, only at great pains could you avoid taking one of the core four. Six is what allowed there to be customization. This wasn't necessarily the case in tabletop. It's really Pool of Radiance that set this standard and all the Gold Box games followed. And I suspect BG's designers followed it for exactly this reason.
Personally, I think it makes sense to gravitate towards four with the greater flexibility in classes, the greater number of abilities per character and if the game is turn-based. I still think six works great in Kingmaker.
After playing the EA I do not think they plan to follow the guidelines of the (fantastic) first trilogy if we are talking "game mechanics", well, if someone still didn´t know already after months of interviews. And the game development is too advanced to change it so drastically now, so this discussion is purely academic.
About the 6-man-party I´m surprised that no one mentioned "Solasta: CoT", another more direct reference since it´s also a 2020´s TB-CRPG game also based in D&D5e. They also have a party of four that you can create yourself entirely, so I assume that´s the trend in modern games of this style.
That said, in the topic of the 6-man-party I have to say I´m in support of any game feature that increases the number of dialogues, options and interactions in the game so the more companions and followers you can bring, the merrier. To be honest, I do not think it´s gonna happen unless someone made a mod. The game and 4player coop MP seems to be built around a party of four like the standard D&D5e campaigns.
At least D&D5e ruleset is very flexible with the skills and roles of the classes of the game, so a party of four would suffice to play consistently any campaign. If we were talking about a game based in previous versions or in other rulesets like PF I will think differently.
PD: Of course they would be useful if they "make the rogues and half-elves great again", giving those builds their lost expertise in a wide array of skills in the final version of the game and add bards. That would allow players to make "parties of four that cover any skill check" needed much easier.
They already made a (IMHO) good work with the "Larian variant ranger", turning the videogame-challenged rangers into a useful skill-monkey class with some interesting character concept options so I hope they could do something with the rogues too.
I can't decide if I have a preferred party size. I tend to assume that a game designed for a certain party size is best played that way, at least the first time. Of course BG can be soloed from Candlekeep to the end of ToB, but not for an inexperienced player. I love party interaction and sometimes hate to try new NPCs because that would mean leaving others behind, but if I am forced to only take a few, I might have even more fun playing again and trying another combination the next time.
On another note, I don't like to use AI, so micromanaging 4 people is easier than 6 (although in TB that doesn't really matter because I don't need to focus on all of them at once).
Besides, a bigger party size in BG3 would lead to more compatibility issues for those who don't like evil companions, because there probably won't be like 20 NPCs to choose from, I suppose.
@BallpointMan " I dont think it's reasonable to expect any designer to confine themselves to only iterating on a single game, especially when it is so old."
I don't recall making the argument that Larian should ONLY iterate on BG. I would like it if Larian iterated on BG at ALL. I just can't see the classic games in any way in their product.
Also, if BG is so old that iterating on it is not worth it, why bother having a sequel at all? I don't really see the upside to your argument here.
I'm not sure what this even means.
CRPGs have been evolving since BG(before, really - but that's obvious). Introduction of camp mechanics, more voiced dialogue, meaningful choice, alignment restrictions, etc, etc. There are dozens of mechanics/concepts/ideas. Some existed in BG1/2, and others did not. They're being iterated on constantly.
In order for a modern CRPG to be successful, starting at BG1 and then trying to modernize it directly doesnt make a ton of sense when you can pick the pieces of other successful CRPGs along the way. Especially since the ones doing it are responsible for the most critically and commercially successful title in the genre in the past 20 years.
Your use of hyperbole, suggesting that BG3 has not iterated on any concept from BG1 or 2, lacks - as you say, "upside". It's not a coherent claim, so obvious in its falsehood that I'm not sure why you bothered to include it.
Not sure how that is relevant to the current subject. Dragon Age had 4 characters in the party, Divinity: Original Sin had 4 characters in the party. The Outer Worlds and Mass Effect had 3 characters in the party. Pillars of Eternity switched from 6 to 5 for the second part. That is the industry right now.
6-character parties existed in legacy BG and IWD games, PoE 1 (which released in 2015, 5.5 years ago) and P:K.
If anything, BG3 IS trying to follow to the industry standards and set new ones. It can't follow the formula from 2000, though. There are design reasons for that, and I understand some of you disagree with them. But it is just how it is, and modding is still available. The fact that it's possible to mod a 4-char party into a 6-char party in D:OS is a testament the company behind the game is not deaf and left such a possibility. What is not to like?
*shakes head*
That is an erroneous claim to make.
There is no such thing as a industry standard for party size inside RPG's. Or any other game genre for that matter. That wasn't the case back in the early 90's. Nor is it today. Developers simply go with whatever they feel does suffice for their specific game. Nothing more, nothing less.
Modern games with a party composition of 6 still exist and will continue to do so in the future as well. Pathfinder: Kingmaker (2018), Wasteland 3 (2020) and Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous (~2021) are all good indicators for this.
5 man parties do equally see an appearance inside the PC gaming space. Be it Larian's own titles (or was it 4?), as well as other upcoming games such as Black Geyser (~2021).
Then there are modern games featuring parties of 4 people. Dragon Quest XI (2018), Persona 4 Golden (2020), Yakuza: Like a Dragon (2020) and Solasta (~2021) all only have 3 people plus the player. There are also developers doing more unique takes on this party size as well. Dark Envoy for instance, while having a party size of 4, does possess two player characters instead of only one. Roleplaying twins is a rather distinct concept that doesn't see much opportunity, I feel.
GreedFall (2019) on the other hand uses a three man party. With two companions and the player. I am sure there are other recent examples as well. But on top of my head GreedFall is the freshed one. If folks are interested: this game also has a mod to increase the party size. Highly recommended.
Others still use a two-man party. Which usually involves the player character and a single companion. Sometimes they allow also for a pet to tag along with them. That's usually the case for action RPG's where the companion is not directly influenceable by the player.
To add to @Kamigoroshi's excellent counterargument, if we're talking about indie games, both Realms Beyond and Black Geyser also have six-person parties. I don't see any "industry-wide" trend. If the game is more action-ey or TB, then it seems they prefer smaller parties. But that is far from an overall industry trend.
@BallpointMan "Your use of hyperbole, suggesting that BG3 has not iterated on any concept from BG1 or 2, lacks - as you say, "upside". It's not a coherent claim, so obvious in its falsehood that I'm not sure why you bothered to include it."
Really? You don't think my claim that BG3 seems to be pulling from DOS and non-related series more than from BG2 to be coherent?
* Party of up to 5 characters. You start with a single protagonist. Additional NPCs join you later if you choose to accept them. Every NPC boasts a rich, complex personality and past.
@kanisathaBlack Geyser's party limit is indeed five, not six. Then again, I am not part of the beta testing. So I wouldn't be aware of whenever they had changed things up a bit during recent development or not.
* Party of up to 5 characters. You start with a single protagonist. Additional NPCs join you later if you choose to accept them. Every NPC boasts a rich, complex personality and past.
@kanisathaBlack Geyser's party limit is indeed five, not six. Then again, I am not part of the beta testing. So I wouldn't be aware of whenever they had changed things up a bit during recent development or not.
Fair enough. Five is still close enough to six for me (though six is the ideal). Four is far too few.
@BallpointMan "Your use of hyperbole, suggesting that BG3 has not iterated on any concept from BG1 or 2, lacks - as you say, "upside". It's not a coherent claim, so obvious in its falsehood that I'm not sure why you bothered to include it."
Really? You don't think my claim that BG3 seems to be pulling from DOS and non-related series more than from BG2 to be coherent?
Your claim was:
"I don't recall making the argument that Larian should ONLY iterate on BG. I would like it if Larian iterated on BG at ALL. I just can't see the classic games in any way in their product."
Emphasis mine, to show you exactly where the hyperbole of your argument was. The entire thesis of my point was that DOS2 iterated on a formula used in BG 1 & 2, changing some features while leaving others the same or similarish.
By pulling from DOS, Larian is also pulling from BG (and NWN, etc).
@BallpointMan "Emphasis mine, to show you exactly where the hyperbole of your argument was. The entire thesis of my point was that DOS2 iterated on a formula used in BG 1 & 2, changing some features while leaving others the same or similarish.
By pulling from DOS, Larian is also pulling from BG (and NWN, etc)."
There are no words in the english language that can accurately describe the level to which I disagree.
@BallpointMan "Emphasis mine, to show you exactly where the hyperbole of your argument was. The entire thesis of my point was that DOS2 iterated on a formula used in BG 1 & 2, changing some features while leaving others the same or similarish.
By pulling from DOS, Larian is also pulling from BG (and NWN, etc)."
There are no words in the english language that can accurately describe the level to which I disagree.
How can you disagree if you didn't even play the D:OS games for 1 minute? I played and I certainly agree BG and NWN and other games influenced them. Heck, to me D:OS 2 gave that BG2 feeling, but you won't believe me, of course.
Yeah. It's absurd to argue that the DOS franchise took literally nothing from the BG franchise. The very perspective is the same, to say nothing of how NPCs are treated, plot, skill checks, gear and other concepts are handled.
It's fair to argue if you'd prefer it was more BG than Dragon age, inflexibility to acknowledge that they're even the same genre (a genre, I remind you, defined by the BG franchise) is something else.
@BallpointMan "It's fair to argue if you'd prefer it was more BG than Dragon age, inflexibility to acknowledge that they're even the same genre (a genre, I remind you, defined by the BG franchise) is something else."
Now you're making things up I never said.
@JuliusBorisov "How can you disagree if you didn't even play the D:OS games for 1 minute?"
Is this going back to the idea that no one can judge something that can very clearly see if they somehow aren't holding a controller? I went and checked out DOS, and nothing in it reminds me of BG. The tone, the writing, the artstyle, nothing was reminiscent of BG to me.
@BallpointMan "It's fair to argue if you'd prefer it was more BG than Dragon age, inflexibility to acknowledge that they're even the same genre (a genre, I remind you, defined by the BG franchise) is something else."
Now you're making things up I never said.
@JuliusBorisov "How can you disagree if you didn't even play the D:OS games for 1 minute?"
Is this going back to the idea that no one can judge something that can very clearly see if they somehow aren't holding a controller? I went and checked out DOS, and nothing in it reminds me of BG. The tone, the writing, the artstyle, nothing was reminiscent of BG to me.
Totally agree, @ThacoBell. I did play D:OS1, and there was nothing there that was any connection to the IE games. To use such things as the game's perspective or that it had a story as evidence of a relationship is the height of silliness. By that standard all games are part of the same genre with a common origin-point. Even games like Tower of Time and Alaloth have way more in common with the IE games than the D:OS games.
@BallpointMan "It's fair to argue if you'd prefer it was more BG than Dragon age, inflexibility to acknowledge that they're even the same genre (a genre, I remind you, defined by the BG franchise) is something else."
wait wait wait, back up a minute. I mentioned that I consider BG and DOS to be different genres of RPG about, what, 2 weeks ago? In a completely different and unrelated discussion. What relevance does this have to my opinion that I can't see BG influence in BG3?
@BallpointMan "Emphasis mine, to show you exactly where the hyperbole of your argument was. The entire thesis of my point was that DOS2 iterated on a formula used in BG 1 & 2, changing some features while leaving others the same or similarish.
By pulling from DOS, Larian is also pulling from BG (and NWN, etc)."
There are no words in the english language that can accurately describe the level to which I disagree.
How can you disagree if you didn't even play the D:OS games for 1 minute? I played and I certainly agree BG and NWN and other games influenced them. Heck, to me D:OS 2 gave that BG2 feeling, but you won't believe me, of course.
Just gonna add that it's one thing to say of a game you haven't played "it doesn't seem a lot like BG". It's another thing to make the strident assertion that the game has borrowed nothing at all from the BG games. That kind of absolute claim does require that you have played the game, sorry.
@JuliusBorisov As others have mentioned, my preference for larger party sizes is down largely to two things: party banter (especially because I like a bigger, chattier party rather than having to constantly rotate in various characters so I can bring them through trigger points to hear them talk), and greater combat/strategic options. As a long-time D&D player, I know that D&D is essentially designed around a 4 character party, and it works well, for the most part. For party banter, however, I like putting together parties that essentially feel like a group of friends out on an epic quest together, and having a larger party means I can include more in that group rather than having to exclude some. (This is especially true if there's a particular character whose company I enjoy, but I'm forced to leave them out because they fill a role that's already filled by my main character.)
Having extra characters also means that I can afford to have characters with overlapping roles specialize, like how in BG2, I almost always play a Mage, but I like bringing along a secondary Mage character who fills their spellbook primarily with buffs/debuffs (e.g. this is usually Aerie, in BG2), while my main character focuses more on offensive magic like blaster-type spells and summons. A 4 person party means that you're likely also going to want to go for four characters who fill the 4 main roles (Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue), but that means that jack-of-all-trade characters like Bards usually get left out because they just aren't as optimal for those roles unless you really narrow their focus (which defeats their purpose). Having a larger party means I can fill the crucial roles, and then pad out the rest of the party for flavour and aesthetics.
Of course, this does create potential issues with encounter balance and such, but that's my decision to make. I could always install difficulty mods to address it if I want, after all!
P.S. In DA:O, I downloaded and used a mod that added Dog as a permanent 5th companion. Let's face it, he did NOT have the same kind of strategic depth and versatility as some of the other companions, so bringing him really means you're hamstringing yourself in terms of party power, but what kind of monster would leave Dog at the camp instead of having him be your faithful companion from start to finish! The mod gave me the best of both worlds.
Well, whilst I would say yes, the Original Sin games are CRPGs, I would say they have very little in common with Baldur's Gate, really about as far away as you could get within the same genre. There's nothing really wrong with that because I'd say the same thing about Fallout 1 and 2.
But those are good games. The Original Sin games to me are not good and that's the main issue.
P.S. In DA:O, I downloaded and used a mod that added Dog as a permanent 5th companion. Let's face it, he did NOT have the same kind of strategic depth and versatility as some of the other companions, so bringing him really means you're hamstringing yourself in terms of party power, but what kind of monster would leave Dog at the camp instead of having him be your faithful companion from start to finish! The mod gave me the best of both worlds.
Hey thanks for mentioning this mod. I totally agree!!!
P.S. In DA:O, I downloaded and used a mod that added Dog as a permanent 5th companion. Let's face it, he did NOT have the same kind of strategic depth and versatility as some of the other companions, so bringing him really means you're hamstringing yourself in terms of party power, but what kind of monster would leave Dog at the camp instead of having him be your faithful companion from start to finish! The mod gave me the best of both worlds.
Ok off-topic but the mention of Dog brings up memories of my favourite part of Origins where you can’t choose Dog as your Champion to fight Loghain because ‘leaving the fate of the world up to a creature that can be won over by a mutton chop bone shouldn’t be done’
@BallpointMan "Emphasis mine, to show you exactly where the hyperbole of your argument was. The entire thesis of my point was that DOS2 iterated on a formula used in BG 1 & 2, changing some features while leaving others the same or similarish.
By pulling from DOS, Larian is also pulling from BG (and NWN, etc)."
There are no words in the english language that can accurately describe the level to which I disagree.
How can you disagree if you didn't even play the D:OS games for 1 minute? I played and I certainly agree BG and NWN and other games influenced them. Heck, to me D:OS 2 gave that BG2 feeling, but you won't believe me, of course.
Just gonna add that it's one thing to say of a game you haven't played "it doesn't seem a lot like BG". It's another thing to make the strident assertion that the game has borrowed nothing at all from the BG games. That kind of absolute claim does require that you have played the game, sorry.
Oh really? Name something that can't be understood without being on the keyboard.
It´s not the same playing ball on the field that watching it on tv, pal.
One can know everything about the game without ever playing it. There's a world of difference between reflexes and mechanical ability versus concept and understanding. These things just aren't equivalent. Funny how I asked for a specific example and got a sports metaphor though. Should I take that to mean you couldn't come up with a concrete example?
Comments
Go read the about half the comments in any one of these threads to find out
Go read the about half the comments in any one of these threads to find out
@JuliusBorisov Actually, coming back to this: "It can't follow the formula from 2000, though."
You're right, it should iterate and improve on it, not just ignore it. The whole, "BG2 is old and shouldn't be followed" argument just rings hollow to me. BG is one of the most respected rpg series of all time. If people didn't want more of it, the name announcement would have just fizzled and died with no discussion whatsoever.
As Ammar says here, six was the standard because of the older rulesets, where classes were severely limited in their scope. So, only at great pains could you avoid taking one of the core four. Six is what allowed there to be customization. This wasn't necessarily the case in tabletop. It's really Pool of Radiance that set this standard and all the Gold Box games followed. And I suspect BG's designers followed it for exactly this reason.
Personally, I think it makes sense to gravitate towards four with the greater flexibility in classes, the greater number of abilities per character and if the game is turn-based. I still think six works great in Kingmaker.
About the 6-man-party I´m surprised that no one mentioned "Solasta: CoT", another more direct reference since it´s also a 2020´s TB-CRPG game also based in D&D5e. They also have a party of four that you can create yourself entirely, so I assume that´s the trend in modern games of this style.
That said, in the topic of the 6-man-party I have to say I´m in support of any game feature that increases the number of dialogues, options and interactions in the game so the more companions and followers you can bring, the merrier. To be honest, I do not think it´s gonna happen unless someone made a mod. The game and 4player coop MP seems to be built around a party of four like the standard D&D5e campaigns.
At least D&D5e ruleset is very flexible with the skills and roles of the classes of the game, so a party of four would suffice to play consistently any campaign. If we were talking about a game based in previous versions or in other rulesets like PF I will think differently.
PD: Of course they would be useful if they "make the rogues and half-elves great again", giving those builds their lost expertise in a wide array of skills in the final version of the game and add bards. That would allow players to make "parties of four that cover any skill check" needed much easier.
They already made a (IMHO) good work with the "Larian variant ranger", turning the videogame-challenged rangers into a useful skill-monkey class with some interesting character concept options so I hope they could do something with the rogues too.
On another note, I don't like to use AI, so micromanaging 4 people is easier than 6 (although in TB that doesn't really matter because I don't need to focus on all of them at once).
Besides, a bigger party size in BG3 would lead to more compatibility issues for those who don't like evil companions, because there probably won't be like 20 NPCs to choose from, I suppose.
I'm not sure what this even means.
CRPGs have been evolving since BG(before, really - but that's obvious). Introduction of camp mechanics, more voiced dialogue, meaningful choice, alignment restrictions, etc, etc. There are dozens of mechanics/concepts/ideas. Some existed in BG1/2, and others did not. They're being iterated on constantly.
In order for a modern CRPG to be successful, starting at BG1 and then trying to modernize it directly doesnt make a ton of sense when you can pick the pieces of other successful CRPGs along the way. Especially since the ones doing it are responsible for the most critically and commercially successful title in the genre in the past 20 years.
Your use of hyperbole, suggesting that BG3 has not iterated on any concept from BG1 or 2, lacks - as you say, "upside". It's not a coherent claim, so obvious in its falsehood that I'm not sure why you bothered to include it.
*shakes head*
That is an erroneous claim to make.
There is no such thing as a industry standard for party size inside RPG's. Or any other game genre for that matter. That wasn't the case back in the early 90's. Nor is it today. Developers simply go with whatever they feel does suffice for their specific game. Nothing more, nothing less.
Modern games with a party composition of 6 still exist and will continue to do so in the future as well. Pathfinder: Kingmaker (2018), Wasteland 3 (2020) and Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous (~2021) are all good indicators for this.
5 man parties do equally see an appearance inside the PC gaming space. Be it Larian's own titles (or was it 4?), as well as other upcoming games such as Black Geyser (~2021).
Then there are modern games featuring parties of 4 people. Dragon Quest XI (2018), Persona 4 Golden (2020), Yakuza: Like a Dragon (2020) and Solasta (~2021) all only have 3 people plus the player. There are also developers doing more unique takes on this party size as well. Dark Envoy for instance, while having a party size of 4, does possess two player characters instead of only one. Roleplaying twins is a rather distinct concept that doesn't see much opportunity, I feel.
GreedFall (2019) on the other hand uses a three man party. With two companions and the player. I am sure there are other recent examples as well. But on top of my head GreedFall is the freshed one. If folks are interested: this game also has a mod to increase the party size. Highly recommended.
Others still use a two-man party. Which usually involves the player character and a single companion. Sometimes they allow also for a pet to tag along with them. That's usually the case for action RPG's where the companion is not directly influenceable by the player.
Really? You don't think my claim that BG3 seems to be pulling from DOS and non-related series more than from BG2 to be coherent?
Your claim was:
"I don't recall making the argument that Larian should ONLY iterate on BG. I would like it if Larian iterated on BG at ALL. I just can't see the classic games in any way in their product."
Emphasis mine, to show you exactly where the hyperbole of your argument was. The entire thesis of my point was that DOS2 iterated on a formula used in BG 1 & 2, changing some features while leaving others the same or similarish.
By pulling from DOS, Larian is also pulling from BG (and NWN, etc).
By pulling from DOS, Larian is also pulling from BG (and NWN, etc)."
There are no words in the english language that can accurately describe the level to which I disagree.
How can you disagree if you didn't even play the D:OS games for 1 minute? I played and I certainly agree BG and NWN and other games influenced them. Heck, to me D:OS 2 gave that BG2 feeling, but you won't believe me, of course.
It's fair to argue if you'd prefer it was more BG than Dragon age, inflexibility to acknowledge that they're even the same genre (a genre, I remind you, defined by the BG franchise) is something else.
Now you're making things up I never said.
@JuliusBorisov "How can you disagree if you didn't even play the D:OS games for 1 minute?"
Is this going back to the idea that no one can judge something that can very clearly see if they somehow aren't holding a controller? I went and checked out DOS, and nothing in it reminds me of BG. The tone, the writing, the artstyle, nothing was reminiscent of BG to me.
wait wait wait, back up a minute. I mentioned that I consider BG and DOS to be different genres of RPG about, what, 2 weeks ago? In a completely different and unrelated discussion. What relevance does this have to my opinion that I can't see BG influence in BG3?
Just gonna add that it's one thing to say of a game you haven't played "it doesn't seem a lot like BG". It's another thing to make the strident assertion that the game has borrowed nothing at all from the BG games. That kind of absolute claim does require that you have played the game, sorry.
Having extra characters also means that I can afford to have characters with overlapping roles specialize, like how in BG2, I almost always play a Mage, but I like bringing along a secondary Mage character who fills their spellbook primarily with buffs/debuffs (e.g. this is usually Aerie, in BG2), while my main character focuses more on offensive magic like blaster-type spells and summons. A 4 person party means that you're likely also going to want to go for four characters who fill the 4 main roles (Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue), but that means that jack-of-all-trade characters like Bards usually get left out because they just aren't as optimal for those roles unless you really narrow their focus (which defeats their purpose). Having a larger party means I can fill the crucial roles, and then pad out the rest of the party for flavour and aesthetics.
Of course, this does create potential issues with encounter balance and such, but that's my decision to make. I could always install difficulty mods to address it if I want, after all!
P.S. In DA:O, I downloaded and used a mod that added Dog as a permanent 5th companion. Let's face it, he did NOT have the same kind of strategic depth and versatility as some of the other companions, so bringing him really means you're hamstringing yourself in terms of party power, but what kind of monster would leave Dog at the camp instead of having him be your faithful companion from start to finish!
But those are good games. The Original Sin games to me are not good and that's the main issue.
4-6, to be exact.
Unlike RTWP you expect RT combat to scale linearly in length with the number of party members, and I think that might be an issue.
Oh really? Mind citing me a page number where this is said? Because pg 83 of the DMG indicates 3-5 party members.
The enemies in the game are literally defined by their challenge rating as it relates to dealing with 4 characters of an equivalent level.
All modules created by WoTC are balanced for 4 or more characters. Never less. That's intentional.
If 4-6 was the standard expected size, then monsters will almost certainly be balanced to 5 characters and not 4.
Ok off-topic but the mention of Dog brings up memories of my favourite part of Origins where you can’t choose Dog as your Champion to fight Loghain because ‘leaving the fate of the world up to a creature that can be won over by a mutton chop bone shouldn’t be done’
Oh really? Name something that can't be understood without being on the keyboard.
One can know everything about the game without ever playing it. There's a world of difference between reflexes and mechanical ability versus concept and understanding. These things just aren't equivalent. Funny how I asked for a specific example and got a sports metaphor though. Should I take that to mean you couldn't come up with a concrete example?